LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6339

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 31 January 2019

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.

PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, G.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S., J.P.

6340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6341

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P.

IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

6342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6343

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

THE HONOURABLE KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

6344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning. This Council will continue to debate the motion on "Promoting the development of a financial technology hub to reinforce Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre". Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, please speak.

MOTION ON "PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY HUB TO REINFORCE HONG KONG'S POSITION AS AN INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL CENTRE"

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 30 January 2019

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank Mr CHAN Chun-ying again for moving the motion and all Members for their valuable opinions. Also, I am glad to note that all Members who have just spoken support the Government to strengthen our efforts in promoting the development of financial technology ("Fintech") in Hong Kong. As I said in my opening speech, the Government has long adopted a five-pronged approach, namely promotion, facilitation, regulation, talents and funding, to facilitate Fintech development. Given that all of the Members' suggestions fall within these five areas, I will first speak on our Fintech policies and current efforts in each of these areas before responding to the major arguments and suggestions of individual Members.

(a) Promotion

In respect of promotion, a dedicated Fintech team ("the team") has been set up by InvestHK to appeal and assist overseas Fintech companies, start-up entrepreneurs, investors, incubators, etc., to establish a presence in Hong Kong. The team has rendered assistance to more than 450 Fintech companies and appealed 15 innovation laboratories and accelerators to station in Hong Kong since its establishment in September 2016. It also organizes and supports a wide range of activities, including the annual event "Hong Kong Fintech Week", to promote our Fintech industry. Last November, the Hong Kong Fintech Week drew more than 8 000 attendees from over 50 places, and some Members present right now were also invited. On the last day of the Hong Kong Fintech Week, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6345 we stepped out of Hong Kong for the first time to visit Shenzhen and learn about the Fintech development in the Mainland. The Shenzhen Day was an opportunity to connect Fintech communities in foreign countries, the Mainland and Hong Kong, promote exchanges and cooperation, and create business opportunities, highlighting the unique advantages and functions of Hong Kong.

On the other hand, the Government and financial regulators have signed Fintech cooperation agreements with countries such as the United Kingdom, Singapore, Switzerland and Dubai to establish a Fintech cooperation and exchange network. For example, under the Fintech Bridge Agreement between Hong Kong and the United Kingdom, Fintech companies on both sides may use the supporting facilities available in the other place. InvestHK and the Department for International Trade of the United Kingdom also held a Fintech competition in London and Hong Kong in March and October 2018 respectively. In the Hong Kong Fintech Week 2018, trade representatives from the United Kingdom were present to tap the Asian market.

(b) Facilitation

The second area is facilitation. Smart Space Fintech in Cyberport was opened in 2016 to serve as an operational base for start-ups. Meanwhile, Cyberport has provided a series of incubation and acceleration programmes, as well as funding schemes, to support entrepreneurs and start-ups with all necessary resources and funds. Meetings with investors will also be arranged to provide networking opportunities. The newly-launched Overseas/Mainland Market Development Support Scheme provides financial subsidy to support start-ups in conducting market research and promotion, participating in trade fairs outside Hong Kong and expanding into overseas markets. Thanks to these facilitation measures, the Fintech community in Cyberport has become vibrant and the Fintech start-ups there have so far raised more than $1.5 billion.

As regards Fintech infrastructure, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") launched the Faster Payment System ("FPS") in September last year to connect banks and stored-value facility ("SVF") operators on the same platform for the public to transfer funds anytime, anywhere, across different banks or SVFs with funds available almost immediately by using the payee's mobile phone number or email address as an account proxy. As of the end of 2018, FPS received a total of over 2 million registrations and processed over 6346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

4.81 million transactions, with transaction amount totalling around HK$105 billion and RMB2.8 billion. The average daily transaction number and value were about 50 000 and HK$1.1 billion respectively. The Government is now exploring the use of FPS to provide the public with convenience in paying government bills through the mobile apps of different banks and electronic wallets, thereby promoting the development of mobile payment market.

eTradeConnect, another Fintech infrastructure launched last October, was developed by a consortium of 12 banks in Hong Kong to improve trade efficiency, reduce risks and facilitate trade counterparties to obtain financing by digitizing trade documents, automating trade finance processes and leveraging the features of blockchain technology. HKMA will continue to proactively explore how eTradeConnect can be connected with overseas platforms.

Moreover, the Open Application Programming Interface (i.e. API Framework) for the banking sector will be launched in four phases this year to foster cooperation between banks and tech firms so that the latter may make use of the data available to develop new services, such as building apps to compare product and service information of different banks and give an overview of one's financial position by showing his bank account details, thereby bringing new experience of innovative, convenient and safe banking services to customers.

(c) Regulation

The third area is regulation. In promoting Fintech development, the Government must regulate the market properly to safeguard investors' interests while vigorously encouraging financial innovation.

HKMA, the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") and the Insurance Authority ("IA") have each launched their own Fintech platform and sandbox to enhance communication between regulators and the Fintech community and provide tech firms with a platform to conduct pilot trials of their Fintech initiatives, thereby expediting the launch of new technology products and reducing the development cost. More than 40 new technology products have been allowed in the Supervisory Sandbox since its launch. Out of these cases, 28 pilot trials have been completed and the products have been rolled out one after another.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6347

Our financial regulatory regime has also been improved over time. HKMA published a revised Guideline on Authorization of Virtual Banks last year following the completion of a public consultation. HKMA is expected to start granting licences to virtual banks in the first quarter of this year so as to give individuals and enterprises more and better choices of banking services, as well as promoting financial inclusion.

The development of Fintech has also prompted IA to launch a pilot project called "Fast Track" last year to expedite the processing of applications for authorization to carry on insurance business in or from Hong Kong from insurers adopting solely digital distribution channels. IA authorized the first virtual insurer under Fast Track in December last year.

In view of the development of virtual assets in the market and the risks involved, we launched a public education campaign last year on the risks associated with initial coin offerings ("ICOs") and "cryptocurrencies" to provide the public with a correct and comprehensive understanding of the potential risks of participating in ICOs and "cryptocurrency" transactions. As for regulation, SFC issued a statement last November, setting out a conceptual framework for the potential regulation of virtual asset trading platforms with a view to exploring whether these platforms were suitable for regulation. This regulatory approach, if implemented, can provide a path for compliance for those platform operators capable and willing to adhere to a high level of standards and practices.

(d) Talents

The fourth area is the training of Fintech talents. We have been making efforts in different ways to build up a pool of Fintech talents for Hong Kong. In respect of training local talents, six local universities have introduced Fintech-related undergraduate programmes and master's degree programmes one after another. In addition, self-financing Fintech-related undergraduate programmes have been included in the Study Subsidy Scheme for Designated Professionals/Sectors starting from the 2018-2019 academic year. The Vocational Training Council has also introduced the programme of Higher Diploma in Financial Technology starting from the 2018-2019 academic year. Furthermore, HKMA launched the upgraded version of the Fintech Career Accelerator Scheme last year to provide internship programmes. Since then, more than 270 students have taken part in these programmes.

6348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

In terms of on-the-job training, the University of Hong Kong, along with Cyberport and other industry players, launched Asia's first Fintech Massive Open Online Course ("MOOC") in 2018. Serving Fintech practitioners can also enrol in the course. In order to assist local practitioners to enhance their ability to utilize innovation and technology, the Government and the trades have provided various training programmes, such as the Pilot Programme to Enhance Talent Training for the Insurance Sector and the Asset and Wealth Management Sector. Trade organizations can apply for subsidies and make training arrangements to enhance their practitioners' capabilities in utilizing innovation and technology.

In respect of enticing overseas talents, the Government released its first Talent List of Hong Kong ("the List") in August last year which included Fintech professionals. Eligible persons under the List will be provided with immigration facilitation through the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, the current annual quota of which is 1 000. In addition, the Government has introduced the Technology Talent Admission Scheme ("the Scheme") to provide a fast-track arrangement to admit overseas and Mainland research and development talents to Hong Kong. The Scheme will, as a start, be applicable to tenants and incubatees of the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation and Cyberport.

(e) Funding

Finally, as regards funding, various funding schemes are available to provide support to Fintech companies, including the $2 billion Innovation & Technology Venture Fund launched by the Innovation and Technology Bureau and the Cyberport Macro Fund, etc. Besides, the Cyberport has also established the Cyberport Investors Network ("CIN") to assist local start-ups to liaise with local and overseas investors in meeting their financing needs at various development stages. At present, more than 100 investors have joined CIN and facilitated Cyberport start-ups to raise more than $200 million.

I will now respond to the proposals raised by individual Members. Regarding Mr CHAN Chun-ying's proposal of enhancing the rate of utilization of Fintech in our community, as I said earlier, the Government has been promoting the development of Fintech in various ways to promote Fintech inclusion. We also understand that a key to enhancing the rate of utilization of Fintech is to make the public feel confident in using these new technologies. Hence, in promoting Fintech development, the Government will pay special attention to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6349 protecting the personal data of the public, so as to avoid leakage of personal data when using these new technologies, resulting in the loss of public confidence in Fintech utilization. I have particularly noted that Mr Charles Peter MOK mentioned in his amendment that there should be an improved regime for personal data and privacy protection. At present, HKMA clearly requires licensed SVF operators to comply with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance and its relevant guidelines, so as to ensure that the personal information of their customers are kept and handled properly. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data has recently comprehensively reviewed the Code of Practice on Consumer Credit Data to ensure that credit reference agencies shall take appropriate measures to protect personal credit data in their daily operations to safeguard against any improper access to personal credit data held by them.

Mr Dennis KWOK mentioned in his amendment that our legislation has to be up-to-date. As I said earlier, each of the financial regulators has reviewed and made adjustments in their regulation of Fintech development. For example, in respect of regulating SVFs, the Payment Systems and Stored Value Facilities Ordinance (Cap. 584) which commenced operation in 2015, provides for a licensing and regulatory regime for SVFs. As at September 2018, there were 51.81 million SVF accounts in use, with the number and value of transactions being around 1.5 billion and $41 billion respectively. These figures show the work and efforts made by the financial regulators.

In respect of the proposal in the amendments of Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK of assisting in enhancing communication between local technology start-ups and financial institutions, Cyberport has provided a series of measures to match the services of local start-ups and large financial institutions, covering Fintech services which include electronic "know your client" ("eKYC") utilities, personal and biometric identification, identity verification, artificial intelligence and big data, etc. Cyberport will continue to promote the relevant work.

As regards the proposal in the amendment of Mr Charles Peter MOK of assisting enterprises in enhancing their capabilities in information security, SFC published guidelines on basic requirements for cyber security last year, including two-factor authentication for system login and issued circulars on good industry practices for cyber security and information technology risk management.

6350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Mr WONG Ting-kwong proposed in his amendment of developing eKYC platforms. HKMA has been closely collaborating with the Hong Kong Association of Banks ("HKAB") to encourage the trades in utilizing "know your client" utilities ("KYCU") to raise their efficiency of applying customer due diligence measures and enhance the experience of their clients. At present, HKAB has collected information of interested parties and suggestions on KYCU and will decide on its future development after the results of the study are available. As Members have mentioned and according to our understanding, HKAB is mainly concerned with the development of KYCU in small and medium enterprises. When the Innovation and Technology Bureau designed the eID system, it has provided flexibility so that the system can easily support both public and private services, including assisting financial institutions in applying KYC procedures. As a number of Members mentioned the importance of eKYC, we will actively conduct studies on developing a database of personal data in Hong Kong as an infrastructure to encourage and facilitate the development of KYCU, which can also assist the development of Fintech, particularly in start-ups.

Furthermore, Mr WONG Ting-kwong proposed to strengthen the interfacing of cross-boundary mobile payment. The Government and HKMA have been making active efforts in this regard and we have also explored with the relevant Mainland authorities the possibility of using our local electronic wallets on the Mainland. Starting from October last year, WeChat Pay Hong Kong under Tencent Holdings Limited can be used on the Mainland progressively. Other payment operators, such as UnionPay International and Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited, have introduced mobile payment applications to facilitate mobile payment by Hong Kong people on the Mainland. HKMA will continue to explore with the relevant Mainland authorities on the possibility of a wider application of electronic wallets of Hong Kong on the Mainland.

Mr Christopher CHEUNG mentioned the Technology Voucher Programme ("TVP") in his amendment. The Innovation and Technology Bureau has kept the operation of TVP under close review and has made enhancement from time to time. For example, in February last year, the eligibility criteria of TVP have been relaxed so as to benefit more local enterprises, including the bigger enterprises and start-ups. The Innovation and Technology Bureau is now conducting a comprehensive review on the effectiveness and modus operandi of TVP, including its funding scope, funding amount and vetting procedures, and based on the results of the review, further enhancement will be made to TVP.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6351

Members have proposed to establish a cross-boundary finance supervisory sandbox. In this regard, Fintech companies of the Mainland and the Greater Bay Area are most welcome to develop their business in Hong Kong and eligible Mainland companies can use the Fintech Supervisory Sandbox introduced by HKMA, SFC and IA to expedite the launch of their new technology products. HKMA, SFC and IA have also established their dedicated Fintech platforms to facilitate communication with industry players of Fintech. If companies of the Mainland and the Greater Bay Area are interested in developing their business in Hong Kong, they can directly contact the regulators through their dedicated Fintech platforms to enquire about regulatory and compliance matters.

Fintech initiatives which are intended to be introduced on the Mainland and in Hong Kong and Macao have to meet all the regulatory requirements of the three places. In response to the development of the Greater Bay Area, we stand ready to communicate further with the regulatory authorities of the Greater Bay Area. We are open to the proposal of increasing exchanges among the Fintech regulatory authorities of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao and are willing to discuss issues together.

As regards application of supervisory technology, i.e. Suptech, HKMA considers that Fintech can be used not only in the interface between banks and their clients, but also between banks and their regulators, which will help strengthen the effectiveness of banks in risk management and compliance. Thus, HKMA has extended the scope of the Banking Made Easy initiative to promote the development of Regtech and to establish a Regtech ecosystem in Hong Kong. The scope of the initiative includes applying Suptech on combating money laundering and terrorist financing; implementing prudent risk management and compliance and exploring the possibility of developing machine-readable regulatory requirements. In addition, in respect of Suptech, HKMA will collect more detailed supervisory data and conduct studies on enhancing its supervisory process, etc. with the use of technology, with a view to formulating a holistic plan and implement the proposals progressively.

In respect of SFC, it has established a cross-divisional Market Intelligence Programme and a Data Analytics Group to apply data science technology to analyse internal and external data of the financial markets to further enhance regulatory efficiency. Furthermore, SFC has, on a trial basis, analysed transactions-related data submitted by licensees undergoing reorganization or under inquiry and identified cases of irregularities, monitoring failures and 6352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 non-compliance, which might otherwise have gone undetected. The results are encouraging, thus SFC is now standardizing the contents and formats of transactions-related data required to be submitted by industry players.

Regarding the problem mentioned by Members that it is difficult to open bank accounts, HKMA considers that the situation has improved through the joint efforts of various parties. HKMA will continue to collaborate with banks, the commercial sector and other relevant parties to address the problem, so that while banks can maintain their system of effectively combating money laundering and terrorist financing, financial inclusion can also be achieved to provide law-abiding enterprises and individuals with access to basic banking services without any unreasonable hindrances.

To further improve the situation, HKMA has also engaged a service provider to conduct on-site inspections by mystery shoppers and it is carefully reviewing the preliminary inspection report submitted by the service provider. Depending on the results of the inspections, HKMA may take appropriate follow-up actions with individual banks. In addition, HKMA is conducting a thematic review on bank account opening by small and medium enterprises to monitor the effectiveness of measures taken by banks to enhance client experience and identify good practices and points to note. HKMA will share these results with the trades. Furthermore, HKMA is actively exploring with the trades on using innovative technologies in opening and maintaining accounts. For example, they are exploring the use of face recognition technology and biometric identification to assist in distant opening of accounts to strengthen the ability of banks in risk management and enhance client experience.

In respect of other proposals and measures mentioned by Members, we will study them with the relevant departments.

Finally, I have to thank Members once again for their views and proposals on promoting Fintech development. We will continue to implement and enhance the support of measures for promoting Fintech development to enable Hong Kong to become an active Fintech hub in Asia and reinforce Hong Kong's position as a leading financial centre in Asia.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6353

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr CHAN Kin-por to move an amendment.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion be amended.

The amendment moved by Mr CHAN Kin-por (See the marked-up version at Annex 1)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Kin-por to Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

Ms Claudia MO rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

6354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 28 were present, 26 were in favour of the amendment and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present, 19 were in favour of the amendment and 4 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6355

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Promoting the development of a financial technology hub to reinforce Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Starry LEE be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Promoting the development of a financial technology hub to reinforce Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, as Mr CHAN Kin-por's amendment has been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

6356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por be further amended by my revised amendment.

The further amendment moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK to the motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por (See the marked-up version at Annex 2)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK to Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, as the amendments of Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK be further amended by my revised amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6357

The further amendment moved by Mr Dennis KWOK to the motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK (See the marked-up version at Annex 3)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Dennis KWOK to Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chun-ying rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chun-ying has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

6358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Kenneth LAU voted against the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr CHAN Kin-por abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the amendment.

Mr Paul TSE abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment, 19 against it and 2 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present, 11 were in favour of the amendment, 11 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6359

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, as the amendments of Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK be further amended by my revised amendment.

The further amendment moved by Mr WONG Ting-kwong to the motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK (See the marked-up version at Annex 4)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr WONG Ting-kwong to Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Dennis KWOK rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

6360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr Abraham SHEK, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Dennis KWOK voted against the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Andrew WAN, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Gary FAN, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the amendment.

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the amendment.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6361

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 28 were in favour of the amendment, 1 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 18 were in favour of the amendment, 5 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, as the amendments of Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr WONG Ting-kwong have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr WONG Ting-kwong be further amended by my revised amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment has not been passed.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I beg your pardon. I move that Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr WONG Ting-kwong be further amended by my revised amendment.

The further amendment moved by Mr Christopher CHEUNG to the motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr WONG Ting-kwong (See the marked-up version at Annex 5)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Christopher CHEUNG to Mr CHAN Chun-ying's motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr WONG Ting-kwong, be passed.

6362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHU Hoi-dick rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr Abraham SHEK, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6363

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the amendment.

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the amendment.

Dr CHENG Chung-tai abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 31 were present, 29 were in favour of the amendment and 1 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 25 were present, 19 were in favour of the amendment, 5 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chun-ying, you still have one minute five seconds to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): President, once again, I thank Honourable Members who have proposed amendments and participated in the discussion. Financial technology ("Fintech") is making an impact on our future at an alarming speed worldwide. After hearing the views and suggestions put 6364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 forward by Members in this debate, I hope that the Government will swiftly formulate and adopt more proactive and effective measures to expedite the promotion of Fintech application in Hong Kong and reinforce Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre.

I implore Honourable Members to vote in favour of the original motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr WONG Ting-kwong and Mr Christopher CHEUNG. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr CHAN Chun-ying, as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr WONG Ting-kwong and Mr Christopher CHEUNG, be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion as amended passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debate on motion with no legislative effect.

The motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents".

Members who wish to speak please press the "Request to speak" button.

I call upon Ms Starry LEE to speak and move the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6365

MOTION ON "IMPLEMENTING DIVERSIFIED EDUCATION TO ALLEVIATE THE PRESSURE ON STUDENTS AND PARENTS"

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that my motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

President, I move this motion today because I have noticed that many parents are suffering huge pressure from educating their children. After a child is born, the parents will be busy enrolling the child in pre-school playgroups, tuition classes and interview preparation classes; and preparing curricula vitae ("CV") so that the child will be admitted to the kindergarten, the primary school, the secondary school and even the university they like. Not only are the parents overstretched, the children are also under immense pressure.

According to the figures provided by the Hong Kong Research Association in 2014, the average number of learning hours per week for Hong Kong students is as high as 62.2 hours. Compared with the average number of work hours per week of employees in general, which is 40 to 44 or 48 hours, students work more hours than we do.

In addition, according to a report published by St. James' Settlement, 33% of the student interviewees scored 7 to 10 in the pressure index with 10 being the highest score, and the score of 14% of these students was as high as 10. In other words, one out of ten students are overstretched. From time to time, there would be news reports of students committing suicides or taking rash actions because they were unable to cope with their pressure, which is very saddening.

President, in fact, it is very difficult for parents to change the main culture or general atmosphere of Hong Kong. Many people just follow the current practice and endeavour to provide the best education for their children. Some parents have chosen to act as "tiger moms". They would enrol their children in intensive tuition classes or prepare good CV for them with a view to giving them the best education because they believe these are best for their children. Another group of middle-class parents who do not want to become "tiger moms" or "tiger dads" would rather pay higher school fees and send their children to international schools. They simply want their children to learn happily. Some parents believe that overseas education is more suitable for their children or it will benefit their children more in their career development or other pursuits in Hong Kong. Thus, an increasing number of elite, middle-class parents who 6366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 have the means have "voted with their feet" by sending their children to international schools. As a result, an inadequate supply of international school places has become a frequent topic of discussion in this Council.

In fact, the real reason for an inadequate supply of international school places is that an increasing number of middle-class parents have "voted with their feet" by sending their children to international schools. Some students whose families are better-off will be sent to boarding schools overseas when they are studying in lower or upper forms in traditional secondary schools in Hong Kong, so that they will be admitted to undergraduate programmes overseas as soon as possible. I believe many Members of this Council and public officers who have the means may have chosen this study pathway for their children.

President, as a Member who has noticed the great pressure encountered by students and parents, I often ponder what we can do about it. Is our system "ill"? What are the problems causing such great pressure on parents and students? What makes so many elite and middle-class families "vote with their feet" and choose alternative programmes for their children so that they can have a happy childhood? In fact, I move this motion today so that we can put our minds together, in the hope that Members can give suggestions to help students and parents.

I have put forward six specific proposals in my motion. Let me share my views first. I hope that first, more parents, particularly those of the sandwiched class or even the grass roots, can have more choices. Thus, I have urged the Government to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum in more subsidized schools to give them more choices.

Second, as far as meeting the needs of the new era, particularly the era of artificial intelligence ("AI") is concerned, I think we have not done enough in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education and we can do better. Thus, I propose to allocate additional resources to schools for training teachers and supporting schools, so that more students can receive education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and AI sooner.

Third, I have observed that the scope and format of the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("DSE") is one source of pressure for many students. At present, the design of DSE is such that the performance of a student is assessed on the basis of one single examination. The scope of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6367

DSE includes a lot of curriculum contents covered in more than two years, and many students cannot cope with them. Examination papers of some subjects are very difficult. In particular, papers of Chinese Language were dubbed "the kiss of death" in the past. Another subject of constant debate among Members is Liberal Studies. Currently, Liberal Studies is a compulsory subject and its curriculum contents are really extensive. In order to tackle this compulsory subject, many students cannot spare the time or afford to take other subjects which they like more. Thus, many Members of this Council have suggested to turn Liberal Studies from a compulsory subject into an optional subject. I think we can consider the suggestion to assist students in reducing their pressure.

Fourth, I propose to increase the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places. In fact, I put forward this proposal in the very first debate in which I participated after becoming a Member of the Legislative Council. I think the inadequate supply of subsidized university places has created the most serious bottleneck for students. The number of places has remained only about 15 000 for many years. Although the number of students has dropped, only 20% of them can be admitted to universities subsidized by the Government. Since the restriction in the number of places is like a crown-tightening spell, if a student wants to compete and become one of the 20% who can get these places, he or she will have no choice but to start being drilled from primary school through secondary school with a view to getting a subsidized university place. If the bottleneck is not gradually relaxed, the pressure on students will not be alleviated.

Fifth, I propose to increase the opportunities for students to participate in Mainland and overseas exchange and internship programmes. The Government has done that in the past and I think it should continue to do so. In order to enable our students to establish themselves in Hong Kong, love the Motherland and adopt an international outlook, we must give them more opportunities to participate in exchange and internship programmes while they are studying.

Sixth, I propose to enhance parental education. According to my observation, parental education is currently provided in the community through non-governmental organizations without an established system. If parents think there is a need to participate in the programmes, they will join them or share information in WhatsApp groups. Frankly speaking, parents often consider that they do not have any problems and their ways of doing things are very effective. In fact, parents who are under so much pressure need to receive systematic 6368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 education to understand more about how to solve problems in the growing up process of their children and to alleviate the pressure of themselves and their children in education. The Government should provide more subsidies in this regard.

President, in the remaining time, I would like to focus on explaining the first point of my motion, i.e. "incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum". The proposal has produced negative reactions from a Member of the education sector who even wrote a letter to other Members. In fact, this point is very important to my motion. As the subject of my motion concerns "implementing diversified education", one of my ideas is to introduce more international and alternative curricula so as to give more choices to grass-roots and sandwiched-class parents and students, particularly those who do not have any choice now.

President, Hong Kong has recently been rated by the Heritage Foundation as the freest economy for the 25th consecutive year because we are the freest in terms of the flow of information, capital, goods and people. We know that freedom is invaluable because it gives us flexibility and competitiveness, and freedom allows Hong Kong people to identify and develop their talents economically.

Ironically, education systems and programmes in Hong Kong which are publicly-funded basically fall under a single model in which all the curricula are designed for DSE. Simply speaking, this model has monopolized the market, leaving parents and students with no choice. I must stress that our current education system and the curricula of DSE are commendable in some ways. In particular, as a result of the efforts made by our educators, this system has nurtured generations and generations of outstanding students and many reputable schools are admired by parents. Nevertheless, the biggest problem is that a single model does not fit all students. This system has nurtured many outstanding students, but it has also produced many unsuccessful students. Some children may have lost confidence under the system, as poor examination performances have made them lose heart.

President, no two people are the same. In fact, the reason is very simple. I am not criticizing the system, but it can certainly be improved. Nevertheless, our publicly-funded programmes should not provide only one option. This will prevent students and parents from choosing alternative programmes at an earlier stage. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6369

President, in fact, I am aware of many cases in which a student who failed to obtain good results in kindergartens or lower secondary forms of traditional schools in Hong Kong became almost a different person after going overseas to study. These students became full of confidence and able to master the curriculum contents. I think they have significantly enhanced their standards and regained confidence. I therefore ponder why this choice is available only to parents who have the means, and not grass-roots and sandwiched-class parents. Does the latter group really have no choice?

President, Members of this Council like to send their children to the United Kingdom to study. I am aware that the United Kingdom does not follow a single curriculum, unlike the comment made by Mr IP Kin-yuen that only a single curriculum is available. In the United Kingdom, apart from the traditional curricula of GCSE and A-Levels, some schools also provide the option of International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme and others offer foundation courses. Students can choose different programmes or examination formats at different stages according to their actual circumstances to enter universities. I think this approach will give parents and students more choices and really help them to alleviate pressure.

President, I have included point (1) in my original motion just to break the "crown-tightening spell" that a student must only take the DSE curriculum under publicy-funded programmes. I really do not think that should be the case. I very much hope that grass-roots and sandwiched-class parents can have more choices. Issues including the measures for implementation, which year in school should the measure commence and the scope of the measure can be discussed by various parties and I understand that the relevant arrangements must be gradually introduced. I also understand that even if the idea is supported by the society, honestly, only a minority of students will eventually be taught an international or alternative curriculum. The majority of students will still learn under the traditional system.

Mr IP said that point (1) of my original motion will deprive students of exposure to Chinese culture and history. I disagree and I think there is no cause for excessive worries. If the Government or the public accepts the proposal to introduce more curricula under the subsidized system, we can surely remedy the inadequacies in contents of Chinese culture and history. Thus, there is no cause for excessive worries. I wish to put forward this idea and will listen to what Members think.

6370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Lastly, I would like to highlight and elucidate on point (4) of the original motion. The words used in the original motion are "increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities". On this point, I would like to thank Mr IP Kin-yuen for pointing out that there is actually a more accurate way of putting it, i.e. "increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places". With the implementation of the new curricula, students of Associate Degree programmes and Higher Diploma programmes can apply for top-up places for the second year or the third year in universities, but most students will apply for top-up places for the third year. Thus, I hope to put this on record. If Members support my original motion, point (4) should read, "increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places". I believe the philosophy of this proposal is the same as that of Mr IP, as well as those other Members who have discussed this subject on education with me.

President, that is the end of my speech and I will listen to the views of Members first. I so submit.

Ms Starry LEE moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That for purposes of catering for the development of an innovative and knowledge-based society, this Council urges the Government to implement a diversified education approach to inspire students' creativity and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them, and eliminate the 'examination-oriented culture' and the malady of excessive drills on examination questions of students, in order to alleviate the pressure on students and parents; specific measures include:

(1) incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices;

(2) expanding the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and artificial intelligence, and allocating additional resources to schools for training teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6371

(3) reviewing the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination system to reduce unnecessary examination pressure on students;

(4) increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities, so as to give students more choices in pursuing further studies;

(5) increasing the opportunities for students to participate in Mainland and overseas exchange and internship programmes, so as to broaden the global outlook of the younger generation; and

(6) enhancing parental education to equip parents with greater capabilities in handling issues concerning their children's growth, studies, and so on."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Starry LEE be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Eight Members will move amendments to this motion. This Council will conduct a joint debate on the motion and the amendments.

I will call upon Members who will move the amendments to speak in the following order: Ms Claudia MO, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Ms Tanya CHAN, but they may not move the amendments at this stage.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I seldom see eye to eye with Ms Starry LEE about many things but when she talked about introducing a suitable proportion of international curriculum just now, I agreed with her. Why should the curriculum, visions and perspectives of students in Hong Kong be limited to Hong Kong only? The fact is that international curricula such as International Baccalaureate ("IB") are matriculation programmes recognized in the whole world and basically many universities determine the admission of students by their IB results.

6372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Some opine that IB is too "foreign", stressing too much on global views and little on local culture. I do not quite agree to such views. I know some IB students and I found that one of their study projects was the history of Chinese qipao, and another one was the origin, rise and fall of Kowloon Walled City, as well as the reason for its final demise. I think these topics are very meaningful. Whether they are international or not does not have much conflict with the topic we are discussing now. Why must students sit for DSE?

Moreover, it is a well-known fact that children are drilled excessively at present. The main subjects in which they are drilled are Chinese, English and Mathematics. I find Mathematics really daunting and I dare not talk about drills in this subject. Say, using numbers to memorize the following: one faces north to start with, then he changes the direction three times to the north, then changes to the south for how many times and what the direction he faces in the end? This kind of mathematical problem will just make a child's head spin and have no idea what is going on. I will just skip this. However, in respect of the drills in Chinese and English, the more I look at them, the less I find them acceptable. What I also find unacceptable is Chinese.

Our Chinese is becoming increasingly clumsy. I must criticize the Secretary for Education. In his reply to the Legislative Council's oral questions yesterday, he used the term "優化" (to optimize) three times. Why did he not use "改善" (to improve) instead? Why should he say "優化"? That is the language of the so-called new China, the language of the Communists. The Secretary has turned our excellent vernacular Chinese into … He is murdering Chinese, in his capacity as the Secretary for Education. Of course, I hear pro-establishment Members keep using such terms as "予以支持(to give support)" and "予以肯定(to give recognition)". Both "support" and "recognize" are verbs. Why is there the need "to give"? Why must they turn a verb, which is used properly, into a noun for no reason? Is must be because the spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs keeps saying "launch a crackdown on" and "to give recognition in a XX manner". I find it hardly acceptable. It makes the children in Hong Kong shudder when they see Chinese, our mother tongue.

Moreover, in the application form for $4,000 under the Caring and Sharing Scheme, one question asks the applicant's "Economic Activity Status (經濟活動 身分)". Does it frighten you? What is it asking? It turns out that it asks whether the applicant is employed, unemployed, a home-maker, a student and so on, and the applicant can choose not to answer. Hong Kong's Chinese standard is constantly being pulled down by the Government. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6373

The purpose of my amendment is mainly to raise the standard of English language education in Hong Kong. I said "改善" English language education, I did not use "優化". Surely, later on the Secretary for Education will say there have been improvements in many aspects and he will say "優化" again. But all the measures adopted are only window dressing because we have yet to break away from the grammar-oriented teaching method. Teachers teach English with Chinese and talk about things like transitive verbs, intransitive verbs, and so on. Students have no clue what the teacher is talking about. Why has it to be so rigid and unnatural? The Chinese language is unnatural enough, using it to learn a foreign language is even more unnatural. Intransitive verb … I really don't know what they are talking about. This is the best way to turn the children off when learning English. But learning English well is the exact way to help them widen their horizons.

If you travel the world and go to, say, Holland, no one there will ask you if you know Dutch. When you go to Japan, no one will ask if you know Japanese either. Everyone will ask, "Do you speak English?"

All parents in Hong Kong know that their children must learn English well but that alone already gives children great pressure and nightmares. I once heard a Primary 4 student and also a Form 1 or Form 2 student say they were most scared of English. What has the Government done? When the Education Bureau prescribes a curriculum, teachers cannot but adhere to it. We always go to schools and tell young people and children there that learning English can be very interesting and it is also a language we use in our daily lives. What does it mean by language of our daily lives? We cannot tease others for making mistakes in the use or the pronunciation of English because when we tease others … Teasing others' mistakes is perhaps a school culture. Once we tease others, we will come under pressure. Next time we make a mistake, it will be very embarrassing. To avoid that, we might as well not speak English, as the less we speak, the fewer mistakes we will make and if we stop speaking it altogether, we will not make any mistakes. In the end, a person starts learning English at the age of two and when he goes to the university at 18, he is still unable to speak English, even after years of learning. I do not know why but there is not a tradition of speaking English in Hong Kong. There is simply not such a culture.

6374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

I once met a practitioner of a certain profession whose English was just appalling. He asked us if we spoke English. When I heard he say "vixacious", I was completely baffled. I thought he was saying "vicious" but he wasn't. I only found out later that he meant "vexatious". He also said something like "freivolous" but he meant "frivolous". Is it very embarrassing? He was attending a meeting of the Legislative Council at that time. How can he teach English to the next generation? If a teacher wants to teach the children how to learn English well, he can use the relevant Council video record of this part. Students will definitely remember what "frivolous" is for the rest of their lives.

Once I mentioned the word "sulk" to an associate professor of the English faculty of a university. This is not a difficult word but he simply did not know it. I was shocked. "Sulk" means angry. If you say "他'嬲爆爆'" in Cantonese, you are saying that he's sulking. We do not teach this in school but ask students to learn the ancient English of SHAKESPEARE or CHAUCER instead. In the end, they are unable to communicate with others. What English language education is that? Very young children in Hong Kong have to listen to the English of National Geographic and learn what a Panamanian golden frog is. What is Panamanian? Children do not even know where Panama is. That is just against common sense.

However, out of competition, all parents want to send their children to English schools. For the richer, better-off parents, they send their children to schools under the Direct Subsidy Scheme. For the even richer, they will send their children to international schools. For the richest, they will send their children to boarding schools in the United Kingdom at the age of eight. The richer people are, the more they think they are creating a better future for their children. What kind of education system this is? The whole education system in Hong Kong has crumbled completely in this respect.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms Starry LEE for proposing this motion. Its title reads, "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents". It points out one very important problem faced by the education in Hong Kong at present, which I believe everyone agrees.

Two days ago, I received some representatives from Finland who asked me about the problems faced by the education in Hong Kong. I frankly told them that the students in Hong Kong performed well academically and they scored LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6375 high marks in international assessments, which the Finland representatives also agreed, but they were paying a price. Many students are stressed out. Some students commit suicide and many students and teachers have to consult psychologists. Under such a system, many are paying a high price and we must resolve this problem seriously.

I agree to the directions put forward by Ms Starry LEE but she and I have a fundamental difference, about which I have written to all Members earlier. Ms Starry LEE suggests "incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum". I have studied education before and one of the areas I did was comparing the education systems in various places. I have studied international schools as well. If Members look up the relevant government papers, they will find the objectives of the curricula include the five aspects of development, namely moral, intellectual, physical, social and aesthetic, and citizenship, which include the sense of citizenship and civic competency, as well as how to widen children's international perspective and nurture their sense of belonging to this city. One of the very important objectives of education is to promote social solidarity.

During our school years, many of us liked to quote the sentence "Bending his back to the task until his dying day" from the Memorial to the Throne about the Dispatch of an Army, because all schools had the same curriculum. It proves the important power of education in fostering solidarity. Hence, no country would spend public money on promoting the curricula of other countries or international programmes in government-run schools. Just now Ms Starry LEE said that schools in the United Kingdom also teach IB courses. I believe those courses are taught in private schools because students have to pay the operator of IB courses an extra sum of money and that is why I do not believe public schools in the United Kingdom would teach IB courses. I visited the United Kingdom a few months ago and talked to someone in charge of education from the Department for Education. I learned that some students there also enrolled in IB courses and sat for the relevant examinations on their own but the public schools there did not teach IB courses.

Therefore, everyone has to understand that education, public education in particular, should perform a social function. Ms Starry LEE has just asked why so many people are keen to enrol in international schools and international programmes. I feel that government officials and Members also have to look 6376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 squarely at one problem concerning people's opinions and criticisms against the local curriculum and local schools. As the title of the motion suggests, people want to alleviate the pressure on their children and so they enrol their children in other types of schools or even send them abroad. There are of course other deep-rooted problems involving political and social factors. But leaving them aside, there are many criticisms about the local education.

Ms Claudia MO has mentioned that it is very hard work to be drilled in Chinese and English. There is indeed such a problem. How do we deal with it? We must face up to this problem and give an overhaul to the local curriculum and local schools. To me, the Education Bureau, Members and the education sector are duty bound to look squarely into this problem. If we only focus on international schools, it may weaken our efforts in improving the local curriculum instead. The children of many government officials choose to enrol in international schools or schools abroad but the officials have not handled the problems with the local education in the way that they expect it to become. Will international schools participate in the Primary 3 Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA")? They will not. But the education that officials expect is not the education that local students and parents have in mind. Why is the education pursued by officials not applicable to Hong Kong people? That is my biggest question. I do not mind how individual persons make their choice but if officials choose a certain type of education, I hope that they will make available that type of education to all Hong Kong people as well. I hope that they will properly address the problems faced by the majority of people.

International schools seldom teach the local culture and history. For example, it is natural for the school for Japanese people to stress on Japanese culture. Concerning the National Anthem Law, many people in charge of international schools have recently asked me whether international schools are also required to teach the national anthem of China. They have this concern because it is not their mission to teach it. I think it proves that there is a problem from another perspective. As a matter of fact, there are many criticisms in the Mainland about the international schools set up there and the authorities think it is a problem involving their sovereignty in education. We do not wish to politicize this issue but in relation to fostering social solidarity, we should learn from the experience of international schools and how they run the international curriculum in order to improve the local education and curriculum.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6377

I have very high expectations of the curriculum reform in the pipeline and hope that the authorities will respond to today's subject and all the suggestions Members put forward in the original motion and the amendments. How to relieve the pressure on kindergarten pupils? Children are constantly subject to the pressure of learning starting from kindergarten onwards and then TSA in Primary 3. Can we do something about that?

Ms Starry LEE has mentioned the implementation of diversified education. I very much accept diversified education but there should be another aspect of it. For example, aside from academic programmes, students should be provided with some other programmes. Over a decade ago when I was a school principal, I asked the Education Bureau if it was mandatory for students to sit for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("DSE"); and if non-academic students do not sit for DSE, whether there could be another way to certify the performance of these students. In Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavia, other than the examination on academic subjects, students can also sit for another examination on their application skills and receive a vocational education certificate. Should we introduce different types of programmes and certificate examinations in the senior secondary stage to help students enter a diversified community through different channels? We must seriously consider students' different needs. We have also discussed Shine Skills Centre recently. We hope that students' different needs can all be met. I think the best education is one that can satisfy all students' different education needs.

Thank you, President.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank Ms Starry LEE for moving the motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents". Education is a subject of greatest concern to the public because it will definitely affect the development of our next generation and the overall competitiveness of Hong Kong.

Let us first look at some rankings of competitiveness of international talents published recently. In the World Talent Report 2018 published last year by the International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne of Switzerland, Singapore surpassed Hong Kong and came first in Asia while Hong Kong's ranking dropped from 12th last year to 18th. Our performance in all three areas, including "talents investment and development", "appeal to and retention of talents" and "readiness for talents", has worsened. 6378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Last week, another institute released the 2019 Global Talent Competitiveness Index. Hong Kong ranked 27th, which is lower than Seoul, Taipei, Singapore and Tokyo in Asia. The drop in our ranking and the defeat by our competitors indicate that there are problems with the supply of talents and education in Hong Kong. Urgent improvement is needed.

Certainly, there are many reasons accounting for the low ranking of Hong Kong. For example, although many people have started their business in Hong Kong, the quality and quantity of start-ups are not satisfactory; and assessment factors like these will lower our ranking. In particular, members of my sector have pointed out for many years that there is an inadequate supply of technology personnel in Hong Kong mainly because our development in innovation and technology is not fast enough. We have put forward many suggestions to the Government, including enhancing on-the-job training, stepping up efforts in promoting training on digital skills and reforming STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education. These suggestions have been made many years ago, but in discussing the motion and my amendment today, I must certainly mention in particular how to strengthen basic education so that our students, the next generation and young people who have started work in our society can enhance their digital skills and competitiveness.

The Government often says that STEM education is not an independent new subject, and instead, it has been included in the curricula of secondary and primary schools. However, since the knowledge acquired by students has not been tested in examinations, we do not know whether the knowledge is useful and whether with such knowledge, the students can cope with the development of society, the needs of the market or changes in technology. Very often, the Education Bureau has promoted STEM in the form of extra-curricular activities. Although it will increase the awareness and interests in some students, it cannot solve the problem of a succession gap in technology talents. Many people know that Hong Kong students obtain very good scores in the Programme for International Student Assessment, but we have not nurtured any mathematicians. Worse still, fewer students are taking Extended Part of Mathematics now. The situation is like drilling students in playing the piano without nurturing them into musicians, isn't it?

A professor has told me more than once that students studying Mathematics, Science or Engineering nowadays do not have a sound academic grounding and some of them have not obtained even basic training. Thus, they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6379 need extra coaching and classes in the first year at university have turned into tuition classes. In fact, the range of subjects offered in the DSE programme shows that a greater emphasis is put on the arts subjects instead of the science subjects. Among the four compulsory subjects, only Mathematics is a science subject. Besides, advanced Mathematics is only part of the Extended Part of Mathematics and this arrangement has weakened the grounding in Mathematics or Science among secondary school students.

According to the report of The Academy of Sciences of Hong Kong in 2017, enrolment in advanced Mathematics of secondary school students in Hong Kong has obviously dropped to a low level when compared with other places. The situation is worrying. Back then when we were students, it was common for students to take the three science subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, but it is not so nowadays. This situation is shocking and that is also the biggest problem with the DSE system. In particular, it is the greatest problem faced by science students.

The report also points out that Science is a compulsory subject in the United States, Europe, Japan and Korea. In comparison, STEM education is not popular in Hong Kong and enrolment in Additional Mathematics is on the low side at only 14%, which lags far behind the range of 57% to 80% in Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

As Members may know, competent students are less interested in studying Engineering and Mathematics than Commerce in universities. Referring to the figures on DSE in 2018, only 5 567 students took the subject of Information and Communication Technology, accounting for less than 10% of the total number of candidates. Many schools cannot even offer this subject and the reason may relate partly to the attractiveness of the development of the entire industry. That is not the subject of our discussion today, though.

I think we must first develop STEM education before improvements can be made in the supply of talents in Hong Kong. Many overseas countries, e.g. the United States and the United Kingdom, have developed STEM as a project promoted by the federal government. The government of the United States released its five-year plan on promoting STEM education at the end of last year, and one of the objectives is to "Prepare the STEM Workforce for the Future". Very clear objectives are set. For example, the objective of "100K in 10" is to 6380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 train 100 000 STEM teachers by 2020; the objective of "US 2020" is to match STEM jobs and professionals with students in mentorship programmes, so that students will acquire practical knowledge in STEM. The government of the United Kingdom has also vigorously injected resources and approved two fundings, including £64 million to train Information Technology teachers and £78 million to subsidize a start-up to train 40 000 teachers to teach computer science. This shows that the United Kingdom has formulated objectives, parameters and strategies, but the Hong Kong Government does not like to set parameters.

Regarding supportive measures for teaching, the Government is currently providing the Composite Information Technology Grant. Starting from the academic year of 2019-2020, the Government has also planned to provide a learning grant amounting to a total of $900 million to all publicly-funded schools and subsidized schools in Hong Kong. Can these measures solve the problems? The Education Bureau spends hundreds of millions of public money on implementing the Fourth Strategy on Information Technology in Education ("the Strategy"). In October last year, the Audit Commission criticized the Strategy as poorly managed, ineffectively regulated and not providing adequate support to schools. The audit conducted by the Audit Commission showed that more than half of the schools had not fully utilized the grant and about 15% had not utilized more than 20% of the grant. Many schools actually did not have enough funding to promote electronic learning, particularly in employing technical support personnel. The problem is, some schools did not have enough funding, while some others did not know how to utilize their funding and the Education Bureau failed to notice the uneven distribution of resources. Should the Education Bureau review its regulatory mechanism, strategies and policies afresh and formulate achievable objectives and parameters?

