LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1015

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 1 November 2018

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE 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 MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

1016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE 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 ― 1 November 2018 1017

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

THE HONOURABLE 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 KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE CHONG-SHING, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

DR THE HONOURABLE

1018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

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 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 WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1019

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

DR RAYMOND SO WAI-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

1020 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in ): This Council will now continue to deal with the motion under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law of the Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of .

Mr SHIU Ka-fai, please speak.

MOTION UNDER ARTICLE 73(5) AND (10) OF THE BASIC LAW OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 31 October 2018

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): President, concerning Ms Claudia MO's motion today to summon the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to attend before the Council to give explanations on the Victor MALLET incident, I have the following views.

The Government, a number of media and pro-establishment Members have pointed out on different occasions that, according to international practice, explanations need not be given to those who are refused entry. This practice is adopted by the United Kingdom and the United States, countries that are much admired by non-establishment Members. I will give some examples.

In July this year, a Kuwaiti doctor travelled to a western country to give a speech. Although he had a visa, he was still stopped from boarding the plane by United States agents and the United States later revoked his visa without providing any reason.

The work visa of Roman ABRAMOVICH, a Russian tycoon who owned a football team, was due to expire in April this year, so he submitted a renewal application as required but his application was rejected by the authorities concerned. His application had been processed for quite some time, but approval had not been given and the authorities had not provided any explanation.

According to the laws of some states in the United States, marijuana is now legalized. As the TRUMP Administration opposes the legalization of marijuana, more and more Canadians who engage in cannabis business are not permitted to enter the United States. Again, no explanation is given.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1021

In fact, there are numerous examples of governments of various places not explaining to those who are refused entry. If you ask me whether I want to know the reason for my rejection, I would say no explanation is needed. If you ask me whether I am not concerned about major international events, my answer is in the negative. I think the United Kingdom, the United States and Hong Kong are free economies and international metropolises and they welcome people who enter the countries through legal channels for employment, business, tourism, study and cultural exchanges, etc., and are willing to grant visas to those people. However, the applicants for visas or visa renewal must comply with the visa requirements.

An example is that if a person wants to travel to the United States, I believe the immigration officer will ask him how much cash he has with him, where he will live, and whether he has friends there. If he tells the immigration officer that he only has US$50 and he cannot provide a residence address and does not have any friends in the United States, I believe his entry will not be allowed and the immigration officer will not provide written explanations.

In another example, a person studying in a certain place is not allowed to work there, if the authorities find that he works, I believe his visa renewal application will not be approved and the authorities will not provide the reasons. If a person is granted a visa for working as a chef, but he actually works as a ticket scalper, and if the authorities find out his condition, I believe he will not be allowed to enter the country.

President, as a Legislative Council Member, I have received many relevant cases. Many members of the public told me that their relatives and friends on the Mainland were not permitted to enter Hong Kong, I then asked them for the reasons. Most of them might have come to Hong Kong five days a week in the past year; they entered the territory at 8:00 am and left at 7:00 pm. They claimed that they came to Hong Kong as tourists, but I wondered why they came to Hong Kong almost every day. Is Hong Kong really a place full of fun? Of course, we all know very well that they came to Hong Kong to work as illegal workers. How then can I help them ask the Immigration Department to approve their entry?

If some people will cause national security problems in certain places or if the local government thinks that they will affect the peaceful life there, it is reasonable and fair to refuse their entry.

1022 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Many non-establishment Members have made two points: First, the Victor MALLET incident will lead to suppression of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Second, they are worried that it will affect the confidence of foreign investors in Hong Kong.

Why do they think so? I believe the main reason is that they speculate that the reason for rejecting Mr Victor MALLET's entry was due to the fact that he held a forum at the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC"), thereby creating a platform for Andy CHAN of the Hong Kong National Party ("HKNP") to promote "Hong Kong independence". Mr MALLET is a journalist, is the rejection of his entry due to his news reporting in Hong Kong through legal channels, or due to his criticisms against the Government, leading to his visa renewal application being disapproved; or is it due to other reasons not inferred by non-establishment Members? President, I do not rule out and I even believe that Mr MALLET's entry was rejected because he had created a platform for Andy CHAN of HKNP to promote "Hong Kong independence". Yet, this is my inference only.

However, I would like to point out that though Mr MALLET is a journalist, rejecting his visa renewal application is not tantamount to suppressing freedom of the press. For example, I am a Legislative Council Member, if I jumped a red light when driving and was arrested by a police officer for committing a road traffic offence, could I say that the police officer or the Government has suppressed a Legislative Council Member? I am a Legislative Council Member and at the same time, I am also a member of the public, and I must abide by local laws.

Regarding the FCC incident, I would like to say that the SAR Government and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had time and again reminded Mr MALLET not to create a platform for Andy CHAN of HKNP. Mr MALLET could not possibly be unaware of that matter, because all Hong Kong people are aware of the matter and the matter has been extensively reported by the media around the world. Has he done something right or wrong? I believe that many countries have security laws; will Mr MALLET breach the law if he supports the separatists in his own country and creates a platform for them? As known to many people, the Government was considering banning HKNP at that time, but has HKNP been banned? President, if the incident happened today, would many non-establishment Members, claiming to defend freedom of speech all the time, continue to provide a platform for HKNP to promote "Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1023 independence"? I believe they would not do so because such an act is illegal. In fact, the situation at the time was ambiguous. Hong Kong people really have to review why there is such a vacuum that allows certain people to publicize "Hong Kong independence".