I must also point out that the Government has not provided adequate support for grass-roots students. After the Internet Learning Support Programme ended on 31 August 2018, the Government has provided funding through the Community Care Fund. If schools participate in the "Bring Your Own Device" e-learning programme, they can subsidize students to purchase mobile computer devices. Nevertheless, we have been saying that this measure is inadequate because many schools have not participated in the programme. Thus, I think there is still a very big problem in this area.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6381

In my amendment, I have proposed to establish an "educational technology laboratory", the concept of which is the same as the Smart City Joint Laboratory established by the Innovation and Technology Bureau. Even though subsidies are provided to many schools, the schools do not know how to use them. We have to provide an environment to brief the schools of technology in the market so that they can use them. I hope that the concept of smart city can be incorporated in education in the upcoming budget.

Finally, President, I truly hope that the Government can really work harder in alleviating pressure on students and parents, particularly the pressure of TSA. Yesterday when we were having a discussion with the Secretary, I noticed that the Government was not willing to release many figures. That kind of attitude is definitely not conducive to alleviating pressure on students and parents. We must respect the current approach of the Government in supporting open data and make all information available to members of the public so that they can make the best decision. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MOK, please stop speaking.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, there are no subjects in the world about which anyone can claim to be an expert, with two exceptions, namely philosophy and education. Some people who have experience in teaching children may claim to be educators who are good at teaching children. Nevertheless, teaching is a profession which is not easy to master. I was an escapee from the education sector. I did not become a teacher after completing a diploma course in Education because I realized that working as a teacher would be more difficult and it would require greater efforts than working as a Member of the Legislative Council. For instance, a teacher has to remember the names of 200 students, but I do not have to remember the names of 200 people in the district. How should professionalism in the education sector be promoted? We rely on teachers to do so and the Policy Bureau may have to give them more independence and assistance. My amendment includes twelve points, but instead of discussing them one by one, I will focus on two points, first, diversified education; and second, parental education or ways to assist parents.

Diversified education is very important. Yesterday, we had a meeting with school principals from five or six districts. The principals might have certain views on the Agenda of the meeting of the Panel on Education to be held 6382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 tomorrow, but most importantly, they reminded me of what I learnt from the diploma course in Education. The principals made the point that education does not seek to provide the best programmes of the highest quality. The reasons are that not every student is a student of a Band One secondary school, not every student is suitable to study in a Band One secondary school and not every student is suitable to study in an international school. We must provide the most suitable education to students. How can we provide the most suitable education to students? The most important principle is to teach them at a standard which suits them.

When I was studying for the diploma course in Education, a professor told us that in designing a teaching programme, we should bear in mind that the students may not absorb everything the teacher offers; and in determining whether a teaching programme is suitable and reasonable, we should consider how much the students can absorb. I would like to point out that in implementing diversified education, we should provide diversified pathways for students to pursue further studies so that they can have diversified career development in the future. However, after 1990s, many technical schools and prevocational schools have been replaced, leaving students with the only pathway to study in grammar schools, which are the mainstream schools. Nevertheless, for students who are skilled with their hands or those who cannot sit still, this approach has in effect deprived them of other options and turned them into naughty students in grammar schools.

President, I went to my son's kindergarten to meet his teacher before attending this meeting today. My wife was busy and so I attended the meeting. The teacher commented that my son could not sit still. He often led other students to walk round the classroom and required special attention from the teacher. Many children in the same class are very obedient and they will sit down and listen to what the teacher says, but a few others, including my son, will not sit still. However, my son does not have any problem in other aspects. He is skilled with his hands and can listen to stories quite well. There are always children like him.

Nevertheless, has our education system provided suitable pathways for students to pursue further studies? Have we assisted students to choose suitable pathways? Practically, schools have to divide students into different classes of the good and the bad. Teachers do not wish to classify the students in this way, but they have no other choices. This arrangement has made it difficult for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6383 students to develop their talents. Although the Government is promoting STEM education, it is only supplementary in nature. STEM education enables students to acquire a wider scope of knowledge of various kinds of technology and skills. It prevents teaching of the basic theoretical subjects such as Chinese Language, English Language and Mathematics to take up all of the teaching hours. There are many subjects in the New Senior Secondary curriculum and some schools may not be able to offer some of them. At present, the subject of Chinese History may not be offered. Will classes on technical and art subjects and the like be offered? It is really difficult to say.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

Furthermore, integrated education has been implemented in the past eight to 10 years. This approach, although theoretically correct, has caused practical difficulties. Requiring students who are skilful with their hands but do not follow instructions to sit with obedient students who follow instructions will effectively create even more difficulties for teachers and dampen the unique characters of some students. We have worked with the Secretary to resolve the problem of laboratory technicians earlier. Many laboratory technicians have told us that teaching students to do experiment in the laboratory is difficult. As there will always be students who are more active in the class, laboratory technicians have to deal with disciplinary and safety issues. When they are handling those issues, they cannot focus on dissecting the bull's eye or the frog. Thus, I have proposed point (8) in my amendment in the hope of enhancing the Hong Kong Qualifications Framework, so that alternative pathways can be provided to students who are skilful with their hands or students who do not fit in well in grammar schools. Apart from programmes of the Vocational Training Council ("VTC") or the Hong Kong Institute of Vocational Education ("IVE"), professional skills training and vocational skills training can be provided. In fact, many engineers are not graduates of grammar schools. They may be graduates of technical schools or prevocational schools. It is very important to give students diversified choices in pursuing studies.

Moreover, education by parents is also very important. In the 1980s, many parents had to work long hours. Nowadays, many parents look after their children on a full-time basis. But why are there even more problems? My parents spent a lot of time working and did not have much time to take care of 6384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 me. Although my mother looked after my brother and I on a full-time basis, she took items of clothing from some factories to do finishing work at home and she did not have time to care for us. Parents nowadays spend more time on looking after their children, but why are there more problems? Perhaps that is because parents and children do not have any choice. Under the current system, schools will teach parents how to teach their children. Since my child studied in pre-nursery classes more than half a year ago, I have received notices telling me that I have to attend four or five classes and participate in several activities. I could not attend a certain activity last time because I had to attend a meeting of a panel, but I have taken a ferry with my child.

At present, there are many chances for our children to learn or for parents to experience life with their children. Parents can also take the initiative to experience life with their children. I have taken a ferry or even ridden in a speedboat with my child. Is it necessary for schools to request parents to experience life with their children? In fact, schools can provide longer hours of childcare so that more parents can choose to engage in full-time work, instead of compelling parents to sacrifice their jobs and stay at home to look after their children or only take up jobs such as insurance agents in which they can work very flexible hours. Can kindergartens meet the childcare needs of parents? If so, parents can choose to work. At present, parents in Hong Kong do not have such a choice and they cannot educate their children in their preferred ways.

Finally, let me add one point. I have mentioned enhancing counselling services in point (12) of my amendment. We have discussed the issue of student guidance teachers and social workers and I hope that the Secretary will inject more resources in this regard in the upcoming budget in order to adopt the proposal on student guidance teachers plus social workers. I think both of them can provide counselling services or handle special cases. I hope the Secretary will consider the feasibility of the "one-plus-one" proposal so as to benefit students.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): This motion exactly provides us with an opportunity to debate and expose the fundamental problem with education in Hong Kong, that is, our education system and social atmosphere uphold elitism, and exam scores are everything. Such a culture is deep-rooted, even though LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6385 various members of the community say we should change it. Ms Starry LEE has said just now that parents who have the financial means will make other choices, such as sending their children to international schools. Her remark really reflects the aspirations of many parents. I believe many parents also agree that they would rather send their children to private schools or international schools if they have the financial means.

Many parents choose international schools, not because such schools offer better curriculums, but because they simply want their children to have no homework pressure. They will also make themselves relaxed when they need not personally get involved in their children's homework, exercises, study or revision. Many parents who are middle-class or professionals have told me that they send their children to international schools or foreign countries simply for making themselves relaxed. If I can spend money to enable my children to excel academically, pursue diversified development in universities and avoid all those difficulties, why do I not spend such money? This represents a typical line of thinking of middle-class families. I think the Secretary must have heard someone even propose to ban the children of senior officials from studying abroad. This is an extreme proposal, which I do not agree with. But it reflects the underlying problems. I think the Secretary must also have the same understanding, as his children are currently studying abroad. My children attend local schools, and hence I have a deeper understanding.

While I think Members know why students of local schools face such hardships and heavy pressure, I would also like to refer to a number of large-scale surveys. The Samaritan Befrienders Hong Kong conducted a survey on 1 624 Secondary 4 to 6 students in 2017, and some 80% of the respondents said that education was the biggest source of distress. Baptist Oi Kwan Social Service ("BOKSS") collected questionnaires from 7 500 secondary school students last year, and found that 51.5% of the respondents had varying degrees of depression symptoms. Last year BOKSS also conducted a survey on depression among primary school students in Hong Kong, in which 1 819 Primary 3 to 6 students were engaged. 21.2% of the respondents said they were constantly under pressure, for reasons of limited secondary school places, too little playtime, undesirable score reports and too much homework. Such findings are in line with the feelings and observations of many parents. Local students and parents in Hong Kong overwhelmingly agree that education is a pressure cooker to them that is about to explode.

6386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

The Government needs to implement the strategy on diversified education and cultivate diverse interests and skills in students. "Learning is more than scoring" is a slogan that we can all chant, but we have so far failed to put it into practice. We often say that our education system should cultivate talents who are able to think outside the box. However, when students need to do homework or attend private tutorial lessons after school, and they are constantly on the run until sleeping time, how can we train them to think outside the box? I think that they are not trained to think outside the box, but are rather drained inside the box.

For this reason, I particularly propose in my amendment that the authorities need to address squarely the problem of homework pressure on primary students and their parents. I specifically propose implementing a policy of "finishing homework at school", thereby enabling students to make good use of their spare time to develop diverse interests. As we can see from the relevant surveys, young children have too little playtime. But they should not become the slaves of homework. Many parents have relayed to me that their children face increasingly difficult homework assignments, which are often posted in various online groups. The contents of many homework assignments have been altered. Primary 1 students are now required to learn what Primary 3 students were previously required to learn. This is like helping shoots grow by pulling them upward. How can ordinary schoolchildren understand complex concepts or difficult ideas that only students who are several grades more senior are required to learn? Our mechanism is one that pursues exam scores, and our schools likewise pursue "winning at the starting line".

Yesterday I picked up my daughter from school, and the first thing she told me was, "Dad, can you guess whether I need to do homework at home tonight? I do not! I have finished it at school. Yay!" My daughter is a Primary 1 student, and she delights in having finished homework at school. A real childhood is underpinned by more parent-child time at home for reading, playing or relaxing. For this reason, "finishing homework at school" is very important and a good practice to students, teachers and parents. I hope that the authorities will ponder it.

Drilling students excessively is not a new problem. As we have pointed out at the relevant panels of this Council time and again, schools should stop drilling students. While the Education Bureau says in many cases that drilling is not good, it has failed to introduce any initiatives to rectify it. As such, I have made a particular proposal in my amendment. It is not that the Government has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6387 no role to play if schools fail to follow the guidelines of the Bureau and continue to drill students. The Government can use over-drilling as one of the indicators for the annual assessment of the performance of a school. At present, assessors only examine whether the homework assignments of students are beneficial to them but fail to check the amount of homework assigned. The authorities can propose amendments and list excessive assignments and over-drilling as indicators of substandard quality of teaching, thus enabling schools to follow the guidelines.

As far as drilling is concerned, another thing regarding which the Government can hardly brush aside its responsibility is the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"). The Primary 3 TSA has been a contentious issue troubling parents for years. In order to improve TSA, the Education Bureau once implemented the Basic Competency Assessment Research Study. But now it has again implemented TSA, saying that it will be conducted on a sampling basis. Yesterday, the Government did not dare tell us the number of schools whose Primary 3 students all participated in TSA. To be honest, I am infuriated. If the Government dares not tell us even a number, we will have every reason to believe that full participation in TSA will be required of all schools. This will exactly foster competition among schools. After participating fully in TSA, schools may request for their school reports for publicizing themselves and attracting prospective students. Brands will thus be forged continuously, and competition and an elitist culture will be fostered continuously. The Primary 3 TSA should be abolished once and for all. Such young children should no longer face the pressure of drilling. If the Education Bureau is unable to control schools drilling students, it should make a decision on the existence of TSA.

We are talking about diversified education, but is the education system of Hong Kong being diversified or unified? International schools in Hong Kong have their own culture, but the Government intends to require these schools to learn the Chinese national anthem. Is this diversity or unification? When schools can choose the extent of drilling, the Government should naturally allow them to make their own choices. But the Education Bureau has instead introduced TSA, and thus all schools invariably conduct drilling. Is this a move to diversify or unify education in Hong Kong? As the children of the Secretary are all studying abroad, will the Secretary please do some self-reflection and honestly ask himself this question. I so submit.

6388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, thank you for moving the motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents".

We have discussed a similar motion at the Subcommittee on Children's Rights. In fact, we have even held one public hearing specifically on the rights of children under pressure from examinations and homework. The children in Hong Kong are really blessed with their abundance of resources, strong economic environment, high-quality teachers and nice campuses. The total amounts of resources allocated by the Government to education have often ranked first. Given the apparently advanced economy, abundance of resources and high input of educational resources, our children should be very excellent and very happy, and they should also have the opportunity to give full play to their strengths.

However, we often notice that children in Hong Kong are grim-faced. The following example has impressed me deeply. A director once intended to shoot a video on the difficulties facing students, in which one shot featured the joy of students on the first school day on 1 September. He had been shooting for the whole day, and his team had also gone to different schools trying to capture the happy face of students. However, they had failed to capture anything after one day. What had been the problem there? In addition, there were views at the public hearing that what children lacked the most was time for sleeping and playing. Our children spend most of their time on the so-called learning. However, do they really enjoy learning, or are they really learning something? In fact, the answers are in the negative. They are just following the instructions of adults mechanically.

Students are currently studying in whole-day schools, and they have been arranged a fully packed schedule after school. On weekends, they have been deliberately given more homework to make them busier. Subsequently, parents will arrange more activities for them, not to mention the tutorial classes many students have to attend after school on weekdays as well as on weekends. Students have been worn out and they are really exhausted.

I returned to Hong Kong from the United States more than 20 years ago after my oldest child had completed the first grade of elementary school in the United States. After returning to Hong Kong, the first thing I did was to enrol him in a local mainstream school. At first, he could not quite get used to the school life, such as the language and culture, but the good teachers he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6389 encountered in Primary 2 and Primary 3 made his school life very pleasant. While his school would also pressure students into studying hard, the problem was not very serious in the lower grades. The problem emerged as soon as he was in Primary 4. As the school kept drilling students, we had to supervise the completion of his homework every night. In Primary 5, he became very nervous and bad-tempered. After returning home from school every day, he would have a struggle with my wife. I believe that every Hong Kong family with a child studying in a local mainstream school may have similar experience. Constantly pushed by their parents, children have to work hard continuously on a pile of homework. From time to time, parents are so concerned that we keep asking if they have finished. We wish we could help them finish their homework, but it is impossible to do so.

In Primary 5, the pressure has put him under such a tense mental state that he had to make frequent visits to the washroom. We then started to worry if we had pushed him too hard. At that stage, we had already noticed something wrong with him. In the long run, I was worried that his mental state and health would be greatly affected. Therefore, we started to find another school for him. Finally, when he was about to be promoted to Primary 6, we changed him to an English Schools Foundation ("ESF") school. This was not our original plan. We had intended to let him learn Chinese properly after returning to Hong Kong and continue his studies in local mainstream schools. However, after trying for a few years, I really could not find any way to continue with this plan.

Fortunately, since I was teaching in a university, I had the ability and financial means to enrol him in an ESF school, the school fee of which back then was not as high as it is nowadays. However, how many families in Hong Kong can afford that? After he had changed school, his entire life changed, our family relationship improved and he was also happier.

Despite our allocation of considerable public funds and engagement of numerous experts to the education sector, the education we have provided has ended up putting pressure on children. What is the reason for that? Should we reflect on this? The problem lies not in children, but obviously in our education system and the adults who keep putting pressure on children.

As the Deputy President has rightly pointed out, the ultimate threshold is … it is common sense nowadays that anyone without a university degree will be unable to take an easier path in their job search. Therefore, it is the hope of 6390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 all parents, but not necessarily their children, to enter a university. At present, there is indeed a threshold for admission to universities. For many years, the Government has been firmly defending the ratio of 16% or 18% of students entering universities. Due to the current demographic changes, the number of young people has dropped. Therefore, 20% of students should be admitted to subsidized universities.

According to the Government, it does not matter even if a student is not admitted to a university because the student can still enrol for an associate degree programme. As such, the proportion of post-secondary places has been raised significantly. As we all know, this is a "great leap forward" for education and a "mass steel campaign" of education quality. The proliferation of school places has resulted in the closure of some institutions as a result of under-enrolment which has rendered them unable to get government resources. At present, a school place is eligible for an annual subsidy of some $200,000, which has remained unchanged for years. Some specialized subjects, such as medical science, can be given higher amounts of subsidy. The way the Government is nurturing these students has a direct bearing on the amount of resources the Government is willing to allocate to them.

The Government is still stubbornly defending the threshold of school places. As the Deputy President has said, the Government has only been providing about 15 000 school places for many years. Even when there was an increase, the addition of a few hundred to 1 200 places was basically insignificant. Our Government should subsidize all students who can meet the requirements to study at universities and may even provide free university education as in many European countries. Is it a crime to study at university for free?

However, our Government has been resistant to changes for years. Given the restriction on the number of university places, all competitions will go all the way down from universities to even kindergartens. Some parents have waited in line to enrol their children for prestigious schools even before they are born. They hope that their children can be admitted to a prestigious kindergarten and then go all the way up to a university.

Deputy President, since some colleagues have already cited many statistics I have on hand, I will not repeat them. I would like to talk about the maximum hours for homework. In this connection, Mr SHIU Ka-chun has proposed a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6391 motion in the Subcommittee on Children's Rights chaired by me. Other countries have also put in place maximum homework hours, with the US system being the most desirable. US first-graders are assigned only a maximum of 10 minutes of homework, second graders 20 minutes, increasing all the way up to a maximum of two hours of homework for 12th graders. Most importantly, homework should certainly be of high quality which is conducive to learning rather than focusing on drilling students. What is the reason for the authorities to scrap the guidance which was previously in place? While the Government claims that it is necessary to achieve a balance and avoid drilling, the education system it has implemented enables schools to drill students. Why?

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this motion proposed by you is mainly to discuss the implementation of diversified education to inspire students' creativity and to eliminate the "examination-oriented culture" and the malady of excessive drills on examination questions of students, in order to alleviate the pressure on students and parents. I agree to the main contents of the motion and will discuss the two points that I have added in my amendment.

People caring about education would all have read a book published in 1964 entitled How Children Fail by John HOLT, an American educationist. John HOLT observed that most of the students who demonstrated inexhaustible creativity and vibrant vitality off school will lose their creativity slowly or even become passive and shrinking when in long exposure amidst school environment. John HOLT's answer in explaining such situation is that students are afraid of failure and want to have the right answers, thus losing their analytical thinking and creative imagination. Meanwhile, given that the frame of curricula and subjects has already confined students' imagination, coupled with their inability to put the knowledge they learnt to the proof in real life, they will thus get bored.

In fact, the mainstream education system today is very similar to that described by John HOLT. The present education system in Hong Kong places too much emphasis on academic achievements, neglecting personal growth, life education, mutual care amongst groups, and even the development in certain techniques and arts. The objective of the New Senior Secondary academic structure was once to build up a diversified education system. However, in addition to the four compulsory core subjects, students may only choose four subjects at most from 21 electives which are mostly traditional subjects. On the contrary, some 30 applied learning subjects are scarcely selected by students 6392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 because of low recognition. Coupled with inadequate subsidized university places and the focus of education objective being vocation-oriented, how can students be learning in a self-directed, joyful and diversified way under such an education arrangement?

Earlier on, academics Stephen CHIU and Joe HUI viewed that the Joint University Programmes Admissions System should accept the attainments in applied learning as results in elective subjects in the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination. Secretary, I think such an opinion is not without reason. First, some academics hold that the strictness in assessing applied learning results is no less than that in assessing results in traditional subjects. In particular, the alternative assessment can even assist teachers in knowing more comprehensively about students' abilities in different aspects. Meanwhile, applied learning subjects can even provide different learning opportunities to broaden students' horizons. I think the Bureau should consider in detail providing more diversified learning on top of the mainstream education system so as to implement diversified learning.

On the other hand, excessive homework, tests and examinations cause heavy pressure on students, even to the degree of overwhelming. Students cannot even manage to take care of their bodies, minds and souls, not to mention self-realization. In the face of such "alienating" education, I think in addition to increasing support and broadening diversified education, we need to take "less" as a model of thinking, i.e. having less or lessening the load, to release students' room for learning by means of policy and system, so as to let them regain the meaning of learning and rekindle their creativity. The two key points of "homework-free days for long holidays" and "School Retreat Day" in my amendment are based exactly on the idea of "less".

Holidays are meant to give people breaks before setting off for life again. However, this is merely the entrance to another round of hard working to students. No matter whether they are secondary students or primary pupils, they have to face countless homework during long holidays, and some even have to go back to school for tuition lessons. Previously, a study pointed out that students were in sleep deficit, with 58% of them sleeping less than the level recommended by the medical sector. The scores given on the satisfaction in life by 15-year-old students in Hong Kong were just 6.5, which was lower than the average in other countries by 11%. How can they cope with the pressure accumulated if they cannot even take some good rest during long holidays?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6393

The "Happy Teens Club" of the Hong Kong Christian Service has carried out a study with the Department of Education Studies of the Hong Kong Baptist University. The research finds that homework-free students have given much higher scores than students with homework to finish in terms of satisfaction in learning. Their incentive for learning is higher and their perspective towards homework is also more positive. This study does not mean to deny the function of homework. Instead, it brings out the point that allowing self-directed learning for students according to the merits, interests and schedules of their own is more useful than giving them continuous drills.

Holidays mean holidays, during which students ought to go well unbridled, or well relaxed, shall I say, and get ready for the future. Or else, they can develop other aspirations and interests for making themselves better, or even simply go hanging around aimlessly, which is good enough already. All choices to be made should be based principally on students' well-being instead of making them anxiety-ridden and unnecessarily suffered because of homework even during holidays.

Mr HUI Chi-fung just mentioned that the Baptist Oi Kwan Social Service, a local non-governmental organization, has conducted a survey, in which it is found that there is one in every seven primary pupils showing a state of depression. Amongst such cases, 19% even belonged to serious depression with the major source of pressure being precisely "having too much homework". In my opinion, the Education Bureau should put its primary task on maintaining students' interests to learn so that their curiosity can be kept throughout their long journey of learning. When knowledge is spoon-fed, it is no longer the knowledge for individuals but merely some contents of no meaning. Knowledge shall become the belonging of students only when they are willing to take the initiative to seize and keep ruminating on it. Therefore, giving students too much or too difficult homework is just doing harm with overenthusiasm, which is unconducive to the overall development of students at all. Since the Education Bureau has already called for reduction of students' homework for long holidays and encouraged the replacement of holiday homework with reading, why can it not take a further step forward with direct measures to implement "homework-free days for long holidays" by making reference to the successful experience of other countries or local social welfare organizations to facilitate the realization of self-directed learning by students?

6394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

As regard "School Retreat Day", its concept is that "it would better be at halt rather than running in vain". While the workload of both students and teachers today has reached an overflowing stage, it would be better for all to pause, repose and unload the concerns and worries through a day with life education activities, concert or simply some casual moves around the campus. A retreat day does not solely mean to take a rest; it is for making the conditions for one to reorganize oneself and set off again for life. The design of the education system in Hong Kong has long been giving great academic pressure to students. There is a sweeping sentiment of competition with pressure started accumulating as early as in junior primary school till the completion of university studies. For students, parents or teachers alike, all are under perennial high pressure.

Though "School Retreat Day" might not necessarily be the most fundamental way to eliminate the pressure of teachers and students, it is a very important reminder to teachers, parents, students and even society as a whole that they need a break to slowly put their bodies, minds and souls in order. In the past two year or so, some organizations have been providing assistance to different primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong to organize retreat days, which are welcomed cordially participated by both students and teachers. The Education Bureau has also affirmed the function of "School Retreat Day".

Although "School Retreat Day" has all along been affirmed for its function, it lacks the Government's concrete support. According to the current requirement of the Education Bureau, there are 190 school days for schools, amongst which 165 days must be actual school days, and the rest shall be non-school days for examinations, sports days, etc. Therefore, if the retreat day is just an extra-curriculum activity, some schools will not consider organizing it for the reason of a tight curriculum schedule. Even if schools are willing to organize it, they might arrange make-up classes afterwards to compensate for the school time occupied by the retreat day. This situation is like putting the cart before the horse to contrarily increase students' burden, thus rendering the meaning of retreat null and void.

Deputy President, I do not think students can have a formal date and space to retreat for setting out again for the future unless the Government requires that one actual school day may be deducted for a "School Retreat Day" in every school year.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6395

Deputy President, since everyone talks about their children today, I shall also talk about my niece, as I do not have my own children. I named this child, who is called SHIU Yung, which implies the meaning of "a smiling face" in Cantonese pronunciation. Today, I support the Deputy President's motion, with the hope to fight for a smiling face for my SHIU Yung. Would the Education Bureau please give back a smiling face to her. Thank you, Deputy President.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, some people say that the degree of attention a government attaches to its people is demonstrated by how much resources it is prepared to inject in projects which apparently produce no return. Some simple examples are projects in health care, education, welfare and elderly care services, etc. It is easy enough to inject resources in projects which produce returns. The Government merely needs to quantify everything in terms of money or profit and introduce projects which will surely produce profit but not loss. Certainly, sometimes accidents do happen, e.g. in the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") project which we have no idea how the problems will be resolved. On the other hand, it seems to be invariably hard for the Government to introduce projects which will produce no return or step up its efforts on introducing such projects. These are problem areas which the Government wishes to avoid. Hong Kong has become such a pathetic city under Carrie LAM's administration.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

The Government finally agreed to withdraw its decision and suspend the policy of deducting $200 of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") payment from CSSA recipients aged 60 to 64 who do not participate in the Integrated Employment Assistance Programme for Self-reliance only after the elderly persons knelt down and begged for it. Frontline health care personnel were overstretched to the point of death and they begged the Government which then magnanimously provided an additional funding of $500 million to them, but actually it was not a prompt remedy to solve their imminent problems. Besides, it seems that some senior management staff in the public health care sector are unwise enough to request health care personnel to take group photos and ask medical officers to attend national studies classes. I would suggest that these senior management staff attend courses on public sentiments to understand what they are like at present. 6396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

What is the current situation of education in Hong Kong? In fact, there has not been much improvement. At the time of reunification, the recurrent expenditure on education in Hong Kong accounted for 25% of the total expenditure, but this percentage dropped to 20.4% in 2018-2019 and last year, the recurrent expenditure on education only accounted for about 3.3% of our Gross Domestic Product. Certainly, 3.3% may look a lot, but according to the information of the United Nations Development Programme, the percentage of 3.3% is far lower than the average range of 4.6% to 5.3% for High Human Development Country or Very High Human Development Country, or even the average of 3.8% for Low Human Development Country.

Certainly, the Government can continue to deceive itself and the others. In the section of Regional Education & Training Hub of the web page of Hong Kong's Advantages in the Hong Kong Asia's World City website, it says, "With few natural resources, Hong Kong's greatest attribute is its well-educated … people … nurtured through high-quality education and training". It is true that the Government can continue to feel good about itself. It can ignore the problems of education in Hong Kong and the fact that parents and students are pressurized by the education system to the point of insanity, and it can continue to boast about Hong Kong. Nevertheless, certain issues will not disappear just by ignoring them. The motion moved by Ms Starry LEE has given us the very chance to relay the views of parents and students to public officers on this occasion. Certainly, I understand that the Secretary, having been promoted from the position of Under Secretary, would have frequent contacts with parents, students and even representatives of schools. I hope that the Secretary will remain humble and listen to the views of Members because education can give people the chance of moving out of poverty and up the social ladder and it is a very important foundation.

I would express our support for the original motion on behalf of the Civic Party, but regarding its proposal to introduce international curriculum in subsidized schools, the Civic Party thinks that careful studies should be conducted first. Besides, I also hope that Ms Starry LEE can elucidate later whether the point on increasing subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities is a typographical error. Why do I say so? The reason is that at present, most of the subsidized top-up places are for the third year in universities. Since the original motion cannot be revised, I hope Ms Starry LEE can elucidate on that point. Mr IP Kin-yuen deleted that proposal in his amendment, which is a way to resolve the problem. In addition, I must also make it clear that the Civic Party support the proposal to increase subsidized top-up places for the third year in universities. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6397

My amendment mainly adds four points to the original motion, including achieving full implementation of genuine free kindergarten education. The Government introduced the Free Quality Kindergarten Education Scheme in 2017-2018. Although it would appear that we have free kindergarten education now, full fee remission is only available in half-day kindergartens, while different levels of fee remission are available in whole-day and long whole-day kindergartens. Certainly, the Secretary for Education has explained that it is because dual-income parents have more financial resources. However, I hope the Secretary can understand that some parents have no choice but to work. Does it really mean that they can certainly afford to pay more? Not necessarily. In relation to providing 15-year free education, the Secretary for Education should not consider that he has completed the work when he has actually only done half of it. I hope he can fully implement genuine free kindergarten education as soon as possible.

Furthermore, I hope that small-class teaching can be fully implemented. If my memory serves me right, Ms Audrey EU, founder of the Civic Party, began advocating small-class teaching a long time ago, but the proposal has not been implemented even now. In fact, since the number of student intakes in primary schools has started to drop in these two years, the Government should grasp the opportunity to gradually implement small-class teaching. It should not wait till the schools are experiencing a bleak winter in student intakes before making decisions to reduce the number of classes, close down schools and reduce the number of teachers, etc. The Government should not wait until the last minute before taking actions to cope with situations. Such an approach will actually make principals and teachers work under an insecure job climate which will eventually make students suffer. If teachers can make long-term planning and know how to make good planning, students will benefit in the end. In addition, the Civic Party thinks that small-class teaching will not only solve the problem of an excessive number of teachers in some schools, it will also reduce the pressure on teachers so that they can effectively take care of the needs of individual students and enable students to receive a proper education.

Regarding the proposal of assisting students to pay interests for their student loan debt, I believe the Secretary would have heard about it repeatedly for years. I believe every Member would have colleagues in his or her office who have to pay student loan debt. We are very fortunate that this group of people are willing to join the political arena or the political circle, but fresh graduates may easily have accumulated student loan debts over the years to an amount over 6398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

$100,000. According to a survey, 29.8%, i.e. almost one third of the interviewees indicated that they would have to bear a student loan debt of $50,000 after graduation. About 25% said that their student loan debt would be in the range of $50,000 to $110,000. More than 30% said that they had to bear student loan debt of $110,000 to $150,000 and nearly 15.1% said that their student loan debt would be $200,000 to $320,000. Furthermore, as high as 23.9% of the interviewees said that they could only repay their loans in full in 14 years or more. President, the situation is shocking and that is similar to repaying mortgage loans. Among the interviewees, 28.8% said that they had to repay their loans within a period of 10 to 13 years. In other words, this group of young graduates aged 20 or so face not only an uncertain future but also a student loan debt amounting to as high as a few hundreds of thousands of dollars although they will be earning an average monthly salary of $14,000 only. When on earth can they repay their loans in full? Hence, the Civic Party proposes that the Government should assist students currently bearing student loan debt by repaying the interests of the loan so as to alleviate the debt pressure on students. We are not suggesting that the Government should pay the principals of the loans; we are only hoping to alleviate the pressure of repaying interests on the students.

Certainly, we hope to assist non-Chinese speaking students in learning Chinese too. Although the Government has gradually formulated policies in assisting non-Chinese speaking students to integrate into the local education system, the actual situation is still less than desirable. At present, many competent non-Chinese speaking students cannot be admitted to programmes in local universities because they failed to achieve the requisite results in Chinese Language. Many more non-Chinese speaking students cannot continue with their studies in secondary or primary schools or are hampered in their studies because of difficulties in learning Chinese. To cater for the needs of this disadvantaged group of students, I hope the Government will introduce comprehensive and standing measures to alleviate the pressure on this group of students.

Despite the huge financial surpluses recorded in the past 10 years, the Government has not fully utilized its fiscal reserves to formulate long-term or sustainable education policies. In the long term, the Civic Party considers that the Government should gradually increase its recurrent expenditure on education to the level of members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, rectify the current problems of its education policies and provide support through good policies to alleviate the pressure on teachers, students and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6399 parents. If this Government would handle problems in education with the determination and speed with which it deals with building the artificial island, I believe all Hong Kong people would be more than grateful to the Secretary and the Government.

I so submit.

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, I would like to extend my gratitude to Ms Starry LEE for moving the motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents" today and to Members who proposed amendments. Education has always been an issue of concern among Members. The speeches delivered by the nine Members clearly set out the concern of Members over Hong Kong's education, as well as their views on the issues and phenomena facing the education sector, from different perspectives. Members and the Government share a common objective to provide quality education for our young people and to groom them into talents who can contribute to society. I will first explain the Government's stance towards today's motion.

It has always been the Government's goal in education to provide diversified and quality education. We have been continuously optimizing―my use of the word "optimizing" may displease Ms MO―both the secondary and primary curricula and committing resources to training teachers and improving the quality of education. In recent years, we promote life-wide learning and STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education, both as means to develop students' creative thinking and to help them cultivate diversified interests and abilities to foster their whole-person development and shape them into talents of ability and integrity.

We offer a diversified curriculum which places equal emphasis on the five domains of education that caters to the various needs of students to equip them with the necessary knowledge, attitude and skills to facilitate whole-person development. This is complemented by a variety of teaching strategies to offer out-of-class learning sessions and life-wide learning activities to broaden students' horizons and enrich their learning experiences.

Different regions and countries have different features in their education systems. Their curricula and teaching and assessment systems are built on factors relating to their educational development as well as sociocultural, 6400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 economic and geographical contexts. In the case of Hong Kong, we put an emphasis on biliteracy and trilingualism while encouraging students to learn more about Chinese history and Chinese culture, and these priorities are set in the light of the needs of Hong Kong. To tie in with the global trend of education, we have introduced timely improvements to the curriculum, including the promotion of STEM education to bring about more diversified and innovative modes of learning. As a matter of fact, Hong Kong's quality of education has received recognition internationally. Hong Kong's students have excelled in various areas, with many achieving outstanding results in international competitions. It can therefore be seen that the education and curriculum of our schools are by no means inferior to those of other places.

Apart from having a curriculum with characteristic, on the policy level, we boast a diversified education system that caters for the needs of different student groups and offers different options for parents and students. There are also private and direct subsidy schools that offer non-local curriculum, and parents can enrol their children in these schools to suit their children's learning needs.

As the case in many Asian regions, Hong Kong's education system has always been criticized as being too stressful. This is a topic that should be discussed by the entire community. We must understand that young people must learn to face and cope with stress from different sources―such as examinations, further studies and interpersonal relationships―during their development. We hope that they can convert the stress into positive motivation. This is part of the process of development. We need to counsel students on how to handle stress positively. Some members of society easily blame the education system or public examinations for putting stress on students. I recognize that studying is an important part of the student life, and that over-drilling and an exam-oriented culture are, needless to say, not good and should be changed. However, social culture, popular view on achievement and parents' attitude and expectations are also potential sources of stress in young people. We must take into account more perspectives in sorting out the crux of the problem, and help young people relieve stress and face challenges in a positive manner.

We must, therefore, emphasize value education as a key component of the curriculum to prepare for students to face challenges in life. We do not believe that students who opt for international schools or overseas public examinations are completely free from the pressure of examinations.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6401

With the implementation of the New Senior Secondary Academic Structure, the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination has replaced the two selective public examinations that we used to have. From our perspective, this has reduced the number of examinations for students and the stress on them. Ms Starry LEE mentioned earlier that the "life or death" of students is now entirely dependent on one examination. In my opinion, this issue should be further discussed by the community. The Government has also promoted "assessment for learning" and has updated the guidelines on homework and tests to require schools to be flexible in designing assignments and avoid mechanical over-drilling, in order to allow students more room to explore their interests and strengths. The changes were well received by the academic sector.

President, we have strived to provide diversified and quality education to students and to continuously upgrade our curriculum and enhance the quality of teaching. I will be listening very carefully to the views of Members and give an overall response after listening to Members' speeches.

Thank you, President.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, in his speech just now, the Secretary said that Hong Kong's education system and programmes had been improved continuously and he encouraged students to foster an innovative mindset. It is a shame, however, that parents, teachers and even students always think that Hong Kong upholds a "spoon-feeding" teaching system under which students are required to bury their heads in books instead of being trained to have critical thinking. With overemphasis on their academic performance, students are constantly faced with cut-throat competition, which just turns off their motive to learn. Due to the ever increasing burden, there have been a series of disasters of students committing suicide. Anyone will find it hardly convincing if you say those incidents have nothing to do with the education system.

I very much agree with Mr IP Kin-yuen, who proposes in his amendment reviewing and improving the curriculum of public sector schools in Hong Kong. I think that other than reducing the drills on examinations questions, it is more important to review the present university admission system and employment system, and provide students with different options rather than solely demand young people to sit for the open examinations and enrol in universities, making them think that it is the only way out, which I think is wrong.

6402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

President, Members have visited Germany to observe their education system. Germany makes great efforts to cultivate students' motivation for learning, giving the same emphasis on academic and vocational training. In Germany, students are channeled into different education programmes and study paths according to their talents. Students can choose going to university or to receiving vocational training according purely to their abilities and interests. Graduates from both kinds of institutions have the same standing.

It will make a big difference if the Government can do its best to ensure that all schools provide an equal opportunity for all students to receive education. At present, the families of many students are faced with great financial pressure. They can ill afford the high living expenses. In 2017, there were 177 000 impoverished students and the poverty rate reached 17.5%. Many students suffer from intergenerational poverty. Under such circumstances, it is certainly very important to implement diversified education. If no financial subsidies are provided for students or their parents, however, they are required to bear the various expenses on their own. It will be a heavy burden that they can hardly bear. No students should be deprived of the opportunity to learn and receive training owing to the lack of means. The Government should provide more assistance for impoverished students and their families in this regard lest the well-being of students will be sacrificed as a result of economic development.

While promoting diversified education, the Government should provide sufficient education subsidies for grass-roots students to ensure that they will not receive fewer education resources than others because of their lack of means. Many colleagues have said that it is necessary to increase whole-day and long whole-day kindergarten places and provide full subsidies to reduce the burden on dual-income parents. As open examination fees are very high, the Government should consider providing remission of examination fees for school candidates sitting for open examinations to relieve their parents of this kind of financial pressure. The Government should also relax the upper limit of the means test for the Student Financial Assistance Schemes. Some Members have also asked whether the interests of student loans can be waived to avoid grass-roots students running deeply in debt because of the heavy financial burden of education once they graduate from the college or university.

Moreover, I also want to talk about students with special learning needs. Integrated education is extremely poorly implemented, which can be considered a failure. The governments of many countries or places, such as Taiwan, have legislated to provide a comprehensive barrier-free education for all students with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6403 special learning needs. They also set down specific provisions stipulating the qualification of special education teachers and the funding requirements. Those governments have taken the initiative to reform their education system to give such students more opportunities to receive education that meets their needs.

How about Hong Kong? We have followed up on the situation of students with special learning needs for over a decade. I can see that the Government has indeed made progress and taken on board some of the public views but it is a shame that its efforts are far from adequate. I do not have time to speak much on this topic but I hope the Government will provide more support for such students so that their development will not be hindered owing to the lack of means or support in other areas. As a matter of fact, to take care of the students with special learning needs, the best way is for the Government to set up more child assessment centres. At present, the primary burden to identify children with such problems is laid on teachers but very often teachers lack the professional knowledge to do so. Hence, I hope the Government will pay more attention to this issue.

On the other hand, President, we have advocated bilingual education in oral and sign languages for some time but unfortunately it seems that the Government has done very little about that … Currently, only 0.7% deaf children can make their way to university. Is that because they are less competent and hence few of them can enter the university? That is absolutely not true. It is only that they do not have the same learning opportunities as normal children during their primary and secondary school years. Their chance to go to university is thus reduced. Will the Government improve the education in this respect and take on board the public's view to provide bilingual education in sign and oral languages so that deaf children's opportunity to receive higher education will not be deprived?

Most importantly, I hope to see an end to the tragedies of school children committing suicide caused by the "spoon-feeding" education. President, I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the motion proposed by Ms Starry LEE is titled "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents", to which I do not think anyone in this Council will object. But how do we diversify education? Is diversification alone sufficient to solve the problems? 6404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Within the current education framework in Hong Kong, there are many schools, including public schools, private schools, international schools, schools under the Direct Subsidy Scheme and the Gifted Education School Network Initiative, and also schools adopting the activity approach. As for curricula, mainstream schools teach STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects as mentioned in the motion. Everyone agrees that the education system and curricula in Hong Kong must be diversified.

What I wish to discuss today is, however, whether the implementation of diversified education can address the predicament faced by the students and education sector in Hong Kong now. The motion puts forward six proposals, to which I agree basically. But I think one very important point is missing, which is, not only parents but teachers, designers of the examination questions and even the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") also need to be educated. Why?

My two sons were educated in mainstream public secondary schools in Hong Kong. With the education allowances provided by the university where I teach, many of my colleagues send their children to international schools but I sent my two sons to mainstream schools in Hong Kong. They both underwent the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA") and the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination like most students in Hong Kong. The secondary school my son went to, which is a very good one, required all Form 1 students to take the examination on Fine Art, in which half of the students failed. From then on, my son, who was very fond of fine art during his primary school years, never wanted to draw again.

What is an examination? Why do we worship examinations? Here I have a picture captured from the Internet whose title is "Embrace Examinations? No way". But why do many people still embrace examinations? I finally learned the answer. Recently I attended a dinner held by HKEAA. I seldom went to this kind of activity but I always dealt with people from HKEAA. I seldom talked about the subject of Fine Art before today but I have mentioned the Liberal Studies subject ("LS") and TSA time and again before. Mr IP Kin-yuen has repeatedly mentioned TSA just now. Everyone in this Council opines that TSA should be abolished because many schools drill their students on its questions. I also believe that TSA should not be made compulsory for all Primary 3 but there is nothing wrong with TSA itself. It was only after the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6405 purpose of TSA was twisted when things began to go wrong. My sons participated in the first and second term of TSA. At that time, they were not drilled but now, 10 years later, their young school-mates are drilled.

What about LS? We finally got LS after a long fight but I was highly disappointed with the result because the assessment method of students' performance in this subject could not break away from the traditional examination pattern of the subjects like Chinese, English, Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry. Not only so, LS is also a compulsory subject for examination and there are also compulsory questions in the examination paper. Why are there compulsory questions? I found the answer finally. Some teachers told me that without compulsory questions, it was feared that students would not take the subject seriously; neither would the schools. In that case, there will not be such a high-sounding and huge teaching team to maintain the present status of the subject. They are greatly concerned about this and hence they have to make sure that the examination will go on and there must also be compulsory questions. I do not mind having compulsory questions for the subjects of Chinese, English and the like as I was a science student during matriculation. But is it necessary for LS and Fine Art subjects to have compulsory questions in their examination papers? But then a subject appears prominent if it is a subject for examination and consequently it can help many people keep their jobs. Is it so?

Why did Mr IP Kin-yuen talk only about TSA but not LS? Has it anything to do with the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union ("HKPTU") that he represents? I have time and again argued with HKPTU about the issue of LS and it once published a front-page statement berating me for criticizing LS. I kept thinking why he supported compulsory questions in the LS examination and he did not dare to propose any changes to it. That is because he represents the majority of LS teachers who think that if the compulsory questions are abolished, they will lose the feeling of being considered important. If so, HKEAA is duty-bound to do something about it. I once talked to some HKEAA staff about this and they said the teachers who designed the examination paper insisted that nothing was to be changed concerning the compulsory question. In the end we compromised. We are not asking to abolish LS but can we not even adjust the compulsory questions? Why is there such a double standard? Why the examination on LS must be conducted this way?

My sons did well in the LS examination. I can even consider that they did excellently because they had two professors at home. Those who have no one to tutor them at home can only rely on tutorial schools which provide large numbers 6406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 of textbooks and constantly speculate on the questions to be asked in the examination. What would students trained by these schools become? We expected that students would have pleasure in studying LS but LS has now turned into a monster which cannot be abolished. Nor can the examination questions be changed, either. How can it train people to think out of the box like that? Are the designers of the questions also restrained by the framework too? Are they square minded?

Only the stakeholders in charge of teaching have been consulted, but have students been asked whether they would have more pleasure studying the subject if there are no compulsory questions? If they are allowed to choose, will they choose the areas they like? What do parents and employers think about the people they now recruit? Now the students admitted to universities are those who have been trained by means of LS. How many of them are elites? I have great doubt about it. Why deprive students of the right to choose subjects? With the existence of compulsory questions, science students have to spend a great amount of time on studying LS because only then can it reflect the prominence of LS. Why can they not relax the grip a little? Apart from parents and students, should teachers and the designers of the examination papers be educated too? Should the Secretary for Education and his team be educated as well?

I think that change must be made immediately. After 10 years, harm has been done to a few generations of students. In another three years, if change is still not made, harm will be made to another generation of secondary students. I am afraid that even after we retire, we will still feel sorry for this.

President, I think the examination system has to be changed and we can no longer embrace examinations. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG, please stop your speech.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, I am grateful to Ms Starry LEE for moving this importation motion. Ms Starry LEE has given in detail the reasons behind the proposal for more subsidized schools to adopt an appropriate amount of International Baccalaureate ("IB") courses as alternative options for parents and students, which I will not repeat here. What I wish to say is that many parents and students say to me fairly regularly that studying in Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6407 is very stressful and that, most importantly, students are unhappy, uninterested and unmotivated in learning. Therefore, middle-class parents who can afford it would either find ways to send their children abroad for junior secondary education or enrol their children in IB programmes. Whether we acknowledge it or not, IB programmes are in demand among Hong Kong parents. It is important that an alternative should be offered to students needing a more pleasant learning environment.

President, I would like to focus my discussion on the second point in Ms Starry LEE's motion, which proposes to expand the scope of STEM education with the inclusion of elements of arts and artificial intelligence ("AI"), and to allocate additional resources to schools for training teachers, supporting learning and promoting the relevant education.

President, I have on more than one occasion suggested that technology creates the future, and the future will be significantly shaped by technology. I am gravely worried and concerned about whether the younger generation and children nowadays will become competitive enough in the future international arena. The whole world is learning about innovation and technology and making STEM education compulsory, which is still optional for Hong Kong students. South Korea has brought coding into early childhood education, but Hong Kong has no such plan at present. While other universities are placing emphasis on nurturing multi-faceted talents by engaging students from all subjects to learn about innovation and technology―and vice versa―those of Hong Kong are lagging behind the trend.

We often say that we hope to foster an interest in learning among students and to shape them into self-directed learners. As long as they have the motivation to learn, they will pursue and seek knowledge on their own without being forced and without the need for rote learning. The use of technology and STEM education will help students find interest in learning, and make learning more enjoyable, voluntary and easier for them. In fact, most schools that have adopted a STEM curriculum are still embracing coding tools. The Education Bureau should work to better integrate STEM education into the traditional curriculum, which it has never done to date. In fact, some publishers have combined their teaching materials on coding for the General Studies curriculum into those for other subjects. In view of this, the Education Bureau should give more thoughts to the concept of STEM+ … examples being STEM for English, STEM for Chinese, STEM for History and STEM for Music. In fact, the 6408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 integration of STEM into different subjects can encourage self-directed learning and spark students' interest in learning. In regard to teaching materials, I suggest that the sector, universities and publishers be encouraged to work together in devising a STEM Education certification programme for schools that will drive further development of STEM education in Hong Kong to address the inadequacy of learning materials.

A more important priority is to push forward AI education. I frequently visit schools and I recently watched a robotics contest. The contest has been running for over a decade between Hong Kong, Guangdong and Macao. According to the organizer, Hong Kong students used to be unmatched, but nowadays they have been outmatched. The study of robotic mechanics is a very important and interesting aspect of STEM education. I recall the Secretary once asking whether artificial intelligence will make its way into the mainstream, and whether great efforts should be undertaken in equipping students with AI knowledge. I would like to tell the Secretary that education is conventionally thought of as the passing on, acquisition and testing of knowledge. The knowledge stocked in the brain is conducive to but also restraining students' curiosity and imagination.

Therefore, the acquisition of knowledge should be a self-directed, proactive and lifelong pursuit. Today's education should equip students with the ability to acquire knowledge, to make the decisions and to innovate. We should focus on cultivating students rather than on examinations and, therefore, we should make it a priority to cultivate students' appreciation, judgment-making and thinking skills. Education has stepped up to a new level, from the passing on of knowledge, invention of tools and understanding and changing the objective world to perceiving and reshaping the human brain. The challenge posed by AI to education affects more than a single subject or profession; it is a challenge about cultivating the ability of oneself in lifelong learning. We all know that AI development has allowed for large-scale deep learning by computers with super computing power using vast quantities of big data. As a matter of fact, robots are undoubtedly better at rote learning and dealing with a large number of examinations than humans. Students should not be made into exam machines, as robots can do a better job at this. In the future, many jobs will be taken over by AI. What is important is that we will be prone to displacement unless we start equipping our students to take on tasks that cannot be done by robots. That is why STEM and AI education need to be made compulsory in the curriculum in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6409 future. We should include STEM and AI education within the compulsory curriculum, along with Chinese, English and Mathematics. Secretary, please enlighten me why these subjects are not as important as Liberal Studies.

President, I so submit.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, today's motion is titled "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents". One of the points I am more concerned about is the expansion of the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and artificial intelligence ("AI").

As mentioned in the original motion, the purpose of implementing diversified education is to cater for the development of an innovative and knowledge-based society. Hong Kong has been actively developing cultural and creative industries in recent years. In the decade between 2006 and 2016, the gross product of these industries grew at an average rate of 6.7% annually and the number of people employed in the industries rose from 177 000 to 212 000, representing 5.6% of the total employment. Cultural and creative industries have become a very important area in which young people want to find work and develop their career. In the environment of globalization and economic restructure, arts education that emphasizes culture and creativity will have a profound and significant impact on education system itself, the development of arts and culture, and even on the entire community.

On the other hand, given the rapid advancement of AI, it is forecast that by 2025 the total market value of AI in the world will reach US$600 billion and automation driven by AI will make up over 20% of the entire labour force. AI has been widely used in the commercial, industrial and financial sectors, providing productivity in a supplementary manner. It can be foreseen that some human jobs will be taken over by machines. It is not a fantasy as it is becoming a reality. We must equip our next generation with the knowledge as early as possible, preparing them for the next industrial revolution brought by AI.

President, in expanding the scope of STEM education with the inclusion of certain elements in the curriculum, we will have to make appropriate adjustments and take into account the students' acceptability. The promotion of STEM education in primary and secondary schools does not mean that students' studies in other areas can be reduced. The inclusion of arts in STEM education will turn 6410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

STEM into STEAM, and adding research, as suggested, will turn it into STREAM. When more items are added, without an overall adjustment of students' workload, it will only put more weight on their already heavy burden. In the end, good intentions will bring disastrous results as students are tired out.

Colleagues may recall watching a television interview in which a parent excitedly gave a detailed account of the dozen or so interest classes that her son went to, but her son standing by her side could only put on a wry smile. I believe this parent might think that she was giving her son diversified education but it might not have done any good to the child. In addition to curriculum reform and policy adjustment, parents' understanding and support are also very important for implementing diversified education.

President, as regards relieving the pressure on students, many of the proposals put forward by the original motion and amendments are worth our support. The results of the Programme for International Student Assessment in 2015 showed that Hong Kong students' total score was the second highest among those of 71 chosen places, next to that of Singapore only. But in terms of life satisfaction, Hong Kong students ranked third from the bottom, slightly higher than that of South Korea and Turkey but much lower than the other countries and places that had provided the relevant data. I remember watching a Singaporean movie titled I Not Stupid over 10 years ago which mocked how the education system in Singapore stifled its students. But the Ministry of Education of Singapore has introduced a series of reforms in recent years. For example, some subjects used to take the marks of students into account but they no longer consider students' marks or grades. The mid-term examinations of some subjects have been gradually eliminated. Schools are instructed not to hold more than one assessment examination for one subject in one term. Schools are encouraged to use different ways, such as group reports, quizzes and project learning, to assess students' performance.

The Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA") aroused heated disputes among the public a few years ago. Finally, starting from 2018, the SAR Government only samples 10% of students from each primary school for TSA. To improve the policy, the authorities have converted the new TSA into an anonymous assessment and the result will only be considered by the Bureau. I think it is necessary to assess the academic standards of students. The present arrangement not only responses to the public's demand for reducing the drilling of students by schools but also reveals students' overall academic standards, which, I think, should continue. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6411

Apart from school examinations, open examinations are another source of pressure on students. In the past, students were subject to three major examinations, namely the Secondary School Entrance Examination, the Hong Kong Certificate of Education Examination and the Matriculation Examination. Under the New Senior Secondary academic structure, students are subject to one open examination only but the pressure they face does not seem to have alleviated. As the saying "One's life being determined by one examination" goes, whether students have the opportunity to receive university education is determined by one single examination.

About university education, 59 000 students sat for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination last year and 21 000 of them met the "3-3-2-2" minimum entry requirements of universities. Although there were only about 14 000 places in subsidized undergraduate programmes available for application through the Joint University Programmes Admissions System, there were also 8 000 first-year undergraduate places available in self-financing tertiary institutions, totalling to at least 22 000 places. With the exclusion of students who chose to further their studies abroad or in the Mainland, these places were sufficient to absorb all candidates who met the minimum entry requirements of universities in theory. Hence, I do not consider increasing the number of subsidized university places the only way to increase the students' chance to further their studies. The Government should consider how to develop subsidized and self-financing places in parallel, which will play different roles in meeting students' needs.

President, today's motion debate is on implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students. Most of the proposals put forward by colleagues are worth our support. However, I worry that conflicts would arise if we do not handle it carefully. It will add to students' burdens and the pressure of learning faced by them will not be reduced but will increase instead. I am not able to respond to each of many important proposals put forward today. I merely hope to bring out some discussion on how to improve the education policy and some essential points for consideration.

I so submit.

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, today's original motion and the eight amendments thereto are related to education policies covering a wide range of areas and issues. As it is not easy to target all of them in our 6412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 discussion, I will only focus on responding to a few points. The Liberal Party agrees that it is necessary to alleviate the pressure on students and parents, particularly the need to squarely address the prevalent trend in society that parents put excessive pressure on their children over academic achievements. In October last year, during the debate on the Policy Address, the Liberal Party boldly put forward a suggestion to the Chief Executive, urging the Government to replace the score-based grading system of all secondary and primary schools in Hong Kong with grade-based assessment, which seeks to eliminate the undesirable practice of parents comparing scores, so as to create an atmosphere emphasizing that "learning is more than scoring". In fact, there used to be a discussion on whether to use only the "pass"/"fail" grading, but we considered this too radical. However, in the long run, this can alleviate the pressure on students and lower the ever-increasing expectation of parents, who want their children to score 90 points after getting 89, and score 100 after getting 99.

After all, while there is not any fast track to changing the society's culture of learning, it is necessary for us to take one more step at all levels and in all areas as far as practicable. However, this does not mean that we have to go to another extreme by scraping the objective assessment system. At present, as in the past, the Liberal Party has reservations about the suggestion to scrap the Primary 3 Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"). The original intent of TSA was to collect data on the differences in the education level of Hong Kong primary students, which will help us better understand the learning ability of students, thereby formulating teaching strategies. In fact, I have been reiterating that the problem lies not in the TSA system itself, but in the authorities which have failed to fulfil their duties and dealt with low-scoring schools with the wrong method.

While I am not 100% certain, as far as I understand it, the authorities have treated those schools with academically weak students in a way like beating them with a wooden stick. The authorities will only hold those schools responsible rather than sending support teams to help them. Consequently, in order to avoid further deterioration of their students' academic performance which will discourage parents from enrolling their children therein, those schools will keep drilling their students, distorting the original intent of the whole policy. I do not understand why the authorities cannot take it easy on schools with academically weak students. To help those schools with low academic achievement, the authorities should in fact allocate additional resources and send support teams to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6413 help their teachers and students so that they will not worry about their school being closed down and will instead welcome assessments by the authorities more readily.

It is precisely due to this policy's original intent that I see no reason to scrap the Primary 3 assessment. If no assessment is conducted at Primary 3, it will be impossible to gauge the level of students. In that case, how can improvement in teaching and learning be made in the next three years? Students will be poised to leave their school after Primary 6. What will be the use if assessment is conducted at that time? Although it has been suggested that schools can participate in the assessment on a voluntary basis, the students who will join voluntarily will likely be those who are academically strong. Then, the assessment will end up being virtually useless.

The original motion has stated that the authorities should encourage more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum to give parents and students more choices. In fact, I made a similar suggestion already a few years ago. Back then, after I had noticed a short supply of school places of international schools, I suggested that the Government consider allowing local schools to operate new classes, by drawing reference from overseas practice of combining international and local curricula, in premises vacated as a result of the cutting of classes, thereby offering another channel for studying international curriculum.

Of course, I understand the practical difficulties in implementing this proposal because the fees for international curriculum are hardly on the low side, and incumbent frontline teachers of subsidized schools who lack experience in teaching international curriculum will not be capable of taking up the relevant teaching duties. Hence, the Liberal Party considers it necessary to give more careful consideration to the proposal before its implementation, or it will only end up being counter-productive. I would also like to briefly mention the school of which I am part of the management. The school decided to offer IB (International Baccalaureate) programmes more than 10 years ago. As I understand it, the programmes have been operated for almost a decade, but over the years we have been running a loss because it is very difficult to recruit teachers (especially foreign teachers) for teaching the programmes, making it difficult to attain a breakeven.

6414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Another focal point of the original motion is to implement diversified education, which is undeniably justified. However, it is essential to consider thoroughly and adopt a step-by-step approach in order to avoid a repeat of the education reform in 2000 which had ended up triggering more grievances.

To cope with the world trend, the Liberal Party supports enriching the content of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education, and even introducing STEAM by adding the Art subject to STEM for whole-person development. However, enriching the content of the relevant education should not be limited to simply adding an additional subject. It should involve more multi-disciplinary and cross-domain knowledge, with an emphasis on integration and interplay among the subjects. This proposal involves the addition of teaching staff, stepping up teacher training and support, coordination of more education-related activities, etc. Therefore, only with the availability of resources can the proposal be realized.

Another important point which the Liberal Party would like to raise is the need for Hong Kong to step up vocational education to provide students with different career paths. Hence, we do not oppose scraping associate degree programmes. However, we consider it necessary for the authorities to divert the resources to stepping up the development of vocational and professional education and training. It has been learnt that the authorities have, in the light of industries with keen manpower demands, subsidized students to take full-time self-financing locally accredited degree programmes on specified subjects. However, the Liberal Party is of the view that the authorities may consider including more laboratory-based programmes to meet market demand and promote STEM education. Meanwhile, the authorities must strengthen the vocational positioning of high diploma, increase opportunities for internship and retraining, and optimize curriculum, with a view to raising graduates' competitiveness in the market.

In my view, the authorities should expeditiously rectify the situation by introducing pre-primary education vouchers to subsidize middle-class parents to enrol their young children in private independent kindergartens. The voucher scheme is desirable in that parents can make decision on the allocation of resources by bringing market forces into play, and private independent kindergartens can be incentivized to raise education quality.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6415

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, I must first express my gratitude for Ms Starry LEE's original motion and the amendments proposed by eight Members.

President, students and education are important aspects in the process of social development. I think that Hong Kong's future depends on the education of the younger generation and the flows of talents. The Government has indeed made much effort and devoted considerable resources in education, yet Hong Kong's education has not gained much competitive edge from that. What exactly is the problem? Large-scale tutorial schools are excessively popular. Almost every senior secondary student whom I know have enrolled in these schools. It is precisely owing to Hong Kong's examination-oriented education system that secondary and primary schools have tailored their lessons around examination content, which is what has given rise to a "teaching-to-the-test" education. The examination-oriented education system, as what we often say, is a source of stress on students. With this, I reiterate my call for an overall review of the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination to introduce new or remove existing compulsory subjects to alleviate the pressure on students.

The current problems in education have stemmed not only from the pressure from exams, but also from the long-standing, one-way teaching, which deterred students from exploring their interests and strengths at school age, resulting in students who are only good at exams after completing the six-year secondary curriculum. Nowadays, our society needs people who are more than being able to learn by rote and pass exams, but also capable of resolving problems on their own. The Education Bureau frequently talks about promoting whole-person development and life-wide learning, but such statements are merely arbitrary and have proved to be ineffective despite years of advocacy. Such empty talks have all along been criticized by schools and the education sector.

President, while society is ever-changing, Hong Kong's notion of education is still stuck in the last century. Traditional modes of education and training can no longer cater for the needs of various sectors in the present day. Improvements are required and the promotion of diversification of education is necessary.

President, why are international schools so attractive among various strata of society? As far as my observation goes, apart from the quality of their teaching staff and their use of English as the teaching medium, the more obvious 6416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 attraction is their curriculum. Contrary to the spoon-fed education in Hong Kong, the Western model of education adopts a more proactive, flexible and interactive approach to learning. According to many research findings, the Western model is relatively more successful and can serve as a useful reference for Hong Kong. I therefore agree with Ms Starry LEE that we should draw on and pilot an appropriate international curriculum mode of education in local subsidized schools. A core component of an international curriculum is to foster creativity and innovation by giving students a higher degree of autonomy in participating in different group and hands-on activities, so as to cultivate students' ability to think independently and innovate on their own, which is precisely what is missing in our education at present.

Also, I know that the Council and various sectors of the community are very concerned about Liberal Studies. To me, it is time for a review of the Liberal Studies curriculum to examine whether it is truly capable of achieving what the Education Bureau intended, which is to "broaden students' knowledge base and horizons" so that they can make connections with and integrate the knowledge across different disciplines. I would like to give an example. When Typhoon Mangkhut hit Hong Kong, many students were only concerned about its impact on public administration and the media. Did they consider the situation with all-round thinking, such as about the astronomical causes of the typhoon, ways to maintain the agriculture and fisheries industries, or the impact of the typhoon on trees? That does not seem to be the case to me. With respect to this, I wish to ask colleagues of the Education Bureau to give serious thoughts to the issue of Liberal Studies while taking the different perspectives of various stakeholders into consideration.

On the other hand, English is one of the official languages in Hong Kong but the English standard of local people has been declining recently when compared to that of other Asian countries and regions. EF Education, an educational institute, indicated in its English Profiency Index 2018 that Hong Kong is outmatched by Singapore, Philippines, Malaysia and even by India, ranking merely 5th in Asia, which has substantially weakened its competitive strength as an international financial centre and tourist destination. For this reason, I agree that English language education should be strengthened.

President, another point I raised is that the future depends on the education of the younger generation and the flows of talents. Earlier on, I watched a news feature by NOW and Radio Television Hong Kong on the topic of talents. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6417 present education system in Hong Kong is unsatisfactory and has directly affected the flow of talents. Many professionals from overseas have complained that they find it very hard to enrol their children in international schools, and that their children are unable to adapt to the teaching and learning styles at subsidized schools. Many expatriate friends of mine frequently tell me that when they were in Singapore, they would consider sending their children to local schools instead of international schools; in Hong Kong, however, the articulation arrangements with foreign education and quality of education at local schools is unsatisfactory. What can they do? They have no choice but to send their children to international schools. This is another indication that the overall education system in Hong Kong have not been able to converge with international standards. I hope that the Secretary can review the situation again.

President, knowledge can change one's fate. I think the Administration should formulate its policies according to public needs. It should not push forward and reform its education policies obstinately. Instead, it should allow time for schools, teachers and parents to adapt to the changes. Through this motion, I hope to call on the Government to expeditiously review the problems brought by the spoon-fed education and to expedite the implementation of specific measures to establish diversified education so that a better learning environment for our younger generation can be recreated.

President, I sincerely hope that the Secretary for Education will listen to public opinions and further improve our education system. President, I so submit.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE moved the motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents" today. I consider it slightly ironic for the motion to be proposed by the pro-establishment camp.

To my understanding, diversified education has all along comprised three elements. First, has the education system in the past respected and safeguarded critical thinking? Critical thinking refers to the ideological emancipation of individuals. To put it more simply, critical thinking can ensure that students are given leeway to challenge their superiors. Traditionally, scientific development has always involved a history of using hypotheses and empirical tests continuously to refute previous wrong concepts. Then, one may ask if 6418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 ideological emancipation means that people can do whatever they want. Of course not. What is meant here is the ideological emancipation of methodology. Whether it be in pedagogy or education, the method which has been upheld for years is indeed the scientific outlook on positivism.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

The scientific outlook on positivism stresses two points: first, be practical and realistic. We often have to verify our current shortcomings through objective observation and hypothesis. However, the second point is especially important. We are confronted with the vastness of science, as well as unlimited and boundless knowledge of the universe. Therefore, as an individual, whether we are a teacher, a student, a parent, a manager or the Chief Executive, we have to remain humble because knowledge is unlimited and boundless.

Simply put, diversified education must comprise three elements. On the spirit of teaching, it stresses critical thinking. On the method of teaching, it stresses the scientific outlook on teaching. And third, on the attitude of teaching, it stresses the need to maintain a humble or modest attitude in front of knowledge. These three points are very specific, representing the most important three elements in the entire modern history of teaching.

On the other hand, when it comes to the reality of Hong Kong, frankly speaking, the implementation of diversified education and some other suggestions have been made in the past few years, such as STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education or subsequent proposals on science, technological innovation, etc. I actually have some reservations about them.

In short, under the current political and social circumstances in Hong Kong, I urge the Government to leave the education sector alone. It would be sufficient if the government could maintain a relatively stable education environment for education practitioners, teachers, principals and students. They have done too much in the past 20 years.

Deputy President, what is the current state of the development of mother-tongue teaching? The Chinese and English proficiencies of students of this generation have worsened because of mother-tongue teaching. As a result LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6419 of a management mentality introduced under school-based management, the administrative workload of teachers has been increased and quantity has been emphasized in the assessment of cost effectiveness, resulting in negligence in fostering a people-centred school atmosphere on campus. Third, the controversy over national education has never ended so far, and the guidelines on national education have continued to spark controversy. In fact, as national education may have already permeated into tens of thousands of textbooks and have become part of the compulsory curriculum of the History subject, etc., the controversy will never end. Fourth, the authorities have not yet conducted a review on any statistics or policies on using Putonghua as a medium of instruction for teaching the Chinese Language subject. The Government has only used the Fish Traders' School as an example. The school has already experienced four major policy changes of the Education Bureau. At present, even this pro-establishment school, which has been most obedient to the Government, is also on the verge of being closed down. Deputy President, do you find this very ludicrous? Of course. This has been the adverse result created by the system. The problem lies not in the teachers or students of that school, but in the frequent changes of the Government's education policies. The Government will definitely reach a dead end if it continues to direct education with a political mindset.

Therefore, I urge everyone in the Government to show mercy and spare the education sector. It has been suggested that the Government stop saying anything but simply approve funding allocation. Do you find this suggestion outrageous? We may ask teachers and parents if it is enough just for the Government to approve funding allocation. Yesterday, we met with dozens of principals, including principals of secondary schools in 5 of the 18 districts. All they requested was that the Government leaves them alone. From the perspective of students and educators, it is indeed really unnecessary for the Government to intervene in school affairs. Of course, the Government will find this view unacceptable and will intervene anyway. Then, how should the Government intervene? Deputy President, the current education problem in Hong Kong concerns the prospects and hope of Hong Kong as a whole. At present, the educators find it most heart-breaking that many quality students who have high potential are leaving Hong Kong because of the general circumstances. That is the case for universities, secondary schools and even primary schools. I would like to ask Honourable Members: How many friends of yours will leave Hong Kong in the next two years because of the political environment? Of course, the problem with Hong Kong's future is one of the reasons.

6420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

What is the crux of the current problem? Looking back, Hong Kong used to have a very sound education system in the 1960s and 1970s, having trained such talents as Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong. Regrettably, he has been criticized by members of the community as "intelligent waste" and "intellectual scum". Deputy President, his Intelligence Quotient exceeds 160; he has received good education and has served the social welfare sector and the Government; and he has also worked at the Commission on Poverty for years. As such a veteran in power, he should understand the hardship of the grass roots in reality, shouldn't he? Under the education system, current students are asking this question: What is the purpose of studying so hard? If students are fortunate enough to have the opportunity to become someone like Dr LAW Chi-kwong―I do not mean Secretary YEUNG―in the future, who thinks too highly of himself, considers himself to be correct, upholds the wishes of senior officials and maintains an elitist attitude (The buzzer sounded) … therefore, we should …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, your speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.

It is inevitable for Members to use sharp rhetoric in debates. That said, I do not consider describing an official or a Member as "scum" to be parliamentary language indeed.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I was just relaying the view of a member of the public who had described him as "intellectual scum".

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I do not consider "scum" to be parliamentary language. Please withdraw the word.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, whenever we debate educational issues, I will certainly recall what my sons and I have painfully experienced. It was a vivid case in point that showed exactly the pressure on students and parents. When they were young, I, like many other parents, believed that they would have no future if they did not perform well academically. It was perfectly normal for me to have this mindset, for members of the community then generally upheld the belief that "everything else is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6421 low-grade; only study is above all." We all firmly believed that study was the only way to move upward, and hence I decided to be a Tiger Dad pushing my sons to study, thus placing heavy pressure on them.

In fact, both of my sons attended traditional schools. Initially their academic results were mediocre, and they attended private tutorial lessons after school. But when they had finished such lessons and came home, I would further tutor them. As a result, they took great pains to attend all such lessons. None of us had any rest time as such tutorial lessons often lasted until 11:00 pm or 12:00 pm when we were truly worn out. After a painful period of time, their academic results were still not as desirable, and we all felt drained. In the end, one of my sons went abroad and surprisingly became fond of studying. He believed that his school was so good that he refused my request when I asked him to come back to Hong Kong. He liked studying in the United States and was ultimately admitted to a desirable university. My other son later attended a private school. He was happy as during the first two years in that school, he did not need to sit any exams and was only required to do some more reading.

In fact, I have shared my experience to tell Members that under the circumstances nowadays, good academic results or exam results are no longer the only way to succeed. On the other hand, the pressures of study we often refer to are caused not only by exams, but also by parents and society in many cases. My personal experience has shown that it is pointless for us to create the pressures of study by ourselves. For this reason, I very much agree with the motion of Deputy President Starry LEE today. We need to alleviate the pressures of exams while advocating diversified education.

A duty of parents is to observe, discover and develop talents and interests in their children. If children do things they like, they will naturally achieve good results. Some 5% to 10% of students in Hong Kong study actively without any parental supervision, and they are often top test scorers year after year. They account for only several percentage points of the total, while some 80% to 90% of students have no liking for study. Children are different in terms of talents and interests, and thus we should perform our duty as parents to discover and develop their interests. For example, if a child likes drawing, the best teacher should be identified to give him drawing lessons. If a child likes singing, he should be taught to sing.

6422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

In this day and age, many among our generation should have the means to take care of ourselves, and our children, despite being successful, may not take care of us. As such, when we perform our duty as parents, a priority is to make them happy regardless of whether they will succeed in the future. While it is often claimed that one can hardly sustain a living if he engages in painting and drawing, I think that jobs in society will be diversified in the future. Many people will pursue work-life balance, and thus it may not be that there are no prospects for painting and drawing. The most important thing is whether you can succeed in what you do, or whether you are at the top of your profession. You will earn much more money if you are top-notch, but you can still sustain a living even if you are not. Poor academic results of your children are not a matter of concern. The most important thing is that they know where their interests lie. It is instead a matter of concern to us that some children aged 16 or 17 still do not know what they should pursue.

I think determination is very important. If our children make a decision as early as possible, they will study actively and be more likely to succeed in the future. For example, a child who witnesses a sick family member may determine to be a doctor. A child who feels social injustice may determine to be a social worker. When children have made their decision, parents can leave them to their own devices. They can thus do things that make them happy and succeed. In fact, I do not want to talk too much today, but I hope parents will understand that academic excellence is not the only way to succeed, and thus poor academic results of their children are not a problem. The most important thing is to discover their interests and accompany them more.

In addition, if children are still at a young age, parents had better not let them play electronic games or use "electronic teats". Children can be calmed at meal time if they are allowed to use a mobile phone, but this will do them a lot of harm. Those who are addicted to electronic products will not be interested in reading, and their mental development or future education will be adversely affected. Thus parents should not allow their children to use electronic products as far as possible. When children grow older, they can be taken to a library to read any books. If they are good at both Chinese and English, will they encounter any difficulty in reading? As such, pushing a child to attend private tutorial sessions is by no means beneficial. My speech will be very meaningful if my message is well received today. Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6423

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): First of all, I hope the Secretary will listen attentively to fellow Members' opinions today. In fact, I believe that everyone has an expectation on you, and think that you will definitely do a better job than Eddie NG. Therefore, everyone is even more hopeful that you will listen to the matters of concern we raise here at this Council. At present, schools, parents and students are all under great pressure. Students of this generation really suffer. Does it mean one will lose his admission ticket for the pursuit of dreams if his academic performance is poor? All along, I think it should not be so.

I am grateful that I can pursue my dreams. I have been to different schools to share my own story. Sometimes, we have to recollect the way in which our childhood was passed. Was it fully packed with crazy drillings, homework, or the breathless feeling?

I trust the Secretary notices that an organization has conducted a survey and found that 51.5% of the responding students show symptoms of depression at different levels. This is a very big warning signal for us to understand how we may achieve "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents" proclaimed in the motion today.

If you ask me, I would first talk about how to avoid students having too much drilling. Certainly, this requires the Bureau's assistance. For instance, there have all along been controversies on the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"). The issues on whether TSA should be resumed or whether it can be abolished have already been discussed for many times in previous debates.

Today, I would like to specifically talk about several issues of my recent concern. First, many people talk about "diversified education"; yet, what is meant by being diversified? I believe that in being diversified, one of the points is to let students go out of the classroom. In my opinion, this relates to animals. Everyone knows that I care so much about animal rights. Whenever I mention animal rights, I would immediately think that there have been voices about whether animal protection could be formally included into school curriculum. However, instead of rote learning, this is to be achieved by getting in touch with different animals, thereby teaching children from their childhood that all lives are precious in the same way, and it is essential to protect animals. There are some successful examples abroad in this regard. Everyone knows that if a person has 6424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 in his childhood started beating animals, he has a higher chance of committing a more serious crime when he grows up. All these have been illustrated in overseas reports of criminology.

Can Hong Kong give a try to let students go out of the classroom for more contacts with animals in some organizations of animal rescue? Such an arrangement can at least allow students foster a benign disposition since their childhood. The benign nature is already with them; yet is it possible to let them feel more about kindness through a means beyond textbooks? I certainly hope the school may formally include animal affairs into curriculum to teach students that life is precious, so that they will not beat or torture animals, with the feeling of animals in mind.

Second, I have recently received some speech therapists' requests for help. I believe the Secretary is aware of this, too. Owing to a benevolent measure of the Government, speech therapists providing service to schools have the opportunity to be included into the system. Nevertheless, there are opinions which consider otherwise. They think that the inclusion of speech therapists into the system means that they will be attached to schools. Does it mean that a choice is taken away from schools? Some schools may wish to continue hiring speech therapists in private practice for services.

In fact, if the speech therapists hired by schools are veterans possessing rich experience and capable of providing quality services, they can benefit service users. Please bear in mind that apart from teaching pronunciation, speech therapists also have duties such as treating patients with swallowing difficulties. They have been working at schools for 10-odd years already. Can the authorities be a bit lenient after all? There are now voices of the sector saying they are worried about an "across-the-board" arrangement with which schools will directly hire their speech therapists for services thereafter. To the speech therapy sector, which has a relatively better environment to survive, such an arrangement may cause it to wither. I hope the Secretary will consider this and allow schools to have the right to choose.

Third, as some colleagues just pointed out and I also mentioned, apart from parents and students, school principals also suffer from pressure. Recently, we met with many school principals. In Hong Kong, there are five school districts with under-enrolment, thus causing much worries of some school principals, particularly when the Education Bureau might have the chance to introduce the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6425

"place reinstating" policy this year. Would the authorities please pay particular attention to the situation before promoting place reinstatement or in the course of it? There might not necessarily be so many students in each of all 18 districts across the territory. In the past, when we faced the low birth rate, schools were requested to cut the number of students for achieving better teaching quality. The teachers would not be so stressful while students could also receive better care. While these five districts will be facing the problem of under-enrolment ahead, the school principals all hope that the Bureau can promote the "district-oriented" policy. Can the authorities be a bit lenient rather than so rigid, i.e. to increase the number of school places immediately with the "across-the-board" approach, when facing a particular district with fewer students? In case that a certain district has especially more students, very high birth rate, or even a large population of school-aged children, will the authorities apply special treatment to let the schools under such conditions have the room to survive?

I trust the Secretary has already been well-prepared beforehand for these subjects today. I would like to particularly remind everyone here because we have indeed some rather broad subjects today. Nevertheless, Deputy President, I think there is no departure from the essence despite all the variations, so we have to examine the current policies to see how many things were done overly, whether the overdone can be reduced or omitted, and whether students' pressure can be alleviated after the reduction or omission.

I recalled a movie titled Big Brother, which was on several months ago. Secretary, would you please watch it when you have time. The director of this movie has talked with me. The content of this movie is about an experienced teacher, played by Donnie YEN, who was very naughty in his childhood but becomes a teacher when he grows up. The students he teaches are being recognized as very naughty and mischievous ones who have no interest in study in an environment that takes academic results as everything. This teacher explains to them that it does not matter if the results are poor because the testimonial of one's life is not a record of just scores; instead, it counts whether one is of a benign nature and has perseverance in his dreams.

I wish to send a message to my fellow colleagues in this Chamber today, i.e. let us think whether we have done anything overly, which can be reduced or omitted. If there is anything that can let us do a better job, just add it in. After all, students of this generation suffer too badly, and so do the parents. Under 6426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 such circumstances, can our Government be a bit more caring and formulate some human-based policies? As least, I am convinced that the government official who formulate policies are themselves parents of their children. They cannot formulate better education policies unless they put themselves in others' shoes to understand the situation.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to first thank you for moving this motion. You have moved this motion, but now you are sitting on the seat of the President. I wonder whether this will be a problem. Fortunately, however, this is not a debate involving any criticisms against you, or else there will be some trouble.

Being a student in Hong Kong nowadays is no different from being a slave. Study time accounts for a majority of a student's time. According to a study of the Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat in 2018, in a five-day school week alone, the total study time could add up to about 50 hours on average. If the time spent on homework and private tutoring on the weekend was broadly similar to that on school days, weekly study time for an average student in primary and secondary education could be around 55 hours per week. This is worse than working. The International Labour Organization advises a worker to work an average of 40 hours per week only. A student attends classes in the day, goes to private tutoring after school, does homework at home, and possibly spends the rest of his time on interest classes. He is basically deprived of his time to even rest and play.

The system of Hong Kong means endless exams and tests, and students constantly participate in drilling for better academic results. According to a survey conducted by the academics from the University of Hong Kong in 2016, in order to "win at the starting line", it has become a trend for secondary and primary school students to attend private tutorial classes. The tutoring coverage ratio was some 60% for students in Primary 4 in 2016, and some 54% for Secondary 3 and 72% for Secondary 6. According to a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union in 2018, 54% of the students surveyed had an average of seven or more homework assignments every day.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6427

In order to cope with exams and tests, many schoolchildren in Hong Kong spend a lot of time on private tutoring and homework assignments, and such pressure affects their mental health. According to statistics on student suicides released by the Hong Kong Jockey Club Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention of the University of Hong Kong last year, we realize that suicide rates among students are on the rise. In 2016, the suicide rate among the cohort of 15 and 24 years of age was 8.1, meaning that 8.1 among 100 000 students committed suicide, an increase of 76% compared with 4.6 in 2012. According to the findings under the Programme for International Student Assessment ("PISA") conducted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the score of Hong Kong students in life satisfaction was extremely low. Among 50 regions that participated in PISA, Hong Kong was ranked third from the last place, or at the 48th place, just higher than Turkey and South Korea.

As students need to attend private tutoring after schooling hours, some 58% of teenagers in Hong Kong suffer from sleep deprivation, and the daily average sleeping time of students is below the recommendation made by the medical profession, thus adversely affecting their health conditions. Errors have been identified on various fronts. The utilitarian thinking of the Government in terms of education has produced the disastrous effect today. In 2002, the Education Bureau had recommended in a guideline that daily writing homework should not exceed 30 minutes for lower primary school students, with similar time ceiling of 60 minutes for upper primary school students. However, the Education Bureau removed these upper limits in the revised guidelines in 2015, on the ground that "since the modes of homework have become more diversified, it is difficult to set the maximum amount of homework for schools". In other words, the Education Bureau takes the lead in requiring students to do more homework.

The Bureau had pointed out that following the conversion of bi-sessional schooling into whole-day schooling at primary schools, primary school students should finish most of their assignments during tutorial sessions so that they would be able to engage in extra-curricular activities at home. Subsequently, however, tutorial sessions have often been used for teaching and drilling. Last month, a parent organization even released an investigation report stating that only one seventh of some 2 000 parents said that the schools of their children had put in place tutorial sessions.

Another problem is the excessive reliance on exams as indicators of value for money. Most primary schools give two tests and two exams each year, and a 6428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 small number of them even give three each year. These exams do not include the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA") or the Basic Competency Assessment Research Study ("BCA") held once every three years. Although the Education Bureau earlier simplified TSA or BCA by selecting only one tenth of primary school students in Hong Kong to participate in the assessment, it welcomed schools to arrange all their Primary 3 students to participate in it on a voluntary basis. As a result, 230 primary schools, or around half of all primary schools in Hong Kong, ultimately indicated that they would arrange full participation.

Let me give the following pieces of advice. In the case of Toronto, Canada, the daily amount of time spent on homework should be one hour or less for students in Grade 7 to 8 (namely Secondary 1 to 2 in Hong Kong); and two hours or less for Grade 9 to 12 (namely Secondary 3 to 6 in Hong Kong). Moreover, homework should not be assigned on "scheduled holidays as outlined in the school year calendar or on days of significance". In addition, I also request the abolition of TSA or BCA. Under the influence of Hong Kong's highly distorted education policy and exam culture, no assessment in any form can possibly be free from the incentive to drill, and thus the most direct approach is to abolish it. Furthermore, a fundamental solution to the problem is to increase the number of university and articulation places, and explore more pathways for students, so that they will not desperately seek to receive private tutoring with the hope for admission to a university. In fact, some 70 000 people in Hong Kong sit the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination each year, but only 18% of them are admitted to a university. I hope that the relevant authorities can implement the various policies I mentioned just now. (The buzzer sounded)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, your speaking time is up.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have watched a short film which criticizes our education system. Let us look at this picture I am holding up. The past five decades have seen a lot of changes. Today we have cars as a means of transport, when 50 years ago we were using horse-drawn carriages and rickshaws in Hong Kong. The phones we use today are vastly different from those we had 50 years ago. We can see how technology has evolved and how the society has changed. However, the delivery modes at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6429 schools today are almost the same as those of 50 years ago. As times have changed, certain systems are also in need of changes. In my opinion, therefore, the motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents" proposed by Ms Starry LEE deserves our earnest support.

Members may think, just as some parents often ask: Is today's education system adequate? Should we introduce the IB curriculum? The IB curriculum is the International Baccalaureate curriculum or the curriculum used by international schools. We should take into account different circumstances and students of different ages in making decisions, instead of making generalizations. Hong Kong's present education system is generally considered a form of spoon-feeding and traditional education. I am also aware that a number of schools in Hong Kong have switched to the more flexible IB curriculum. In the conventional education system, teachers are responsible for providing guidance, while students only have to absorb the knowledge taught. The IB curriculum, on the other hand, is a more flexible and inspiring curriculum. I think spoon-feeding in primary schools definitely has its merits. Back in university, I used to specialize in child psychology. I understand that the development of brain cells in children is basically complete at the age of three, and their blank brain is capable of absorbing large amounts of fundamental knowledge. Therefore, we should provide foundational education in language, history and mathematics to primary students, in order to equip them with a good foundation that will enable them to analyse, think and associate as they grow up and gain more exposure to the world. I therefore support the adoption of a conventional education system at the primary school level.

Under the existing conventional education system, however, students are spending too much time in the classroom. Parents would drop off their children at school at 8:00 am and pick them up to go home at 4:00 pm, let them have some bread and milk, and then make them do their homework. How can they get a chance to learn the things that are not taught in school? Therefore, Members and I hope that the Government will consider a "no-homework" policy, not a "no-assignment" policy but a "no-homework" policy. For example, students can be allowed to stay in school until 5:00 pm. When they go home, the mother can teach them to draw, while the father can show them how to fix a radio, a mobile phone or a computer. In this way, parents and children can enjoy some family time. In my opinion, students should not be given assignments to be handed in on the next day. They should get their assignments done in school and go home without homework.

6430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

As for the secondary level, we should consider gradually switching entirely to the more flexible educational approach adopted by international schools. Secondary school students would have a lot to think about after completing their foundational education. For example, international schools would have students learn how to run a business and complete a three-month project, where they learn how to become a baker and how to run a bakery. In my opinion, this is an excellent pedagogical approach where students are being guided to realize that doing business is not easy and that there is a chance of loss. Such a pedagogical approach also helps students develop their potential. Nowadays, many students go to university without an idea of what they want to do, which leads to feelings of uncertainty and sadness. It is really miserable not to know what you want to do in your future. Providing life planning education at the secondary level is very important for students to be exposed to society at an early age and learn what they want to do in future.

I so submit.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Dear colleagues and government officials, today Ms Starry LEE has proposed a motion debate on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents". First of all, I would like to point out that the character "緩" in the title should be pronounced as "玩(wun6)" but now people generally pronounce it as "援(wun4)" but its proper pronunciation should be wun6. But nowadays many people do not care too much about such pronunciations. I wonder what the Secretary thinks. I just wish to take this opportunity to give everyone a lesson, "One Character A Day", just to relieve the pressure.

When it comes to relieving pressure, when I revisited the contents of Ms Starry LEE's motion, I cannot find any suggestions on students' homework but today many Members have spoken about the problem of homework. Homework is indeed troubling our young friends and it puts great pressure on primary pupils in particular. We must address this issue. Recently I read on the Internet a report on the homework assigned by a school to its students for the Lunar New Year holidays. It only required students to read books and gave them some reading guidance but did not require them to copy or write anything. Everyone felt that it was a good assignment as it could help students take the initiative to learn and parents could encourage their children to read. After reading a book, they needed to discuss it but they were not required to do a pile of exercises. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6431

Pressure certainly arises from examinations. Ms Starry LEE has mentioned the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination in the motion today but I think a more important source is the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA") for primary pupils, which does not seem to have been mentioned in the original motion. In the past few years, we have put forward many views and criticisms. Although the TSA questions are easier than before, and it is emphasized that students and schools remain anonymous, no report is released and only 10% of Primary 3 ("P3") pupils are chosen to participate in the assessment but schools can still choose to have all P3 pupils participate in it. As the majority of government schools choose to have all P3 pupils participate in TSA, it creates an invisible pressure on other schools. Consequently, many schools choose to have all P3 pupils participate in TSA and TSA still exerts an invisible pressure on schools and pupils. In order to have better performance, schools will directly or indirectly drill their pupils.

Moreover, as the kinds of secondary schools that its Primary 6 ("P6") pupils have entered will affect the reputation of a primary school, many primary schools still put great pressure on their pupils by giving them plenty of homework, hoping that they will go to better secondary schools. As a result, a child's six-year primary school life which should be filled with happiness is now full of toil and pressure. In fact, homework and unnecessary examinations should be avoided at far as possible. Getting constantly ready for examination can indeed help primary pupils develop better adaptability and it may even enhance their reading ability and skills.

Some international surveys have found that the reading attainment scores of Hong Kong's primary pupils rank first but I care more about their mentality. If they read just for the sake of examinations, or just to satisfy their schools and parents' demand, then once they finish reading or the examination is over, they will put down the books and never touch them again. According to international surveys, the rating of Hong Kong students' engagement in reading ranks almost last in the whole world. The lack of engagement in reading affects pupils not only during their primary school years but also their whole life. Members and government officials, do you have a reading habit? I have and I always bring a book with me, be it a printed book or an electronic one, because I find great pleasure in reading. I always visit bookstores when I have time. If we cannot help pupils cultivate such an interest and they read only for the sake of writing examinations, I feel that it is a big failure on our part.