Regarding legislating under Article 23 of the Basic Law, I hope the Secretary for Security will tell the Chief Executive the following fact: When it was proposed in the past to legislate under Article 23, the Liberal Party did suggest that the Government should delay the enactment of legislation, but the Liberal Party has all along supported legislating under Article 23 in respect of national security. The present situation has changed and many people take advantage of the ambiguous state mentioned above to promote "Hong Kong independence". As a citizen of China, we must safeguard national security and unity and plug this loophole; thus, the Chief Executive should seriously consider legislating under Article 23 as soon as possible.

In addition, some colleagues mentioned just now that this incident might affect the confidence of foreign investors. On the face of it, this debate is related to freedom of speech, freedom of the press and foreign investors, but the core of the whole debate is actually about "Hong Kong independence". If Mr MALLET had not created a platform for Andy CHAN of HKNP, we would not have conducted this debate. Therefore, the core issue of this debate is "Hong Kong independence".

"Hong Kong independence" seeks to overthrow the political regime. Even though Hong Kong people are dissatisfied with the Government, I urge them to think twice if some people want to create "Hong Kong independence" and overthrow the political regime. There were many examples in foreign countries in the past decade. For example, in 2011, the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia inspired a series of uprisings known as the Arab Spring. The local residents were dissatisfied with the Government and the regime, so they wanted to overthrow the Government. What were the consequences? We learn from the news reports or from video clips shown in YouTube that people of these countries have a very difficult life. The local economies collapsed completely, people are starving and some women might be raped. The residents became refugees and have to flee to other places. The immigration crisis in Europe is also caused by the overthrowing of the regime. People should not casually talk about overthrowing the regime as this will have very significant consequences. Hence, we must not tolerate "Hong Kong independence" activists.

1024 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Non-establishment Members pointed out that if we want foreign investors to have confidence in Hong Kong, we have to handle this incident better. If we, for the sake of doing business or attracting foreign investors to Hong Kong, must allow people to use Hong Kong as a base to split up the country, I am sorry that I do not want such business. I would also like to remind non-establishment Members that if they overtly and covertly support "Hong Kong independence" activists, they will be in a very unfavourable position. They must not try to take advantage of the situation, because "Hong Kong independence" activists will bring great trouble to them. Moreover, they should not protect "Hong Kong independence" activists because "Hong Kong independence" activists are like bombs, causing total destruction, good and bad. Hong Kong people will certainly not support such an approach.

I fully agree that the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration should refuse to renew Mr MALLET's work visa. Secretary John LEE and Director Erick TSANG are important gatekeepers in Hong Kong, the former is responsible for security matters while the latter for immigration matters. Legislative Council Members also have the responsibility to defend Hong Kong. Some people do not comply with the laws of Hong Kong or meet the requirements for granting visas, they only do what they want which affects the long-term interests of Hong Kong. The Security Bureau has the responsibility to deal with these cases. Ms Claudia MO's motion seeks to summon the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to attend before the Council to give explanations. I do not think there is such a need. I also support the Government's handling of this incident. Thank you, President.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO pursuant to Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law to summon the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to testify before the Council and produce all relevant papers and give evidence in relation to the incident of the SAR Government's refusal to renew, for no reason, the work visa of Mr Victor MALLET, Vice President of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC").

President, it is generally considered in the community that the Government's refusal to renew, for no reason, the work visa of Mr MALLET was to retaliate against FCC for inviting Andy CHAN of the Hong Kong National Party ("HKNP") to deliver a speech. Just now Mr SHIU Ka-fai also speculated LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1025 that this was the reason. I think the reason is all too clear, only that the Government refused to admit. From Chief Executive , to Chief Secretary , Secretary John LEE and Director of Immigration Erick TSANG, they have on different occasions, denied that the Government's decision had anything to do with freedom of the press. If the Government feels so justified, will officials please come forward today and explain to the public clearly, so as to allay their concerns. Yet, every time the Government turns down our request on the pretext that "the established practice is not to openly comment on, explain or give an account of individual cases". For those who still believe in "one country, two systems", how pathetic they are. And how can their concerns be allayed?

Keith RICHBURG, former President of FCC and Director of the Journalism and Media Studies Centre, the University of Hong Kong, once wrote an article titled, "It took a while, but 'The Death of Hong Kong' has arrived". In the past, I did not want to accept this kind of view, but now I cannot deny that the death of Hong Kong has arrived.

It is inauspicious to talk about the death of Hong Kong early in the morning. In saying "the death of Hong Kong", I mean Hong Kong has been under the total control of Beijing. When a foreign journalist has made some seemingly offensive act, has made some seemingly offensive remarks or has written certain seemingly offensive articles, the price he has to paid is crystal clear, that is, expulsion from Hong Kong.

Keith worked as a reporter in the East Asia for 30 years. During the period when military dictator SUHARTO ruled over Indonesia, Keith wrote an article about President SUHARTO initiating a coup to usurp power. Consequently he was barred from entering Indonesia for two years. He was also banned from entering Burma for 20 years as he once sneaked into Burma to interview Aung San Suu Kyi. In the past, when I read Keith's interview reports, I felt like listening to stories of people in a distant place. I have never imagined that such stories would happen in Hong Kong today. Now Hong Kong is on a par with those totalitarian regimes such as Indonesia and Burma as it also expelled foreign journalists.