6432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

In respect of examinations, I would like to share with everyone my experience. I wonder if anyone has nightmares about examinations up till today, like oversleeping on the day of examination, not being able to find the examination venue or having prepared the wrong subjects. I still have such dreams occasionally, perhaps once a year. What is the reason for that? That is because I was under too much pressure from examinations years before. It has sunken deep into my subconsciousness and pops up occasionally in the form of nightmares. We certainly hope that our next generation will not follow our steps in this way. If they are subject to such great pressure, they will still have nightmares about examinations even when they grow up.

Moreover, I want to point out that the Government has the resources to let more students enrol in universities and spare them from such hardships. The number of university places has long been far lower than the number of students qualified for university admission. The Government, who possesses a financial reserve worth thousands of billions of dollars, is well capable of substantially increasing public spending to subsidize more undergraduate places so as to allow more candidates qualified for university admission to enrol in public-subsidized undergraduate degree programmes. I moved a motion in the Panel on Education earlier to request the Government to increase university places to at least 20 000 so that all candidates meeting minimum entrance requirements for university admission can enrol in universities, and the motion was passed. However, to the Government, it is certainly not its top priority of measures to be implemented because should it have money, it will definitely spend the money on land reclamation rather than increasing university places. That is why even though Members' motions are passed, they will only fall on the Government's deaf ear.

That said, I thought no one would oppose my motion but the fact is when I posted it online, some people objected it. Some netizens queried if the increase in universities places would benefit Mainland students. I felt that I was seriously wronged but I could not do much about it. I have to clarify it on behalf of the Government that public-subsidized places are not available to Mainland students and they can only enrol in self-financing degree programmes. People may not be too clear about this. But perhaps having seen many Mainland students enrol in Hong Kong's universities in recent years, people might query if that would thin out the resources of the institutions. They also complain about the crowdedness of the libraries and feel that the teaching qualities are lowered because instructors have to teach more students, and there may even be disputes LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6433 about the media of instruction. Actually, universities can accommodate many students, including those from the Mainland, but if the resources are limited, there needs to be a control over it. But I believe the problem is not about resources but whether the Government is willing to address the issue.

I still hope that the Government will accept Members' recommendation to increase university places so as to reduce the pressure of examination on secondary students. Hence, their future will not be determined by one single examination (The buzzer sounded) … which will affect their future.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, your speaking time is up.

MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the scope of our discussion today which concerns education is surely very wide. I would like to focus my speech on parental education. What are the reasons for that? As we all know, although schools and teachers are certainly important in the education of children, the attitude of parents also plays a key role. I noticed that Mr CHAN Kin-por mentioned earlier that he initially acted as a "tiger dad" in educating his two sons. After his two sons returned home from a tuition class, he would give them extra tuition, but their results were just so-so. Later on, Mr CHAN changed the learning mode of his two sons and even sent them overseas to pursue their studies, and the situation changed drastically. From this example, we can see that apart from the education system, the attitude and practices of parents are also crucial.

Is parental education in Hong Kong good or not? From a casual search on the Internet for information or activities of parental education in Hong Kong, I have noticed that it consists mainly of talks, talks and talks; and all of the activities are dogmatic. I will not say that they are one-way lectures, but communication through talks is very boring and it is hard to promote interaction or identification from the attendants. More importantly, parents are very often not allowed to bring their children to these talks. As many parents cannot leave their children alone at home, they have to find someone else to take care of their children before they can attend the talks. This has prevented many interested parents from attending talks on parental education.

6434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Deputy President, last Sunday, my family of four was luckily invited to watch a musical suitable for the whole family on how to cherish our children. The musical was produced by an experienced drama director, Mr Samson YEUNG and his wife. It was shown in the civic centre of our district and that was the first time I watched it. The musical was very interesting and it was centred on the main theme of Peter Pan, which is every child's favourite. Certainly, the actors and actresses performed very well and the characters were funny and entertaining. We kept hearing laughter from parents and children in the theatre and upon reaching home after the musical, my two daughters told me that they would like to watch a sequel of the musical. Activities like this are very good for the whole family and they give our children a chance to have a break.

Deputy President, the musical is not only impressive, it also has a profound meaning and it makes parents learn and review on their situation. Let me reveal an incident in the musical about hot Korean noodles. The story is about a father and his daughter. The father is successful in his career and the daughter is a girl suffering from dyslexia. The rich dad will not acknowledge that his daughter has any problem. Whenever the daughter cannot recognize a word, he will immediately scold her and say that she is lazy, not concentrated and making no effort to remember the word. Another parent, a compassionate friend, was indignant about all these and decided to teach the rich dad a lesson. The friend threw a packet of hot noodles with Korean words on the package to the rich dad and asked him to immediately read out the Korean words. As the rich dad did not know the language, he certainly could not do so. The compassionate friend immediately scolded the rich dad for being lazy and failing to concentrate and make an effort to remember the words. What actually is the story telling us? It is saying that very often, when we have not learnt something, and particularly when a child has not learnt something, it does not necessarily mean that the child is lazy, fails to concentrate or makes no effort to remember. In fact, there may be other problems. However, parents often use the above mentioned comments to criticize children without addressing the problems they encounter.

The love of parents for their children should not be linked to whether the children are outstanding. The rich dad has insisted that his daughter does not have a problem and he tries to evade the problem that his daughter is suffering from dyslexia. Then, one day, the daughter demonstrated her talents in a mathematics competition and was commended by many. The rich dad felt happy and pleased, and he said to the others, "Although my daughter is suffering from dyslexia, she is very strong in mathematics". At this juncture, the daughter LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6435 burst into tears and said, "Dad, would you admit that I have a problem in reading and writing only if I am strong in mathematics and you wouldn't if I am not?" That is a fundamental mistake which we parents often make inadvertently. This musical brings out experiences with which parents can identify and makes us understand the importance of parental education.

Deputy President, in the remaining time, I would like to talk about the views of Members of this Council on education or the performance of Members. During the session on oral questions of the meeting of the Legislative Council yesterday, there was one on Primary 3 Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"). I pressed the "Request to Speak" button, but in the end, I could not ask the Secretary a supplementary question. However, I would like to give a fair comment here. I noticed that yesterday, Mr IP Kin-yuen severely criticized the Secretary for Education for deviating from the past practice and refused or was unwilling to disclose the number of schools which have applied for TSA. I noticed that Mr IP made the criticism even though the Secretary had given the clear explanation that in fact, after the review on TSA last year in 2018, TSA was conducted without recording the names of the students and the schools. No reports would be received and the assessment was conducted by means of random sampling. The schools would directly contact the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority. As the process would not involve the Education Bureau, the Secretary for Education did not have the figures concerned.

Mr IP severely criticized the Secretary for not providing the figures and even said that the Secretary had contravened the Basic Law in failing to give an account to the Legislative Council. I think such criticisms are unfair. I remember that in the past, Members said that the problem with TSA was that the Education Bureau often required schools to provide it with figures, thus imposing pressure on schools. However, the Member criticized the Secretary yesterday and said that it was wrong for him not to obtain the figures. In fact, the Secretary will lose no matter whether he has obtained the figures or not. Why? If the Secretary has obtained and released the figures, the Member would say that the authorities have been collecting the figures secretly with the intention of imposing pressure on the schools. If the Secretary has not obtained the figures, the Member would say that the Secretary had contravened the Basic Law in not giving an account to the Legislative Council. Secretary, I can only say that in this coin-flipping game, if the "head" is out, Mr IP wins; and if the "tail" is out, you lose. Deputy President, I so submit.

6436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, while I am not well versed in education, one of my political mentors has said that education is the easiest, and also the most difficult topic for a discussion. Since all people have their own experience, they can simply talk about their personal experience. People who are not as non-filial as I am (without having any offspring) may simply review the growth experience of their children, which is already very good topic for a discussion on education. Meanwhile, education is also the most difficult topic for a discussion because it involves considerable technical knowledge or skills rarely known to ordinary parents, teachers and even Members. While commenting on education, we very often only know a little about the topic.

However, since a number of Honourable colleagues have talked about their own experience in their speech, please allow me to "teach a fish how to swim" by talking about my own experience or views on some situations. In particular, I just listened to Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan's speech, in which he talked about watching a musical with his daughters. In the last part of his speech, he accused a Member of unfairly criticizing the Secretary for Education for failing to provide data in relation to the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"). Why do we still have to use public money to subsidize those schools which have made their choice to have all of their students take part in TSA? The Government should also review this arrangement. Should the Government insist on implementing TSA, it should consider the feasibility of implementing it on a self-financing basis, which can even avoid any unwarranted accusations. I urge the Secretary to consider this suggestion. In terms of statistics, I think that the Secretary has already provided sound justifications.

Deputy President, let me come back to the education issue. First, I thank you for moving the motion because it involves a very significant issue. I will absolutely endorse any proposals which will offer more choices and diversified education to students, parents and society. In our society, there are way too few options but way too many stereotypes and standardizations. I could not help frowning after listening to some Members' amendments on formulating teaching guidelines and indicators. There are indeed too many guidelines and indicators in society. Increasing the leeway and choices for teaching and learning and promoting diversified education will always be more beneficial to the self-proclaimed free society of Hong Kong. In my view, if more local schools consider providing the option of incorporating some international school courses into their curriculum, Hong Kong will only be benefited, particularly in terms of the options of subjects and curricula available.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6437

In particular, we have noticed that a number of international schools have been organizing courses in Hong Kong for articulation to some courses in their own countries, e.g. Canada, Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Japan have also set up schools in Hong Kong to facilitate their nationals to articulate to higher education when they return to their country. However, due to various political reasons, there is so far not one international school for articulation to courses in Mainland China. Do we have to consider this point? Political issues aside, for the sake of fairness and providing more options, should schools be set up in Hong Kong for the children of Mainland employees coming to work here? After attending primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong, they should be allowed to articulate to higher education in the Mainland, shouldn't they? I consider it necessary for the authorities to consider this proposal.

Secondly, I would also like to share my personal experience. Just putting aside what I just said about me "teaching a fish to swim", I consider myself to be one of the lucky ones. During primary, secondary and tertiary education, I was able to study in schools offering relatively more options. I studied at the St. Francis of Assisi's English Primary School, which provided me with considerable space and learning opportunities in terms of facilities or culture. To me, my secondary school has been even more important. You may have heard of the so-called "Wah Yan spirit". I am fortunate enough to have graduated from Wah Yan College, Kowloon. The school has boasted football pitches, tennis courts and basketball courts which extremely few other schools can match. More importantly, the school was fairly liberal back then, providing students with a relaxing school environment and culture with a high degree of freedom. Many fathers regarded us as their good friends and would share their alcoholic drinks in the churches with us while we were underage. Of course, we only tasted a small amount of it. They would also allow us to take a ride on their motorcycles to get a feel of riding a motorcycle. Please do not mind if I sound a little more exaggerating. Some fathers would even encourage us to experience the feeling of contacting the opposite sex in Secondary 2 and Secondary 3. Such enlightenment and training had been extremely inspirational to us; and such experiences had been kept at an acceptable level. That school neither asked students to exercise excessive restraint nor forbid them from doing anything. Under the pressure from Chinese families, more students have not been allowed to choose or experience what they want to do more actively, innocently or freely. Such experiences have certainly been very important to my personal growth as a whole.

6438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Subsequently, I went to Australia for further studies. The experience I acquired there was even more important. Compared with the United Kingdom and the United States, Australia was a relatively old-fashioned place back then, but it was also very simple and very free, providing us with a lot of leeway. In terms of education, students are highly encouraged to make choices on their own initiative in Australia. All in all, what you see about me today has been a combination of my experiences in primary school, secondary school and university. I hope that I have not brought disgrace to my alma maters. In my view, I am certainly blessed to have acquired all those experiences. In contrast, more students who have grown up in Hong Kong families may not have such a blessing. As Members, we and the Government both hope that, given the restricted environment and limited resources of Hong Kong, our facilities, culture and system should not be restricted by so many rigid guidelines, and schools should be provided with more options to implement diversified education as far as practicable.

Regarding the various amendments, I have to express some views about Ms Claudia MO's amendment. She has often stressed this question: "Do you speak English?" I consider this a bit myopic indeed. Ten years from now, students and nationals of many countries will possibly ask if they can speak such Chinese languages as Cantonese and Putonghua. English is certainly important given that it is still the international language used in Mathematics and music. However, in the near future, the Chinese language may also become part of the international language. In this connection, I hope that people should refrain from having such a parochial perspective.

In another amendment related to TSA, Dr Fernando CHEUNG has proposed scrapping Primary 3 TSAs for all schools, and instead leaving the decision to participate or not entirely to the discretion of parents. I will not endorse the proposal because it may result in sampling bias in the overall assessment. I primarily have some opinions about these two amendments. I will vote in favour of other amendments. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after listening to the school life of Mr Paul TSE, I am a bit envy because when he could follow his school priests to proms to meet girls, all I remember is that "when I was 18, I stood in my alma mater's prom like a fool".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6439

Every one of us lives in a different environment and has different problems. In today's debate, one of the key points is whether a higher proportion of international curriculum should be introduced to secondary schools, and the Deputy President and Mr IP Kin-yuen have different views. In mine, it is certainly a good idea in education for the Government to provide diversified education so that students can have more opportunities and choices. However, we must watch out for the risk that our education may become industrialized. Where would this risk arise? Speaking of the examination systems available, the Deputy President has proposed in her motion that local schools should be subsidized to adopt different curricula so that students do not have to study in international schools or Direct Subsidy Scheme ("DSS") schools to opt for a particular examination system. I think this problem can be solved at the level of secondary schools.

At the same time, the problems with the Joint University Programmes Admissions System ("JUPAS") should also be addressed. While students may choose to take the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme ("IB"), Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination (A-Level) or any other examinations, they should consider their future paths after examination. For those who are so outstanding that they can further their studies in top universities in the United Kingdom and the United States, we will of course give congratulations to them. However, in some cases―I am not sure if it is the reason for the Deputy President to propose this motion―a student who is not a high-achiever in school may take the route of studying abroad before returning to Hong Kong for a top-up degree programme to be eligible for the application for Year-3 admission. This student may not necessarily have taken an undergraduate programme overseas. Nevertheless, as long as he can afford to study abroad to circumvent the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education ("DSE") Examination, he may later return to Hong Kong to further his study by, for example, taking an associate degree programme in Hong Kong.

We find that the education reform in the past few years has led to a problem, which is, the various study and career paths provided to students come at a cost. Even if a student only takes an associate degree programme, he will also be burdened by his student loans for a long time. Despite the provision of a range of publicly-funded programmes, will students be willing to pay a high price for a university place? Philosophically, the high price borne by students is a problem in education as it hinders redistribution in society and reduces social mobility. Where does this problem come from? In the past, when there were 6440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 only a limited number of DSS schools, all high-flyers in examination, be they rich or poor, would be funded by the Government to study in good schools and could hence move upwards in society. However, this is no longer the case. Students are required to pay a high price now.

As well-established schools have become DSS schools one after another, I would say that there are more than three bands in our school banding, with the fourth one being international schools. Many relatively well-off families no longer have trust in our local education system. They either arrange their children to study abroad or study in international schools. Consequently, the education ladder in Hong Kong is distorted. The JUPAS and non-JUPAS issue in undergraduate admission is a straw in the wind. While JUPAS is not the only route to enter university, DSE students who worked hard and did well in the local education system may find that some of their classmates in university, though not as bright as they were in secondary school, were admitted through another system. Therefore, when we review different possibilities, we must not forget that we should select the best and select the right students to go to the right schools.

To address the fundamental problem, the Government must increase university places. We have actually settled for the second best to request for additional Year 3 undergraduate places for articulation. Should there be sufficient undergraduate places, our students will be able to pursue their studies in Hong Kong. It is true that students can have different ways out, but they do not have trust in the local DSE system or the local education system. The public do not have trust in our systems either. Just now, Mr IP Kin-yuen used some strong words to comment on the motion moved by the Deputy President. It is not desirable to Hong Kong as a whole because social cohesion and solidarity will be greatly reduced.

Some Members have proposed many different amendments to today's motion. However, the fundamental issues are: firstly, there should be targeted solutions to the problems with DSE; secondly, the implementation of diversified education should not add burden to students and parents, thereby creating social unfairness.

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6441

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): First of all, I would like to thank Ms Starry LEE for moving this motion today. The original motion is worth supporting because it urges the Government to, among others, implement a diversified education approach to inspire students' creativity and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them, and eliminate the examination-oriented culture.

Speaking of education, everybody will have strong feelings because we have all been educated or have the experience of teaching our own children. Personally, I do not think Hong Kong is doing badly in education. A lot of school principals, teachers and teaching staff have contributed quietly over the years to our local education. As for students, they have excellent performance in various international competitions, such as mathematics or science competitions. Many large companies overseas also attach importance to the academic results of Hong Kong graduates in the selection of candidates, reflecting that Hong Kong's education system has kept abreast of the times.

However, every education system that has merits will have room for improvement. Regarding room for improvement, I think we will have lots of feelings. Take the culture of "tutor kings" for example. While parents are spending big for their children to have endless tuition and mock tests, hundreds of students are fixing their eyes on the monitor together to watch the tuition broadcast of the tutor kings. I think this culture is unique to Hong Kong. The culture of "examination for the sake of examination" has made many parents feel pressured.

I studied in Hong Kong until Form 3. When I studied abroad, my performance in Mathematics was particularly good in the first few years and I even managed to enter the elite class in Form 6. As I did pretty well in school throughout the years, I decided to take some Mathematics courses in university. However, things changed after I entered university. Many foreign classmates were catching up academically and, what was more, they were not examination-oriented like we were. There was a "spectacle" in examination that students from Hong Kong loved to make fun of. In foreign countries, students are allowed to bring along a piece of A4 paper to sit an examination of certain subjects. As we might write any Mathematics formulae on the paper, Hong Kong students would always fill up the paper with notes and read it with a magnifier. By contrast, foreign students would not bring any notes or papers to the examination hall. Yet, eventually, our results were more or less the same. This spectacle reflects that Hong Kong students are used to frequent drillings and 6442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 examinations. Having said that, I think there are some areas in our local education system that need to be improved. In my following discussion, I will mainly speak on homework pressure, examination pressure and the introduction of new curriculum.

Let us start with homework pressure. Homework which requires students to copy mechanically should be reduced. This view is shared by many parents and schools as students can then have more time to spend with their family. Having no homework does not mean learning nothing; playing can be a form of learning. On this issue, the Education Bureau often emphasizes that it is not something which can be changed at one stroke because different parents may have different preferences. Despite this, the Education Bureau finally took its first step last year. As far as I understand it, the Education Bureau made an appeal to all principals and parents in December, calling on them to make the Christmas holiday a joyful and smart holiday by replacing holiday homework with book reports. I hope the Secretary will later tell us about the outcomes and the number of schools which took a cue from the Bureau and reduced their homework accordingly. I would like to ask the Secretary to respond briefly.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Examination also puts much pressure on students. In November last year, the Report of the Task Force on Prevention of Youth Suicides to the Chief Executive was published to follow up on the implementation of recommendations of the Committee on Prevention of Student Suicides in 2016, review existing strategies and give new recommendations. Thirteen recommendations were made in the Report but, regrettably, they did not invite much discussion in the community. The Report made a clear conclusion in Chapter 4, entitled "Looking Ahead", that the "examination-oriented" culture must be changed. The Report also pointed out that the current practice of focusing primarily on examination results of the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education ("DSE") Examination in university admission should be changed. This point actually echoes with the view given by Ms Starry LEE at the beginning of the debate that various international curricula should be introduced.

Parents nowadays are quite helpless, in my view. I know many parents who want their children to study in a more relaxed manner and have more room for development. At present, some schools do allow students to have happy LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6443 learning. When the students get into Form 1 or Form 2, however, their parents will have to think of a question: After the good times of happy learning, do the bad times come? At the end of the day, these students will have to take the DSE examination like other students do. When these "happy learning" students are asked to compete with students who always burn the mid-night oil to receive endless tuition and take drilling courses, the former will certainly be at a disadvantage. It is also unfair to parents who are willing to treasure the time with their children. Therefore, I think there is room for discussion as to how to provide parents with more choices.

On the other hand, Secretary, some parents of students with special educational needs ("SEN") have recently told me that they know the Government has kindly allocated $800 million to support SEN students. I can feel their difficulties as if they were mine. I know many SEN students. Some of them may have mild autism but are talented in certain aspects. Yet, despite the availability of government subsidy, those who have satisfactory academic performance are still required to take the DSE examination before they can enter university. This arrangement is unfair to them. Therefore, I will give my support to the original motion today to urge for diversified education, providing parents with more choices and opening up the discussion.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, I would like to first thank Ms Starry LEE for moving a Members' motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents" to give me, a parent, an opportunity to reflect the true picture of this issue.

In fact, a feature of Hong Kong's current education system is that it puts pressure not only on students but also on parents. Where does the pressure come from? To some parents, the pressure comes from their wish to develop their children to reach their prime and win at the starting line. Apart from that, examination and homework is clearly another source of pressure. Examination and homework exert pressure on both students and parents. Many parents love to ask each other during chit-chat, with tongue in cheek, "Which year are you in?" Some may be repeating Primary 4 and some Primary 1. This phenomenon shows that it is not only children are studying; parents have to study with them too.

6444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Other than the two school examinations and two school tests every year in minimum, primary and secondary students in Hong Kong have to face countless dictations, book reports, and so on. On top of that, primary students are required to participate in the Territory-wide System Assessment every three years while secondary students have to face the "life-or-death" Diploma of Secondary Education Examination. The framework of the entire primary and secondary curriculum is made up of tests and examinations. No wonder there is a joke saying that Hong Kong has no education system but only examination system. That is quite true.

Worse still, between tests and examinations, students are pressured by homework endlessly. Therefore, I would like to focus my discussion on the homework issue. According to a number of previous surveys conducted in the community, students in Hong Kong spend two to three hours on homework every day after school. Taking into account their seven hours of school time each day, the time that they regularly spend on studying will add up to at least 10 hours per day, excluding the time for extra-curricular activities or interest classes taken outside school. Adding up all the time needed, we can imagine how stressful our students are. While adults may have time to play on our mobile phones or go online to relax, children may not even have time for television. I would say that they have a harder life than adults going to work. In the old days, students were often said to be the happiest people, but I doubt if this saying still holds true today.

Nowadays, homework is not simply a quantity issue. When we contact members of the public in district visits, many parents tell me their grievances. As I said earlier, a lot of parents are now repeating their primary or secondary education. Their children's homework is not only heavy in load but also difficult in nature. Parents who work as professionals are likely to find the homework difficult, not to mention the grassroots women.

It is nothing new that the heavy homework has put pressure on students. As early as 2017, there was a survey by a welfare organization showing that among some 1 000 responding primary students, 13.2% of them were so stressed that they fell into depression and 9.7% (i.e. close to 10%) were seriously depressed. Almost 25% of the students said that their pressure came mainly from homework, and that was completely understandable. Tons of homework has occupied all their time after school, persistently depriving them of rest. They are frustrated because they do not even have time to play. Yet, I must say that not only students are frustrated, parents are frustrated too. This is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6445 particularly true for parents in double income families. When both parents need to go out for work every day and come home at seven or eight o'clock at night, sometimes even later, they would like to have quality time with their children at home. The reality, however, is that we often need to check whether our children's homework is done properly and correct the mistakes with them. It turns out that we spend all our time on homework. Not only that we will have less time for rest, we do not have much family time at night either. Instead, we tend to find ourselves in conflict with our children because whenever there are any mistakes or omissions in their homework, or there is anything they do not understand, parents are likely to fall into conflicts with their children. I think this situation will affect parent-child relationship and family relationship.

Therefore, apart from "introduce[ing] a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices" and "reviewing the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination system to reduce unnecessary examination pressure on students", as proposed by Ms Starry LEE in the original motion, as well as "assisting students in commencing life planning education" and "implementing small-class teaching in primary and secondary schools across the board" as proposed in other amendments, I particularly hope that the authorities will seriously consider, encourage and actively promote the policy of "zero homework" for it to be implemented in more primary and secondary schools.

The so-called "zero homework" advocacy is not asking for no homework. Instead, a homework session should be set in school every day so that students can finish their homework under the tuition of teachers to achieve better learning outcomes. Meanwhile, this practice can give children some rest time after school, allowing children and parents to have more freedom in deciding what to do in their spare time instead of having hands tied with homework. In addition, there should not be too much learning in long holidays, making students even busier on holidays than they are at school.

As we all know, some overseas education authorities have already taken initiatives to limit the homework time of students. Some schools may go even further and do not allow teachers to give homework over weekends, holidays and other vacations, as well as expressly stating that homework grades will not be factored in the overall performance. All these proposals are meant to save students from homework pressure and I would suggest the authorities take cues from them for consideration.

6446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

There is one more point that I would like to highlight to the Education Bureau. Presently, the authorities encourage schools not to ask young children to write. Yet, we should note that all the school textbooks of Primary 1 or 2 students have jumped a year, which means Primary 1 students are using textbooks for Primary 2. While young children are not yet used to learning, they are forced to learn and remember things which are too difficult for them, making them feel bad. I hope the Education Bureau will take note of this point.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents" is actually a subject which has been discussed by the Council for a few times. Although we put forward a lot of opinions to the Education Bureau in each of our previous discussions, it seems that the examination-oriented phenomenon is there.

When I attended a function yesterday, I heard school principals from five different districts stating the root problems. A case in point is that, in view of the future demographic change in Hong Kong, the Government has planned to increase school places across the territory with a broad-brush approach to cope with the rise in student population. While the actual circumstances obviously vary between schools and between school districts, our SAR Government looks forward to consistency and has asked schools in different districts to increase their places according to the same set of criteria. In this case, adding school places will not help a school district with excessive increase in student population to provide it with sufficient places. On the other hand, for a district where student population remains stable or is in decline, such addition is unnecessary at all.

We often say that students should be taught according to their aptitude. Considering the situations in our society … A key point is that we should have trust in the professionalism of school principals and teachers. We should believe in their judgment in the front line and believe that teachers will teach their students well. But what happens to our education system now? First of all, banding still exists in our education system. Although schools which used to be divided into five bands are now divided into three bands, banding is the very thing that creates unnecessary competition between schools, students and parents. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6447

This system discourages educators from focusing on the growth of students and education itself because moving up to Band 1 level is the most important indicator of success for schools. Being a Band 1 school allows the school to make sure it can admit good students and hence effectively produce students with excellent academic performance to keep itself in a positive cycle. Whilst schools demand themselves to reach Band 1 level, parents are very demanding to Band 1 schools. Parents want these schools to help their children achieve academic results that students of such schools should attain. I am not sure whether the Education Bureau has ever thought of ways to untie the knot of this vicious circle. If the Bureau does not make an effort to untie this knot, any other efforts will just be addressing the management system without attaching importance to the genuine needs of students in their growth and development. I urge the Secretary for Education to take this point seriously.

Secondly, I agree with many other colleagues that parents play a big part in Hong Kong's education problems. Just now, a number of colleagues talked about their personal experience as "tiger parents". Yet, looking back to the root cause, we must ask: Where do "tiger parents" come from? How can we get to the bottom of this problem and take away the pressure that "tiger parents" put on our education system? Regrettably, I have not seen any solutions. For example, parent teacher associations are said to be a democratic system in school which allows parents to participate in school management. Yet, have these associations alleviated the problem of "tiger parents" after their establishment?

I do not know how the Education Bureau is going to untie the knot of the "tiger parent" problem, but this problem has indeed led to another problem. As "tiger parents" demand their children to achieve academically, the children have to spend most of their time studying. However, the growth of each child has its own pace. As some colleagues just said, when three-year-old children who can hardly hold a pen are forced to write difficult words, there is no way that they can do it properly. When they go to primary school, they come to the stage that playing is their top priority. They can have fun simply by jumping and running on the lawn, in the sun. Unfortunately, our "tiger parents" and schools join hands to stop them from playing too much. When they proceed to Form 1, we deprive them of the last chance to enjoy the nature and sunshine but ask them to do tons of homework. What will they grow up to be? At the next stage, they will become "home girls" or "home boys". How can we untie these knots? Are there any solutions? In my opinion, the most practical approach is to let children learn things that suit their natural development at each stage and provide them with supporting measures.

6448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

I recall that when I was at school, I often hung out with my classmates to play football from dawn to dusk. Of course, some of my classmates were good at their studies. As a whole, we have all grown up through participating in various activities, which I find most important. It is really problematic if we take academic results as the sole criterion for being good students. Even Carrie LAM said that we should get rid of elitism to avoid being arrogant like her when dealing with problems. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, please stop speaking immediately.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, you may now speak on the amendments. The time limit is five minutes.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank the eight Members for their amendments to my motion today. As I said in my opening remark, the contents of most amendments have enriched the original motion. The spirit of the original motion is to draw on collective wisdom to implement diversified education so as to alleviate the pressure on students and parents. Regarding the proposals raised in the amendments, in particular, those related to improving kindergarten education, increasing whole-day and long whole-day kindergarten places, formulating a policy on homework, addressing the problem of homework pressure, as well as education for non-Chinese speaking students, and integrated education, etc., they cannot be found in the original motion. Hence, I greatly thank Members for adding in such contents.

However, I must respond to two points. First, it is about Mr IP Kin-yuen's amendment because he has deleted point (1) of my motion which I consider to be the crux of the original motion. While I agree to the other contents that he proposed and consider that they should be implemented, I cannot support Mr IP's amendment since he has deleted my core concept of "incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices".

In fact, as known to all and as I have also mentioned in my opening remark, the subject of my motion is to implement diversified education, and one of the core concepts is to break the reality that subsidized schools have basically no choice under the subvention system in Hong Kong. Why must students of all LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6449 subsidized or aided schools take the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("DSE")? This is not beneficial to both students and parents. Also, we have to admit that even the best system may not be applicable to all students. Actually, diversified choices are required for different students at the earlier stage. Therefore, if Mr IP does not endorse my core idea, I will not support his amendment as well.

Regarding the implementation of this core idea, I thank Mr Tommy CHEUNG and Mr AU Nok-hin very much for raising just now that a lot of issues have to be dealt with in the process. I also admit this point. As I mentioned in my opening remark, this issue needs to be discussed in detail by us and should not be hastily implemented. I even have no idea whether the Secretary will accede to this idea when he responds later. When Mr Tommy CHEUNG spoke, he mentioned his experience in actual operation, and pointed out that he also has to face many problems. What Mr AU Nok-hin has said are also true facts. The question of conversion with degree programmes to the satisfaction of Hong Kong students and parents is a test of people's wisdom. Nevertheless, I am eager to break the constraint that students of subsidized schools can only take DSE, because I think that will not bring benefits to students.

Regarding the problem of DSE, it has actually been discussed by this Council for a long time. I certainly do not want to see students, parents and teachers suffering from immense pressure; yet tracing to the root of the problem, the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA") has now been improved with the effort made by the Education Bureau. Even if the current TSA is cancelled, I fail to see that students and parents will suddenly become pressure-free. I thus think this is not the crux of the subject today. Therefore, regarding Mr HUI Chi-fung's amendment, I will abstain for voting due to his comments on TSA.

As for Ms Tanya CHAN's amendment, she proposed to amend point (1) which is the core concept of my original motion. In her amendment, "incentivizing more" is deleted and replaced by "carefully conducting studies on allowing". Originally, I considered "carefully conducting studies" appropriate. However, if I support this amendment, people may think that I have taken a step back from my own idea, so I can only abstain.

As for other amendments, I will support them. I also thank Members again for their amendments which have further enriched our motion debate. I hope the Secretary will respond proactively.

6450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Cantonese): President, once again I would like to thank Ms Starry LEE for her proposed motion, eight Members for their proposed amendments and more than a dozen Members for their precious opinions. Today's discussion covers a wide range of education issues. After listening very carefully to each Member's views, I have found that perhaps owing to time constraint, Members might not be able to present more of their insightful suggestions concerning other aspects of education. Later on I will find the opportunity to discuss further with Members. We have, in the Panel on Education or on other occasions, explained our position on matters similar to those brought up by some Members in respect of the topic today while some other matters may be discussed tomorrow at the meeting of the Panel. Hence I will not go into details about those matters today. I will now make a consolidated response to the salient points discussed just now.

First of all, I would like to talk about secondary and primary education. A good school curriculum will not only provide students with important experience needed for their pursuit of lifelong learning but also help them attain a wholesome development in the five ways of life, namely moral, intellectual, physical, social and aesthetic, on merit of their talents. It will also help them grow into active and responsible citizens who will contribute to society, the country and the world. We have made reference to curriculum development in other countries and places and we will continue to improve our school curricular based on the social development in Hong Kong and learning needs of students for their benefit. In recent years, we have provided more resources for schools to adopt a more diversified teaching strategy, including the life-wide learning strategy of extending the learning space from classroom to other environments in the hope of boosting students' motive of learning and encouraging them to take the initiative to learn on their own.

Starting from the next school year, we will provide a new annual Life-wide Learning Grant for public sector schools and schools under the Direct Subsidy Scheme ("DSS schools") to facilitate diversified experiential learning activities to let students learn beyond the classroom. As regards the catering for learner diversity, we will allocate additional resources for curriculum adaptation and support to take care of various types of students, such as those with special learning needs, the gifted, non-Chinese speakers as well as those with financial difficulties.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6451

At present, apart from learning in class, students can learn beyond the school to widen their perspective through cross-border exchanges to suit the needs of the curriculum. Students will have the opportunity to join at least one Mainland exchange programme in their respective primary and secondary stages so as to strengthen and deepen their understanding of what they learn in class, broaden their horizons and help them gain a deeper understanding of our country's history, culture and the latest development through their personal observation, feeling and realization. Schools can also use the Life-wide Learning Grant to organize more activities such as Mainland and overseas exchanges which are proofs of how students can widen their horizons and achieve a whole-person development through diversified learning experiences.

Some Members have mentioned STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education. How to nurture talents to meet the needs of the social and economic developments driven by technology is the subject explored jointly by various advanced education systems in the world. In promoting STEM education in secondary and primary schools, we lay great emphasis on "hands-on and minds-on" learning tasks to allow students to consolidate and apply what they have learned to solve problems, thereby enhancing their creativity, cooperation and problem solving skills, helping them develop the abilities needed in the 21st century, and also increase their interest in STEM subjects. It is hoped that they will enrol in related subjects in the tertiary education stage and become Hong Kong's innovation and technology talents in future.

After a few years' promotion of STEM education, our work has begun to bear fruits. Most schools have now set up task forces or appointed teachers to especially lead or organize school-based STEM education programmes, and many schools include STEM education as one of their major concerns or the focal point of future development with different sections working together to promote the learning of those subjects among students.

As regards the introduction of international curriculum in local schools, as I have said at the beginning of my speech, different countries/places have their own curricula and examination and assessment systems based on the local situations. Hong Kong is no exception. As I have said we attach great importance to students' biliteracy and trilingualism in the hope that students will, from a young age onwards, learn to appreciate the Chinese culture, understand the history and various developments of our country, and cultivate a sense of national identity. 6452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

These are the features of the local curriculum which suits our social needs. We hope that our curriculum will be flexible enough to cater for students' different abilities and needs. We do not think we need to develop different curricula to cater for different students and hence we will continue to lend our support to schools to implement the local curriculum to provide quality education for all students.

As a matter of fact, Hong Kong's education quality is recognized by the world and our students' performances in various international competitions are at the top ranks and there is no lack of talents from Hong Kong. Take the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("HKDSE") for example, at present over 280 tertiary institutions and prestigious universities accept HKDSE scores as their entry requirement. In September 2017, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service ("UCAS") in the United Kingdom confirmed the new UCAS Tariff for HKDSE, with level 3 to level 5** in the HKDSE being deemed comparable to grades E to A* in General Certificate of Education A level examination as before. It proves that the quality of the local curriculum is by no means inferior to that of other non-local curricula. In fact, during my exchanges with education officials in other places, I have learned that those officials are also faced with the same pressure from local residents who want to see the continuous reform of the relevant curricula as they are also dissatisfied with them. Is it the best resolution to choose non-local curricula? Or should we concentrate our efforts to exploring how to improve the local curriculum and make it better suit the needs of the local community and students?

Hong Kong is an international cosmopolitan and our education policy must cater for the needs of people of different backgrounds and provide appropriate and diversified options for people to choose. Apart from public sector schools, basing on the learning needs of their children, parents can also enrol their children in DSS schools, and international schools or private schools, some of which also offer non-local programmes.

Another issue more frequently mentioned by Members today is the pressure on students and their parents. We, like Members, are also greatly concerned about the pressure on students. We are worried that excessive pressure is detrimental to their holistic development. As I have said at the beginning of my speech, causes of pressure are complex and the sources of it are multi-dimensional.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6453

The effect of pressure on different students is different. We hope that students can turn pressure or competitions into the drive to strive for the better and to attain their learning targets and goals in life. There is no doubt that we need to keep alleviating the pressure of school work on students but as adults who love and care about our next generation, we should help nurture positive values and attitudes in students and equip them with perseverance and resilience to stand up to the challenges in future. The present personal development education covered in the secondary and primary curricula will help our young people develop a positive outlook on life.

As the education authority, we are also duty bound to prevent the education system or open examinations from putting too much pressure on students. Looking at the education systems in the whole world, we can see that no places in the world can do without the assessment of students' performance. But do we only care about their scores and the places they get in examinations and do we also believe in the idea of "winning at the starting line"? Do we on the one hand complain about the pressure but at the same time enrol our children in a whole series of after-school tutorials and interest classes? Or are we not only keen on having our children enter prestigious universities but also want them to enrol in the so-called "supreme subjects"? Would we put additional weight on students during their course of learning? Hence, here I hope that while the public are discussing how to relieve the pressure arising from the education system, they will also look squarely into the crux of various problems in the hope of finding the right solutions together.

Here I would like to once again give an introduction to the measures adopted by the Government in recent years to alleviate the pressure of school work on students. Since the implementation of the New Senior Secondary Academic Structure in 2009, all students can go on straight to the three-year senior secondary programme without facing any competitions. By replacing the two open examinations in the past which acted as a screening tool, HKDSE launched in 2012 should be able to reduce the number of examinations and the pressure on students. We also promote life-wide learning by introducing Other Learning Experience and Student Learning Profile in the senior secondary stage to help students avoid laying too much emphasis on learning academic subjects. We have also updated the Guidelines on Homework and Tests, requiring schools to design tasks flexibly and reduce homework load, in order to give students room for cultivating and exploring their interests and strengths. Some Member has suggested setting the maximum hours of homework and adopting the policy of finishing homework at school. But since students have different learning 6454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 abilities and different teachers have different teaching strategies, professional teachers will assign and grade students' homework on merit of the design of the curriculum and students' abilities. If the Members' said suggestions are implemented as a policy, it may not suit schools' needs and it may even hinder students' learning under certain circumstances.

After the delivery of the Policy Address by the Chief Executive in 2017, the Education Bureau has set up a number of task forces to deal with certain critical education issues, including curriculum design, vocational and professional education and training, and parent education. The Task Force on Review of School Curriculum is exploring the various recommendations on creating room for students and promoting whole person development among them. The Task Force is expected to make directional recommendations to the Government before the end of this year.

Members all agree that parents play a decisive role in their children's development and learning. We will, through various means, enhance the promotion of parent education and help parents gain a deeper understanding of their children's needs in their development and learning through various activities. We will also actively follow up the recommendations put forward by the Task Force on Home-school Co-operation and Parent Education.

The motion has mentioned tertiary education. I believe the majority of secondary students will further their studies after graduating from secondary school. There are at present 21 local degree-awarding institutions which provide about 300 bachelor degree programmes and about 400 sub-degree programmes. Besides, students can enrol in other programmes according to their aspirations and abilities, such as Yi Jin Diploma Programme and other non-local post-secondary programmes offered in Hong Kong.

All tertiary institutions are entitled to academic freedom and institutional autonomy. They will launch their academic planning and curriculum development with respect to the social development, market demand, their own strengths, and also the manpower demand of various industries, endeavouring to promote the whole person development among students. In recent years, based on social needs, universities also offer more interdisciplinary programmes, such as Bachelor of Arts and Sciences, to nurture all-rounded talents. At the same time, the Government also actively promotes vocational and professional education and training and encourages young people to choose their education path and enter various industries on merit of their abilities and aptitudes. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6455

Benefitted from the development of public-financing and self-financing programmes, people currently entering the university at the appropriate age represent a percentage of about 48%. Including those enrolling in sub-degree programmes, there are a total of over 70% secondary school graduates enrolling in tertiary programmes.

The Government has launched a series of initiatives to further increase subsidized higher education opportunities in recent years to broaden the opportunities for graduates of senior secondary schools to receive higher education. For example, University Grants Committee ("UGC")-funded undergraduate senior year intakes have been increased to 5 000 per cohort starting from the 2018-2019 academic year. The Study Subsidy Scheme for Designated Professions/Sectors has been introduced to subsidize 3 000 students per cohort to pursue self-financed undergraduate programmes in selected disciplines to meet Hong Kong's manpower needs. The Non-means-tested Subsidy Scheme for Self-financing Undergraduate Studies in Hong Kong and in the Mainland has also been implemented.

After full implementation of the above initiatives, coupled with the reduction in student population, and assuming that the performance of secondary school graduates is maintained at a similar level, there will be sufficient publicly-funded and self-financing first-year first-degree places for all secondary school graduates meeting minimum entrance requirements for university admission. The Government has also put in place a subsidy scheme to make self-financing undergraduate programmes more affordable. Students with sub-degree qualifications and are currently enrolled in eligible self-financing top-up degree programmes will also benefit from that scheme.

On the whole, there is no need to increase UGC-funded Undergraduate Programmes places and senior year undergraduate degree places.

President, Hong Kong, as a city where the Chinese and Western cultures converge, has both a deep-rooted Chinese culture and a flexible and forward-looking mentality, where both are compatible with and can accommodate each other. Our school curriculum also reflects this unique feature. It stresses on biliteracy and trilingualism, and apart from deepening students' understanding of Chinese history and cultural, it also actively promotes the pursuit of STEM education. I wish to stress again that the Government spares no efforts in promoting diversified education. We are deeply convinced that education should be student-oriented and we hope that we can nurture them to become 6456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 responsible and committed citizens to society and equip them with a sense of national identity and love for Hong Kong.

Concerning the issue of pressure, the Government is willing and committed to address it. It is also ready to join hands with the stakeholders who care about the wholesome development of students to properly address this problem caused by many factors to facilitate students' effective learning and prepare them for the challenges ahead.

As regards the various recommendations put forward by Members, including the allocation of additional resources to various areas and adoption of different measures, involving the professional consideration involved in the formulation of education policies, consensus of various stakeholders, distribution of education resources, and even the overall priority of the allocation of government resources, we will thoroughly study and follow up them. As I have said at the beginning, I will strive to meet and talk more with Members in the days to come in the hope that we will provide the best education for our students.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Ms Claudia MO to move her amendment.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Starry LEE's motion be amended.

The amendment moved by Ms Claudia MO (See the marked-up version at Annex 6)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Ms Claudia MO to Ms Starry LEE's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6457

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Claudia MO rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Prof Joseph LEE, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, 6458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the amendment.

Dr CHENG Chung-tai abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 24 were present, 20 were in favour of the amendment and 3 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 23 were present, 22 were in favour of the amendment and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

(Some Members made noise in their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please be quiet.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Starry LEE be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6459

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed that as Ms Claudia MO's amendment has been passed, Mr IP Kin-yuen has withdrawn his amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, as the amendment of Ms Claudia MO has been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO be further amended by my revised amendment.

The further amendment moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO (See the mark-up version at Annex 7)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK to Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, be passed.

6460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the amendment passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Kai-ming, as the amendments of Ms Claudia MO and Mr Charles Peter MOK have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO and Mr Charles Peter MOK be further amended by my revised amendment.

The further amendment moved by Mr HO Kai-ming to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO and Mr Charles Peter MOK (See the marked-up version at Annex 8)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr HO Kai-ming to Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO and Mr Charles Peter MOK, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6461

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr AU Nok-hin rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, are you going to vote?

(Dr Helena WONG cast her vote)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung and Mr Kenneth LEUNG voted against the amendment.

Prof Joseph LEE, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

6462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the amendment.

Ms Claudia MO and Dr CHENG Chung-tai voted against the amendment.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr AU Nok-hin abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 19 were in favour of the amendment, 2 against it and 3 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 19 were in favour of the amendment, 2 against it and 3 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, as the amendments moved by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr HO Kai-ming have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr HO Kai-ming be further amended by my revised amendment. In my revised amendment, I have retained the several proposals of my original amendment, including finishing homework at school, using over-drilling as one of the indicators for assessment of the performance of a school, and directly abolishing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6463 the Primary 3 Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"). Among the various amendments, only my amendment proposes to directly abolish the Primary 3 TSA. I draw Members' attention to this.

The further amendment moved by Mr HUI Chi-fung to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr HO Kai-ming (See the marked-up version at Annex 9)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr HUI Chi-fung to Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr HO Kai-ming, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Tommy CHEUNG rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

6464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Holden CHOW abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Alice MAK and Mr KWOK Wai-keung voted against the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment, 8 against it and 8 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6465 constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment, 3 against it and 8 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, as the amendments of Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr HO Kai-ming have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr HO Kai-ming be further amended by my revised amendment.

The further amendment moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr HO Kai-ming (See the marked-up version at Annex 10)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr HO Kai-ming be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Tommy CHEUNG rose to claim a division.

6466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG and Mr Martin LIAO voted against the amendment.

Prof Joseph LEE, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr Tony TSE abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6467

Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung and Dr CHENG Chung-tai abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment, 2 against it and 9 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 20 were in favour of the amendment and 4 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, as the amendments of Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming and Dr Fernando CHEUNG have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming and Dr Fernando CHEUNG be further amended by my revised amendment.

The further amendment moved by Mr SHIU Ka-chun to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming and Dr Fernando CHEUNG (See the marked-up version at Annex 11)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr SHIU Ka-chun to Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming and Dr Fernando CHEUNG, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

6468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

Mr SHIU Ka-chun rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Prof Joseph LEE, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr Martin LIAO abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6469

Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Wilson OR, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr AU Nok-hin, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the amendment.

Dr CHENG Chung-tai abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 20 were in favour of the amendment and 4 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 23 were in favour of the amendment and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, as the amendments of Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun be further amended by my revised amendment.

The further amendment moved by Ms Tanya CHAN to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun (See the marked-up version at Annex 12)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Ms Tanya CHAN to Ms Starry LEE's motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun, be passed.

6470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

Mr CHAN Hak-kan rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amendment.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr CHAN Chun-ying and Mr Tony TSE abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6471

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 25 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 11 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 24 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment and 9 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, you have 1 minute 13 seconds to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I am very grateful to the 30 or so Members who have spoken on my motion on "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents", and many of them have shared with us their experiences as parents …

(Some Members left their seats and talked to each other)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. The Council meeting is now in progress.

6472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): … or their own education process. As Mr Paul TSE said, education can actually be a very difficult subject and it can also be a very easy subject. Members have expressed different views which may be contradictory, but on the whole, I think all Members hope to join efforts in "Implementing diversified education to alleviate the pressure on students and parents".

The replies of the Secretary may disappoint many parents because he has not responded to the core question raised by me earlier on, i.e. whether he would consider introducing overseas or international curriculum in the subsidized education system so as to provide more choices to parents of different social strata. Perhaps the Secretary cannot immediately make any promise to me today, but I hope that he will conduct studies after listening to our debate, so that after this Council passes this motion today, parents, particularly grass-roots parents, can be provided with more choices through the formulation of policies.

President, I so submit and hope that Members will support my motion today.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Starry LEE, as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Ms Tanya CHAN, be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion as amended passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6473

REQUEST FOR SPECIAL LEAVE OF THE COUNCIL TO GIVE EVIDENCE OF COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Department of Justice has made a request under section 7 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure for special leave of the Council to give evidence of Council proceedings in the criminal proceedings of HKSAR v LAM Cheuk-ting & WAN Siu-kin Andrew, as printed on the Agenda.

REQUEST MADE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE (CAP. 382) AND RULE 90 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SPECIAL LEAVE OF THE COUNCIL TO GIVE EVIDENCE OF COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 90(2) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), upon placing the request on the Agenda, the Council shall be deemed to have ordered that the leave be granted, unless on a motion moved without notice at this meeting by any Member and the Council determines that such leave shall be refused.

(The request made by the Department of Justice is set out in Annex II)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to move the motion?

(Mr LAM Cheuk-ting stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, what is your point?

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, a point of order, RoP 41(2) provides that: "Reference shall not be made to a case pending in a court of law in such a way as, in the opinion of the President or Chairman, might prejudice that case." Since Mr Andrew WAN and I are defendants of the case, we are of the view that any remarks we make will inevitably make references to the case and, on this ground, it is very likely the President will rule them as a contravention of 6474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 the aforesaid requirement. Therefore, we choose to withdraw from the meeting during the discussion and we will abstain from the voting.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. You and Mr Andrew WAN should decide for yourself whether to withdraw from the meeting during the discussion.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move the motion under Rule 90(2) of the Rules of Procedure that the leave be refused.

President, I move the motion that the leave be refused today mainly to uphold the dignity of the Legislative Council, safeguard the freedom of expression of Members of the Legislative Council in meetings and express my opposition in principle that the Administration has intervened in the work of the Legislative Council through a judicial process in this case.

President, I certainly understand that in giving the reasons for moving this motion that the leave be refused, I cannot talk about the facts or details of the case. However, I will inevitably touch on some facts of the case many of which are already available to the public; but I will not discuss the merits of the case or the legal perspectives at all.

This case involves two of our colleagues, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN. They have been prosecuted for certain acts committed during the meeting of the Legislative Council held on 13 June last year. Each of them is suspected of obstructing an officer of the Legislative Council in the execution of his duty, contrary to section 19(b) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). Mr Andrew WAN has been further charged with the offence of "Common Assault".

President, why are we discussing here in this Council whether we shall permit some people to give or provide evidence in relation to a judicial process? In fact, such leave is not required in judicial processes in general. Why has such a request been made today? In fact, the reason is related to the powers of the Legislative Council.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6475

President, as the case under discussion occurred during the proceedings of the Legislative Council, the situation should be specially protected under the Ordinance. The significance of the "privileges" provided in the Ordinance relates to the relationship between the Legislative Council and the executive. The Legislative Council has the function of checking the powers of the executive. Under the separation of powers in any democratic system of advanced societies in general, each branch has a certain degree of autonomy. Thus, when Members are in the Chamber of the Legislative Council or when they are performing their duties, they will receive special protection so that they are empowered to check the other branches. This is clearly provided in the Basic Law. The fact that the executive is accountable to the Legislative Council demonstrates the balance of powers between them. If no privilege is provided to Members of the Legislative Council, the Legislative Council will not be able to check the powers of another branch.

What exactly are the powers of the Legislative Council? In fact, not long ago, Ms Pauline NG, former Secretary General of the Legislative Council has compiled A Companion to the history, rules and practices of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("the Companion") for us which has been uploaded to the website of the Legislative Council. The Companion explains the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the Legislative Council and the privileges of the legislature under the common law.

Before the reunification of Hong Kong, the colonial Government applied the old Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. That piece of legislation incorporated the privileges of Members of the British Parliament, including the privileges of speaking during debates in the Parliament, so that Members would be protected from being prosecuted for defamation in the courts and from arrest. Members were also provided with immunity from arrest anywhere at any time during a session in any civil cause and protection from arrest within the precincts of the House, while the House is sitting, in a civil or criminal matter, without the leave of the House; exemption from jury service; and exemption from attending any court as a witness. These privileges were written in black and white and all of them were based on the spirit of the law at the time.

After the reunification, the old Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance of the colonial Government lapsed automatically. The Government back then clearly intended to include the powers and privileges previously enjoyed by Members of the Legislative Council in the Ordinance and enacted it accordingly. In fact, the powers and privileges of Members of the Legislative 6476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Council provided in the Ordinance include freedom of speech and debate in the Council or proceedings before a committee. No civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against any Member for words spoken before, or written in a report to, the Council or a committee; and no Member shall be liable to arrest. All these privileges provided in the old Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance in the colonial times have been adopted, including exemption from attendance as a witness and exemption from service as a juror, etc.

Privileges, or one can even say that the sovereignty, of the Legislative Council is very important. We should not forget that without the consent of the President of the Legislative Council, the executive authorities (including police officers) cannot freely enter the precincts of the Legislative Council. We are not saying that people within the Legislative Council Complex can break the law at will. We too must obey the law. If a Member contravenes any law, under the principle of "everyone is equal before the law", a law enforcement agency has to enforce the law.

Nevertheless, Members are protected by the Ordinance. Recently, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung was prosecuted for contempt of the Legislative Council because he seized some documents from Mr Eric MA, then Under Secretary of the Development Bureau at a meeting. Mr LEUNG was charged under section 17(c) of the Ordinance. The magistrate responsible for the case found Mr LEUNG not guilty. Certainly, the Government is considering to launch an appeal and a final verdict of the case has not been made yet. However, I would like to make it clear here that the judgment of the magistrate is very clear. The magistrate said that the Ordinance …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please focus your discussion on this motion. You have repeatedly mentioned a pending court case which may affect it. Please return to the subject of this motion.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, two of our colleagues have similarly been prosecuted under the Ordinance by the authorities now. We do have a precedent and a ruling of the court which is valid before any final verdict is available after appeal. What I am going to say are the facts which are available to the public too.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6477

The magistrate said that section 17(c) of the Ordinance is not applicable to Members of the Legislative Council; otherwise, freedom of speech of Members in the Council would be restrained and the Legislative Council could not function normally. The magistrate said that a correct interpretation of section 17(c) would require an overview of the whole Ordinance and consideration of its legislative intent. Very clearly, the legislative intent is to give Members of the Legislative Council freedom of speech in the Chamber so that they can speak freely to express their political views and relay the views of the public without any threat and restraint from criminal liability. The magistrate said that the provision is applicable to other people and the speeches and acts of Members should be protected by privileges. If there was intervention in our speeches and acts, then our freedom of expression in this Chamber would be inappropriately restrained.

Therefore, very clearly, President, a similar incident has occurred now. The Ordinance intends to protect the freedom of expression of Members so that it will not be restrained by criminal liability. Today, however, the Administration has surprisingly used the Ordinance to prosecute Members and alleged that Members have obstructed some officers of the Legislative Council in the execution of their public duties. Is there anything more important than voicing the opinions of the public in this Chamber? Is it not the public duty or the duty-bound responsibility of Members? When our speeches are restrained and we express our views or even raise our objections in a peaceful manner, there are adequate provisions in the Rules of Procedure to manage the order of the Legislative Council. Why should we let the Administration intervene in the peaceful expression of demands by Members in the Chamber through a judicial process? President, I do not know when our security officers started to have the power to use force to lift Members up and remove them from the Chamber. I really do not know which rule of the Rules of Procedure has empowered our security officers to use force to remove Members from the Chamber. Is that a civilized rule at all? We became Members through elections, we have mandate from the public and we joined the Legislative Council through an open and transparent procedure. The rule of the whole society is that in this very place, we should have adequate freedom of expression without any restraint from criminal liability.

Certainly, we have the Rules of Procedure which provide that if the conduct of a Member is disorderly, the President has the power to ask the Member to leave and remove him from the Chamber. There is no problem with 6478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 it. Nevertheless, when the Member is not willing to leave and resist in a peaceful manner, does it mean that our security officers can deal with the peaceful resistance with force? When force was initiated from their side, but criminal liability was imposed on Members because of their expressions in the Chamber, it has basically contravened the provision of the Ordinance. How can that be possible? According to what I saw at the scene, no one had initiated any violence, but this would become the first case in which Members were arrested and prosecuted because of what happened in the Chamber without any involvement of violence. This case has challenged my bottom line of tolerance. In order to uphold the dignity of the Legislative Council and in order to safeguard the right to freedom of expression of Members of the Legislative Council, I must propose that the leave be refused. We cannot let the executive authorities intervene into our legislative proceedings through a judicial process. More importantly, we should not allow political prosecutions to be instituted. Here, I would also express my regret about the President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As Dr Fernando CHEUNG has moved the motion that the leave be refused, this Council shall proceed to a debate on this motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG be passed.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): The Department of Justice has submitted a request for special leave of the Council for six security officers of the Council to give evidence in court in the case HKSAR v LAM Cheuk-ting & WAN Siu-kin Andrew.

The Department of Justice's request submitted to the Council, while just a formality, is not a first-time occurrence. Some people may find it unusual this time that the democratic camp wants to vote down the Department of Justice's request for special leave. Let alone a security officer, anyone who believes they were injured could call the police and take it to court. Some people may say the main reason is that some people in this Chamber refuse to allow the security officers to give evidence in court, right? This seems understandable yet debatable and it is, indeed, debatable. They would accuse us of shielding the wrongdoers. Do we not want the truth to be seen? Coming from the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6479 journalistic sector, I find that the truth matters the most to me. We do not know what the court will see as truth, but every person should have the right to give evidence in court. Are you obstructing justice by not letting him appear in court? Technically speaking, this is debatable.

Frankly speaking, the opposition is not without objection within the democratic camp. This is a fact. That said, this entire incident was in fact a political prosecution and a farce caused by the President, Mr Andrew LEUNG. Mr LEUNG called the Police and took what could have been resolved within the Chamber to the court, acting as he pleased in an arrogant and domineering manner and turned the Legislative Council into his own circus. This is unacceptable. The entire incident was a farce and has turned into a political prosecution. This is why we oppose the request for special leave.

I have a terrible regret which is also related to political prosecution. In June 2017, the Department of Justice also submitted a request for special leave of the Council for its security officers to give evidence in court in relation to the actions of YAU Wai-ching and LEUNG Chung-hang at the Council. We did not object to it. That was also the fact. My regret is that, before YAU was disqualified, one of the charges brought against her was unlawful assembly within the Council. Ridiculous! However, as far as I understand, there was not a consensus among the democratic camp, which was why they did not raise objection. I have all along thought that needless to say, the prosecution would not summon me to testify at the court. But the whole world could see I was at the scene, standing right next to YAU when it happened. I thought she, as the person being charged, would summon me as a witness, but she did not. When I asked her why, she replied that she felt it was no longer worth the effort to speak for herself, and she did not want to bother me. This is a major regret of mine.

Let us come back to the present case. While there are contrasting viewpoints within the democratic camp, I call upon colleagues in the democratic camp to take a unanimous position on this matter by supporting Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion. Thank you.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, I have known for quite some time that a colleague might propose such a motion, but I did not imagine that it would be proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG of the Labour Party.

6480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

I would like to first explain what makes a good employer. The Legislative Council, as the employer of our colleagues, certainly have to pay a salary to Members and provide them with legal rights. When our colleagues were injured due to an incident at the Council, should we speak out for them? President, how can we be a good employer if we do not speak out for them? This is basic common sense that everyone should have, yet ironically here we are, discussing this motion. This is because some people are trying to shield their colleagues who might have committed an offence. This is downright condoning.

President, we are not here to help make a decision, nor to judge whether certain colleagues are guilty. That is completely not the case. I want the audience in front of the television to be clear about this: We are only asking the injured colleagues or colleagues who witnessed the incident to come forward as witnesses. What will they say? What will the result be? This is for the court to decide. If the Council will not even allow our colleagues to testify, how can there be judicial independence in Hong Kong? As employers, we called the Police for our injured colleagues; and after we called the Police, they have been called upon by the court to testify as witnesses. How can we not allow them to give their testimony! Is this not forcing them to bear the injustice? President, is this the attitude that a good employer should have? I do not think so.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG said earlier that this was a peaceful incident, but I have a question: Who was injured―was it Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Andrew WAN or our colleagues? It is obvious that our colleagues were injured when carrying out the President's decision.

(Mr Kenneth LEUNG stood up and spoke in his seat)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, what is your point?

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): I do not think this is an appropriate time to discuss who was injured.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Kai-ming, please do not discuss the case in detail. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6481

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): Alright, President.

I wonder how an incident that left people injured can be called peaceful. This is really funny. He probably caused the injury with a "Turtle Qigong Blast" or something. This is really beyond my comprehension. Do our colleagues measure peace and violence with the same yardstick as the general public?

I, of course, know that while inside this Council, we are entitled to a degree of legal protection which allows us to speak freely and to voice the views of the people. But, President, what are its boundaries? The Basic Law provides for Members' immunity from civil actions and provides it to be an offence to obstruct us on our way here to attend a meeting. However, does this mean our privileges and rights to speak freely are completely exempted from other legislations of Hong Kong? I do not believe so. If any illegal incident really happens in this Council, it should be handled and intervened by the Police. This place is under the jurisdiction of the laws of Hong Kong.

If Members abuse their privileges by claiming that, during a confrontation when our colleagues are executing the President's order, their physical actions are protected by the same rights that ensure Members' freedom of speech, President, I think this has gone overboard. This should not happen in a Council of free speech. Our Council should be a place where arguments are backed by reasons. No matter what the Government says is right or wrong, we should explain our cases with reasons, offer advice and decide matters by votes. All these physical assault and injuries are uncalled for, let alone described as a peaceful incident. This really is not the Council we are familiar with.

President, I hope that you will really uphold the dignity of the Council, so that we can hold up our heads in front of the people and explain to them how discussions are held in the Council. Should we make such excuses to cover up for our colleagues, or should we build a better image as lawmakers, so that Legislative Council Members will not be criticized as "Rubbish Council" Members? I oppose this motion of objection, and I hope colleagues will say what they saw, so that the court can make a fair and just decision.

President, I so submit.

6482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I support Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion to refuse the request for special leave of the Council to give evidence of Council proceedings. I would like to talk about legal principles and reason to facilitate the public considering why special leave should not be given.

I will talk about legal principles first. Why should the Council not give leave sometimes for the executive authorities to enter the Legislative Council Complex to collect evidence? This should be interpreted on the basis of the spirit of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), i.e. the Council should have its status and protection. Under the system of separation of powers, neither the executive authorities nor the judiciary can abuse their power over the Council or interfere with the operation of the Council. Many parliaments in the world are protected by similar legislation. In particular, the existing legislation of the Commonwealth countries has very similar principles. Therefore, the Ordinance protects Members when they give their speeches so that they will not be charged with libel or subject to other legal consequences after speaking. This is the spirit of the Ordinance and the original intention of the separation of powers, and this principle is very important.

I have looked up the laws of different Commonwealth countries that are similar to the Ordinance. Their principles even disallow the executive authorities or the judiciary to obtain any evidence or documents from the parliaments or ask staff members of the parliaments to give evidence, let alone discussing whether special leave can be given. The reason is that the parliaments should be provided with fundamental protection. The precedents of the Commonwealth countries show that the protection is very important to ensure the freedom of speech of members of the parliaments and the representatives of public opinion. We must understand why the Ordinance has these provisions and we should note that it is not provided that we should always give leave but we should always refuse to give leave. If giving evidence is necessary, special leave of the Council should be requested as stated in the provisions. According to legal principles, I think that the circumstances of each case should be considered before determining whether leave should be given for the executive authorities or the court to obtain evidence in the Council.

I believe that some pro-establishment Members may later ask why we have given leave before. As I just said, the circumstances of each case should be considered because protection of the Council is not always overriding. Can Members who have killed somebody in the Chamber be exempted? Can we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6483 refuse to give leave for the collection of the relevant evidence? I do not think so. However, it cannot be said that the tradition of the Council is to give leave. If it is said that leave should be given this time because leave was given many times in the past, I will disagree. The circumstances of each case should be considered. Is the obtaining of evidence by the executive authorities this time considered as improper interference? Will this interfere with or affect the operation of the Council? Is this in line with the established procedures? Is this procedure essential and reasonable? All these should be considered.

Moreover, we have to consider whether the case of HKSAR v LAM Cheuk-ting & WAN Siu-kin Andrew involves improper interference with the Legislative Council by the executive authorities. In my opinion, this is naked political prosecution and the use of the public power of the executive authorities to interfere with and affect the Council. I believe that the political objective of the Administration is very clear and obvious to the public. In my opinion, basing on the separation of powers as I have just mentioned and the principle of protecting the Council, as this is naked political prosecution, which is incorrect and a kind of interference, should we still give leave? We certainly should not give leave because the Government is intervening in the proceedings of the Council, hoping to influence the future mode of operation of the Council: Members are not allowed to protest or shout slogans and they should be submissive, just like the royalists and pro-establishment Members in the Chamber, and they should say "yes" to whatever the Government proposes. It wants the democrats to become like that. The Government has prosecuted these Members because it wants the Council to achieve this objective. Why should we give leave then? Mr LEUNG, these are my views on the legal principles.

The second point is about reason. Why did Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN have the behaviours leading to reports to the police and conflicts? Precisely because of this case, the Administration applied for leave and requested the Legislative Council to provide evidence. Mr LEUNG, I would like to say that you are a puppet President and you are returned by zero votes. You imposed unreasonable restrictions during the deliberation of the motion and asked Members to complete the Second Reading debate within 36 hours. I was one of the Members restrained by your unreasonable arrangement made by abusing power and I eventually had not spoken during the Second Reading debate on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill. Returning to my argument about reason, as mentioned in the Handbook for Chairmen of Bills Committees, the Chairman should conduct 6484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 himself/herself with impartiality in discharging his/her responsibilities. He/she should ensure that members have adequate opportunities to take part in the deliberations of the Bills Committee and the Chairman should give each side an equal chance to express its views. However, as President, you abused power and practised favouritism, as well as imposed restrictions on Members' speaking in order to accomplish political tasks, and allow the passage of the Bill and the commissioning of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link in time, which led to some Members' protests against you.

When some Members stood up to protest against the decisions made by the President of the Legislative Council through abusing power, and they used certain tactics that the Administration might not agree with, i.e. they stood up or shouted slogans, were there any reasons? Had they done so because President abused his power first? Should there be political prosecutions? Mr LEUNG abused his power, leading to political prosecutions. I hope the public will bear this in mind. I particularly want to say that this is not the first time that Mr LEUNG abused his power, blew his whistle as a corrupt referee and disregarded the rules 

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please return to the subject of this debate.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): You certainly want me to return to the subject of this debate because I am criticizing you, right? You abused your power, practised favouritism, imposed restrictions on Members' speaking and used excessive force against Members. You forcibly ordered Members with different political views who opposed and protested against you to leave the Chamber. This is the Legislative Council today. The Legislative Council today is corrupted. There is a collapse of traditional values and ethics, and force is always used to solve problems.

Mr LEUNG, as President, you can hardly absolve yourself of the blame. Basing on legal principles and reason, I hope that the public would understand why there is such a case involving Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN. Hence, Mr LEUNG, on the basis of legal principles and reason, I agree that leave should not be given.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6485

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): The case of Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN is the result of President Mr Andrew LEUNG's unfair rulings during the vetting of the legislation on co-location arrangement. For the first time in the Legislative Council's history, the offence of obstruction of public officers in carrying out enforcement action was invoked against Members to stop them from expressing their views. If Members take a look at the objective of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), you would understand that the objective of the Ordinance is to declare and define certain powers, privileges and immunities of the Legislative Council and of the Members and officers thereof and of the Chief Executive and public officers designated by her in relation to attendance at sittings of the Legislative Council and committees thereof, to secure freedom of speech in the Legislative Council; to make provision for regulating admittance to and conduct within the precincts of the Chamber of the Legislative Council, to provide for the giving of evidence in proceedings before the Legislative Council or committees thereof, and for offences in respect of such proceedings and related matters.

The Ordinance has clearly provided for a number of privileges and immunities of Members and has specified protection on aspects such as the freedom of speech and debate to ensure that Members can speak freely in the Chamber. Since Mr Andrew LEUNG assumed office as President, of course, he has set one bad precedent after another in the way he presides over meetings in this Chamber and how he exhausts every power available to him. I believe that a lot of Honourable colleagues, especially colleagues in the democratic camp, are very dissatisfied with the presidency of Mr Andrew LEUNG. I can only say that the doings of President LEUNG will be recorded in history for people to see how, within the few years under his leadership, the Legislative Council has become a place where Members cannot discuss issues.

At the time of the incident, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN were discharging their duties as legislators. Mr LAM was merely protesting against the ruing of President Mr Andrew LEUNG, while Mr WAN was simply raising a point of order in an attempt to explain the unfairness in the President's ruling. Most importantly, he did not clash with the security guards, nor did he have any intention to cause harm to them. It is crystal clear that they were discharging their duties, and such practice has long existed for years throughout the history of the Legislative Council.

6486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

President Mr Andrew LEUNG's rulings were brutal and unfounded. In order to accomplish his political mission relating to the co-location arrangement, he unreasonably evicted Members of opposing views. It was only right for a responsible Member to object with grounds. While Members were carrying out their duties, President Mr Andrew LEUNG of the pro-establishment camp ordered security officers to stop Members of opposing views from carrying out their duties. This is clearly an abuse of a loophole in law for political suppression and making use of the security officer as a public instrument for the selfish purpose of suppressing dissidents.

If this sets a precedent, President Mr Andrew LEUNG will send security officers upon Members who disobeys his requests to enforce them; and those who disobey would be deemed obstructing security officers in carrying out their duties and will face prosecution for "obstructing public officers in carrying out enforcement action", just like Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN. This is absurd. If that becomes the case, President Mr Andrew LEUNG will be able to enforce his orders through security officers, no matter how crazy and unreasonable they may be. If Members refuse to comply, they would face criminal prosecution. President Mr Andrew LEUNG's powers will be unstoppable, as he will be able to order Members to stay and leave as he pleases.

The prosecution is obviously an act of political suppression by the Government. Previously, it deployed the Returning Officer to disqualify lawmakers, and this time it deployed the security officers to suppress Members. Such despicable acts will surely be spurned by the people. Although in the face of political oppression, considering that this case involves members and legislators of the Democratic Party, we have decided to abstain from voting, in order to avoid any conflict of interest. However, since the incident will have a profound impact on the Council, the Democratic Party will fight until the end, and it will not succumb to the despicable acts of President Mr Andrew LEUNG. Mr Andrew LEUNG, your incompetent and shameless behaviour as President will surely be recorded in history.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6487

MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): President, after listening to the speeches of many opposition Members, I have a deeper understanding of what is meant by defending those who belong to the same faction and attacking those with different views. I remember that I raised certain arguments when I spoke on another similar motion in 2016. Opposition Members may have failed to pay attention or chosen to forget. Let me revisit some of the key points of my speech at that time and respond to the arguments made by several opposition Members a while ago.

President, today's motion is mainly about two points. First, parliamentary privileges as Members have mentioned time and again; and second, judicial justice. Let us revisit the origin of parliamentary privileges. As we all know, the Legislative Council of Hong Kong was modelled on the Westminster system of the British parliament. President, in the past it was very dangerous to be the speaker of the parliament as a speaker was executed by the king after he communicated with the king on behalf of the parliament. Moreover, verbatim records of the proceedings of the parliament could not be produced because it was once an offence to do so. Therefore, it could be said that parliamentary work in the past was dangerous and arduous, and could even be life-threatening.

With the development of the parliament, laws on parliamentary powers and privileges were subsequently enacted and there are related laws in Hong Kong. We are all very familiar with the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). What is the most important purpose of the Ordinance?

Section 3 of the Ordinance is about freedom of speech and debate, i.e. there shall be freedom of speech and debate in the Council and such freedom of speech and debate shall not be liable to be questioned in any court or place outside the Council. Freedom of speech is very valuable to us. Section 4 of the Ordinance is about immunity from legal proceedings. No civil or criminal proceedings shall be instituted against Members for words spoken.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance that I mentioned just now protect Members so that we have no scruples about fulfilling our constitutional responsibilities. Members also need to be protected when we debate various public policies in the Council so that we can speak freely to provide advice and make suggestions for Hong Kong.

6488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

On the other hand, Hong Kong people attach great importance to judicial justice. As the common saying goes, "everyone is equal before the law." I once gave the example of BAO Zheng in ancient times. He was highly respected because when he made rulings, he treated everyone, the rich and poor, the nobles and civilians, equally. Today, the Chief Executive or Honourable colleagues as often mentioned by the opposition camp should also be treated equally before the law.

In this debate, there seems to be conflicts between parliamentary privileges and judicial justice. Just now, I heard a number of opposition colleagues say that officers of the Council should not be allowed to give evidence owing to our privileges under the Ordinance. Does that mean that even if the relevant evidence is required in a lawsuit, we should not, given our privileges, allow officers of the Council to give evidence or present any records or documents of the Council to the court as evidence? Is it that parliamentary privileges and judicial justice cannot co-exist? Is it that Hong Kong people can only choose one of the two?

In the past, the House of Lords of the United Kingdom had considered and discussed such conflicts. As pointed out by a member of the House of Lords―his concerns were actually similar to those of Hong Kong people―parliamentary privileges should not provide protective umbrellas for parliamentarians and fair trial by the judiciary was also very important.

Therefore, under the current legal system, there is a way-out between judicial justice and legal privileges, i.e. the legal principles derived from some past cases and section 7 of the Ordinance. Section 7 of the Ordinance provides a channel for maintaining a proper balance that can protect parliamentary privileges and also ensure the manifestation of judicial justice.

The channel under section 7 of the Ordinance is that the major premise on giving evidence in respect of any proceedings held before the Council is that parliamentary privilege as stipulated in sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance is not infringed. Past cases have clearly confirmed this principle.

What information is the Department of Justice asking for? Among the six officers of the Council requested by the Department of Justice to give evidence, four witnessed the incident, one was responsible for operating the CCTV cameras LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6489 capturing the course of the incident, and the other one was responsible for providing the CCTV footage of the incident which happened on that day. There people requested by the Department of Justice to provide evidence had nothing to do with freedom of speech in the Council that we are so concerned about.

If the Council refuses to give leave under such circumstances, what impression will the public have on the Council? Can Legislative Council Members exercise their privileges so that they do not need to give evidence or act as witnesses in respect of the incidents that happened in the Council, making it impossible for the court to give fair rulings?

President, even though some Members disagreed with my views just now, I think Honourable colleagues need not worry. Under the existing legal system, even if we provide the court with the witnesses or documents as just mentioned, the court is going to make the final decision. The judge has the ultimate power to rule whether Members have the privileges not to provide these documents or witnesses. If this is the case, the court will not allow these witnesses or documents to appear or be used in court.

President, not long ago, opposition Members often put people they did not like or targeted at on a public trial. I remember their remarks, "by making things clear in the Chamber, we can clear the name of the persons concerned; we do not mean to put them on a public trial." In relation to the case involving Mr LAM and Mr WAN, they have also told the media that they believed that the court would clear their name. In fact, by providing neutral witnesses or evidence, the court would know what really happened on that day and a fair ruling could be made to reveal the truth of the case and clear the name of the parties or the victims concerned.

President, I definitely will not support the motion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to refuse to give leave. President, I so submit.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the word "parliament" came from the French word "parler" and a parliament is a place which allows its members or legislators to express their views freely. Certainly, the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance also protects Members and exempts them from any civil or criminal liability by reason of their speeches made in the 6490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Legislative Council. Nevertheless, in these two years or so since you became the President of the Legislative Council, you have kept suppressing the freedom of speech of Members. Why? You have criminalized an incident which could have been properly handled and made it look violent. What you did, President, is equivalent to what Adolf HITLER, leader of the Nazi Party did in February 1933 …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please withdraw what you said just now. I consider your remarks very insulting.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, why do you consider my remarks insulting?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You said what the President of the Legislative Council did was equivalent to what the Nazis did. I consider it to be a great insult.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I withdraw my remarks. I was saying that on 27 February 1933, an incident of arson occurred in Bundestag, or Reichstag, as it was then called, of Germany. Even after a few decades to this day, historians could not ascertain who the arsonist was, but some forbidden items were found on a communist upon search back then. After the incident, the Nazis and HITLER launched a movement to attack and eradicate the Communist Party before continuing with their extremist Nazist movement, which had seriously affected the independence and autonomy of the parliament of Germany.

Why did I mention the incident? President, I have no intention to compare you to a widely-denounced, internationally well-known person. You do not deserve it; nor are you qualified for the comparison.

I really do not understand under what conditions and circumstances and with what powers can security officers of the Legislative Council have physical contact with Members of the Legislative Council. Under which provision of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6491 laws or certain circumstances can they do so? I have never noticed any parliament in any advanced and civilized country in the world (e.g. in the United Kingdom or Northern Europe) in which security officers have had physical contact with parliamentarians. Certainly, parliamentarians in those countries would have engaged in acts of resistance and expressed vehement remarks too. Nevertheless, why have security officers of this legislature pulled and dragged Members, lifted them up and carried them away? What is the basis for taking such actions?

President, my comment that you have recently suppressed freedom of speech in handling many incidents is not unfounded. You would take three very simple steps. President, very often, you would start off by saying that a Member, particularly Dr KWOK Ka-ki, has digressed from the subject; then, you would give the Member a warning. Of course, the President can rule whether a Member has digressed, but the Member can also disagree with you. Members should have the room, freedom and time to express their views. After the President has given one or two warnings, if the Member who often contravenes the rule (e.g. Dr KWOK Ka-ki) does not stop speaking, you would ask the Member to leave the Chamber. The Member may continue to speak or stop speaking and sit down. The judgment of whether a Member's speech is relevant to the subject is subjective. Or, a Member may continue to speak a sentence or two after the speaking time is up. The President would ask him to sit down. If he does not sit down, the President would give him another warning before saying, "I have to ask the Member to leave the Chamber". These scenarios involve exchange of words only, and no action or violent acts are involved at all.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

The most important function of the Legislative Council is to allow legislators to voice the opinions of the public and reflect the real situation on their behalf―I noticed that the President does not want to listen to my speech and he is infuriated by what I have said. Deputy President, the function of Members is to speak in the Legislative Council, but the President has unnecessarily criminalized the incident and made it look violent. Why? If I continue to speak after the time limit of 15 minutes is up, I will probably be carried away by security 6492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 officers. This will not happen in other parliaments and the matter will be properly dealt with. Deputy President, may I request you to ask the President under what circumstances can security officers lay hands on Members? Why do they take such actions?

Furthermore, the Legislative Council Commission recently stated that if an incident occurs resulting in a claim of injury by a security officer of the Legislative Council, a report shall be made to the Police. This is very strange. Every time when the President wants to remove a Member who in his eyes, should be removed from the Chamber, the President would order one or several security officers to execute his order. He would definitely deal with the matter in this way. On every occasion, some security officers may claim to have sustained injury. These things happened only because a Member has spoken a couple of minutes more or has digressed from the subject.

How will parliaments overseas deal with a similar incident? As Members may have noticed, in some parliaments, particularly those of the Soviet Socialist Republics before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the security staff would stand by with folded arms. They would not pay attention to or deal with arguments between parliamentarians, particularly in the chamber. The security officers would only protect the facilities in the chamber. In fact, it is not necessary for us to make life difficult for our security officers because of arguments and confrontations, etc.

Every time the President requires security officers to deal with a matter like this, it is unfair to them. Certainly, some pro-establishment Members may say that security officers are paid employees and we have to take care of them. I think if we want to take care of our colleagues, we should not ask them to deal with these matters. I am not talking about arson like the case I mentioned which happened in the parliament of Germany in 1933, nor am I referring to any case involving the death of a person. I am only talking about cases in which the President finds the speech of a Member unpleasant to his ears, or that a Member has spoken beyond the time limit. Why should security officers carry the Member away? In fact, under normal circumstances, if someone touches me, it may amount to an assault under common law. That is a basic principle, but the President or the Legislative Council Commission has not given Members a clear explanation; how can they treat Members in this way? Very often, Members LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6493 will remain silent even if they receive such treatment. I hope Members will consider whether security officers of the Legislative Council should treat Members in this way. That is my first point.

Second, if we speak a bit more or digress from the subject, we will be warned twice by the President and carried away, and then someone will claim they have sustained injuries and the matter will be reported to the Police for it to handle. Handling the matter in this formularized way is actually very easy. The same method is used every time and it is so simple that I can do it. Is it done to suppress our freedom of speech? If all these steps, one, two and three are taken, our colleagues may be imprisoned or even if they are not, they will be burdened and troubled by the legal proceedings for a long time. The case will be similar to the story I mentioned earlier in which the Nazis might have assigned someone to commit arson or found a scapegoat. The question we have to consider is: Will the current situation greatly restrict the freedom of speech of Members of the Legislative Council? That is the message I would like to bring out.

I do not intend to speak a lot about the present case because the judicial process has commenced. I hope that the court can very independently and fairly deal with the issue of the level of protection which Members of the Legislative Council are entitled to under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance and which group of people should be protected under the Ordinance. In fact, the Ordinance mainly protects us, Members of the Legislative Council. Thus, I hope after the Deputy President has listened to my speech, she would ask the President on my behalf whether he intends to restrain the rights to speak and debate of so many Members.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would remind Members that the subject of this debate is whether the Legislative Council should grant special leave in this specific case. I hope Members can focus on discussing whether they should support the grant of special leave by the Legislative Council and not to divert too far away from the subject.

6494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion. Just now, I heard certain Members from the pro-establishment camp making frequent reference to the House of Lords and the Parliament of the United Kingdom as examples. I find such reference ridiculous. They are really shameless. This legislature is in no way comparable to the Parliament of the United Kingdom with its functional constituencies. The President of this Council―I am not referring to you, as you are the Deputy President―who is a Member returned by function constituency with "zero" votes, is swaggering arrogantly in borrowed plumes. Why do I say that he is in borrowed plumes? We all know how he gained the Presidentship. It is all by the support of "Grandpa". "Grandpa" thinks that he is great, and his big mouth allows him to bite hard and makes him a good dog at the door, so he is made the President. Against this background, when he chairs the meeting …

(Mr WONG Ting-kwong indicated a wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please stop. Mr WONG Ting-kwong, what is your point of order?

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki describes the President as a dog at the door in his speech. This is the most serious insult. He says the President is a dog at the door. What kind of dog is he then?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, please be seated. Dr KWOK Ka-ki, did you criticize the President of this Council as a dog at the door?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): No, I did not. If Mr WONG Ting-kwong has to pigeon-hole the President into that remark, that is his problem. I am saying …

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Ask him to listen to the playback of the recording of the meeting!

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6495

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Dr KWOK Ka-ki has already clarified the case.

I remind Members that Members should not use insulting language about Members of this Council.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I would not. May be Mr WONG Ting-kwong has pigeon-hole this. I wonder if I have touched a raw nerve of him …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I hope Members will not use this occasion …

(Mr WONG Ting-kwong spoke loudly in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, please stop speaking.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Animals of the same species may feel deeply.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I have to remind all of you again that the question of this debate is on whether the Legislative Council should grant special leave for giving evidence on the course of meeting of the Legislative Council for a specified case. Members should not expand the scope of discussion to criticize the manner of chairing meetings of the President of this Council. Members should pay attention to this.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please continue.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright. I will now talk about the reasons I support Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion. In fact, it is stipulated unequivocally in the Basic Law that "one country, two systems" is unique to Hong Kong, and Members all know that. The greatest difference between Hong Kong and the 6496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Mainland China is that Hong Kong is still adopting independence of the three powers and the separation of powers. Moreover, it is stipulated in the Basic Law that the Legislative Council will monitor the Government and the executive. I do not make this up. In the course of handling the reunification in 1997, DENG Xiao-ping formulated this approach after weighing different proposals. History proves that this is one of the life-saving straws protecting Hong Kong.

When we talk about the issue that Hong Kong is still ranked as the world's freest economy by The Heritage Foundation of the United States, we all know how excited Carrie LAM behaved when she received the award from the President of The Heritage Foundation. She mentioned a point at that time, which I also mentioned yesterday in my speech, that is, Hong Kong's success and the willingness of investors around the world to invest in Hong Kong, to settle down and to set up regional headquarters should be attributed to their trust in the Legislative Council in monitoring and checking the power of the executive, and ensuring that Hong Kong adopts a system different from that of the Mainland. It is for this reason that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") is enacted to protect Members. P&P Ordinance is not enacted to protect me or Dr Fernando CHEUNG. It is not for the protection of individual Members. When we leave the Legislative Council, we are no different but the same as other people. If we break the law deliberately, we should be subjected to more severe punishment. I consider such behaviour totally unacceptable. Yet, in the Legislative Council, P&P Ordinance seeks to ensure that Members are entitled to certain exemptions when monitoring the Government and various issues in society, so that they have nothing to fear when they speak. After all, issues discussed in the legislature are not private but public concerns.

Take the case on that day as an example. At that time, we were discussing the co-location arrangement, which was a public concern. The examination of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") is the duty of the Legislative Council. The Bill had aroused great controversy in society. Since most people had doubts about the implementation of the Bill, Members desired to do their best in the course of the examination. Regrettably, the Bills Committee at the time adopted an extremely unfair arrangement by limiting the speaking time of Members and the number of meetings to be held. We all know that when the Bill was submitted to the meeting of the Legislative Council, the Government had set a deadline. That arrangement meant to force the Legislative Council to fall to its knees to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6497 compromise, for such practice had seldom been used before. If the authorities respect the legislature and that the Legislative Council is an independent institute, the executive should not set a deadline for its passage when a bill is submitted to the legislature.

Deputy President, I use the discussion of the traffic redistribution among the three harbour crossings as an example. Members should remember the Government saying that the proposal will be implemented in 2020 but the Legislative Council must pass the relevant motion by January 2019, as the proposal cannot be implemented in 2020 if it is not discussed around that time. In other words, the Government knows the time limit. Members know that the construction of the Express Rail Link started around eight to 10 years ago, so it is impossible that the Government has no knowledge of the co-location arrangement. If so, why did the authorities submit the Bill to the Legislative Council in the last minute and specify the time when the Bill had to be passed? Why must the authorities force the Legislative Council to fall to its knees? Do the authorities respect the Legislative Council?

Had the legislature been a normal one and had the President been normal, he would have likely told the authorities that the arrangement was impracticable. Even if the authorities wanted to bulldoze the Bill through the legislature, Members should be given the time to explain the issues clearly and address the doubts and concerns of the public, and government officials should have more time to explain the case. Have this been done? No. To date, the legislature has deteriorated to an image that it will merely take orders. Certainly, as a Member, I am not like this. Yet, definitely, many in the legislature are viewed by the public as people just taking orders and instructions from their supervisors, Grandpa and the SAR Government, thereby relinquishing the functions of the Legislative Council. It is against this background that the issue has aroused great controversy.

I am also acquainted with the security staff of the Legislative Council. We often chat together. I definitely understand their difficulties, for they are just doing their job. When the ridiculous President instructs them to execute his order, they have to follow his instruction. They cannot follow their own will unless they have decided to resign. Since they are paid for the job, they have to execute the President's order no matter how ridiculous he is. Hence, I would never blame the security officers for executing the decision of this President in borrowed plumes in this Chamber.

6498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Nonetheless, it does not mean that he can go so far as to hastily resort to the power to initiate indictment, for there will be great danger once a precedent is set. If the Police, the Department of Justice ("DoJ") and the President of the Legislative Council act in unison to nail a person, say KWOK Ka-ki, I will have no way to counter their acts against me. And this is possible. For instance, the President may say: If you do not leave the Chamber on the count of three, I will expel you immediately or instruct security officers to deal with you. When a Member is surrounded by a dozen of security officers, not only the Member but also the security officers will suffer injury. We all know that, more often than not, the physical tussles are not deliberate. I believe Members will not initiate charges against security officers.

We all know the course of the incident. We should not merely focus on the scene at the time, as the incident should be attributed to an unjust system and the unjust handling of the Rules of Procedure by an unrighteous President. Back then, not only the two Members were requesting the clarification of a point of order, many other Members were making similar requests, seeking clarification of the suitability to conduct voting in the midst of the chaos at the time. The request is more than reasonable. Any speaker who is relatively rational and civilized would not have conducted the voting under such circumstances. Members may leave the meeting to discuss the issue and come back to vote after the issue is resolved. A civilized legislature should be like this. As for our legislature, it was a big mess at that time. Yet, are we the one to blame?

A kind of bloodless violence in the world is systematic violence. When a person has all the powers, financial power, the Police and the administrative power of the Legislative Council, this person can do whatever he wants. To put it bluntly, he can nail anyone at will. Under this circumstance, if we still act like quail and keep silent, it will not only affect individual Members of the legislature but also bring about the fall of Hong Kong and affect Hong Kong's impression to international investors and the new generation of Hong Kong.

Members also know that, according to a study conducted by the Chinese University of Hong Kong, one third of the people of Hong Kong, many of them young people, desire to leave Hong Kong. They desire to leave for they see that Hong Kong is being "turned red" and that there is the continual draining of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "high degree of autonomy" which Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6499

Kong is entitled under "one country, two systems". They have lost their confidence in future and in the system, so they plan to leave. The drain of talents and funds is merely the beginning.

Protecting the functions of the Legislative Council in monitoring the Government is to prevent the frequent occurrence of mistakes. Let alone those in time long past, in this month alone, several incidents which the pro-democracy camp and the pro-establishment camp both consider problematic have occurred. These cases involving the distribution of the $4,000 handout, the redistribution of traffic among the three harbour crossings and the elderly Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") are all related to people's livelihood. If the executive has ultimate power and all Members from the pro-government camp will only listen to the Government, they are definitely doing a disservice to the public. Had the legislature failed to fulfil its function, the incumbent Government would not have halted at the brink of the precipice and shelved certain decisions, even though the Government has not stated clearly whether it will impose another cut on elderly CSSA in future and whether it will abolish the deduction of $200. For this reason, I support Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion. We hope that in the legislature, we can examine the course of event concerning the incident. People who understand that Hong Kong is facing a critical situation know that we have to guard the legislature. This is the only line of defence to safeguard "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong.