Keith also recalled that when he first came to Hong Kong in 1995 to set up the branch headquarters for The Washington Post, he was invited to lunch with Mrs Irene YAU, the then Director of Information Services of the Hong Kong 1026 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Government. Keith asked the Director how to apply for a press card, Mrs YAU just smiled and said that journalists did not need to apply for a press card in Hong Kong because "we have freedom of the press here". However, now we kill the chicken to warn the monkey.

It is a well-known fact that refusing to grant a visa is the Chinese Government's usual tactic and now the Hong Kong Government has obviously adopted China's tactic of regulation and control. However, Victor MALLET's situation was even worse as he was not expelled for writing a certain article. His crime was merely hosting a perfectly legitimate lunch talk in his capacity as the Vice President of FCC.

It is obvious that the Hong Kong Government was killing the chicken to warn the monkey. By refusing to renew the work visa of Victor MALLET, it is telling other foreign journalists that the Government's attitude has changed. The good old days had gone and now the Government would not tolerate any critical reports. Foreign journalists should behave well, otherwise, they will be ordered to pack their bags and leave.

I do not foresee that too many foreign journalists will leave as a result, but I am worried that they will be even more cautious in their future reporting. Will they have self-censorship? If so, the Hong Kong Government has achieved its goal and what follows is the death of Hong Kong.

Another seasoned media worker is Tim HAMLETT. He came to Hong Kong almost 40 years ago and has worked in the Hong Kong Standard, South China Morning Post, the Media Watch, a programme of Radio Television Hong Kong programme and Hong Kong Free Press, a local independent English media. He said that this incident was another proof of the rapid shrinking of freedom in Hong Kong. He strongly criticized the principal government officials for only following the orders of Beijing without caring about the harm done to Hong Kong.

I agree with Tim. When Victor MALLET's work visa was about to expire, the Hong Kong Government took the opportunity to deny his continuous stay in Hong Kong. This act is indeed shameful. Mr MALLET has posed no threat whatsoever to the Government. Article 27 of the Basic Law grants Hong Kong people freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. Hong Kong, which used to be open and free, has never imposed political censorship on dissidents or political parties, but this time an illegal action was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1027 taken by the Immigration Department and the Security Bureau invoked section 8 of the Societies Ordinance to prohibit the operation of HKNP. Everyone knows that the Societies Ordinance has all along been used to crack down on triad crimes. This time the Government invoked the Ordinance to ban HKNP. It has unreasonably used its power for the sole purpose of stopping the promotion of "Hong Kong independence".

Lord Thomas BINGHAM, widely recognized as the greatest judge after the Second World War, said in his book The Rule of Law that, under the rule of law, "public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, … and not unreasonably". However, at present the biggest problem is that there the rule of law no longer exists in Hong Kong.

In the famous novel Animal Farm that mocks the totalitarian regime of the Soviet Communists, animals drive the farm owner away in the revolution led by pigs. Afterwards, the animals write on the wall Seven Commandments that all animals have to obey and the Seven Commandments are simplified into one, "four legs good and two legs bad". This statement is an allegory of totalitarian rule.

Some days ago some supporters of the Chinese Communists even raved that expelling Victor MALLET and not shooting him was most civilized. Oppression always starts with the majority persecuting individuals. If no one voices any objection, such kind of incident will become more frequent. I am worried that Hong Kong will enter into the era of the Cultural Revolution. By then, when those in power say yes, no one dares say no; when those in power declare that "two legs bad", whatever the implication is, it will always be passed by the Legislative Council and extensively covered by the media. Those in charge of culture and publicity work will also exhaust every means to promote such a ridiculous standard as "two legs bad". That is the situation in Animal Farm, so is it during the Cultural Revolution, and it is also true in Hong Kong today. The only difference is that the red line drawn on that wall is called "Hong Kong independence".

While I do not support "Hong Kong independence", I still want to criticize this red line of "Hong Kong independence". After State President XI Jinping stated that "Hong Kong independence" was the red line, the Hong Kong Government has used various justifications to justify the persecutions. Even discussing "Hong Kong independence" has become a taboo, and everyone is very 1028 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 cautious in every step they take. It seems that Hong Kong has returned to the imperial era when everyone has to comply with the king's order. The Victor MALLET incident seems to be an individual case, but we must remember that "oppression always starts with individuals". If no one voices any objection, more will come.

The Hong Kong Government's act has reminded me of the "banality of evil" advocated by Hannah ARENDT, a German philosopher and political theorist. The banality of evil means that "in politics obedience equals support". ARENDT uses the trial of Adolf EICHMANN, a senior Nazi bureaucrat, to prove that when most of the people in society do not think, collective madness will eventually push the whole society to the extreme crime. ARENDT says Adolf EICHMANN has never personally killed anyone. He only obediently carried out his duty and followed orders under the bureaucratic system but consequently, he became a murderer during the holocaust. Similarly, the Hong Kong Government now manifests the Hong Kong style "banality of evil". Led by Chief Executive Carrie LAM, various officials keep tightening China's grip over Hong Kong. Sometimes, I get confused whether those officials, despite knowing very well that the measures have very negative impact on Hong Kong, still implement them all the same, or whether they truly believe those measures are in the interest of Hong Kong. I can only be certain that the Victor MALLET incident will tarnish the image of Hong Kong. Carrie LAM must be gloating about her refusal of being summoned by the Legislative Council today. In the past, Hong Kong's advantage was its difference from China and both places had its own special strengths, but today Hong Kong's political strength has diminished to almost naught as a result of its assimilation with China.