When it comes to violence, just now, I heard certain young Members commenting on the use of violence by the two Members, I cannot help recapitulating some events in the past. In 1967, the riot protesting against the United Kingdom and violence broke out, resulting in the death of 52 persons, including five police officers, and the murder of a few people. We all know that according to the standard today, which often focuses on safeguarding the power and dignity of police officers …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have sidetracked too far.

6500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I must tell the story, for they are too young and they do not know it. I will make it brief.

At that time, many people died. It was regarded as protesting against the United Kingdom and violence. As for the present situation, I do not how to describe it. Be it the protest against the Communist Party of China ("CPC") or that against CPC and violence, the degree of violence involved is in no way comparable to that back then. Besides, Mr YEUNG Kwong has eventually been awarded the Grand Bauhinia Medal ("GBM"). I believe the two Members and Dr Fernando CHEUNG will not have any connection with the GBM during their lifetime. Am I right? The incident back then had caused the death of 50-odd persons but someone is granted the GBM. Back then, a thousand-odd "pineapples" (bombs) were placed. That was violence. As for the present situation, how can they call this violence? Members who are sitting in their seats are expelled from the Chamber. They are pulled out of the Chamber when they are a bit slow in leaving the Chamber, and this is regarded as violence. Nonetheless, behaviour which has caused the deaths of many is not regarded as violence and warrants the GBM. Please listen carefully. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions' protest against the United Kingdom and violence is acceptable no matter how many people died …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have deviated from the subject. Please return to the question of this debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright. I have touched a sore spot of some people. We should all read history. They should not discuss violence with us. When it comes to violence, we are not even a kiddie in comparison to CPC. As for the deaths and broken families in cases of WANG Quanzhang, LI Wangyang and LIU Xiaobo, what do Members think?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, this is the third reminder I give you. You should not expand your opinion on violence infinitely.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6501

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright, I will return to the question. I have to point out that I support Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion lest the Legislative Council will be turned into the National People's Congress ("NPC").

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, you have already elucidated this point. Do you have any new opinions?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I will just say a few more sentences. Will you please be patient with me for a minute or so? Thank you.

We do not hope to see Hong Kong being converted to the state of NPC. I think we are now in the most critical moment, though some people do not think so. In fact, under the distorted system of the legislature today, we have to uphold convention. Despite knowing a party is the opposing camp, we will still remain courteous. It is like the British wearing hats in the past, which showed mutual respect. Both sides may meet again in future and treat each other in a rational manner. Yet, it is sometimes difficult to do so even if we desire. For our counterparts do not act this way. They resort to all kinds of forces to press against us. These forces are so powerful that we cannot withstand. The Government as a whole, together with forces from the Police and the judiciary, the force is really enormous. Of course, there is still a higher power, and that is the power from the "Northern Overlord". We have no way to resist.

Now, staying in the legislature of Hong Kong, I sometimes consider it lamentable. When we enter the legislature, we are supposed to examine legislation in a normal manner. Yet, today in this legislature, apart from discussion of issues, we can only put up some humble struggles, even though they are weak. After all, how many persons can one stand up to? If one security officer is not enough, they will recruit 10 security officers. If 10 security officers are not enough, they will recruit 100 security officers. They can employ a lot of security officers. Yet, security officers are only doing their job and I will not blame them. No matter how, we must defend the legislature today. I support Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion. I so submit.

6502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, speaking of history, this year marks the 71st anniversary of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU"). Over the years, FTU has established trade unions and served grass-roots workers. According to predecessors' recollection of the suppression imposed by the British Hong Kong Government back then, the Police would rush in to arrest them during trade union meetings and deport them the next day. This is the history.

We remain true to our original aspiration to serve grassroots workers without fear of being smeared by others. As regards Dr KWOK Ka-ki who spoke so loudly just now, today I finally understand why their community organizers did not put his photo or name on their publicity materials―community organizers usually promote together with Legislative Council Members―because he is really a disgrace. He speaks without any ground, any research or reading any information. No wonder community organizers and the young generation dare not include his photo on their publicity materials for fear of being embarrassed. Forget it, let us come back to the subject.

Deputy President, last week, when FTU Members discussed this week's agenda, I assumed that no one would object to this item. I said, "No one will have the nerve to object to this. It would be very shameful to do so. Why should we obstruct anyone from giving evidence?" I understand now. Some Members spoke without doing any research or paying any attention to the facts. They even said that the Government intervenes in the business of the Legislative Council, that the Administration interferes with the legislature. As it turns out, they do not even know what this is all about. Who called the Police? It was the Legislative Council Secretariat, not the Government. Why did the Legislative Council Secretariat have to call the Police? It was because its security staff had been injured. Why did the Legislative Council Secretariat have to call the Police when its security staff were injured? It was because its security staff had been injured on several occasion in the past. We could see from video recordings that some Members did use excessive violence, such as bending fingers, fending off hands or hitting with elbow, and these situations should have been handled by the Police. As an employer, the Legislative Council did not call the Police on the behalf of the security staff but asked them to decide whether to call the Police or not. How do employees dare to call the Police against Honourable Legislative Council Members? How do security staff dare to do so? They have to face the very Member at work after calling the Police. Hence, the Legislative Council Commission decided that this is no LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6503 longer acceptable. I, as a representative of labour unions, proposed this at the time. How dare the Labour Party oppose this request? We must guarantee a safe working environment for employees. When an employee is injured, the employer is duty-bound to call the Police on the behalf of the employee, instead of asking him to decide whether to call the Police or not. How do employees dare to call the Police under this circumstance?

Now that employees were injured and the employer called the Police on their behalf, the case would be tried by the Court. Since the opposition camp believes in the credibility of the Court and the decisions of Judges, and trusted that the Members involved did not do anything wrong, they should let the judge do them justice.

We do not agree that such leave shall be refused, and thus, will oppose this motion, not because of the two Honourable colleagues involved but based on the facts. It was ridiculous for Mr HUI Chi-fung to shout that "the President engages in favouritism and power abuse". I want to say: Is Mr HUI talking about himself? He is the one who engages in favouritism and power abuse! Who engages in favouritism? It is the Democratic Party that is covering up for its fellow party members. He has the nerve to say such things. Who abuses power? They are abusing the privileges of the Legislative Council! Although Legislative Council Members enjoy privileges, may they do whatever they like? May they hit security staff with elbow, bully them and bend their fingers? They are the ones who engage in favouritism and power abuse and they still have the nerve to say such things!

As Legislative Council Members, I ask them not to make things difficult for security staff. This is just a request for leave to give evidence in Court. Do they think the evidence will definitely render the two Members that they harbour guilty? Are they so afraid? If they think what they did is justified, why should they be afraid to let the security staff members give evidence? Why do they have to object to merely giving evidence in court?

There was a rather upsetting case last week. A father had allegedly raped his daughter but was finally acquitted as the daughter changed all her statements in the Court. The case has caused a public outcry as society reckoned that someone must have abetted the daughter in changing her statements. So how about those who refuse to let witnesses give evidence in court?

6504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

If they think what they did is justified, why should they be afraid of letting the security staff members give evidence in court and tell the truth? Why do they have to blow the issue out of proportions and even make personal attacks? Deputy President, I am actually quite discontented that you did not make a ruling. They made fun of others' physical features. What if one has a big mouth, buckteeth, bulging eyes or small eyes? Does one deserve their attacks because of that? They, all well-educated Legislative Council Members, make fun of others' physical features. What does that tell us? It shows that their level is low.

Therefore, Deputy President, they have no reason to object to staff members giving evidence in court. I hope Legislative Council Members will show self-respect and convince people by reasoning. Please do not make personal attacks and blow the issue out of proportions. As I have always said, the public are wise. When I worked at a street booth last week, a woman told me, "If these people are not satisfied with the President, they should go to the President's house if they have the guts." She was right. Since they are so dissatisfied with the President, they should target the President if they have the guts, but they should not hurt the security staff. We must ensure a safe working environment for everyone working in the Legislative Council Complex, including Members' assistants. This is the most basic requirement.

I will not discuss the case today. I believe the Court will make a fair judgment. Therefore, if they think what they did is justified, please do not obstruct security staff and Legislative Council staff from giving evidence. Please show society justice.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong supports the granting of leave under Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") for six officers of the Legislative Council to give evidence in respect of the case of Mr Andrew WAN and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, and oppose the motion "That the leave be refused" proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG today.

According to the paper provided by the Legislative Council, in the relevant case, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN have been prosecuted for obstructing an officer of the Legislative Council in the execution of duty, contrary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6505 to section 19(b) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance"). Mr Andrew WAN has also been charged for common assault. As we all clearly know, the case happened during the consideration of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill by the Legislation Council on 13 June last year, i.e. 2018. The meeting was disrupted by some Members, and chaos arose. During the incident, a security officer even got injured. Since the said case will be on trial in court, I do not wish to cause any interference in it. Hence, I will not discuss in depth the facts of this case involving the two Honourable colleagues.

However, Deputy President, I wish to point out that the Department of Justice ("DoJ") made this application for leave because Legislative Council Members are entitled to privileges in respect of their work in the Council. Their conduct is under protection in law. For this reason, during judicial proceedings, if there is need for an officer of the Legislative Council to provide information or give evidence, it is imperative to apply for leave. In the past, this Council has always respected such needs in judicial proceedings. Under most circumstances, no matter whether the case involved any Member of this Council, the relevant application for leave would be endorsed without debate. The last time in which a Member's motion opposing the granting of leave was proposed at the Legislative Council meeting on 1 December 2016. At that time, DoJ applied for leave for the Legislative Council to provide evidence in respect of LEUNG Kwok-hung's suspected acceptance of "dark money" from Jimmy LAI without declaring interest, thereby constituting misconduct in public office. At that time Members of the opposition camp raised objection. Their reason was that in their view, the records of proceedings requested by DoJ at that time involved Members' speeches in the Council, which should be protected by the privileges. In fact, the records sought by DoJ would merely be used to prove whether LEUNG Kwok-hung attended the meeting on that day. Members of the opposition camp were only abusing the privileges as a protective umbrella.

As we can see, this case of Mr Andrew WAN and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting in fact concerns disruption of a Legislative Council meeting. As I said just now, during the incident, chaos arose and a security officer was even injured. As pointed out by the paper submitted by DoJ, this application requests six officers of the Legislative Council to give evidence. Four of the officers witnessed the incident. One operated the CCTV cameras capturing the course of the incident, and the other one was responsible for providing the CCTV footage of the incident 6506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 which happened on that day. As we can see, the situation this time is entirely different. The incident does not involve any speech absolutely, so to speak. If the Legislative Council opposes the granting of leave today, I am afraid society will come to the conclusion that the Legislative Council, especially the Members opposing the granting of leave, intends to stop eye-witnesses from testifying in court in future. This will deal a serious blow to the rule of law in Hong Kong and tarnish the image of the Legislative Council as well.

Just now I particularly mentioned that the privileges conferred by P&P Ordinance are related to Members' conduct or speeches. In this connection, a point worth mentioning is that regarding the privileges enjoyed by Members in the Legislative Council, if we look back in history, we will see that it was the British Parliament which first suggested that Members of Parliament were entitled to privileges to protect their speeches from any threat, thus enabling them to speak freely without fear. Neither would they be convicted because of what they said. This is the origin of the relevant privileges. Hence, we can see that the actual focus of the so-called privileges of the Legislative Council is that Members can enjoy freedom of speech without any threat.

Let us recap some history. The official record of proceedings of the British Parliament, now known as Hansard, was actually named after the then printer of such records. In the early period, he was involved in a lawsuit. Since these records of proceedings were printed by him, he was sued for libel. Yet it was also because of this case that the United Kingdom later amended the legislation to further ensure the protection for powers and privileges of the legislature. Obviously, the privileges originated solely from the need to protect Members from any threat over their speeches and enable them to speak without fear. But it does not mean the privileges they enjoy in respect of their speeches can be extended to illegal behaviour constituting criminal offences in the Council, or even storming and assault, hurting innocent people, including security officers, without being subject to any sanction in law at all. I believe the powers and privileges of the Legislative Council which we talk about never extend to such an extent. If they do, I believe the public will be alarmed because we see that various incidents of assault, including snatching someone's mobile phone, did happen in the Legislative Council before. Hence, I believe members of the public need to clearly distinguish the powers and privileges to which Members are entitled under P&P Ordinance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6507

Here I wish to point out that in the past, incidents of storming have occurred in the Legislative Council for which someone was prosecuted, and DoJ requested the Legislative Council to grant special leave to allow officers of the Legislative Council to testify and give evidence. Such a situation has happened quite a number of times. For example, in 2016, Sixtus LEUNG, YAU Wai-ching and others were charged with one count of "unlawful assembly" within the precincts of the Legislative Council Complex, with an alternative charge of "attempted forcible entry". On 14 June 2017, DoJ made an application for officers of the Legislative Council to give evidence. On the same day, DoJ also applied to this Council for leave for officers of the Legislative Council and Members to give evidence in respect of the case of Dr CHENG Chung-tai's suspected desecration of the national flag. At that time no Members of the opposition camp proposed any motion that the leave be refused regarding these two applications, but today, some Members suddenly raised objection. Do they have double standards? I believe members of the community will make their own judgment.

Some Members of the opposition camp allege that this is interference in the affairs of the Legislation Council by the executive or the Police, but this point cannot stand because this case was reported by the Legislative Council Secretariat. The Secretariat simply executed the earlier decision made by the Legislative Council Commission, i.e. if any Member or colleague in the Legislative Council has been disrupted or injured at work, the Secretariat will report the matter to the Police. The case was referred to the Police for collection of evidence and investigation, and prosecution was instituted by DoJ. The whole matter was not initiated by the executive. Rather, it is an incident involving injury to an officer of the Legislative Council in the Council, making it necessary to seek assistance from the Police. I really do not see any question or reason which can justify Members' opposition to the granting of leave for officers of the Legislative Council to give evidence.

Today I have heard Honourable colleagues of the opposition camp say again that this case is a political prosecution. I really hope Honourable colleagues who have said so will think twice because such a remark obviously speaks ill of the judicial system. It also vilifies the Court which adjudicates on cases independently. I hope Honourable colleagues who said this is political prosecution will really think twice and be careful not to hurt the judicial system in Hong Kong.

6508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Just now I heard some Honourable colleagues, including Dr Fernando CHEUNG, mention that our security officers should not use any force. First, I do not agree with his comment. Second, his comment is tantamount to shirking the responsibility onto the security officers. We should know such situations have indeed occurred in the Legislative Council umpteen times before. When Members insisted on staging a confrontation in the Chamber, they would not move no matter how we asked them to. Even though we had made every effort to ask them to leave under RoP, they would not agree to do so. Eventually, the security officers had no other alternative but to respond accordingly in a reasonable manner. Today, however, Honourable colleagues of the opposition camp accused the security officers of doing wrong and said they should not execute the relevant decision. I think this is tantamount to shirking the responsibility onto the security officers of the Legislative Council. I absolutely do not agree with this because this is confounding right with wrong.

Just now I also heard an Honourable colleague say that if such leave is granted for officers of the Legislative Council to give evidence, it is somewhat tantamount to restraining the freedom of speech in the Council. I consider this totally absurd. It is precisely our wish that the Council can hold meetings in good order. We do not hope that our meetings will be hindered or obstructed in various ways and we have no solution to deal with it at all. If we ignore such circumstances, I believe we will be unable to proceed with any meeting, and the functions of the Legislative Council will also be impaired. For this reason, I do not agree with the remark made by the Honourable colleague just now, that allowing officers of the Legislative Council to give evidence in respect of this case is the same as restraining or undermining the freedom of speech. This argument cannot hold water.

A point I must make is that today I am most disappointed to hear Dr KWOK Ka-ki use grossly insulting language about our Honourable colleagues earlier. Just now I heard Ms Alice MAK's speech. She has spoken most reasonably, refuting Dr KWOK Ka-ki's remarks. Here I only wish to add a point. The use of such insulting language about Honourable colleagues exactly amounts to verbal violence. Dr KWOK Ka-ki, who often criticizes such things as parliamentary violence and institutional violence, will he please look at himself. He is exactly inflicting verbal violence on Honourable colleagues. I do not think such a trend should be encouraged in the Council.

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6509

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Dr Fernando CHEUNG opposes today that special leave be granted by the Council under section 7 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) ("P&P Ordinance") and Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure for six officers of the Council to give evidence in the criminal proceedings of HKSAR v LAM Cheuk-ting & WAN Siu-kin Andrew.

I have been in office of this Council for over 15 years. Yet, it was only over the last few years that these kinds of problems that needed to be dealt with and tried by the Court, where colleagues and Members of this Council found themselves making appearances or being the subject of prosecution, have occurred in this Council on a regular basis. Ten years or so ago, the parliamentary atmosphere of the Legislative Council was one where Members spoke their mind freely and argued their cases vigorously in utmost civility. Who could have thought that over the past few years, especially after the relocation to the new complex, things that the public found so upsetting would occur in this Council? Besieging the Chairman with violence, shoving objects on the desk down on the floor, throwing things, etc., you name it. Are these deeds expressions of free speech, or acts of violence?

Some people often proclaim that Members of the Legislative Council, being under the protection of P&P Ordinance, enjoy the freedom of expression and opinion. I wish to ask whether there is a difference between exercising freedom of speech and using force and engaging in physical scuffles. I think those members of the public, as well as those sectors of the functional constituencies, who have voted us in office would not want us to express our views through violence. They often say that they are voicing the views of the public. Yet, the public ask only that they lend their voice to the people, not resorting to violence.

Here in this Council, under the guise of today's motion, some people made personal attacks on the President, invoking Adolf HITLER and using such terms as "barking dogs" for maximum slandering and derogatory effect. It beats me that these Members who possess such high levels of academic qualifications and intellect could make such caustic remarks and act in such a manner. Do the public wish to see them expressing their views in such terms?

6510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Some often complain about the use of force by our security colleagues in the Council. Yet, I wish to ask them whether they know how to tell the difference between using force and maintaining order? Who is the one first stirring up troubles, leading to the necessary involvement of the colleagues responsible for security in an effort to maintain order? Hence, we will not allow them to flout the law and run amok under the pretext of freedom of speech. I hope Members of the opposition will today put reason before partisan politics and refrain from supporting them. For if they continue down that path, they will surely be spurned by the public.

I so submit, Deputy President.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in opposition to Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion that argues against the granting of leave to six officers of the Legislative Council Secretariat for giving evidence in Court in the criminal case against Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG said that the freedom of speech enjoyed by Legislative Council Members should be protected by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance"). First, Members must make clear that, with Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN under charges of obstructing officers of the Council in the execution of duty and common assault, the case in question has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Common assault, which involves physical confrontations, and possibly violence and force as well, is a criminal offence. If the reasoning of Dr Fernando CHEUNG applies, are any illegal acts committed by Legislative Council Members inside the Legislative Council Complex under the protection of P&P Ordinance as he had described? Should the Police not enforce the law and arrest the Members in question, the Department of Justice ("DoJ") not prosecute, the Court not hear the case and the Legislative Council officers and victims concerned not give evidence in Court? Under such circumstances, are Legislative Council Members not enjoying supreme privileges under the law?

Certainly, whether the two Honourable colleagues did assault the officers concerned on that day, or whether they beat someone up and contravened the relevant legislation are questions to be determined by evidence and pending the Court's ruling. However, in opposing that officers of the Council be granted leave to give evidence, is Dr Fernando CHEUNG protecting their own people, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6511 going to such extent as preventing witnesses from giving evidence on a criminal case and flagrantly perverting the course of justice? Deputy President, such an approach is indeed an eye-opener to me. How can Dr Fernando CHEUNG and other Members of the opposition who support this motion talk about the rule of law from now on?

In quoting the ruling on the case concerning former Member LEUNG Kwok-hung snatching a folder from a senior government official, Dr Fernando CHEUNG argues that the Police and DoJ should not institute prosecution against Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN under the relevant legislation. If they have such a strong case, should they not lay it down before the Court? Why do they have such worries, so much so that they forbid Legislative Council officers from giving evidence? Is forbidding those officers from giving evidence an attempt to force DoJ to throw away the charges due to insufficient evidence, thereby preventing the case from being heard in Court?

Dr Fernando CHEUNG also mentioned the separation of powers. Whether the Western mode of separation of powers applies to Hong Kong is a matter of opinion among different people and a debate into which I have no wish to wade now. However, separation of powers, in my understanding, means the executive, legislative and judicial branches each performing their respective duties without interfering with each other. Now Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion is precisely an attempt to intervene in a prosecution decision of the Administration, boorishly interfere with the judicial authorities, strip the Court of the right to hearing cases, even set himself up as a judge―one who can determine who is innocent and has the final say on whom to prosecute or not.

Members of the opposition talk often about the demise of the rule of law in Hong Kong and the obliteration of judicial independence, accusing the Central Authorities and the Special Administrative Region Government of interference with the judiciary. Certain people even went overseas and invited foreign governments to strip Hong Kong of its status as a separate customs territory. Today would be the darkest day for the rule of law in Hong Kong, Deputy President, if Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion was passed. Opposition Members love to accuse the Government of setting certain bad precedents with far-reaching implications in the days to come. I believe today's motion would set a very bad, if not the worst precedent of the legislative authority interfering with the hearing of a criminal case.

6512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Deputy President, I so submit. For the sake of the rule of law, judicial independence and judicial justice, I staunchly oppose Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): I rise to speak in support of assisting in the investigation and I disapprove of the motion proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG on refusing to assist in the investigation or to allow staff members of the Legislative Council to give evidence in court. In fact, during our discussion up to this point, what we heard from the speeches given by Members from the opposition camp are basically shoddy. Not only did they talk wildly, what they said is totally untrue and irrelevant. Why do I say so? In fact, as we all know, assisting in investigation aims merely at finding out the truth. As the saying goes, "True gold fears no fire." If they consider that this motion is equivalent to the conviction of two Honourable colleagues, I would conceive that the more they try to hide, the more they are exposed.

In addition, Deputy President, the opposition camp often uses freedom of speech as their "shield", making freedom of speech so cheap, to the extent that freedom of speech has become shabby. Dr Fernando CHEUNG mentioned the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. It is true that Members enjoy the privilege of not having to bear civil liabilities for their speeches given in the legislature. In addition, if a Member has committed a criminal offence, he will not be liable to arrest whilst performing his duties. Yet, this does not mean that no action would be taken against him if he has committed a criminal offence. Please do not make interpretation casually. Moreover, Deputy President, freedom of speech is applicable to people who are well-disciplined and keep moral standards in mind. Therefore, the entire set of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") are not biased. It contains some provisions empowering the President, and some other provisions protecting the basic rights of the Members. If Members from the opposition camp only exaggerate the protection of the rights of Members without bounds, but then blot out the power of the President in chairing the Council and his responsibility in maintaining order in the legislature, RoP would become useless.

Deputy President, can we make interpretation on freedom of speech freely on our own? When you speak, someone else can also speak. Does it mean that more than 60 Members in the Chamber can speak at the same time? In fact, we all know that this is impossible. They should not take freedom of speech too far LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6513 as this will be impractical at all. When it is stipulated in RoP that the speaking time is limited to seven minutes, a Member can speak for seven minutes only. If the speaking time is 10 minutes, a Member can speak for 10 minutes, and if the speaking time is 15 minutes, a Member should then speak within 15 minutes. Could the opposition camp suddenly say one day, "I have freedom of speech, so I can speak from morning till night and do not stop me."? That is impossible; this is not the case.

Deputy President, furthermore, freedom of speech only offers us protection when we speak with our tongues. In fact, it does not offer us protection if we use our fists. Why were some security staff injured? I do not intend to go deeper on this, but the objective fact is that some people have got injured. The case was then reported to the Police who would investigate to see what had happened. We all hope to find out the truth, and why should we pose hindrance?

What is more, Dr Fernando CHEUNG shamelessly said that he wished to defend the dignity of the Legislative Council to the extent that what happened in the Legislative Council should not be handled by anyone else. The Police should not be allowed to come in, nor should the case be handed over to the court; it should be handled by ourselves instead. Deputy President, it is indeed embarrassing for Dr Fernando CHEUNG to propose this motion today. In the first place, he himself is an education worker. It is already embarrassing for him to put forward such sophistry, which should not be said as it violates the ethics. Moreover, he is also a representative of the Labour Party. Being the representative of a trade union, he even dared to tell us that the freedom of speech of Members is of paramount importance. Even though some frontline colleagues have got injured, we should not voice it out. Neither should we make criticism nor carry out investigation. This trade union is really scary.

Deputy President, in fact, when it comes to defending the dignity of the Legislative Council, we must respect each other and protect each other. We should never regard Members as being supreme. In recent years, the opposition camp has often blown themselves up without bounds, and then alleged that they were besieged by political suppression. Nevertheless, Deputy President, as all of us may have noticed, what are the recent incidents in which they often said that they were subject to political suppression? Such incidents include "snatching the mobile phone" and "punching staples on thighs". Even the disqualification of Members with respect to the taking of oath/affirmation is also said to be 6514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 political suppression. Their being disqualified when they took the liberty to change the oath/affirmation is also said to be political suppression. Disqualification with respect to "self-determination" and "Hong Kong independence" is also said to be political suppression. Even the ban on the party advocating for "Hong Kong independence"―that is, the Hong Kong National Party―is said to be political suppression as well. Even political suppression has also been abused. Deputy President, if there is indeed a kind of martial arts skill called "golden shield", which can make someone invulnerable, I would advise people who intend to practise such a skill not to do so. They can pick up the skill in one day as long as they join the opposition camp. Once they have done so, they will have a "golden shield" and become invulnerable in the sense that they will not have to bear any criminal liabilities or various social responsibilities. This is actually quite scary.

Deputy President, on the other hand, if the motion proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG is passed, as what I said just now, what would be the consequences of refusing to allow security staff or Members to give evidence? This should indeed be clarified as such an act will definitely bring the effect of causing people to keep their mouth shut. As a matter of fact, we can notice that trade unions always stress that whenever there is a work injury case, the employer should take the responsibility to report it. Yet, the legislature would not make a report for its employees in the past, and those employees had to report the case on their own. In fact, it is already erroneous to do so. Fortunately, the practice has been revised in recent years and now the Legislative Council will make a report when a colleague has got injured.

If the Legislative Council now acts on behalf of its frontline staff, but it is impossible to conduct an investigation as evidence cannot be gathered due to the opposition from Members, it will convey a very bad message: Colleagues, do not expect anyone to help you if you are injured. Whilst it is useless to report the case on your own, it is useless for the Legislative Council to make a report either because the opposition Members will not help you.

Deputy President, what has happened? After all, who abides by the rule of law and who does not? In fact, the opposition camp is getting more outrageous, showing no respect for the legislature at all. If the security staff do not follow the President's instructions to maintain the order of the legislature, that is to say, after the President has given a warning, the Member continues to break the rules and is then ordered to withdraw from the Chamber, but the Member LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6515 insists to remain in the seat and refuses to leave, could it be the case that the President would let Members yell in their seats in the future? When the President speaks, they would speak concurrently; and the President cannot order them to withdraw even if they yell when the President is speaking or rush to the President's pedestal? If it is really the case, we will not have to convene a meeting. Deputy President, all of us would not know what we are doing when we come to the Chamber.

In fact, we all wish to come here and make more endeavours for the people's livelihood, but why does the opposition camp keep on "stealing the spotlight" and "stirring up troubles", continue to stage a big show and strive to gain exposure in front of the camera by harming our security staff? Nothing would have happened if they had not used their fists.

Deputy President, Mr HUI Chi-fung has also joined the discussion, but frankly, his participation would only make the matter worse. It is because Carrie LAM defeated him right away by simply responding to him that "gentleman uses his tongue but not his fists" during a Question and Answer Session. As the saying goes, "If one's personal conduct is not correct, how can he correct others?" Therefore, he should not join the discussion. He is definitely a negative asset and is doing a disservice.

Deputy President, after all, it is merely a trivial matter this time. We all hope to find out the truth. Someone saw an incident happen, recorded the process, and then handed it to the Police for gathering evidence, and the case will then be ruled by the court for conviction or acquittal. This is the most reasonable way to deal with it. I hope the opposition camp will no longer conceal the wrongdoings committed by their allies, distort the facts, and act against their conscience. They often complain that there is no freedom of speech in the legislature, but they come to speak every day. When the President allows them to speak for 10 minutes or 15 minutes in accordance with the rules of the legislature, they still keep on saying that there is no freedom of speech in the legislature. If this is really the case, why do they come back?

Deputy President, after all, the most important point is not to adopt double standards. They allege that it is very violent for the President to order Members to withdraw, but the President merely orders them to withdraw with his words. On the other hand, they claim that it is not violent for them to shout slogans in the legislature and hinder the progress of the meeting. There is no problem when 6516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 they can do whatever they wish to hinder the progress of the meeting. This is inequality. Whilst the President has the power to rule that a Member should withdraw but a Member cannot rule that the President should withdraw, all of us are acting in accordance with RoP. Even if the President orders a Member to withdraw, he must act in accordance with RoP. He cannot order a Member to withdraw simply because he is in a bad mood today. It must be that the Member has indeed committed certain acts. The whole meeting is recorded, and the general public can watch it on the television as well. The President must have a reason and we would take follow-up actions against him if he has no reason. Do not say that the President really seems to be omnipotent and he has all the say. We should be reasonable.

On the other hand, in fact, I absolutely respect Dr Fernando CHEUNG in class. However, on the political front, I find it off-putting if he often resorts to such sophistry, being blinded by politics, belittles the frontline staff, and then exaggerates the power of the Members without bounds. I hope that other classmates and junior students would draw lessons from him, listen to the lessons seriously, attentively and with reasonable values, but they should never absorb some wrong ideas.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Dr Fernando CHEUNG has proposed the motion that the leave be refused, objecting to colleagues of the Legislative Council Secretariat and the Security Office giving evidence in a case. We have heard some Members seize on the opportunity to play up the issue, make oblique accusations, challenge the rulings of the President and even launch a personal attack on the President. I believe a number of Honourable colleagues disapprove of such behaviour.

I have a long acquaintance with President Andrew LEUNG. He is a low-key person known for his meticulousness and maintaining neutrality in making every decision with no tolerance for rule-breakers, including Honourable colleagues of the Legislative Council. I think it is grossly unfair of them to take it out on him with torrents of harsh words and mean remarks as if he were a "sandbag" or "punch bag", just because they are offended by his lack of leniency and adherence to rules.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6517

Deputy President, the President of the Legislative Council upholds the order and rules of the Council in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Confronted by those Members who refuse to follow rules and order, act in a barbaric manner and interfere with the proceedings of the Council, the security staff only act on the rulings of the President. Those Members from the opposition camp, however, obstructed it in every way, such as throwing objects and storming the Chamber in the past. Can we possibly condone such behaviour in the Council? While they keep mentioning things about those civilized legislatures overseas, they do not reflect on their own uncivilized behaviour in the Council, which members of the public also consider improper.

We have heard the speeches of some Members just now, and it seems that we can hardly expect a decent word from their filthy mouth. While claiming that we should protect animal rights, they have used the word "dog" to insult others. Their wicked hearts have really made our blood boil. They always say that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance") seeks to protect the speeches made by Members given the need to protect freedom of speech, but the Ordinance does not serve as a shield for them to insult others under the guise of freedom of speech.

What infuriates us even more is an earlier remark of a Member that it was not known whether the security staff of the Legislative Council faked their injuries, and they just did it for a pay cheque. I consider it a downright insult to our security staff.

Members from the opposition camp have long been preaching the need to respect judicial independence. It is the responsibility and civic obligation of every member of the public in Hong Kong to give an authentic statement in court. Now they harbour their cronies who are facing allegations. Is this a double standard? If this is not a double standard, what is it then? Someone has snatched the phone of another person in the Legislative Council. Yet, being a bad example, he is shamelessly talking big here. He is just tarred with the same brush as his fellow party members.

Lastly, Deputy President, what I wish to say is that it is the duty of Members of the Legislative Council to monitor the Government instead of paralysing it. Members of the public expect us to attend meetings instead of 6518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 creating chaos, shoving the security staff arbitrarily or even causing the meetings to be aborted. I believe Members will do a great service to both the Council and the public by doing more solid work.

Deputy President, I so submit. The Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong opposes Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, having heard a number of Members speak, I can only say that I felt quite pent-up. Still, since Members have given their views in response, I am also going to give mine.

While listening to Members giving their speeches at the beginning of the debate just now, I heard Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan cite an example, asking where the privileges of the Parliament of the United Kingdom originated. He cited the United Kingdom as an example―I am not going to use his version of Chinese translation of Westminster, which sounded like " 威斯特拉 " or something like that because as far as I know, it should be "西敏寺"―in fact, the parliamentary tradition of the United Kingdom is to safeguard the privilege of the freedom of expression enjoyed by Members of Parliament ("MPs"). He even cited an example, saying that in the past, instances of jeopardy to lives had occurred even in the recording of parliamentary business. If we understand the entire parliamentary cultures overseas or that of the United Kingdom clearly, we will understand all the better what a ludicrous situation the Legislative Council is facing nowadays.

When Legislative Council Members made a duty visit London to look at the operation of the House of Lords and the House of Commons, Honourable colleagues of various political parties and groupings had the opportunity to join it. Honourable colleagues of the pro-establishment camp, therefore, cannot say that they had no opportunity to look at other parliamentary cultures. The Speakers elsewhere did not drive a single MP out during their whole terms. The positions of Chairs and Vice Chairs are held by MPs of the ruling party and MPs of the opposition respectively as a counterbalance. This is not how it is like in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. So long as one likes, one can occupy all positions. Nowadays, we only need to take a look at the state of political balance in the Legislative Council Commission to see how absurd the situation is.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6519

Let us calculate the distribution of seats in 2016, shall we? I have only done a simple calculation of the distribution of seats between the pro-democracy camp and the pro-establishment camp in the Legislative Council in 2016―I did not take into account how unjust the system of functional constituencies is, nor did I take into account how undemocratic this legislature is―we account for about 42% of the seats, that is, about 29 seats, but what is the proportion that we account for in the Legislative Council Commission? Among its 13 members, only 4 of them belong to the pro-democracy camp. Moreover, we can take part in deliberations only because the pro-establishment camp granted us the gracious permission to join. Therefore, the political imbalance in the Legislative Council Commission itself is already very great and also extremely unjust. It can put forward proposals to amend the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") whenever it likes. The name of its Chairman is Andrew LEUNG and some people pointed out that he had British nationality when he was running for the position of the President. In the end, he gave it up hastily but I do not know if he is actually still British or not.

Therefore, political imbalance began to occur in 2016, when the RoP was gradually tightened. Subsequently, the Legislative Council Commission made a number of decisions and as a result, a situation of great injustice has arisen in the deliberation of public affairs. The composition of the whole Legislative Council Commission is already problematic and the Secretary General is also involved. The job of the Secretary General is to direct security officers to execute the orders of the esteemed President. As a result, after the President of the Legislative Council has ruled that a certain Member must leave, all security officers are obliged to execute the order of the President by asking the Member concerned to leave. Therefore, the security officers are in the position of taking orders in a power relationship. If this power relationship of taking orders is not outlined and we only say that this is very unfair to security officers, that Members of the pro-democracy camp in the Legislative Council are being very unfair in not letting them give evidence, so on, so forth, this is because Members do not understand the underlying relationship. The underlying relationship is that this group of unjust people order security officers to execute their unjust orders and herein lies the root of the problem.

For this reason, when some people from the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions said that colleagues in charge of security were employees, that they wanted to speak up for their colleagues, so on, so forth, and Mr KWOK Wai-keung and some others even said that the opposition had been "putting on a show" and that was why they were being driven out. They asked us why we had 6520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 not dealt with problems of public livelihood, and so on. They practically do not understand that the work of security officers is to take their orders. Moreover, the direction of work of security officers is under the control of the whole Legislative Council Commission and the Secretary General, who pit them against Members and herein lies the root of the problem. Without such a background, the incident of Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN being driven out on that day would not have happened. I was also driven out on that day, only that I was very cooperative―I cannot say that I was very cooperative, only that I told security officers not to touch me because they made me afraid of them. In the event of the slightest physical contact, I do not know if they would make a report to the police and in that case, I would also be charged, would I not?

Therefore, in these circumstances, if this incident had not happened and if such unjust parliamentary operation had not taken place, the Department of Justice ("DoJ") would not have had any opportunity to interfere with the legislature, would it? Another contention is that we Members of the pro-democracy camp would not let people have the opportunity to refer the matter to the Court for ruling. For example, Mr Tony TSE said that this was the darkest day for the rule of law, so on, so forth. However, I wonder whether not giving evidence is equal to obstructing the course of justice. If it is, there is no need to discuss section 7(1) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") at all because the same reason can be cited in all situations by claiming that not letting people give evidence is perverting the course of justice.

Section 7(1) is the core of the present problem. Let me read it out word by word to avoid making any mistake, "No member or officer of the Council, and no person employed to take minutes or keep any record of evidence before the Council or a committee, shall give evidence elsewhere in respect of the contents of such minutes or record of evidence, or of the contents of any document laid before the Council or committee, as the case may be, or in respect of any proceedings or examination held before the Council or committee … without the special leave of the Council." In other words, no giving of evidence without permission. This being so, what I mean is that the intention of section 7(1) is to ensure that the legislature will not easily be subjected to intervention by DoJ or other government departments. If you say at every turn that the Court should be given a chance to decide and that everything should be referred to the Court for judgment, section 7(1) would become meaningless, would it not?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6521

In view of this, in the final analysis, we will revisit what Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan said at the beginning of the debate, that is, what is parliamentary culture? Since 2016, starting from the imbalance in the composition of the Legislative Council Commission and the disqualification of Members, the parliamentary culture here has been devastated. Would other Speakers drive MPs out at will? When the Legislative Council made the duty visit, the Speaker told Members of various political parties and groupings that during his term, some MPs were indeed non-compliant and would wage struggles to some extent while speaking by way of speaking in excess of the time limit, and so on, but he would give them several warnings. The whips of the two parties would also ask MPs to exercise self-discipline and see how the problem could be dealt with. Nevertheless, after giving warnings several times, in the end, he did not expel the MP concerned but resolved the problem.

However, this is not how it is like in the case of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong. Let us revisit the situation on that day. Bear with me for mentioning another case because I have to use this case to show how unjust this legislature is. On that day, no sooner had Ms Claudia MO returned to her seat than the President, Mr Andrew LEUNG, said right away that he wanted to drive her out. He did not give any warning and procedurally, he did not comply in any way with the basic principle of respecting popularly elected representatives. How possibly could Mr Jeffrey LAM still say that the performance of the President was OK and had no problems? I cannot accept such an assertion.

I reiterate that the gathering of evidence this time round is inappropriate intervention with the legislature. The expression of views in the Legislative Council should be protected and the spirit of P&P Ordinance is to protect Legislative Council Members so that they can speak freely and express their views, instead of having the President say that he wants to drive Members out when Members are expressing their views, as he did at the very beginning on that day, and his words were put into action immediately. Many court cases show that the views expressed in the Legislative Council should not be referred to the Court, investigated and queried at will. Members are exercising their right of expression in the legislature.

I can also give another example. On 1 December 2016, DoJ initiated a lawsuit to disqualify a Member, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung―they like to call him "former" Member―and the Legislative Council also debated the relevant motion. 6522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

All right, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has been expelled by them from the Legislative Council but it can be seen that in recent years, from the disqualification of Members, through bringing a lawsuit against Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to many other instances, the actions taken by DoJ cannot be equated with the rule of law. DoJ is a tool with legal power used by the regime and itself is a tool for political prosecution that also interfered with the operation of the Legislative Council in various ways.

If you still want to use the United Kingdom as an example, please remember that there is real separation of powers in the United Kingdom. Mr Tony TSE, who is seated next to me, still said he was not sure if there was the separation of powers in Hong Kong. In my view, it is a must to have the separation of powers in Hong Kong. I wonder what sort of claim they have heard the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region make, thus making them concur that there is no separation of powers in Hong Kong. In view of this, I think the issue this time round is very clear, that is, the business of the legislature should not be interfered with at will.

I wish to add one more point related to Mr LEUNG. It has nothing to do with the Deputy President. On 14 May 2018, Mr LEUNG gave Members advance notice in a solemn manner telling them that in the event of any staff member suffering any injury, a report would be made to the police and Members were reminded of the likelihood that section 19(b) would be invoked to lay charges against them. Subsequently, while presiding over the meeting on that day, the President also made many highly controversial rulings, for example, "drawing lines", imposing time limits, inconsistent rulings, and so on. These problems were precisely the reasons why Members considered the rulings of the President unfair and wanted to come out to voice their opposition. The President did not accept this. Instead, he exploited the violence of the system to drive Members out. Herein lies the crux of the problem.

Therefore, they said that Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN had resorted to violence. In my view, they had just been carried away, yet they said that the two were fomenting trouble, so on, so forth. The root cause of the whole matter and the contempt for the legislature can be traced to the rulings of Mr LEUNG. It is an eruption caused by a series of actions taken by him over LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6523 the years. He has absolute lust for power and cannot accept even a minority of opposition voices. This is the Legislative Council we are facing nowadays and Members' right to discuss public affairs is in jeopardy.

What kind of path should the work of the legislature take? I believe we should clarify whether or not the request made by DoJ this time complies with sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance. Apart from consulting the Legislative Council Secretariat and Legal Advisors, independent legal advice should also be sought. We should not say simplistically that the evidence should be handed to the Secretary for Justice. If we have to do so, the legislature should consider what kind of evidence has to be provided. A lot of things are now publicly available and Legislative Council meetings are broadcast live. Various television stations also have the relevant video footages of the day in question. What evidence does the Department of Justice actually want? Is the Legislative Council a place that one can access freely and get whatever evidence one likes?

Lastly, I wish to raise one point. I wish to cite the example of United Kingdom mentioned by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan once again―since he used it for comparison, I will do the same. The Queen cannot visit the House of Commons whenever she wants because in the past, something that gave the House of Commons the view that its dignity had been seriously violated happened. However, I ask Legislative Council Members to consider this: Are there some overlords, some overlords in Western District, who keep violating the dignity of the Legislative Council?

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it is my turn to speak right after Mr AU Nok-hin. Last year, he and I, as members of the delegation of the Legislative Council, went on a fruitful exchange visit to the British Parliament to experience its long parliamentary culture passed down through history. I do not know whether it is a mistake or a slip of the tongue made by Mr AU Nok-hin just now, indicating that the United Kingdom practises separation of powers. As he teaches social sciences, his remark has bewildered me quite a bit. The United Kingdom adopts a parliamentary system, not separation of powers. I think Hong Kong does not practise separation of powers either. Instead, the three powers function separately with checks and balances among one another. One of the ways to exercise checks and balances is 6524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 certainly the statutory approach. There is no such thing as "letting the most difficult boss have the final say" given that Hong Kong is a civilized society. As a lawmaker, how can we defend our own dignity and that of the Legislative Council as a whole? Earlier on, Dr Fernando CHEUNG declared at the outset that he had to defend the dignity of the Legislative Council, and my speech also serves this very purpose.

As a lawmaker, we must be a role model, setting an example of being law-abiding, civilized and rational. Otherwise, how can we correct others if we do not behave well? There is a common saying that Members often set a bad example. That is why some people will jokingly say that we had better not let children watch meetings of the Legislative Council due to the bad influence of those Members who will charge at the President Podium to kick up a fuss whenever they lose an argument or feel unhappy. I also see that some Members seem to be envious of the security staff of certain foreign legislatures who need to do nothing. When Members come to blows, they will just look on with folded arms. If it is seen as good parliamentary practice, I really am disappointed and bewildered. Are we pursuing the British gentleman or nobleman style of parliamentary culture appreciated by the majority of Members, or are we going to turn the Legislative Council into a hotbed of political hooligans, imposters, mayhem and tyranny?

Certainly, Members of the Legislative Council are entitled to the protection under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance"). But when I was new or before I was elected to the Legislative Council, I also wondered why there would be such a term as "privileges". Why was P&P Ordinance there? The Council is a long-time anti-privilege advocate with utter repugnance towards privileges, is it not? Why would Members be given privileges? There are certainly good reasons so that we can, among others, freely express our views in the Council with immunity from criminal or civil legal action, thereby protecting Members' freedom of speech. It is important that we can speak our mind, laying all cards on the table without reservation. But does it mean that one can resort to physical violence with such freedom of speech? Deputy President, I believe the answer must be in the negative, right?

Second, I think insofar as such privileges are concerned, since they are so named, we have to act with caution even if we really need to exercise them. Otherwise, people will consider that the Legislative Council is unfettered. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6525 public actually have extremely high expectations of Members in every single area. Illegal parking may be no big deal for an ordinary person who can simply pay a penalty of $320 to get things settled. But if a Member who parks illegally is captured on film, it will be news. It is massively important that Members redouble their efforts to abide by the law, complying with traffic signals as a role model. Hence, we have to act with caution even though we are given such privileges.

Coming back to the motion today, it actually originates from the special leave to be sought from the Legislative Council to obtain evidence of certain incidents from it. On this occasion, the Department of Justice ("DoJ") has to obtain evidence regarding the case of Mr Andrew WAN and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, mainly seeking to take a statement, etc. from the staff of the Legislative Council. Such leave of the Legislative Council is therefore required. We surely have the right to refuse the DoJ's request to obtain evidence. But without the Ordinance, our Council may be likened to a company in which all Members are directors, to say the very least. Any physical scuffle between the directors and the staff will certainly constitute a criminal offence. Deputy President, as one of the employers, our refusal to let certain colleagues give evidence will constitute a serious offence, and we will most likely pervert the course of justice, to say the very least. Certainly, the Legislative Council has its privileges, but can it use such privileges casually, with the public being convinced? I believe members of the public will see it clearly. For this reason, we cannot exercise our privileges arbitrarily. And as they always say, powers should not be exploited to the fullest. Indeed, we should exercise such powers in a lawful, proper and reasonable way. I see no reason why such leave should not be granted to assist with the relevant investigation into the case of Mr Andrew WAN and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting this time around. As a good citizen, we should also assist the Police with their criminal investigation, which is a primary responsibility rested with us.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

A number of Members have opined that the system is unfair, and the rulings made by President Andrew LEUNG are also much condemned. However, why should there be the Rules of Procedure? Why should there be a President? Why should there be security staff? In fact, our participation in 6526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 such a system has somewhat implied our endorsement of it. Certainly, we will not endorse everything, and I also see some inadequacies. Thus, we should push for changes. If we consider that the democratic system is not good enough, we should then take forward the constitutional reform in a gradual and orderly manner. Today I have no intention to debate on the origin of the current absence of a timetable for the implementation of universal suffrage in the elections of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council. Members of the public have seen clearly who voted down the package. All this actually needs to go through a process. Do they think that they can rationalize their barbaric acts of violent charging, distort the facts and call black white just because the existing parliamentary system does not measure up to their standards? They are trying to divert attention by means of such sophistry. Sometimes I greatly admire the eloquence of Members from the opposition camp, which is remarkable. I greatly admire them, particularly Members from the legal profession who have courageously come forward to speak in favour of them today. Blinded by narrow partisanship, they are more than prepared to come to the defence of their cronies. I also feel helpless about that. While I admire their courage, I deplore the phenomenon of fixating on partisanship but failing to distinguish right from wrong in the Council.

It is true that the Council should have ground rules, or else it cannot keep functioning. Does it really not matter at all even if the security staff do nothing but look on, just as they said? That is by no means good for members of the public. I believe this incident is simple in essence. No matter where a certain incident takes place, when a staff member is affected and other staff members may be required to give evidence, there is no reason for us to refuse them permission to assist with the investigation or provide evidence. In so doing, are we not showing gross disrespect for the judicial system? I think we have to take this factor into account. Regardless of the way the three powers are separated or have checks and balances among one another, we cannot cut ourselves off from the system and the outside world, doing whatever we please here behind closed doors. I do not think the situation has slid into such lawlessness. If the Legislative Council has descended to such a state, its dignity and system will really suffer a more serious blow. I strongly call on Honourable Members not to approve of the weird logic of Dr Fernando CHEUNG, who bury some fundamental principles for the sake of the interests of his political allies. Otherwise, we will really let the public down. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6527

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what do you wish to elucidate?

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, as I notice that Mr LUK Chung-hung has just pointed out that I seem to have misunderstood the meaning of "separation of powers", I wish to elucidate it. The English equivalent of the term "三權分立" is "separation of powers", with no specific reference to "three powers". In different countries, this concept varies in term of … what I mean is that in the United Kingdom, the arrangement of separation of powers is in place …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have elucidated the part of your speech which has been misunderstood, and need not explain further.

Mr Dennis KWOK, please speak.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, by speaking in support of the motion put forward by Dr Fernando CHEUNG, I wish to highlight that a Magistrates' Court gave a ruling on HKSAR v LEUNG Kwok-hung on March last year that the penalties under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) ("P&P Ordinance") in general, and section 17(c) in particular, do not apply to Legislative Council Members. I have also written to all Honourable colleagues earlier about this issue, reminding them to take note of the ruling. President, as the case is under appeal, I will steer absolutely clear of the content of the case lest the relevant appeal work of the Court might be prejudiced. However, I can point out that the ruling expounds the grounds for the inapplicability of the relevant penalties to Members. I wish simply to read out the content of the ruling and put them on record.

In reading out the content of the ruling, I wish first to make clear to Members that while there are Members now being accused of allegedly violating section 19 of P&P Ordinance, the question of whether section 17 to section 19 of P&P Ordinance, from the legal point of view, applies to Members is now being dealt with in a related case currently undergoing appeal―one that may well reach all the way to the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA"). At this point, the ruling of the Court states that Members are excluded―I stress "excluded"―from the relevant penalties. While there are, certainly, both supporting and opposing legal viewpoints set out in the ruling, the one accepted by the Magistrate is that 6528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Members are excluded from these penalties lest a chilling effect might be resulted. In other words, when a President/Chairman―such as the President in this so-called case―arbitrarily expels a Member, and the Member in question does not accept the order …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, first, I appreciate that the ruling you mentioned relates to a case of a Magistrates' Court, and you have repeatedly stated that the ruling of the Magistrate is not a precedent. Second, you cannot accuse any President/Chairman of arbitrarily expelling Members. Please withdraw such an accusation.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): I will not withdraw it, President, since, for one thing, instead of talking about a specific case, I am hypothesizing a scenario where a President/Chairman arbitrarily exercises his power of expelling Members. Moreover, what you said about the ruling of this Magistrate not being a precedent is wrong from the legal standpoint, so I too ask you to withdraw such a comment. Under the legal system of Hong Kong, the rulings of Magistrates' Courts have guiding value. While Magistrates' Courts are courts of lower instances, they are courts all the same, and the rulings given in these courts also stand part of the common law of Hong Kong. I hope the President will not belittle the rulings given by a Magistrate. Magistrates are judges too. Cases heard by Magistrates could at times be most complicated, possibly involving some extremely difficult legal issues, such as whether P&P Ordinance is applicable to a Member in the LEUNG Kwok-hung case.

President, while I said just now that I would not make lengthy remarks―I have already spoken for over four minutes so far―I wish to state formally in this Chamber that, in respect of this case, the latest legal basis points to the inapplicability of the relevant penalties of P&P Ordinance to Members. I hope Members will take note of the relevant precedent. That said, I will stop talking about that case lest the relevant appeal procedures might be prejudiced.

Second, in the case of arbitrary expulsion of a Member by a President/Chairman, even if the Member in question does not accept the order, there is not much that the Member can do except, at best, standing in the Chamber and saying: "President/Chairman, I do not accept it. I think you are abusing your power." If this Member does not wish to obey the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6529

President's/Chairman's ruling and argues with him/her, such an action could indeed be deemed as a hindrance to the proceedings of meetings, according to statutory provisions. Does it mean that the Member in question has violated the penalties under P&P Ordinance and is thus liable for a criminal offence? I hope Members will think about this: If you find yourself in such a situation―certainly, most of the meetings are presently chaired by Members of the pro-establishment camp, while the opportunities for pan-democrats to chair meetings are becoming scarce―a situation concerning an inappropriate exercise of power by a President/Chairman or a Member's refusal to accept a certain ruling, is it possible for the Member in question to …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, this debate is about whether special leave should be granted by the Council, not about how a President/Chairman performs his/her work. Please return to the question of the debate.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I can say that the question in hand concerns the exercise of the relevant power by a President/Chairman. I most certainly agree with you that we should not discuss a case still undergoing judicial proceedings. I have neither the plan nor the intention to discuss the details of the case concerning Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN. However, I wish to put forth some legal viewpoints―from a precedent applicable to the existing common law of Hong Kong―to illustrate the indisputable and apparent fact that specific provisions under P&P Ordinance are legally contestable.

Hence, I agree with and support Dr Fernando CHEUNG's effort in putting forth this issue for a debate among Members in this Chamber, so that the content of the discussion could be put on record. While members can agree or disagree with the content of the ruling, we cannot deny its existence altogether because the Court has indeed given a ruling. Certainly, in respect of the decision made by you, President, or the conduct of the two Members, Members can likewise agree or disagree and discuss about them. But we must make it clear that the legal issues pertaining to the existing P&P Ordinance has yet to be sorted out. Under such circumstances, is the Administration's decision to prosecute the two Members appropriate? Is the timing right? Given that the relevant case has 6530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 been referred to the Court of Appeal, and will probably be referred to CFA, should we not wait until a ruling is given by the Court in clarifying the relevant legal issues, before addressing the accusations of Members' supposed contravention of the Rules of Procedure or disobedience to the President's order, and their refusal to leave the Chamber? I hope Members will think about the aforementioned reasoning as well as the relationship and legal issues of the two cases before deciding on how to vote.

I so submit, President.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the motion that the leave be refused moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG in accordance with Rule 90(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The motion concerns the prosecution instituted by the Government against Mr Andrew WAN and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting. In June last year, in the course of the Legislative Council's examination of the motion in relation to the co-location arrangements, Mr WAN and Mr LAM, while being ordered to withdraw from the Chamber, engaged in pulling and dragging with the security personnel and were subsequently arrested by appointment by the Police. They have both been prosecuted for the offence of "Obstructing an officer of the Legislative Council in the execution of duty", allegedly contrary to the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("Ordinance"), while Mr WAN has further been prosecuted for the offence of "common assault".

President, I will get straight to the point without discussing the case and directly make known my stance on my support for the motion that the leave be refused. I consider the function of the Council that popularly elected Members speak up for people. The application for Special Leave of the Legislative Council by the Department of Justice entails intervention by the Judiciary in the legislature. The key point is that the executive authorities infringe upon the autonomy and dignity of the Legislative Council through the Judiciary. The original intent of the Ordinance is not to restrict Members of the Legislative Council. Its purpose is to afford protection to Members so that they can freely express views on behalf of their voters, not under duress, and discharge their duties.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6531

I consider some prosecutions resulting from the meetings of the Legislative Council the executive authorities' intervention in the legislature by exploiting the judiciary. In principle, I do not approve of the prosecutions initiated by the Department of Justice. In my view, if the prosecutions are substantiated, they are no longer incidents involving the personal affairs of Members but represent the collapse of the core values of Hong Kong and the room for speaking in the Council. Moreover, during the debate on the relevant motion in the Council, Members' behaviour constituted a peaceful protest. There had been more vigorous protests in the past. I do not understand the reasons for the judicial intervention this time.

More importantly, had it not been proposed and sanctioned by the President, the Police would not initiate an investigation of its own accord. I am worried that invoking P&P Ordinance to prosecute Members is an overall tactic the Government has employed in collusion with the pro-establishment camp, in the hope of creating a breach to further compress the room for discussion in the Council. At that time, as regards any way to defy unjust judgments or unjust laws, if the President considers the conduct of the Council proceedings thereby disrupted, prosecution can then be instituted against Members of the pro-democracy camp for disrupting the conduct of the meeting. It is naked political suppression.

A legislature is the place for people to discuss policies. The Legislative Council of Hong Kong is not only a legislature constrained by laws, but also one of the battlefields of the greatest tension in political strife. Members' rights and freedom are already governed by the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), not completely unrestrained. The RoP can basically maintain effective order of policy discussion in the Legislative Council without the need of judicial intervention.

But then again, time is truly a thief who slowly steals people's memories. If the public read only the headings of news reports, they may reprimand the Legislative Council for impropriety and Members for only being capable of quarrelling, shouting and breaking rules.

However, at the time, what exactly happened in the Council? What did the President and the numerous pro-government Members do? How many people remember that? I am afraid Honourable colleagues―myself included―may have already forgotten many details therein. After all, in the 6532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 past few years, too many unjust happenings, too many degenerate and indecent deeds and too many dark days were seen in the Council, which have made us forget that true violence is invariably systemic violence. The rights and wrongs have been laid out in front of us. It is up to us to decide whether we are willing to open our eyes and discern the facts.

In this debate, Members should avoid discussing the details of the case in their speeches so as not to violate the requirement for cases pending in a court of law set out in Rule 41(2) of the Rules of Procedure. But I think it is worthwhile to "rewind the tape" and find out exactly what injustice happened back then.

People or the media can check the recordings of the meeting that day. On that day, during the debate on the motion related to the co-location arrangements in the Legislative Council, the President, Andrew LEUNG, who only desired an expeditious passage of the motion, had consistently ignored requests and questions from Members. Many Members had raised their hands and even stood up to raise a point of order, but to no avail.

Alright, finally in the rare occasions when the President was "magnanimously" willing to call the names of the Members so that they could raise points of order. We thought we could engage in rational communication. It turned out that the President just let the Members say their questions but never gave any response. He simply turned a deaf ear. After a Member finished speaking, he then called the name of the next Member, as if nothing had happened and he had heard nothing.

In the Chamber, as there were media and public sitting in on the meeting, and also the Council proceedings were videoed and recorded, everything could be discussed openly and above board. But the President did not know how to handle the points of order raised by Members. The President, Andrew LEUNG, often only asked the Members to meet him in his office after the meeting for him to explain. However, by then the motion would have been bulldozed through. What was left to discuss? To draw an analogy, in a World Cup match, if a handball is made and a player files a complaint, can the referee tell the complainant to discuss with him in his office after the match on the condition that the goal remains valid?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6533

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please come back to the subject of this debate. You should not pass comments on how the President conducts the meeting.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Okay, I will then talk about a more distant incident. The unreasonably disqualified former Member, LEUNG Kwok-hung, when asking a question about the dereliction of duty committed by Eric MA, the then Under Secretary for Development, in respect of the Wang Chau incident in a meeting of a panel of the Legislative Council, out of dissatisfaction with the Government's failure to provide documents, left his seat and walked to Eric MA's seat and snatched the documents from the desk. As a result of his actions, he was said to have violated section 17 "Contempts" of the Ordinance.

In accordance with section 17 of P&P Ordinance, any person who "disobeys any lawful order made by the Council or a committee requiring him to attend […] the Council or committee", "refuses to be examined before, or to answer any lawful and relevant question put by, the Council or a committee during the course of any examination", or―as "Long Hair" was accused of―"creates or joins in any disturbance which interrupts or is likely to interrupt the proceedings of the Council or a committee while the Council or such committee is sitting".

As stated in the official record of proceedings of the meeting of the Legislative Council in which the relevant bill was read the second time in 1985, P&P Ordinance sought to codify the various powers and privileges possessed by both the Hong Kong Legislative Council and the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. In the United Kingdom, as well as Australia and New Zealand which inherited similar parliamentary systems, the parliament has since the beginning possessed finite power of punishment, including the power to punish any person guilty of contempt of parliament, to ensure the performance of its functions. Therefore, such codification of P&P Ordinance included "Contempts". The change effected by P&P Ordinance that "Contempts" be enforced by the Courts is instrumental to safeguarding the fairness of hearings.

Codified laws seek to expressly provide for existing standards and procedures. Therefore, understanding the standards by which the House of Commons of the United Kingdom exercises such a power helps cast light on the nature of "Contempts". According to the canonical works on parliamentary 6534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 procedure and powers in the United Kingdom―Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, "Contempts" carry a broad definition, including any act which obstructs the operation of the parliament …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, this Council is not conducting a discussion on the legislation of the offence of contempts, but rather a debate on whether or not the special leave should be granted. Please come back to the subject of this debate and refrain from mentioning irrelevant matters.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Okay, President. Please allow me to wrap up. Nowadays, not only will anti-government street protests be subject to political prosecution, representatives of public opinions cannot escape political trials for undertaking resistance in the unjust Council either. It is the real inner nature of the Hong Kong politics at present. Implicating protestors in judicial proceedings, regardless of the results, involves a process which is expected to be full of difficulties and dangerous obstructions. It not only expends time and money, but also drains the willpower, definitely a tough challenge and test.

Since the inception of the Special Administrative Region Government, the Chief Executive and Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux alike often speak in official tones or make empty talks in replying questions or giving evidence in meetings of the Legislative Council, whether in the oral question sessions in the weekly meetings, the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Sessions, meetings of various panels and subcommittees, as well as the public hearings of the Public Accounts Committee. Article 64 of the Basic Law is rendered virtually non-existent. Moreover, as Members' motions are subject to separate voting and require a majority vote of each of the two groups of Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections and returned by functional constituencies …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, if you continue to digress from the subject, I will ask you to stop speaking, because the debate in process in the Council is on whether or not the special leave should be granted, not issues of the political system. Please present such views on other occasions.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6535

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Thank you, President, for the reminder. Just now Mr LUK Chung-hung has stated that some parents disapprove of their children reading or watching news about the Legislative Council so as to avoid exposing them to bad influence. I must point out that the persistently low support rating of the Legislative Council is not a result of the resistance staged by the opposition camp but due to the castration of the Legislative Council's powers and its failure to reflect public opinions and demonstrate civil rights.

Mr LUK also disagrees that Members of the Legislative Council have the privilege of immunity from prosecution. Indeed, the privilege is vested in, not Members of the Legislative Council, but numerous Members from the pro-government camp who bully the minority with their majority vote. They and the Government only wish to further compress the room for policy discussion in the Council.

Confrontation in the legislature is civil disobedience against inequitable political systems (The buzzer sounded) …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please stop speaking.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr SHIU Ka-chun. However, someone would be very upset as Mr SHIU Ka-chun read from the script, and that is, Ms Claudio MO. She has always criticized Members for reading from a script as she thinks it is mindless. I really appreciate that the last paragraph of Mr SHIU Ka-chun's speech was written on the spot in response to Mr LUK Chung-hung's speech. But other than that, the remaining three quarters of his speech had nothing to do with the motion today. Why? Because there is actually not much to debate on.

How did this motion come about? There is no need to mention judicial whirlpool, constitutional system, political suppression, etc. Those are not the cause. The cause of this motion is very simple, and that is, several security staff members were allegedly assaulted and injured by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN …

6536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, please refrain from mentioning the principal details of the case.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): I said allegedly only, which was really the cause.

They are involved in this case, and therefore summoned to give evidence. It is as simple as that. Today, however, it is described as political suppression. Mr SHIU Ka-chun even mentioned judicial interference just now. I think there is no need to politicize the incident. Everyone in Hong Kong knows holding double standards is the usual style of the opposition camp.

President, often enough, when they do something, it is legal, but when we do the same thing, it is illegal. When they do something, it is caring, but when we do it, we must have bad intentions. When they do something, it is administrative supervision, but when we do it, it is political suppression. When they do something, it is reconstructing the truth, but if we oppose the motion today, it is judicial interference. In fact, they are just covering themselves up under a shielding case and beautifying their crimes with hypocritical rhetoric.

Just now, Mr SHIU Ka-chun stated at the end of this speech that pulling protesters into judicial proceedings is injustice. Give these questions a second thought: What is judicial justice? What are the core values of Hong Kong? What will happen to our society if one may act as they please, completely destroy social order or even trample on the rights of others under the banner of "resistance"? They should give this question some thought.

The Member who proposed this motion is actually Dr Fernando CHEUNG of the Labour Party. We hope this case can will be tried fairly and justice can be done to the wage earners who are dutiful security staff.

Let us take a look at the past years, and I hope the Secretariat can provide the figures which I do not have on hand. In the past four years (figures over too longer a period may be difficult to obtain), how many staff members were hospitalized due to injuries, how many days were they hospitalized at the maximum, how many days were they on leave and were unable to seek justice eventually? As their employer, can the Legislative Council disregard the rights of others merely because of politics? It is impossible.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6537

Even if such leave is granted for the staff members to give evidence, will justice really be served? I cannot predict as it depends on the Court's judgment. If the judgment is not to their liking, they will again jump out and call it judicial injustice and political suppression. Mr SHIU Ka-chun will say that protesters are being pulled into judicial proceedings in order to wear down their will power, so that they cannot monitor the Government. In any event, they will have something to say. Hence, I hope the Government, pro-establishment Members and Hong Kong people will see clearly the truth of the matter and avoid being blinded by politics. I hope our efforts will eventually receive public recognition.

Just now, a Member mentioned the freedom of speech and said Mr Andrew WAN and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting were merely speaking in the Council, so their actions should be protected. I met a friend today whose remarks really make sense: Their so-called freedom of speech can cause physical harm, not merely emotional harm. If I am so emotionally fragile that I cannot stand their verbal attacks, they may be said to have a sharp tongue. But when their freedom of speech causes bodily harm to others, why should they be protected? Merely because of this motion that opposes the request? It is impossible.

A Member said just now―although he might have digressed from the subject―that there is no way for them to vent their dissatisfaction with the President's ruling, but it is actually not true. They may file a judicial review and sue the Legislative Council through judicial proceedings. Yet, I understand that they will not spend their own money on lawsuits or file a judicial review under their own names. Instead, they will find an elderly person to do so. The judicial review concerning the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge is a good example. The judicial review over the disqualification of Members was also initiated by others to which they were keen to offer help.

The most unpleasant words I heard today was: Don't blame the security staff because they were just doing their jobs. They did not do anything wrong. They worked really hard. We say that they are working hard on the one hand while hitting them on the other. Dear security staff, remember to report for duty on time tomorrow. Members who hit and hurt them told them that they would not be blamed. What kind of logic is this? We are just seeking the leave for the security staff to give evidence. We do not find the Members concerned guilty today, and these so-called Members do not even allow that.

6538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

As a matter of fact, there are many other examples of them harbouring each other. In the incident where Mr HUI Chi-fung allegedly robbed the mobile phone of a woman, they did not approve an investigation either. Another example is the incident involving Mark SIMON and Jimmy LAI, in which they also opposed to summoning the two persons concerned to give evidence. Their stance always takes precedence over everything else. The investigation report was eventually voted down due to the procedures, but then they put it the other way round and said it was proved by the Legislative Council that they had not accepted any "black money". These people are so shameless.

Nevertheless, Hong Kong society was so weird in that the most powerful and viscous ones always had the say. However, that was a matter of the past. People are waking up gradually. Their so-called "Hong Kong pigs" have awakened and realized that they were actually "Hong Kong pigs" in trusting them. From the results of the two previous elections, we can see that public opinion has begun to waver. Will they still get public recognition if they continue to confuse right and wrong? They will only sink deeper and deeper and be deserted by Hong Kong people.

I believe the existence of the opposition camp is valuable. But the original value is lost due to the lousy job that they have done. Therefore, I hope Hong Kong people will gradually see the truth of the matter instead of the version beautified by slogans and judged before trial. Will the situation be like what Donald TRUMP did to Venezuela: Appointed someone as the President, recognized his presidency and called it a day? This is their so-called Western democracy, which we do not subscribe to. We hope Hong Kong will uphold justice and the core value that we have all along insisted on. The core value must not be used as a political tool by them. Thank you, President.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, this debate is actually very simple. Several security staff of the Legislative Council, while on duty, had physical confrontations with two Members of the Legislative Council when they executed the President's ruling, and were therefore injured. The Legislative Council Commission reported the case to the Police with a view to safeguarding the occupational safety of the employees of the Legislative Council and offering them protection when they carry out their duties. The trial in question hence arises and several security staff are requested to give evidence.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6539

Dr Fernando CHEUNG has now proposed a motion to raise objection and refuse to allow these security staff to give evidence. All of us should know that giving evidence is not equivalent to ruling immediately that the two Honourable Members are convicted. They are only requested to state the fact that they have seen or experienced. The aim is to prove the fact instead of arguing on a legal point of view. However, not to mention that Dr Fernando CHEUNG is a member of the Labour Party but he has never thought of safeguarding the occupational safety of the employees of the Legislative Council in the first place, what I have heard today from all the arguments presented by Members of the opposition camp have actually strayed extremely far from the subject. They were not talking about this incident. What they said was that the President's ruling was inappropriate, they were bullied, and the strong was taking advantage of the weak. Mr Dennis KWOK has said that it is stipulated in the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") that the law is not applicable to Members. Who is discussing P&P Ordinance with him? Now we hope that the security staff can prove the fact, not to prove whether P&P Ordinance is applicable to Members. This is an issue which should be left to the court's judgment. It should be judged by the Court, not by Mr Dennis KWOK or the opposition Members. We are only debating on whether the security staff should be allowed to give evidence. It is that simple.

They hope to cover up this fact in an attempt to harbour Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr Andrew WAN. They would not even allow these security staff to give oral statement and provide evidence. Have they gone utterly overboard by doing so? They cannot think of anything to say, have no point to argue, and then try to divert attention. Whether the security staff should be allowed to act as witnesses and give evidence is a matter concerning the fact. This is such a simple issue, but they utter a bunch of bull, mentioning the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, raising that it is not applicable according to P&P Ordinance, and then alleging that the President's ruling is inappropriate. If they disagree to the President's ruling, they can settle scores with him afterwards, which is what they have done in the past. They can propose a motion of no confidence in him or even initiate a judicial review, as Mr Steven HO said just now. Why did they have to trigger physical confrontations on the spot and inflict injury on the security staff? It is not the first time for them to do so. It happened several times before but no report was made to the Police as the Legislative Council decided not to do so and asked the security staff to report the cases by themselves. How could they report the cases? This time, the case 6540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 was reported with a view to protecting the lawful rights of the employees. Given that a report has been made, the case is brought before the Court for trial, so witnesses and evidence would certainly be involved.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG moves this motion today, which is exactly an attempt to cover up the evidence, and prohibit others from saying anything. The matter is that simple. They uttered a bunch of bull, mentioned dozens of so-called jurisprudence, but that is completely irrelevant. Giving evidence seeks to prove the fact. The security staff would tell the truth. As they know nothing about jurisprudence, they would only talk about their personal experience on that day and state what they observed. What is the point of making it so complicated? This is exactly the long-standing practice adopted by the opposition Members to "fish in troubled waters". When you are talking about something, they would discuss with you another issue, so as to cause confusion and make it impossible for others to know what they are talking about, so that people would not know what is being discussed in respect of the entire debate subject. It is because they are unable to put forward any justifications on the real topic. It is that simple.

In view of this, President, under such circumstances, I hope society would look at it clearly and one may also listen to the recordings. The arguments put forward by the opposition Members today are completely digressive and ridiculously irrelevant. They mentioned that the Speaker of the British Parliament would not order Members to be withdrawn from the Chamber. Yet, Members of the British Parliament make much of a gentleman than Members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. I have always said previously that the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong was passed down by the British people in the past, and it is used to manage men of honour and gentlemen but not gangsters. Nowadays, some Members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong are acting like gangsters and rogues. The reason for amending RoP is just that simple.

With these remarks, President, I disapprove of Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion. I also hope that Dr Fernando CHEUNG, being the representative of the Labour Party, could do some introspection on how he treats the employees.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6541

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, I am indeed appalled by the motion today. In the criminal procedure of the common law, it is the due process, which is crucial in the rule of law, that the Court can summon witnesses and that the truth of the case be established through examination in the court, before a judgment is handed down. Therefore, preventing witnesses from giving evidence constitutes a serious criminal offence. However, the motion today attempts to make the Legislative Council exercise its privileges to prohibit the witnesses to a criminal case from giving evidence in court, while presenting various so-called political reasons in attempt to override the proper judicial procedure. Nevertheless, such so-called reasons or arguments are indeed all untenable, as if they were gift wrap enclosing poisons. Their show only makes the true nature of such a farce staged by the opposition camp so nakedly to harbour someone and shield his faults more exposed. It is really a nakedly real-life farce that exposes someone being harboured and his faults shielded.

President, the powers and privileges of the Legislative Council can never be used as a tool to cover up criminal acts or alleged criminal acts. What is equally shocking is that Honourable colleagues supporting the motion often speak of upholding the rule of law and procedural justice. Today, they have so readily cast away the due process of witnesses giving evidence. Why must the six Legislative Council officers involved in the case be prohibited from giving evidence in the criminal proceedings? Even though the two persons implicated in the case are Members of the Legislative Council, why should they be not treated in the same way as all people involved in criminal cases that the prosecution and defence each can summon their own witnesses for examination so that the witnesses have the chance to tell the truth in court and the prosecution and defence can engage in a debate and make representations on their own in a fair trial? Why must every means possible be employed to prevent these six Legislative Council officers from giving evidence in court? Exactly what do they fear?

President, everyone is equal before the law. As regards criminal cases involving ordinary people, if someone prevents, or has the intention to prevent, another person from giving evidence in court, he already commits a criminal offence and is subject to arrest. Now, Members from the opposition camp arbitrarily exercise the privileges of the Legislative Council without valid grounds to prevent these six officers of the Legislative Council from giving evidence in court. In the public's eyes, what else can it be if it is not an abuse of the Legislative Council's privileges? May all Honourable colleagues supporting the 6542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 motion please note that the rule of law and procedural justice are not something to be upheld when they are favourable, and randomly cast aside and overridden when they are unfavourable. The motion shows that, in the mind of Members supporting the motion, the rule of law has completely vanished. When such Members cry for safeguarding the rule of law and procedural justice in the future, will they have the faintest trace of shame?

President, to uphold the rule of law and safeguard justice, I support the Council, pursuant to the application for Special Leave by the Department of Justice, in granting leave to six officers of the Legislative Council to give evidence in the criminal proceedings of HKSAR v LAM Cheuk-ting & WAN Siu-kin, and oppose the motion proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, this agenda item is supposed to be waived through without a debate. It has neither been anticipated nor, by convention, necessary. But many colleagues today actually spent a lot of time moving a motion and speaking in opposition to granting the leave. I believe I have a responsibility to give a respond on a couple of points in respect of the incident. First, I heard Mr Dennis KWOK, a barrister, use his legal credentials just now to accuse the President of making incorrect comments, even demanding the latter to withdraw them. I find it a bit unfair for Mr Dennis KWOK to do this. It is "a bit unfair", to be put in the fairest sense, and put bluntly, taking advantage of the underinformed, the underinformed being the President, who presumably is not as familiar with the subject as he does.

We can indeed refer any cases, including those of Magistrates' Courts, to the Court as references. Yet, I think what the President meant just now was that those case are non-binding, i.e. they are valued as reference only and other Courts will not find it necessary to follow them up. These cases are non-binding not just for courts of higher instances, but even for other Magistrates' Courts, not unlike learning about what your neighbours have said and that is all. Such is the value of the case in question. It is especially true in this case, which involves LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6543 such crucial legal principles as whether the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") is applicable to "any person", including Legislative Council Members, that a decision of a Magistrates' Court can by no means be taken as an authority. Hence, in this respect, Mr Dennis KWOK is, I am afraid, being dishonest by overplaying the authority of the case.

President, another point I wish to make is that, Mr Dennis KWOK wondered why we should not suspend further actions, including opening any new cases, since the LEUNG Kwok-hung case is set for an appeal. While it is certainly an argument that the Department of Justice ("DoJ") or any legal teams, including the one representing the defendant, involving in the case can make, it should by no means stop those teams currently undertaking the relevant investigation, i.e. police officers or DoJ, from making the appropriate preparation, including strictly complying with the procedures by coming to this Council and requesting leave, whether under section 7 of P&P Ordinance or Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), so that the next stage of work, such as collection of evidence, request for the relevant documents and testimonies from officers of the Council, can be taken forward.

Incidentally, President, such a procedure certainly has its roots in the historical context of respect to the Legislative Council. Yet, as a matter of fact, based on past cases, while the Legislative Council, for instance, has the power to vet and approve the appointment and dismissal of the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA") under the Basic Law, we have, based on past practices, never raised an objection. By the same token, on facilitating the giving of evidence, we have, based on past convention, never moved a motion in opposition. As a matter of fact, the President is allowed under both section 7(4) of P&P Ordinance, if my memory serves me right, and RoP 90(4) to grant leave in the capacity of President during any recess of the Council without a debate. It goes to prove that this so-called "cooling off" method allows no more than a ceremonial passage of the motion by the Council where necessary, which would permit the relevant law enforcement agencies to continue with their law enforcement and investigation work.

President, in the course of this debate, quite a few colleagues spoke of many old resentments and new grudges as well as numerous political struggles in the Council just now, which I certainly appreciate. However, if we are talking about the practice in the United Kingdom, there is one point I wish to add here. Apart from the fact that the Unite Kingdom boasts a gentleman-style Parliament 6544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 as mentioned by many Members just now, party whips there will ensure that their members would not stray far from the subject, let alone defy an order from the President or Speaker to leave the Chamber or even engage in physical confrontation. Such situations are unheard of in the United Kingdom. Besides, I hope colleagues of the opposition camp will take note of a practice in the United Kingdom, which came to our attention in the course of preparing for the amendments to RoP, that any Member of Parliament ("MP") who openly defies the Speaker's order by refusing to leave the Chamber may have to bear the dire consequence of being forbidden from attending the meetings in the rest of the MP's term, a penalty that can be triggered by a motion moved against the MP in question. Hence, members of any relatively civilized and cultured legislatures will not casually defy an order from their Speakers. Such a situation will only arise, I am afraid, in legislatures with cultures that are familiar and similar to that of Hong Kong, or those with uncivilized cultures that Hong Kong people scorn. Physical confrontation, throwing objects or disobeying the Speaker's order to leave the chamber all concern the basic courtesy and duties of a member. Defiance of the rule can theoretically lead to dire consequences.

Certainly, there were also criticisms on the President in respect of his standard or method of enforcement in some cases in the past. I too think that no one is perfect. Even in the cases of various Presidents in the past, there were theoretically some motions or rulings which many members of the public and I found hard to agree. That said, all in all, we must bow to the power vested in the President by law. Any challenges should be mounted by means of a motion of no confidence or follow-ups in the political sphere as propriety demands, rather than by such confrontational means as engaging in physical altercation or flagrant defiance to the President's order at any stage, any time or in any situation as one pleases. For such behaviour would start off a vicious cycle, resulting in the further degeneration of our legislative culture to an irreparable state that may incur public scorn. Fortunately, we had an opportunity a few months ago to amend RoP, thereby tightening the rules on filibustering or other inappropriate actions that stall or hinder the work of the Council. However, in respect of violent behaviour, blatant contravention of RoP and defiance to the President's order, I am afraid we still have to follow them up. While I hope Members will make use of this opportunity today to debate on this issue, there was in fact no precedent as such in the past. And I hope there will be no more such opportunities in the future where we will be forced to trigger the procedure of granting leave to certain colleagues for giving evidence.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6545

Indeed, some Members have more at stake in this situation than others. A colleague lamented just now that they have few opportunities to exercise such a power, for the opportunities for them to chair meetings these day are becoming scare. As a matter of fact, I am sure that colleagues of the pro-establishment camp, being law-abiding and reasonable in general, would rarely find themselves in such a situation. Generally speaking, no matter how upsetting they find a President's ruling, they will express their views in accordance with RoP, communicate with the President afterwards or relay their messages through other channels, instead of choosing to act in an uncivilized manner by engaging in physical confrontation.

While it is bad to get hurt by engaging in confrontation, it is utterly unfair to those colleagues on site who have no choice but to assist in enforcing order. Frankly speaking, there were discussions in the past on how such issues should be addressed. As far as I understand it, the Secretariat in the past would only ask the relevant officers or the injured officers whether they were willing or wished to pursue the matter, by making a report to the Police. However, since the past procedures were conducted merely in the form of inquiry, some officers more often than not chose to let matters drop by remaining silence and swallowing their grievance, lest they might invite troubles, be seen as difficult, be targeted or subjected to online bullying. I am not sure whether I can speak freely. But at least on a personal level, or at the premise of not violating the confidentiality principle of the Executive Council, I wish to share my personal thoughts. In my opinion, references could be drawn from the way traffic accidents are handled. Incidents with vehicle collision but no injury involved shall be settled privately between the two parties. They can negotiate between themselves who is right and who is wrong, and decide who should file an insurance claim. Everything should be settled on their own with minimal disruption to the ongoing traffic.

However, in a serious accident with personal injury or fatality, the drivers concerned must stop their vehicles and make a report to the Police, which would in turn conduct a proper and fair investigation in determining whether one or both parties have to assume criminal liability. This can safeguard the rights and interests of both parties in the accident, provide the innocent victims with a degree of protection under the circumstances and minimize subjectiveness by taking the decision of whether to make a report to the Police out of the hands of the parties involved, the casualties or the injured security personnel. According to more straightforward criteria, any incidents that cause injuries, necessitate hospitalization of the injured persons for treatment, or lead to the filing of cases 6546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 concerning occupational injuries should be subject to police investigation. Certainly, the Police will take no action if no criminal liability is involved. However, cases involving criminality as objectively found by the Police should theoretically in no way be covered by the privileges invested in the Council by P&P Ordinance. The relevant privileges serve only to guarantee our freedom of expression, not immunity from any physical actions. The position from which the line is drawn is crystal clear, even to firebrands like Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung who had staged multiple disruptions. We certainly understand this, and there are precedents. As I mentioned just now, given that the applicability of P&P Ordinance to Members is still a moot point being contested in litigation, there is no need for us to talk much about it. However, I am convinced that the privileges invested by P&P Ordinance do not cover any physical and violent confrontation. It is even more unlikely still that Members, as long as they are part of "any person", can be exempted from any criminal liability under the relevant provision.

Certainly, I must stress again that I do not wish to comment too much on this case, but all in all, I hope that there will not be any need to trigger this process again in the future. Hopefully, in respect of the applicability of the relevant provision, proper interpretation will be given by the Court, even by the Supreme Court or CFA, in the future, so that Members will have a clearer idea of where the line is drawn. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, today, we are here to discuss the motion proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG in accordance with Rule 90(2) of the Rules of Procedure that the leave be refused. What leave is it that the motion proposes to refuse? It is the leave of the Legislative Council requested in accordance with Rule 90 of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("RoP") as required under section 7 of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") (Cap. 382).

Here, I have to respond to the views and observations put forward by a number of pro-establishment Members in their speeches earlier. First of all, some Members said that this is only a procedure and that no Member has ever LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6547 moved a motion that the leave be refused under RoP 90(2) before, but actually this is not true. As also mentioned by Mr Holden CHOW earlier, on 1 December 2016, regarding the case of LEUNG Kwok-hung being charged with misconduct in public office, the Legislative Council also had a debate similar to this debate today on a motion that the leave be refused.

Some Members questioned that if the Legislative Council can refuse to give leave, does it mean that when Members acted against the law or committed a criminal offence, no report should be made to the Police to arrest the persons concerned, or when prosecution is instituted against them, the witnesses should not be allowed to give evidence in court? The answer is, of course, absolutely in the negative, and that is not the case in reality. In a number of cases in the past, leave was sought from the Legislative Council under RoP 90 for the persons concerned to appear in court. During my term of office there were the case of Sixtus LEUNG and YAU Wai-ching being charged with unlawful assembly, and the case of Dr CHENG Chung-tai being charged with desecration of the national flag. Given that this procedure was not carried out for some cases, some people queried that a double standard is adopted. Why was it that no one had proposed to refuse giving leave under RoP 90(2) for the case of Sixtus LEUNG and YAU Wai-ching and that of CHENG Chung-tai, but a motion to this effect is proposed for this case now? I will explain it later.

In this part of my speech, what I most wish to talk about is that in the case of Dr CHENG Chung-tai being charged with desecration of the national flag, for instance, I recall that some Members had proposed a motion under RoP and the Basic Law, proposing the disqualification of the Member from office, and I moved at the time a motion under RoP 49B(2A) that no further action shall be taken. But when leave of the Legislative Council was sought under RoP 90 for witnesses to give evidence in court, RoP 90(2) was not invoked by Members of the Legislative Council. This is proof that the invocation of RoP 90(2) by a Member on this occasion will not lead to a lawless situation in future where the witnesses will be barred from giving evidence in court when Members of the Legislative Council committed an offence. I have to make this point clear in the first place.

What is the major difference in this case? Have Members read the letter from the Prosecutions Division of the Department of Justice ("DoJ") to the Legislative Council? The reasons stated in the letter are of my utmost concern in considering whether I should support Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion. 6548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Certainly, when discussing or debating whether Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion warrants support, it is necessary to briefly review the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The cause of this application for special leave or this motion on refusing to give leave is the proceedings of the resumption of the Second Reading debate and the Third Reading on the Guangzhou- Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill on 13 June and the turmoil that happened during the time. On that day the President made a number of rulings which, in my point of view, are certainly groundless, unfair, and unreasonable. Insofar as the debate is concerned, I would say that these were controversial rulings. The pro-democracy Members had put up a fight at the time. Mr Andrew WAN and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting also took part in the fight. They refused to accept the President's rulings and insisted on discharging their duties, thus leading to the situation where the security officers proceeded to drive them out.

The Legislative Council Secretariat sent an SMS message to Members that night, saying that with the consent of the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council Commission, who are President Andrew LEUNG and Ms Starry LEE of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong respectively, the Police would, after the meeting ended at night, gather evidence in the Chamber in relation to a case in which a security officer was interfered while in execution of his duty and sustained injuries. The President said that it was not a political decision to report the case to the Police. What he said at the time was this: "I think LCC will only look at the matter itself. It is not political in nature. It is about how I, being an employer, will handle it when a colleague is injured."

Today, a number of Members, especially Members of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, consider it most compelling to argue that as a colleague was injured, it is, therefore, necessary for the case to be reported to the Police, for charges to be laid or for evidence to be given in court. In fact, all Members of the Legislative Council are the employers of the Secretariat staff. Is it true that we do not even allow the staff to give evidence in court? Besides, earlier on some Members also discussed the question of whether the case should be reported to the Police. As far as I know, there is now an established procedure that in the event of a staff member sustaining injuries, the Secretariat will call the Police automatically without having to refer the case for discussion by the Legislative Council Commission. I am not going to discuss whether the decision or the relevant arrangement made by the Legislative Council LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6549

Commission is correct, though some Members have expressed concern over whether the composition or structure of the Legislative Council Commission can reflect the views of all parties.

In the past, for affairs that take place internally in the Legislative Council, if they could be handled by the President himself or by the Legislative Council itself, they would be so handled. Some Members questioned that if those Members were not driven away and if we did not insist that the security officers should drive these Members out of the Chamber, how the meeting could continue. This is not necessarily true. In the past, some former Chairmen presiding at the meeting would make their own judgment. When Members being told to leave did not go away, other Members could leave the Chamber instead and that is, they could carry on with the meeting in another room. An advantage of "changing room" is that it will not give rise to bigger conflicts. Of course, this is not the focus of our discussion today. I am only trying to look at it in a positive way and see how we can reduce these conflicts and the chance of staff members being injured in future. As a matter of fact, we can have more discussions from various perspectives.

Let me turn back to this case. Members should take a look at the letter from the Prosecutions Division of DoJ to the Legislative Council because its contents are the major factor that I have considered in deciding whether or not I should support the motion proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG. Let me briefly read out its contents and I cite, "The reasons for the application are as follows. Hon LAM and Hon WAN have been prosecuted for the offence of 'Obstructing an officer of the Legislative Council in the execution of duty', contrary to section 19(b) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, Cap. 382. Hon WAN has further been prosecuted for the offence of 'Common Assault', contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 40 of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212. It is alleged that during the Council meeting held in the Chamber of the LegCo on 13 June 2018, Hon LAM and Hon WAN obstructed an officer of the LegCo, namely, WONG Cheung, in the execution of his duty to carry out the order of the President of the LegCo for Hon LAM to leave the Chamber. Hon WAN also …"

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please do not read out the contents of the letter in detail.

6550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I am not discussing it in detail. But I need to make it clear whether I support that the leave be granted. There are only two more sentences before I can finish reading this letter. It does not affect anyone; nor does it affect the judicial proceedings. There are just two more sentences that I have not yet read out. They are not added by me, and I am only citing them from the letter: "Hon WAN also assaulted another officer of the LegCo, namely CHENG Wing-wah, when he dashed towards the President's pedestal and bumped into the body of Mr CHENG. The evidence of the above-named witnesses will be necessary in the trial of Hon LAM and Hon WAN, and may involve events which had happened in the Chamber while the Council meeting was held."