Of course, former Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, who is too eager to create troubles, has been playing the role of a facilitator. With a malicious attitude, he relentlessly attacked FCC and Andy CHAN on various open public occasions and in Facebook and he taught the incumbent officials how to react. Obviously, LEUNG Chun-ying's relentless attacks against "Hong Kong independence" would, to a certain degree, exert pressure on the incumbent officials to follow suit. President, three people spreading reports of a tiger roaming in a city makes you believe there is a tiger around. This metaphor shows that a rumour can be turned into a fact when more and more people talk about it. "Hong Kong independence" is a pseudo proposition. Today, three people's slander makes "Hong Kong independence" become reality. When people keep talking about a rumour, the rumour will become a fact.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1029

The most important point about "one country, two systems" is that it allows Hong Kong to preserve its uniqueness. Hong Kong can keep its membership in the World Trade Organization and has its own Olympic team. But in the long run, it is increasingly difficult for the international community to distinguish between Hong Kong and China. According to the Freedom in the World 2018 report published early this year by Freedom House, a human rights organization based in the United States, Hong Kong's aggregate score of freedom in this year is only 59, a record low and a decline for the third year in a row, and Hong Kong is only considered partly free. Freedom in Hong Kong can be described as being eroded. After the expulsion of Victor MALLET, it is not hard to imagine that one day Hong Kong will be just like China, banning all politically sensitive terms, as in the case of censoring Winnie the Pooh, and pulling down crucifixes.

Apart from the unreasonable refusal to renew Mr MALLET's work visa, the disqualification incidents that happened one after again, the self-willed announcement of reclamation in Lantau Island, and the extremely conceited plan to shut down the Vocational Training Centre's Shine Skills Centre in Kwun Tong, more and more Hong Kong people are considering migrating to other places. Two days ago, one of a very good friend of mine who was also my classmate in primary school migrated to Taiwan. It made me very sad but can I blame him? It is natural that everyone wants to seek a place where they can settle down and get on with their pursuit. Our only regret is that Hong Kong is not such a place for us.

In respect of the Victor MALLET incident, even though the Immigration Department keeps giving us the bureaucratic response that it will not comment on individual cases, the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("OCMFA") has stated that "granting of a visa is under the sovereignty of 'one country' and foreign countries have no right to interfere". It is very clear who made the order and who followed. It also reflects the fact that most people in Hong Kong are worried yet are well aware of, i.e. "one country, two systems" has already existed in name only.

Lastly, President, I wish to relate an incident that happened a decade ago. At that time, right before the hosting of the Beijing Olympic Games, Mia FARROW a Hollywood star came to Hong Kong to talk about the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, South Sudan as she appealed to the Communist Party of China to stop supporting the warring parties. Mia FARROW also gave a speech at FCC as scheduled despite the objected raised by OCMFA. The only difference was 1030 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 that FCC was not retaliated against and no foreign journalists were expelled. President, from this we can see the collapse of Hong Kong. It took a while, but "the Death of Hong Kong" has arrived.

Thank you, President.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, neither the nor I support "Hong Kong independence". Yet, the subject under discussion right now is about a journalist. The Hong Kong Government's refusal to renew, for no reason, the work visa of Victor MALLET, First Vice President of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC") and Asia news editor of the Financial Times, is an expulsion in disguise.

This decision was shocking. We therefore request the authorities to explain and withdraw this anomalous decision. Hong Kong always takes pride in its rule of law. Hong Kong people also treasure our freedom of speech and freedom of the press, which are protected under the law. The Government, however, refused to grant a work visa to a journalist of a world-famous newspaper without giving any reason; it is actually using political means to suppress freedom of the press. I am worried that this incident may give rise to widespread chilling effect and set a very bad precedent.

Mr Victor MALLET, who joined FCC in 2003, has been a journalist of the Financial Times and Reuters from more than three decades. Over the years, Hong Kong has been the home of his family. The SAR Government's decision, which is not backed by any explanation, has seriously affected the operation of FCC. Victor MALLET was supposed to host a number of FCC's events, but he is now unable to participate in any of them.

After the Mallet incident, Carrie LAM stated in public that the authorities had acted in accordance with the law and had complied with international practice, but she said so just to hide the political motive behind the decision. Since the Government considered its decision well-justified, I will now put three questions to it.

Firstly, while the Government claims that the authorities have acted in accordance with the law, which has been broken by Mr MALLET, the host of the talk? If he has truly broken the law, I urge the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1031

Government to tell us frankly and confront us openly instead of concealing the facts. If he had really broken any laws of Hong Kong, the authorities should have arrested him rather than expelling him from Hong Kong.

In fact, he had hosted different types of press events before. FCC always organizes its functions in a professional manner and has never violated any law. I would like to remind pro-establishment Members and government officials that freedom of speech, of the press and of publication of Hong Kong people is protected under Article 27 of the Basic Law. These are the rights of Hong Kong people and should never be infringed by the Government at will.