What I have just read out are all the reasons put forward to the Legislative Council by the Prosecutions Division of DoJ. The reasons are all stated in this paragraph. How is it different from the past situations? In the case concerning Sixtus LEUNG and YAU Wai-ching and also that of CHENG Chung-tai, why did we not propose a motion that the leave be refused in accordance with RoP 90(2)? The biggest difference is that this time, DoJ has instituted prosecution under P&P Ordinance, and we hold that the authorities should not invoke P&P Ordinance to lay charges against the Members. Had DoJ not instituted prosecution under the Ordinance, the situation could have been different. For example, if, one day, a staff member told me that Dr Fernando CHEUNG had punched him, I would tell him to call the Police, and if the authorities sought leave of the Legislative Council for evidence to be gathered, we would certainly give our approval, so long as he has the guts to make such an allegation. When the case is taken to court, both sides can confront each other in front of the judge, and I think we have no reason to stop this from happening.

Concerning the former case of CHENG Chung-tai, he was charged with desecration of the national flag, whereas in the case of Sixtus LEUNG and YAU Wai-ching, they were charged with unlawful assembly. In both cases, P&P Ordinance was not invoked for prosecution, and a precedent where prosecution was instituted under the Ordinance was the case of LEUNG Kwok-hung. In the case of LEUNG Kwok-hung, he was charged with contempt under section 17(c) of P&P Ordinance. As Members also mentioned earlier on, he had grabbed a document from the then Under Secretary for Development, Eric MA. Why did we not propose a motion that the leave be refused under RoP 90(2) in respect of that case? In retrospect, I found that the Legislative Council was in recess when the application for leave was made in respect of that case, and when the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6551

Legislative Council is in recess, the President can decide on his own whether to give the leave or not. If we look at the case of WONG Yuk-man throwing a glass that happened a bit earlier than that, the application for leave was also made when this Council was in recess and therefore, the President could make a decision on his own.

Therefore, firstly, we have not adopted a double standard. In the past case of Sixtus LEUNG and YAU Wai-ching and that of CHENG Chung-tai, P&P Ordinance was not involved whereas in this case, prosecution was instituted under section 19(b) of P&P Ordinance, which reads, "assaults, interferes with, molests, resists or obstructs any officer of the Council while in the execution of his duty". In fact, I think the authorities should not lump the two things together. In other words, if any staff member considered that he had been assaulted and the Member was prosecuted for the offence of common assault, and if DoJ applied for leave of the Legislative Council for the purposes of the offence of common assault, I might have different considerations, and if that being the case, as to whether Dr Fernando CHEUNG would still propose a motion that the leave be refused under RoP 90(2), I think Members can ask him later as he will have a chance to talk about it in his concluding speech.

Therefore, I hope that Members or the pro-establishment Members will understand and distinguish between the two situations and will not lump them together. When a staff member is assaulted and hurt, disregarding whether it is true or not, we should make no criticism and the staff member should report it to the Police and state his case before a judge for the latter to make a decision. Those Members have criticized that we have no reason to stop the staff members from giving evidence, and that we are unscrupulous employers and have even perverted the course of justice, and they even questioned why unionists would treat workers in such a way. But they have not said clearly that the leave applied for is not purely for the purposes of the offence of common assault. Had DoJ distinguished between the two reasons and made an application to the Legislative Council for leave purely for the purposes of the offence of common assault, as I said just now, I might have different views on it. As the Prosecutions Division of DoJ has lumped the two reasons together in laying charges against the Members and in applying for leave of the Legislative Council for the staff members concerned to give evidence in court, I, therefore, do not agree to giving the leave. I will support the motion proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG today.

6552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, do you wish to reply?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I wish to speak. I have listened to the speeches of the pro-Government camp for quite a long time. The reasons furnished by them are limited to two points. First, now the Court is going to adjudicate on the case and collection of evidence is thus necessary. If we hinder the staff of the Legislative Council from giving evidence or testifying in court, we will incur suspicion of perverting the course of justice. The Judiciary is the most independent and impartial. The incident happened and someone was injured. Why should we not grant the leave? This is one of the directions. Second, basically, the security officers are put in a difficult position. Since security officers are workers at the forefront, they must work in accordance with the President's instruction, yet they got injured because of this. Members severely criticized this. I was rather impressed by Mr Steven HO. He became increasingly agitated when he spoke. He even accused that the two Members, after assaulting the security officers, said to this effect: "How are you? Be good and come back to work on time tomorrow." It is simply a made-up story and sheer fabrication. Of course, what he said will not entail any legal consequences because today, Members' speeches in this Chamber are under protection. I also hope that his speeches will continue to enjoy protection. However, being Members, while we enjoy protection, we are accountable to the people of Hong Kong. Every word and every deed of Members are subject to monitoring. Hence, we have the greatest transparency here. Our meetings are open to the public. People will pay heed to our arguments, and they have discerning eyes. Please do not put the security officers in a difficult position.

Some Members have particularly mentioned that the Labour Party is supposed to help workers, but now it does not help the security officers at all. What a ridiculous remark! What does it have to do with helping security officers? The question we are debating now is the request of the Department of Justice ("DoJ") for the Legislative Council to grant special leave. First of all, if our proposal of the motion that the leave be refused will pervert the course of justice, then the real culprit is the President. Why did you allow me, in the capacity as a Member, to propose this motion here? If the consequence of proposing the motion is perverting the course of justice, how can you still serve as President? Would the President of the Legislative Council allow any Member to pervert the course of justice? Perhaps our levels are different. They distort LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6553 the truth and can say whatever they wish. If that is really the case, President, your good self would not have allowed me to propose the motion, and the law would not have been written in this way.

Why was the law written in this way? Why does the Chamber enjoy so much protection? Why is it necessary for DoJ to request special leave if it wishes to collect evidence from the Legislative Council? It is because it involves the privileges of the Legislative Council. I already tried to explain it in my opening remarks just now. Mr KWOK Wai-keung was one of my students. He mentioned that the other classmates should learn a lesson from this. I do encourage him to engage in independent thinking, but our levels are indeed different. He even criticized me for going against ethics. He really made me speechless.

This privilege we are discussing now seeks to provide Members with absolute freedom of speech and freedom of expression without any threat, fear or liability. The privilege relating to these freedoms even needs to be written in law for protection. Such a privilege originated from our need for a power strong enough to counteract another huge power, i.e. the executive power. I proposed this motion to refuse granting special leave because I see that the whole matter is unfair. Our Council has reached such a state that when the Members present staged a peaceful protest during a meeting in the Chamber, the President would consequently order Members to leave, which is your power, but what happened was that when the security officers executed the President's order, things got physical. Members of the pro-establishment camp kept saying "No, do not resort to force". Who resorted to force? Of course, it was the security officers who did that. But do I blame the security officers? I certainly do not blame them. If the security officers did not carry the Members away, their boss would dismiss them. Who is their boss? The Legislative Council Commission. That is to say, President, it was your good self who instigated such conduct.

As people having some common knowledge would know, if you suddenly snatched away someone in the street, you commit the offence of common assault. Under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance"), if anyone obstructs a Member from going to the Chamber, not to mention assault, he commits a criminal offence. Moreover, Article 77 of the Basic Law stipulates: "Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be immune from legal action in respect of 6554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 their statements at meetings of the Council." Article 78 also stipulates: "Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall not be subjected to arrest when attending or on their way to a meeting of the Council." Why are Members entitled to so many privileges? It is because of the reasons mentioned just now. Now, on the contrary, when we are having a meeting here, security officers may carry Members away once the President gives such an order. Even when the Police execute their duties outside, they shall have a legal basis. In this Chamber, we are entitled to so much protection in law which give us the right to express our views freely. What is more, that day we were debating the co-location arrangement. What stance did we hold in our fight here? We pointed out that the legislation had contravened the Basic Law. We were upholding the Basic Law. That was a most controversial issue. We Members expressed our views here peacefully. Then the President gave his order, and the security officers readily came forward to carry us away. When we were being carried away, someone got injured. The Administration then invoked P&P Ordinance to prosecute us through the judicial system. It cannot be more ridiculous. To put it in their words, this is just too inconceivable.

Elected by the voters, we entered the legislature, representing public opinions. We express views here peacefully. If we fully comply with the rules but are still unable to express our views, we cannot but protest in a peaceful way, and the President has the right to order us to leave. If we do not leave, is it really necessary to resort to force? They said this would set a bad example for children. I would like to ask the following question. Suppose during a lesson, a teacher tells a student to leave and stand outside the classroom. The student is unhappy and refuses to leave. In that case, can the teacher summon security officers and order them to carry the student away? Can he do that? Primary schools aside, let us talk about universities. If a university student makes a scene and yells before me, ruining the order in my class, can I ask the security guards in the university to carry him away? In this Legislative Council Chamber which is fully protected by the law and of great constitutional importance, why would Members expressing their views peacefully be carried away at any time under your instruction? What kind of Council is this? Can it be called civilized? After being carried away, when we got injuredMembers would also get injured, would they not? So would I. It is only that I never voiced it. Have my fingers not been bent? Did my body not get bruised? What would you say I am? I teach at a university. When did I ever resort to force? Having worked in the Council for years, have I ever resorted to force? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6555

However, I was carried away all the same. Did I ever groan about it? I do not blame the security officers because they were only performing their duty. But this duty is unjust and way out of line.

In the Hong Kong legislature today, how can Members be subjected to force at any time in the Chamber as instructed by the President and condoned by the pro-Government camp? This is the fact. But now the Government, on the contrary, wants to prosecute us. I agree with the remark of Magistrate Ms Ada YIM. This will only lead to a chilling effect. Now the Government wishes to restrain Members. This is precisely in violation of P&P Ordinance and also runs counter to the direction in which the Council should go, i.e. making this a place where Members can express their views without any threat or fear. If the Council cannot maintain this direction, and we know very well that the judicial system is being abused and the Administration abuses its power to make use of the judicial system to interfere in the proceedings of the Legislative Council, but we say nothing, then we will be too ashamed to face the people of Hong Kong, and I dare not call myself a Legislative Council Member any more. Frankly, they would only say such things as dealing a blow to the rule of law, being lawless, acting wildly in defiance of the law, etc. Mr Tony TSE even went further to allege us of intervening in the law enforcement of the executive. I really have never heard of such an unreasonable argument that distorts the truth to such an extent.

The most important point in this incident is that it happened in the Chamber. At that time the meeting was still proceeding. The Members present only expressed their views peacefully. If they have to bear criminal liability for this, and if we allow the Administration to undermine Members' freedom of expression through judicial proceedings, then what is left of the Legislative Council? Are we only supposed to act like a robot? Is it that when the President speaks, we can only act like a quail, unable to do anything, and if we do anything, they can resort to force and then accuse us of injuring other people, for which we shall be held criminally liable in the end?

I guess perhaps Mr Paul TSE is already thinking about how to further amend the Rules of Procedure, making it stricter to deprive Members of opportunities to speak, expel us and suspend us from attending meetings. Mr Paul TSE's level should be higher. He has such knowledge to say that in foreign countries, the Speaker can expel a Member from a meeting. If the Member refuses to leave, the Speaker can even disqualify the Member through 6556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 the whole legislature. But did it ever happen in real life? Is it so easy to casually deprive a Member of his right to speak in the legislature?

Now whoever is powerful and villainous will have the say. Such people are always right. Today they even want to oppress the Council. Our peaceful presentation of views here, to our surprise, would lead to criminal liability. As such, what is left of our Council? President, I also hope you will do some serious introspection. There should not be any physical confrontation in the Council. Problems can be addressed in many ways. We are also monitored by members of the public. If we act wildly in defiance of the law here, we will be unable to get elected again in the next election. Although many of our Members, including the President, need not compete in the election, which is the problem of the whole constitutional system, we are accountable to members of the public. Our every move is monitored by the public. The Administration can save itself from abusing the judicial proceedings.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I put to you the question on this motion, I wish to remind Members that if the motion is passed, this Council has determined that the leave to give evidence of Council proceedings be refused. If the motion is negatived, such leave shall be granted by this Council in accordance with Rule 90(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion that the leave be refused, as moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG in accordance with Rule 90(2) of the Rules of Procedure, be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

Dr Fernando CHEUNG rose to claim a division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6557

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the motion.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.

Mr James TO abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the motion.

6558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the motion.

Mr WU Chi-wai and Dr Helena WONG abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 27 were present, 4 were in favour of the motion, 21 against it, and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 11 were in favour of the motion, 13 against it and 2 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I declare that, under Rule 90(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Council has granted the leave.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is the last meeting in the Year of the Dog. I wish you all success in everything and good health in the Year of the Pig.

I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 20 February 2019 for the holding of the Chief Executive's Question Time, which will be immediately followed by the regular meeting of the Legislative Council.

Adjourned accordingly at 6:01 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6559

Annex 1

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Kin-por (Translation)

That the development of financial technology ('Fintech') has already brought tremendous changes to the financial industry worldwide; it is stated in the Chief Executive's 2017 Policy Address that '[a]s an international financial centre with a highly-developed information and communication technology sector, Hong Kong is an ideal place for the development of financial technologies'; in this connection, this Council urges the Government to adopt effective measures to assist the banking, insurance and securities sectors, etc., of the financial industry in the further development and application of Fintech, entice financial technology ('Fintech') Fintech enterprises and talents to establish their bases in Hong Kong, and encourage local tertiary institutions to offer professional Fintech courses, so as to increase the Fintech adoption rate in society; the Government should also offer retraining courses for financial industry practitioners to enable them to adapt to new developments in Fintech.

Note: Mr CHAN Kin-por's amendment is marked in bold and italic type or with deletion line.

6560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Annex 2

The marked-up version of the further amendment moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK to the motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por (Translation)

That the development of financial technology ('Fintech') has already brought tremendous changes to the financial industry worldwide; it is stated in the Chief Executive's 2017 Policy Address that '[a]s an international financial centre with a highly-developed information and communication technology sector, Hong Kong is an ideal place for the development of financial technologies'; in this connection, this Council urges the Government to adopt effective measures to assist the banking, insurance and securities sectors, etc., of the financial industry in the further development and application of Fintech, entice Fintech enterprises and talents to establish their bases in Hong Kong, and encourage local tertiary institutions to offer professional Fintech courses, so as to increase the Fintech adoption rate in society; the Government should also offer retraining courses for financial industry practitioners to enable them to adapt to new developments in Fintech; at present, the financial centres of various countries are actively refining their financial infrastructure, rules and regulations in order to seize the opportunities presented by Fintech; yet, in areas such as opening Application Programming Interface (i.e. 'API') to facilitate the interoperability and sharing of data, exploring the effective use of technologies such as blockchain and regulatory technologies for cost reduction, tackling the challenges posed by technological development to regulatory regimes, and nurturing Fintech talents, Hong Kong remains relatively slow; in this connection, this Council also urges the Government to motivate local employees to pursue studies on Fintech-related skills to assist themselves in self-enhancement and transformation, provide financial institutions with incentives for developing new technology applications, assist local technology start-ups in creating more development opportunities, update legislation in a timely manner to facilitate investment in and application of innovation and technology, improve the regimes for personal data and privacy protection, and offer subsidies to enterprises for enhancing their capabilities in information security, so as to enhance the overall competitive edge of Hong Kong in Fintech.

Note: Mr Charles Peter MOK's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6561

Annex 3

The marked-up version of the further amendment moved by Mr Dennis KWOK to the motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK (Translation)

That the development of financial technology ('Fintech') has already brought tremendous changes to the financial industry worldwide; it is stated in the Chief Executive's 2017 Policy Address that '[a]s an international financial centre with a highly-developed information and communication technology sector, Hong Kong is an ideal place for the development of financial technologies'; in this connection, this Council urges the Government to adopt effective measures to assist the banking, insurance and securities sectors, etc., of the financial industry in the further development and application of Fintech, entice Fintech enterprises and talents to establish their bases in Hong Kong, and encourage local tertiary institutions to offer professional Fintech courses, so as to increase the Fintech adoption rate in society; the Government should also offer retraining courses for financial industry practitioners to enable them to adapt to new developments in Fintech; at present, the financial centres of various countries are actively refining their financial infrastructure, rules and regulations in order to seize the opportunities presented by Fintech; yet, in areas such as opening Application Programming Interface (i.e. 'API') to facilitate the interoperability and sharing of data, exploring the effective use of technologies such as blockchain and regulatory technologies for cost reduction, tackling the challenges posed by technological development to regulatory regimes, and nurturing Fintech talents, Hong Kong remains relatively slow; in this connection, this Council also urges the Government to motivate local employees to pursue studies on Fintech-related skills to assist themselves in self-enhancement and transformation, provide financial institutions with incentives for developing new technology applications, assist local technology start-ups in creating more development opportunities, update legislation in a timely manner to facilitate investment in and application of innovation and technology, improve the regimes for personal data and privacy protection, and offer subsidies to enterprises for enhancing their capabilities in information security, so as to enhance the overall competitive edge of Hong Kong in Fintech; the SAR Government should also establish a statutory regulatory regime for storage and transactions involving emerging Fintechs and their associated products; 6562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

besides, this Council also earnestly urges the Central Government and requests the SAR Government to precisely implement the principles of 'one country, two systems', 'Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong', 'a high degree of autonomy' and judicial independence, so as to continue to attract foreign investment and in turn reinforce Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre.

Note: Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6563

Annex 4

The marked-up version of the further amendment moved by Mr WONG Ting-kwong to the motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Charles Peter MOK (Translation)

That the development of financial technology ('Fintech') has already brought tremendous changes to the financial industry worldwide; it is stated in the Chief Executive's 2017 Policy Address that '[a]s an international financial centre with a highly-developed information and communication technology sector, Hong Kong is an ideal place for the development of financial technologies'; in this connection, this Council urges the Government to adopt effective measures to assist the banking, insurance and securities sectors, etc., of the financial industry in the further development and application of Fintech, entice Fintech enterprises and talents to establish their bases in Hong Kong, and encourage local tertiary institutions to offer professional Fintech courses, so as to increase the Fintech adoption rate in society; the Government should also offer retraining courses for financial industry practitioners to enable them to adapt to new developments in Fintech; at present, the financial centres of various countries are actively refining their financial infrastructure, rules and regulations in order to seize the opportunities presented by Fintech; yet, in areas such as opening Application Programming Interface (i.e. 'API') to facilitate the interoperability and sharing of data, exploring the effective use of technologies such as blockchain and regulatory technologies for cost reduction, tackling the challenges posed by technological development to regulatory regimes, and nurturing Fintech talents, Hong Kong remains relatively slow; in this connection, this Council also urges the Government to motivate local employees to pursue studies on Fintech-related skills to assist themselves in self-enhancement and transformation, provide financial institutions with incentives for developing new technology applications, assist local technology start-ups in creating more development opportunities, update legislation in a timely manner to facilitate investment in and application of innovation and technology, improve the regimes for personal data and privacy protection, and offer subsidies to enterprises for enhancing their capabilities in information security, so as to enhance the overall competitive edge of Hong Kong in Fintech; moreover, the Government should also allow more different industries and Fintech start-ups to use the Fintech Supervisory Sandbox introduced by the Hong 6564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Kong Monetary Authority for conducting trial runs on their Fintech initiatives, develop electronic 'know your client' utilities, enhance the interfacing of the electronic payment and clearing platforms among Hong Kong, the Mainland and the international community, and step up public education on Fintechs and their associated products and services, so as to foster Hong Kong's development into a Fintech hub.

Note: Mr WONG Ting-kwong's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6565

Annex 5

The marked-up version of the further amendment moved by Mr Christopher CHEUNG to the motion as amended by Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr WONG Ting-kwong (Translation)

That the development of financial technology ('Fintech') has already brought tremendous changes to the financial industry worldwide; it is stated in the Chief Executive's 2017 Policy Address that '[a]s an international financial centre with a highly-developed information and communication technology sector, Hong Kong is an ideal place for the development of financial technologies'; in this connection, this Council urges the Government to adopt effective measures to assist the banking, insurance and securities sectors, etc., of the financial industry in the further development and application of Fintech, entice Fintech enterprises and talents to establish their bases in Hong Kong, and encourage local tertiary institutions to offer professional Fintech courses, so as to increase the Fintech adoption rate in society; the Government should also offer retraining courses for financial industry practitioners to enable them to adapt to new developments in Fintech; at present, the financial centres of various countries are actively refining their financial infrastructure, rules and regulations in order to seize the opportunities presented by Fintech; yet, in areas such as opening Application Programming Interface (i.e. 'API') to facilitate the interoperability and sharing of data, exploring the effective use of technologies such as blockchain and regulatory technologies for cost reduction, tackling the challenges posed by technological development to regulatory regimes, and nurturing Fintech talents, Hong Kong remains relatively slow; in this connection, this Council also urges the Government to motivate local employees to pursue studies on Fintech-related skills to assist themselves in self-enhancement and transformation, provide financial institutions with incentives for developing new technology applications, assist local technology start-ups in creating more development opportunities, update legislation in a timely manner to facilitate investment in and application of innovation and technology, improve the regimes for personal data and privacy protection, and offer subsidies to enterprises for enhancing their capabilities in information security, so as to enhance the overall competitive edge of Hong Kong in Fintech; moreover, the Government should also allow more different industries and Fintech start-ups to use the Fintech Supervisory Sandbox introduced by the Hong 6566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Kong Monetary Authority for conducting trial runs on their Fintech initiatives, develop electronic 'know your client' utilities, enhance the interfacing of the electronic payment and clearing platforms among Hong Kong, the Mainland and the international community, and step up public education on Fintechs and their associated products and services, so as to foster Hong Kong's development into a Fintech hub; this Council also urges the Government to review the Technology Voucher Programme which aims to subsidize small and medium enterprises ('SMEs') in using technological services and solutions, including raising the funding amount of technology vouchers, reducing the proportion of financial contribution required of applicant enterprises, expanding the funding scope of technology vouchers, and streamlining the relevant application procedures, as a means of enhancing support for SMEs and encouraging SMEs to upgrade themselves, so as to embrace the advent of an Fintech era.

Note: Mr Christopher CHEUNG's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6567

Annex 6

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Ms Claudia MO (Translation)

That the kind of education environment in which the next generation grows is crucially important to the future of Hong Kong; for purposes of catering for the development of an innovative and knowledge-based society, this Council urges the Government to implement put into practice a diversified education approach to inspire students' creativity and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them, strengthen their communication ability in the local and international communities, and eliminate the 'examination-oriented culture' and the malady of excessive drills on examination questions of students, in order to alleviate the pressure on students and parents; specific measures include:

(1) incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices, but it is necessary to prevent schools from becoming aristocratic because of the relevant measure, which will otherwise lead to the exclusion of grass-roots families due to their lack of means, thus making it impossible to achieve the objective of promoting the upward mobility of students through education and resulting in the formation of class divide in education;

(2) expanding the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and artificial intelligence, and allocating additional resources to schools for training teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(3) reviewing the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination system to reduce unnecessary examination pressure on students;

(4) increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities, so as to give students more choices in pursuing further studies;

6568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

(5) increasing the opportunities for students to participate in Mainland and overseas exchange and internship programmes, so as to broaden the global outlook of the younger generation; and

(6) enhancing parental education to equip parents with greater capabilities in handling issues concerning their children's growth, studies, and so on; and

(7) improving English language education to raise students' daily English standard and proficiency in an effort to enhance their international competitiveness, and allocating additional resources to schools for training local teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education.

Note: Ms Claudia MO's amendment is marked in bold and italic type or with deletion line.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6569

Annex 7

The marked-up version of the further amendment moved by Mr Charles Peter MOK to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO (Translation)

That the kind of education environment in which the next generation grows is crucially important to the future of Hong Kong; for purposes of catering for the development of an innovative and knowledge-based society, this Council urges the Government to put into practice a diversified education approach to inspire students' creativity and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them, strengthen their communication ability in the local and international communities, and eliminate the 'examination-oriented culture' and the malady of excessive drills on examination questions of students, in order to alleviate the pressure on students and parents; specific measures include:

(1) incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices, but it is necessary to prevent schools from becoming aristocratic because of the relevant measure, which will otherwise lead to the exclusion of grass-roots families due to their lack of means, thus making it impossible to achieve the objective of promoting the upward mobility of students through education and resulting in the formation of class divide in education;

(2) expanding the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and artificial intelligence, and allocating additional resources to schools for training teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(3) reviewing the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination system to reduce unnecessary examination pressure on students;

(4) increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities, so as to give students more choices in pursuing further studies;

6570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

(5) increasing the opportunities for students to participate in Mainland and overseas exchange and internship programmes, so as to broaden the global outlook of the younger generation;

(6) enhancing parental education to equip parents with greater capabilities in handling issues concerning their children's growth, studies, and so on; and

(7) improving English language education to raise students' daily English standard and proficiency in an effort to enhance their international competitiveness, and allocating additional resources to schools for training local teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(8) expediting the renewal of the curriculum of all subjects and incorporating coding education into the basic education curriculum;

(9) studying ways in which technology can be applied to assist schools, teachers and students (including students with special educational needs) in the improvement of teaching and learning, including the establishment of an 'educational technology laboratory' to promote local research in and application of innovative educational technology, and supporting local start-ups in developing and experimenting with new services and products related to education, such as the use of artificial intelligence to assist learning; and

(10) extending the targets of current subsidies for the procurement of computer equipment to cover all grass-roots students across the board, so as to support students of grass-roots families in online learning in a bid to narrow the digital divide, and providing them with the necessary equipment for online learning, such that the burden on grass-roots families can be alleviated.

Note: Mr Charles Peter MOK's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6571

Annex 8

The marked-up version of the further amendment moved by Mr HO Kai-ming to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO and Mr Charles Peter MOK (Translation)

That the kind of education environment in which the next generation grows is crucially important to the future of Hong Kong; for purposes of catering for the development of an innovative and knowledge-based society, this Council urges the Government to put into practice a diversified education approach to inspire students' creativity and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them, strengthen their communication ability in the local and international communities, and eliminate the 'examination-oriented culture' and the malady of excessive drills on examination questions of students, in order to alleviate the pressure on students and parents; specific measures include:

(1) incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices, but it is necessary to prevent schools from becoming aristocratic because of the relevant measure, which will otherwise lead to the exclusion of grass-roots families due to their lack of means, thus making it impossible to achieve the objective of promoting the upward mobility of students through education and resulting in the formation of class divide in education;

(2) expanding the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and artificial intelligence, and allocating additional resources to schools for training teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(3) reviewing the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination system to reduce unnecessary examination pressure on students;

(4) increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities, so as to give students more choices in pursuing further studies;

6572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

(5) increasing the opportunities for students to participate in Mainland and overseas exchange and internship programmes, so as to broaden the global outlook of the younger generation;

(6) enhancing parental education to equip parents with greater capabilities in handling issues concerning their children's growth, studies, and so on; and

(7) improving English language education to raise students' daily English standard and proficiency in an effort to enhance their international competitiveness, and allocating additional resources to schools for training local teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(8) expediting the renewal of the curriculum of all subjects and incorporating coding education into the basic education curriculum;

(9) studying ways in which technology can be applied to assist schools, teachers and students (including students with special educational needs) in the improvement of teaching and learning, including the establishment of an 'educational technology laboratory' to promote local research in and application of innovative educational technology, and supporting local start-ups in developing and experimenting with new services and products related to education, such as the use of artificial intelligence to assist learning; and

(10) extending the targets of current subsidies for the procurement of computer equipment to cover all grass-roots students across the board, so as to support students of grass-roots families in online learning in a bid to narrow the digital divide, and providing them with the necessary equipment for online learning, such that the burden on grass-roots families can be alleviated;

(11) increasing long whole-day and whole-day kindergarten places to enable dual-income parents to choose the suitable mode of education for their children in the light of their needs in living, so as to alleviate the pressure on parents;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6573

(12) addressing squarely the learning needs of non-Chinese speaking students by formulating specific curriculum contents for the 'Chinese Language Curriculum Second Language Learning Framework', including teaching indicators, learning targets by stages, teaching materials, assessment methods, thereby enabling non-Chinese speaking students to learn Chinese more effectively and relieving their psychological burden caused by language barrier;

(13) reviewing the effectiveness of integrated education and drawing up for each student with developmental disorder an education plan that suits his/her developmental needs, so as to enhance the support provided by schools for such students and their parents;

(14) considering the cancellation of the fees for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination to ease the pressure on parents;

(15) by drawing reference from the existing education system of Germany, formulating a dual-track academic system with equal emphasis on academic and vocational skills training, so as to provide students with stable and rewarding professional skills training, and allocating additional resources to enhance the publicity and education work on vocational education, thereby giving students diversified choices in pursuing further studies;

(16) assisting students in commencing life planning education to enable them to set career development goals as early as possible, thereby alleviating the helplessness and anxieties felt by students about their future pathways;

(17) enhancing home-school cooperation; and

(18) enhancing and improving the counselling services provided by schools and non-profit-making organizations for students and increasing manpower accordingly to assist students in dealing with difficulties and pressure in various aspects.

Note: Mr HO Kai-ming's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

6574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Annex 9

The marked-up version of the further amendment moved by Mr HUI Chi-fung to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr HO Kai-ming (Translation)

That the kind of education environment in which the next generation grows is crucially important to the future of Hong Kong; for purposes of catering for the development of an innovative and knowledge-based society, this Council urges the Government to put into practice a diversified education approach to inspire students' creativity and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them, strengthen their communication ability in the local and international communities, and eliminate the 'examination-oriented culture' and the malady of excessive drills on examination questions of students, in order to alleviate the pressure on students and parents; specific measures include:

(1) incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices, but it is necessary to prevent schools from becoming aristocratic because of the relevant measure, which will otherwise lead to the exclusion of grass-roots families due to their lack of means, thus making it impossible to achieve the objective of promoting the upward mobility of students through education and resulting in the formation of class divide in education;

(2) expanding the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and artificial intelligence, and allocating additional resources to schools for training teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(3) reviewing the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination system to reduce unnecessary examination pressure on students;

(4) increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities, so as to give students more choices in pursuing further studies;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6575

(5) increasing the opportunities for students to participate in Mainland and overseas exchange and internship programmes, so as to broaden the global outlook of the younger generation;

(6) enhancing parental education to equip parents with greater capabilities in handling issues concerning their children's growth, studies, and so on; and

(7) improving English language education to raise students' daily English standard and proficiency in an effort to enhance their international competitiveness, and allocating additional resources to schools for training local teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(8) expediting the renewal of the curriculum of all subjects and incorporating coding education into the basic education curriculum;

(9) studying ways in which technology can be applied to assist schools, teachers and students (including students with special educational needs) in the improvement of teaching and learning, including the establishment of an 'educational technology laboratory' to promote local research in and application of innovative educational technology, and supporting local start-ups in developing and experimenting with new services and products related to education, such as the use of artificial intelligence to assist learning; and

(10) extending the targets of current subsidies for the procurement of computer equipment to cover all grass-roots students across the board, so as to support students of grass-roots families in online learning in a bid to narrow the digital divide, and providing them with the necessary equipment for online learning, such that the burden on grass-roots families can be alleviated;

(11) increasing long whole-day and whole-day kindergarten places to enable dual-income parents to choose the suitable mode of education for their children in the light of their needs in living, so as to alleviate the pressure on parents;

6576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

(12) addressing squarely the learning needs of non-Chinese speaking students by formulating specific curriculum contents for the 'Chinese Language Curriculum Second Language Learning Framework', including teaching indicators, learning targets by stages, teaching materials, assessment methods, thereby enabling non-Chinese speaking students to learn Chinese more effectively and relieving their psychological burden caused by language barrier;

(13) reviewing the effectiveness of integrated education and drawing up for each student with developmental disorder an education plan that suits his/her developmental needs, so as to enhance the support provided by schools for such students and their parents;

(14) considering the cancellation of the fees for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination to ease the pressure on parents;

(15) by drawing reference from the existing education system of Germany, formulating a dual-track academic system with equal emphasis on academic and vocational skills training, so as to provide students with stable and rewarding professional skills training, and allocating additional resources to enhance the publicity and education work on vocational education, thereby giving students diversified choices in pursuing further studies;

(16) assisting students in commencing life planning education to enable them to set career development goals as early as possible, thereby alleviating the helplessness and anxieties felt by students about their future pathways;

(17) enhancing home-school cooperation; and

(18) enhancing and improving the counselling services provided by schools and non-profit-making organizations for students and increasing manpower accordingly to assist students in dealing with difficulties and pressure in various aspects;

(19) addressing squarely the problem of homework pressure on primary students and their parents and implementing a policy of 'finishing homework at school', thereby enabling students to make good use of their spare time to develop diverse interests;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6577

(20) abolishing the Primary 3 Territory-wide System Assessment; and

(21) issuing to schools guidelines which require them to refrain from drilling their students excessively, and using over-drilling as one of the indicators for assessment of the performance of a school.

Note: Mr HUI Chi-fung's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

6578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Annex 10

The marked-up version of the further amendment moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr HO Kai-ming (Translation)

That the kind of education environment in which the next generation grows is crucially important to the future of Hong Kong; for purposes of catering for the development of an innovative and knowledge-based society, this Council urges the Government to put into practice a diversified education approach to inspire students' creativity and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them, strengthen their communication ability in the local and international communities, and eliminate the 'examination-oriented culture' and the malady of excessive drills on examination questions of students, in order to alleviate the pressure on students and parents; specific measures include:

(1) incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices, but it is necessary to prevent schools from becoming aristocratic because of the relevant measure, which will otherwise lead to the exclusion of grass-roots families due to their lack of means, thus making it impossible to achieve the objective of promoting the upward mobility of students through education and resulting in the formation of class divide in education;

(2) expanding the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and artificial intelligence, and allocating additional resources to schools for training teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(3) reviewing the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination system to reduce unnecessary examination pressure on students;

(4) increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities, so as to give students more choices in pursuing further studies;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6579

(5) increasing the opportunities for students to participate in Mainland and overseas exchange and internship programmes, so as to broaden the global outlook of the younger generation;

(6) enhancing parental education to equip parents with greater capabilities in handling issues concerning their children's growth, studies, and so on; and

(7) improving English language education to raise students' daily English standard and proficiency in an effort to enhance their international competitiveness, and allocating additional resources to schools for training local teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(8) expediting the renewal of the curriculum of all subjects and incorporating coding education into the basic education curriculum;

(9) studying ways in which technology can be applied to assist schools, teachers and students (including students with special educational needs) in the improvement of teaching and learning, including the establishment of an 'educational technology laboratory' to promote local research in and application of innovative educational technology, and supporting local start-ups in developing and experimenting with new services and products related to education, such as the use of artificial intelligence to assist learning; and

(10) extending the targets of current subsidies for the procurement of computer equipment to cover all grass-roots students across the board, so as to support students of grass-roots families in online learning in a bid to narrow the digital divide, and providing them with the necessary equipment for online learning, such that the burden on grass-roots families can be alleviated;

(11) increasing long whole-day and whole-day kindergarten places to enable dual-income parents to choose the suitable mode of education for their children in the light of their needs in living, so as to alleviate the pressure on parents;

6580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

(12) addressing squarely the learning needs of non-Chinese speaking students by formulating specific curriculum contents for the 'Chinese Language Curriculum Second Language Learning Framework', including teaching indicators, learning targets by stages, teaching materials, assessment methods, thereby enabling non-Chinese speaking students to learn Chinese more effectively and relieving their psychological burden caused by language barrier;

(13) reviewing the effectiveness of integrated education and drawing up for each student with developmental disorder an education plan that suits his/her developmental needs, so as to enhance the support provided by schools for such students and their parents;

(14) considering the cancellation of the fees for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination to ease the pressure on parents;

(15) by drawing reference from the existing education system of Germany, formulating a dual-track academic system with equal emphasis on academic and vocational skills training, so as to provide students with stable and rewarding professional skills training, and allocating additional resources to enhance the publicity and education work on vocational education, thereby giving students diversified choices in pursuing further studies;

(16) assisting students in commencing life planning education to enable them to set career development goals as early as possible, thereby alleviating the helplessness and anxieties felt by students about their future pathways;

(17) enhancing home-school cooperation; and

(18) enhancing and improving the counselling services provided by schools and non-profit-making organizations for students and increasing manpower accordingly to assist students in dealing with difficulties and pressure in various aspects;

(19) setting 'maximum homework hours' and drawing up guidelines on the hours spent on homework by students, so as to alleviate the pressure of homework on students; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6581

(20) allowing students and parents to choose freely whether to participate in the Primary 3 Territory-wide System Assessment in order to avoid excessive drilling of students for it.

Note: Dr Fernando CHEUNG's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

6582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Annex 11

The marked-up version of the further amendment moved by Mr SHIU Ka-chun to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming and Dr Fernando CHEUNG (Translation)

That the kind of education environment in which the next generation grows is crucially important to the future of Hong Kong; for purposes of catering for the development of an innovative and knowledge-based society, this Council urges the Government to put into practice a diversified education approach to inspire students' creativity and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them, strengthen their communication ability in the local and international communities, and eliminate the 'examination-oriented culture' and the malady of excessive drills on examination questions of students, in order to alleviate the pressure on students and parents; specific measures include:

(1) incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices, but it is necessary to prevent schools from becoming aristocratic because of the relevant measure, which will otherwise lead to the exclusion of grass-roots families due to their lack of means, thus making it impossible to achieve the objective of promoting the upward mobility of students through education and resulting in the formation of class divide in education;

(2) expanding the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and artificial intelligence, and allocating additional resources to schools for training teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(3) reviewing the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination system to reduce unnecessary examination pressure on students;

(4) increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities, so as to give students more choices in pursuing further studies;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6583

(5) increasing the opportunities for students to participate in Mainland and overseas exchange and internship programmes, so as to broaden the global outlook of the younger generation;

(6) enhancing parental education to equip parents with greater capabilities in handling issues concerning their children's growth, studies, and so on; and

(7) improving English language education to raise students' daily English standard and proficiency in an effort to enhance their international competitiveness, and allocating additional resources to schools for training local teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(8) expediting the renewal of the curriculum of all subjects and incorporating coding education into the basic education curriculum;

(9) studying ways in which technology can be applied to assist schools, teachers and students (including students with special educational needs) in the improvement of teaching and learning, including the establishment of an 'educational technology laboratory' to promote local research in and application of innovative educational technology, and supporting local start-ups in developing and experimenting with new services and products related to education, such as the use of artificial intelligence to assist learning; and

(10) extending the targets of current subsidies for the procurement of computer equipment to cover all grass-roots students across the board, so as to support students of grass-roots families in online learning in a bid to narrow the digital divide, and providing them with the necessary equipment for online learning, such that the burden on grass-roots families can be alleviated;

(11) increasing long whole-day and whole-day kindergarten places to enable dual-income parents to choose the suitable mode of education for their children in the light of their needs in living, so as to alleviate the pressure on parents;

6584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

(12) addressing squarely the learning needs of non-Chinese speaking students by formulating specific curriculum contents for the 'Chinese Language Curriculum Second Language Learning Framework', including teaching indicators, learning targets by stages, teaching materials, assessment methods, thereby enabling non-Chinese speaking students to learn Chinese more effectively and relieving their psychological burden caused by language barrier;

(13) reviewing the effectiveness of integrated education and drawing up for each student with developmental disorder an education plan that suits his/her developmental needs, so as to enhance the support provided by schools for such students and their parents;

(14) considering the cancellation of the fees for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination to ease the pressure on parents;

(15) by drawing reference from the existing education system of Germany, formulating a dual-track academic system with equal emphasis on academic and vocational skills training, so as to provide students with stable and rewarding professional skills training, and allocating additional resources to enhance the publicity and education work on vocational education, thereby giving students diversified choices in pursuing further studies;

(16) assisting students in commencing life planning education to enable them to set career development goals as early as possible, thereby alleviating the helplessness and anxieties felt by students about their future pathways;

(17) enhancing home-school cooperation; and

(18) enhancing and improving the counselling services provided by schools and non-profit-making organizations for students and increasing manpower accordingly to assist students in dealing with difficulties and pressure in various aspects;

(19) setting 'maximum homework hours' and drawing up guidelines on the hours spent on homework by students, so as to alleviate the pressure of homework on students; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6585

(20) allowing students and parents to choose freely whether to participate in the Primary 3 Territory-wide System Assessment in order to avoid excessive drilling of students for it;

(21) introducing homework-free days for long holidays to alleviate the pressure of homework on students; and

(22) requiring the designation of a School Retreat Day in every school year to release learning space.

Note: Mr SHIU Ka-chun's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

6586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Annex 12

The marked-up version of the further amendment moved by Ms Tanya CHAN to the motion as amended by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr HO Kai-ming, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr SHIU Ka-chun (Translation)

That the kind of education environment in which the next generation grows is crucially important to the future of Hong Kong; for purposes of catering for the development of an innovative and knowledge-based society, this Council urges the Government to put into practice a diversified education approach to inspire students' creativity and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them, strengthen their communication ability in the local and international communities, and eliminate the 'examination-oriented culture' and the malady of excessive drills on examination questions of students, in order to alleviate the pressure on students and parents; specific measures include:

(1) incentivizing more subsidized schools to introduce a suitable proportion of international curriculum, so as to give parents and students more choices, but it is necessary to prevent schools from becoming aristocratic because of the relevant measure, which will otherwise lead to the exclusion of grass-roots families due to their lack of means, thus making it impossible to achieve the objective of promoting the upward mobility of students through education and resulting in the formation of class divide in education;

(2) expanding the scope of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education with the inclusion of elements such as arts and artificial intelligence, and allocating additional resources to schools for training teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(3) reviewing the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination system to reduce unnecessary examination pressure on students;

(4) increasing the numbers of subsidized university places and subsidized top-up places for the second year in universities, so as to give students more choices in pursuing further studies; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6587

(5) increasing the opportunities for students to participate in Mainland and overseas exchange and internship programmes, so as to broaden the global outlook of the younger generation;

(6) enhancing parental education to equip parents with greater capabilities in handling issues concerning their children's growth, studies, and so on; and

(7) improving English language education to raise students' daily English standard and proficiency in an effort to enhance their international competitiveness, and allocating additional resources to schools for training local teachers and supporting schools in promoting the relevant education;

(8) expediting the renewal of the curriculum of all subjects and incorporating coding education into the basic education curriculum;

(9) studying ways in which technology can be applied to assist schools, teachers and students (including students with special educational needs) in the improvement of teaching and learning, including the establishment of an 'educational technology laboratory' to promote local research in and application of innovative educational technology, and supporting local start-ups in developing and experimenting with new services and products related to education, such as the use of artificial intelligence to assist learning; and

(10) extending the targets of current subsidies for the procurement of computer equipment to cover all grass-roots students across the board, so as to support students of grass-roots families in online learning in a bid to narrow the digital divide, and providing them with the necessary equipment for online learning, such that the burden on grass-roots families can be alleviated;

(11) increasing long whole-day and whole-day kindergarten places to enable dual-income parents to choose the suitable mode of education for their children in the light of their needs in living, so as to alleviate the pressure on parents;

6588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

(12) addressing squarely the learning needs of non-Chinese speaking students by formulating specific curriculum contents for the 'Chinese Language Curriculum Second Language Learning Framework', including teaching indicators, learning targets by stages, teaching materials, assessment methods, thereby enabling non-Chinese speaking students to learn Chinese more effectively and relieving their psychological burden caused by language barrier;

(13) reviewing the effectiveness of integrated education and drawing up for each student with developmental disorder an education plan that suits his/her developmental needs, so as to enhance the support provided by schools for such students and their parents;

(14) considering the cancellation of the fees for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination to ease the pressure on parents;

(15) by drawing reference from the existing education system of Germany, formulating a dual-track academic system with equal emphasis on academic and vocational skills training, so as to provide students with stable and rewarding professional skills training, and allocating additional resources to enhance the publicity and education work on vocational education, thereby giving students diversified choices in pursuing further studies;

(16) assisting students in commencing life planning education to enable them to set career development goals as early as possible, thereby alleviating the helplessness and anxieties felt by students about their future pathways;

(17) enhancing home-school cooperation; and

(18) enhancing and improving the counselling services provided by schools and non-profit-making organizations for students and increasing manpower accordingly to assist students in dealing with difficulties and pressure in various aspects;

(19) setting 'maximum homework hours' and drawing up guidelines on the hours spent on homework by students, so as to alleviate the pressure of homework on students; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6589

(20) allowing students and parents to choose freely whether to participate in the Primary 3 Territory-wide System Assessment in order to avoid excessive drilling of students for it;

(21) introducing homework-free days for long holidays to alleviate the pressure of homework on students; and

(22) requiring the designation of a School Retreat Day in every school year to release learning space;

(23) progressively providing full subsidies of school fees for students of whole-day and long whole-day kindergartens to achieve full implementation of free kindergarten education and hence implement genuine 15-year free education, so as to alleviate the pressure on parents;

(24) progressively implementing small-class teaching in primary and secondary schools across the board to effectively cater for the education needs of individual students and cultivate diverse interests and skills in them; and

(25) assisting students currently bearing student loan debt in repaying the interests for their student loan debt, so as to alleviate the debt pressure on students.

Note: Ms Tanya CHAN's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

6590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019

Annex II

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 31 January 2019 6591