Secondly, while the Government keeps saying that it is duty-bound to safeguard national security, when did Mr MALLET engage in the so-called acts of secession?

In fact, in the past, FCC has always invited people with different views to attend its activities. The role of FCC is only to provide a platform for people to debate on different topics, and the opinions of guests and speakers do not represent the stance of the event organizer. That is actually basic common sense. Organizers of a forum will not just invite speakers on their side. For example, there were both proponents and opponents of "Hong Kong independence" in an election forum held earlier. Why didn't the Government then arrest the organizers of the election forum? If the Government had adopted the same standard, it should have expelled all staff members of the television station concerned from Hong Kong.

Thirdly, Carrie LAM claimed that her refusal to explain the reasons for not granting a visa tallied with the international practice. I cannot see her point. In the case of the United Kingdom, the Government will issue an official statement to the visa applicant to state the reasons for visa refusal, such as failure to meet the minimum income requirement. It is therefore wrong to say that no foreign government would have given an account in this situation. Even if foreign governments may not state publicly the explanation, the persons concerned will be informed of the reasons for refused entry.

A clear explanation of reasons for refusal is an integral part of procedural justice. Apart from ensuring fairness and justice, this practice allows the applicant to know why his application was rejected and consider whether he should file an appeal under the existing mechanism. There should always be an appeal mechanism to review government decisions. Nevertheless, if the 1032 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 applicant does not even know the reasons for his visa refusal, how can he make an appeal and defend himself? The Government has refused the entry of Mr MALLET for political reasons, but it dares not admit but seeks to cover up the political reasons on the pretext of "international practice".

Over the past two days, some royalist Members attacked FCC as if it was guilty of the unforgiving crime of secession. For those who know nothing about this incident, they may think that FCC is a triad gang with strong influence over the community.

Members, please ask yourselves honestly: Before the Mallet incident, how many people were aware of FCC's forums? Did these forums attract the attention of a large number of people as the one in which Andy CHAN was invited by Victor MALLET to give a speech? Some royalist Members argued that these forums were broadcast live worldwide on Facebook, an influential medium. However, before the Mallet incident, only dozens of people had given a "Like" to the videos of FCC's forums. Some of these videos were only viewed by dozens of people, and the peak viewership of FCC's live webcast was no more than 100 or 200 netizens. If the SAR Government and foreign countries had not widely "publicized" Andy CHAN's forum, the viewers might not be that many. May I ask the SAR Government and the pro-establishment camp, are you referring to yourselves when you say that there are people promoting the so-called acts of secession?

On the issue of international image, I would like to make one point. It is not the first time that the Government refused entry of foreigners for political reasons. Whenever someone's behaviour is not to the liking of the Government, the authorities will implicate all the parties concerned and deprive them of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. This rude and unreasonable action has brought shame to Hong Kong internationally and reduced the credibility of Hong Kong among international investors; worst still, it made Hong Kong an international laughing stock.

In the latest World Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, the ranking of Hong Kong has fallen from the 58th in 2013 to the 73rd this year, more or less on a par with third-world countries such as Albania and Tanzania. The regression of freedom of the press is likely to go on in Hong Kong. The Government must not overlook the negative impacts brought by its suppression of freedom of the press.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1033

If someone made a remark in contradiction to the Basic Law at a forum, and the forum had to be stopped and the persons concerned expelled, I am afraid that many people from the Government and the pro-establishment camp would be affected. I will now quote a paragraph from the preamble of a book: "Hong Kong has been part of the territory of China since ancient times; it was occupied by Britain after the Opium War in 1840. On 19 December 1984, the Chinese and British Governments signed the Joint Declaration on the Question of Hong Kong, affirming that the Government of the People's Republic of China will resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997, thus fulfilling the long-cherished common aspiration of the Chinese people for the recovery of Hong Kong." Please note that the phrase "recovery of Hong Kong" was used in the aforesaid paragraph. Indeed, this book is the Basic Law, and the paragraph that I just quoted is the preamble of the Basic Law. "Recovery of Hong Kong" is a phrase used in the preamble of the Basic Law, but interestingly, Secretary for Education Kevin YEUNG once said that this phrase should not be used. Has he violated the Basic Law? Yet, he is now one of the accountability officials of the Government.

In case an issue that contravenes the Basic Law is raised at a forum, does it mean that the forum can no longer be held, and the host of the forum be expelled? In Article 111 of the Basic Law, it is provided that "[t]he Hong Kong dollar, as the legal tender in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, shall continue to circulate". However, over the past few years, Mr Joseph YAM has repeatedly advocated an increasing use of Renminbi in different areas―including international finance and trade―and promoted the use of Renminbi as the legal tender. Some may argue, the Basic Law only provides that the Hong Kong dollar shall be the legal tender in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, it does not mean that other currencies cannot be used for international finance and trade. Nevertheless, the advocacy of Mr Joseph YAM is obviously subject to query. Has he contravened the Basic Law by making this advocacy? Should all the forums that he attended in the past be banned?

As for Carrie LAM, she once opined in the Chief Executive election forum that she agreed with all provisions in the Basic Law except Article 107, which provides that "[t]he Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall follow the principle of keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget". She remarked that she did not agree with the phrase "keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues". She is now the Chief Executive, but she once stated her disagreement with the Basic Law in a forum held previously. 1034 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Why didn't the then SAR Government openly condemn her for making the aforesaid remark blatantly? The Government did not make any condemnation, not to mention cancelling the forum. And now, Carrie LAM is the honourable Chief Executive.

Regarding the Mallet incident, Hong Kong people do not have the slightest idea how the red line is drawn. On the one hand, the Government says that any remarks in contradiction to the Basic Law will not be allowed, including speaking on "Hong Kong independence", a subject of our discussion today; on the other hand, the Government says that any views contravening the Constitution of the People's Republic of China ("the Constitution") will not be allowed either. If that is the case, the situation will be disastrous. Nowadays, the Basic Law is as thick as a telephone directory. In the past, the Basic Law only contains the Basic Law of Hong Kong, but now it also includes the Constitution, incorporating into the first 40 pages of the Basic Law. In other words, Hong Kong is bound by the Constitution. What will be the consequence of speaking against the Constitution? For example, Article 25 of the Constitution provides that the State promotes family planning so that population growth may fit the plans for economic and social development. As family planning policies include the previous "one-child policy" and the current "two-child policy", if I speak in Hong Kong to express my objection to the implementation of these policies, will I violate the Constitution? Surely, I will. However, the Basic Law, which is the law for Hong Kong, provides that China will not control freedom of speech in Hong Kong.

Some people often say that, apart from the Basic Law, we must also draw reference from the Constitution. If that is the case, we will be in a terrible situation. Which laws will apply and which will not? How will the Government draw the red line? Today, the Government has made up excuses to suppress FCC. There are views that when the forum in question was held, the Hong Kong National Party ("HKNP") had not been banned by the Government. If the presumption of innocence still applies in Hong Kong, why should FCC be blamed by the Government for holding the forum? HKNP had not done anything illegal. If it had broken the law, as I just said, the Police should have arrested its members long before. But that is not the truth. The Government is obviously trying to create a chilling effect to deter opinions not to the liking of the regime.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1035

Therefore, the Civic Party supports this motion in order to request the Government to produce all relevant documents and to testify or give evidence in relation to the Mallet incident for members of the public and the international community to know exactly why Victor MALLET was not granted a work visa. This is an act to honour the people's right to know. I so submit.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, we have heard pro-establishment colleagues vehemently talk about their patriotic sentiments in these two days. It seems so surreal to me because as we all know, many pro-establishment Members are holding foreign passports and have even more than one passport. Is their patriotic sentiment meant for the United Kingdom, China, Canada, the United States or all of them? To me, this is like a plot in the science fiction novels written by NI Kuang. Pro-establishment Members pointed out that the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC") had provided a venue or a platform for Andy CHAN of the Hong Kong National Party ("HKNP") to promote "Hong Kong independence", which violated the principle of "one country, two systems" and the Constitution of the People's Republic of China ("the Constitution"). Is the provision of a venue for the forum tantamount to supporting the position of the speaker? Just as Mr Jeremy TAM has said, this is common sense. In Hong Kong, however, common sense is not so common.

Many people think that the provision of a venue by Mr Victor MALLET for Andy CHAN to give a speech is tantamount to promoting "Hong Kong independence"; likewise, is the provision of a platform by the Legislative Council for Members with different political views to express views tantamount to promoting their political beliefs? The Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") has hired out venues to the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China ("the Alliance") which advocates the ending of one-party dictatorship, does this mean that LCSD supports the work of the Alliance to promote the ending of one-party dictatorship? Mr Andrew WAN, who is sitting next to me, is a Committee Member of the Alliance. I never think that LCSD supports the work of the Alliance.

Hiring out venues to eligible participants to express their positions is an appropriate arrangement in a free and open society. We should not think that organizations hiring out venues aim to help the venue users. I have not heard of any foreign journalist present at the forum on that day expressing sympathy or support for Andy CHAN, or providing financial or technical assistance to help 1036 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 him promote "Hong Kong independence". Instead, I heard that many attending journalists putting questions to him. It was reported that Andy CHAN had failed to answer a number of critical questions, especially how to successfully pursue "Hong Kong independence". In fact, many people mocked Andy CHAN's HKNP was a one-man political party with no member at all. Has Andy CHAN organized any major events? No. And yet, the Government has acted in all seriousness to suppress and outlaw HKNP.

More ridiculous still, after FCC organized a forum for Andy CHAN to expound on his proposition and answer questions, the Government refused to renew the work visa of the host of the forum and expelled him from Hong Kong. If the host of a forum was subjected to suppression and was refused entry, did the Hong Kong Government intend to expel FCC's President, Committee Convenors and all foreign journalists who were present at the forum on that day? One should not think that participating in and organizing the forum is tantamount to supporting the views of the speakers. The forums may have one or two speakers, and sometimes a number of speakers. Many former and incumbent officials of the SAR Government, including LEUNG Chun-ying, Carrie LAM, etc., had previously expressed their views at FCC. Does this mean that FCC supports their ideas? No, it does not. This is common sense. It has become increasingly difficult for common sense to take root in Hong Kong because more and more people have turned common sense into fallacious arguments.

I would like to ask: According to this logic, is the extensive coverage and live broadcast of the 4 June candlelight vigil held at the Victoria Park tantamount to the provision of platforms by journalists? Furthermore, many international media have interviewed a great number of highly controversial figures in their news reports over the past years, for example, an interview of the terrorist Osama bin LADEN by 60 Minutes. Had the interview provided a platform for bin LADEN to advocate his extremist thinking? No, it had not. The National Geographic Channel once interviewed some former Nazis and asked them to evaluate the atrocities back then, was this tantamount to providing a platform for the Nazis to advocate Nazism? No. This is because the media has critical thinking and would not believe whatever the interviewees said. The media will not act like yes-men and promote the ideas of the interviewees without criticism.

We should not apply the style of People's Daily to other media. People's Daily only allows people to sing praises for the authorities and definitely disallows any criticisms against the Government. It is inappropriate to think, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1037 basing on the style of People's Daily, that the reporting by other media of a person's idea is tantamount to promoting, praising and supporting him. It is very common for local and international media to interview controversial figures and then criticize their thinking, words and deeds. This is freedom of the press and freedom of speech enjoyed by an open society.

President, if the Government wants to do evil things, the first thing to do is to "turn off the lights", shut the door and expel the journalists. In that case, the community would be left in the dark such that other people in the community do not know exactly what is going on. Nor can other regions or the international community get a good grasp of the local dire situation. When any totalitarian government wants to exercise suppression, the first thing to do is usually to expel the foreign media and ban all news reporting. When the Tiananmen crackdown happened, the first thing was "lights out". Lights in Changan Avenue and Tiananmen Square were all turned off and foreign journalists were all driven away. But still, many journalists hid themselves in dangerous places and continued to cover the news and made live broadcast disregarding the rain of bullets. They heard the firing of guns here and there while they were shooting the film, and then they strived to bring the news footages to Hong Kong and other foreign countries. This is how the entire world learned of the massacre and the bloody tragedy. This is the vocation of journalists and the last line of defence of human civilization. If senior government officials have watched the movie A Taxi Driver, they should know how the South Korean Government blockaded news during the Gwangju Uprising. People living in other parts of South Korea were totally unaware of the brutal suppression, and it was the journalists who risked their lives going to the suppressed zones to report the uprising.

The SAR Government may make public its viewpoints, or issue press release to refute that "Hong Kong independence" is not only infeasible and violates the Constitution, but is also unpopular and fails to win the support of Hong Kong people. Hong Kong is a free society. So long as the arguments sound sensible, members of the public will support and the international community will give their consent. Has anyone seen any statement issued by the international community to support the pursuit of "Hong Kong independence" in Hong Kong? Has any international media issued any statement? Has any editorial given recognition to the pursuit of "Hong Kong independence"? No. Even those who vow to pursue "Hong Kong independence" cannot tell us the concrete actions to be taken, but the Government has made them the focus of international media.

1038 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

President, the Government said that according to practice, it would not comment on any case relating to the issuance of work visas. The British Government, on the other hand, said that it would, in accordance with established practices, explain to the person concerned why his application for visa was rejected. If no explanation is given, how can the applicant appeal? How can he identify his problem and make rectification? Does rejection for a single time mean rejection forever? This is absurd.

Pro-establishment Members said that Victor MALLET insisted on organizing the forum though he knew this was unlawful. He was actually "jumping the red light", and naturally, he was not allowed to stay in Hong Kong. What does the "red light" refer to? The "red light" of Hong Kong is actually the laws of Hong Kong. Do the laws of Hong Kong prohibit holding forums? What law have I broken if I hold a forum in a private clubhouse? If I had broken the law, the Secretary for Security should have asked the Commissioner of Police to take law enforcement actions. If this does not involve any unlawful act, what is the "red light" then? The lights have been switching from red to amber and green, and then all over again. Is there something wrong with them?

Noting that the "red light" keeps on blinking, will the call for an end to one-party dictatorship be regarded as "jumping the red light" in the future? Mr Andrew WAN should be more careful in the future because he advocates the ending of one-party dictatorship. I join the gathering organized by the Alliance every year, so what? President Andrew LEUNG may receive a call from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in HKSAR anytime, telling him that the debate on the 4 June incident is in contravention of "one country, two systems" and the Constitution, and should not be allowed. Mr Andrew LEUNG, have you made a big mistake in allowing a debate on this subject be conducted year after year? No, President, I support you this time, even though I seldom do.

There is no reason for the indiscriminate change of the red line, nor is it reasonable for the traffic light to change colour in less than 0.3 seconds. How should I know when the "red light" will change colour? Can I read the mind of those in power? If the authorities want to move the red line or change the colour of the traffic light, they might as well enact legislation in the Legislative Council to expel the host of the FCC forum on "Hong Kong independence" as well as its Committee Convenors, members and staff who are not Hong Kong permanent residents from the city; ban the operation of FCC and then resume the site of its premises, and cancel the registration of FCC as a society. Any club that hired LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1039 out venue has to be shut down for six months to one year, as in the case of shutting down drug dens or vice establishments. The Government may enact such legislation, so let us see the action of the people of Hong Kong.

President, when I was studying at the Department of Government and Public Administration of The Chinese University of Hong Kong, many forums were held with diversified topics. Yet, what is more interesting is our assignment. My Jewish professor once asked us, upon our completion of a course on anarchism, to draft a proposal to set out how anarchism could be implemented in Hong Kong. My classmates were very imaginative and presented a great deal of ideas, and I had also suggested how Hong Kong could be put on the path to anarchism. This is the academic freedom and freedom of speech of Hong Kong. The fact that the professor asked us to submit a dissertation on anarchism does not mean that he advocated anarchism. This is common sense indeed.

President, the SAR Government often stresses that Hong Kong is an international city, and an international city should allow different voices, allow open debate, allow the international media to come to Hong Kong and listen to our diversified political views, and use their critical thinking to understand the real situation of Hong Kong as well as the views of different people. Victor MALLET is definitely not the first media worker to be expelled from Hong Kong, neither is he the only one nor the last one. I feel increasingly pessimistic about the room for freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Hong Kong. I hope that Hong Kong people will see clearly for themselves that the environment is getting darker, and thus they should stand up to defend Hong Kong's freedom of speech, freedom of the press and our civil rights. We should definitely not allow Hong Kong to continue to degenerate, nor allow those pro-establishment Members, who are holding many foreign passports, to vehemently talk about their patriotic sentiments and call for the suppression of "Hong Kong independence" … I am not talking about you, Mrs IP, don't be so agitated. I did not say everyone, okay? (The buzzer sounded) … I hope you, Mrs IP, will understand my point.

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

1040 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Upon the occurrence of the incident of Victor MALLET, Vice President of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC"), Ms Claudia MO, the incumbent coordinator of the pan-democrats, contacted me and asked if I would sign a petition. I politely refused because I have my own views on the matter. However, I will point out in the last part of my speech why I support today's motion on summonsing the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to attend before the Council. I will now give Members some basic background.

Ms Claudia MO's motion is a typical motion of declaring one's stance under the British Hong Kong representative system, but our question is: Given that Hong Kong is now facing the biggest challenge since the Pacific War, what real significance will this game of declaring one's individual stance have on our society? If we keep playing this game, what will be the actual consequences or possible outcomes?

I may have to spend some time reviewing the past. The embargo in the Korean War, the huge influx of Mainlanders to Hong Kong in the 1950s and 1960s, the leftist riots, the 1 July 1997 deadline, the 4 June massacre, the political wrangling between the United Kingdom and China and SARS in 2003 have in fact caused economic instability and political turmoil in Hong Kong at different times, but Hong Kong has survived against all odds and so people say it is a blessed land.

At the beginning of the Cold War, after the Communist Party of China ("CPC") gained political power on Mainland China, it set down its policy on Hong Kong, that is, "making long-term planning and taking full advantage". Instead of taking back Hong Kong before the due date in the politically correct and righteous name of anti-colonialism, it killed two birds with one stone by compelling the United Kingdom to establish diplomatic relations with China for the sake of keeping possession of Hong Kong; and demanding the United Kingdom to freeze democratic development of Hong Kong in return for maintaining its political and economic stability. During that time, as CPC had planned, Hong Kong became an opening in the blockade and economic bans imposed by the United States on "Red China", and acted as a door allowing China to conduct foreign currency transactions, thus enabling it to implement economic reform.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1041

Meanwhile, during the Cold War, Hong Kong became the last piece of land on Mainland China with relatively more freedom. Many refugees fled to Hong Kong despite its insecurity, including my grandparents who might have come to Hong Kong under such circumstances. The cost to Hong Kong was the tortoise speed of democratic development. As time goes on, some Hong Kong people have become so accustomed to accepting the wrong as right that they regard having freedom without democracy as the desirable political model. That is the current situation of Hong Kong.

At the end of 1960s in the twentieth century, the United States was bogged down in the Vietnam War and anti-war movements within the country had intensified. At that time, Richard NIXON, a Republican President-elect pledged in the 1968 election that he would gracefully end the war. As a result, he won in the election. In July and October 1971, Richard NIXON sent Henry KISSINGER, Secretary of State to pay two secret visits to China. In 1972, Richard NIXON paid an open visit to China and formally broke the ice with China. That was the first time in history that the regime of CPC formally entered the international world. In the same year, China and the United States signed the Shanghai Communiqué and pledged to work towards the normalization of their relations. The objective of establishing formal diplomatic relations between the United States and China was achieved in 1979.

As China and the United States were no longer enemies and CPC was introducing economic reform, CPC did not have much difficulty to resume the sovereignty over Hong Kong. After the 4 June massacre and at the beginning of Bill CLINTON's tenure, China-United States relationship became cool again. Nevertheless, when DENG Xiaoping visited the southern cities in 1992, he promised to strengthen economic reform and liberalization and he used various policies …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, how is your exposition related to this debate?

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I will continue and finish soon. I will point out why I will finally support the motion. President, I hope you will understand that my exposition concerns the relationship among the United States, China and Hong Kong.

1042 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

After the implementation of economic reform and liberalization, the United States Government gradually changed its attitude and established diplomatic relations with Beijing. On the one hand, it started formal dialogues on human rights. That is why in the past 20 to 30 years, the United States has focused on discussing the human rights condition in China in its reports and in recent years, it has shown concern about Hong Kong's situation. On the other hand, by strengthening its economic and trade relations with China, the United States hopes that the middle class will be strengthened, thus become leaders of a new wave of democratic movement to bring about fundamental changes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, I remind you once again that you have digressed. If you do not return to the subject, I will stop you from speaking. Please return to the subject of this debate.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Alright, I will skip one paragraph in my script. Against the background of political wrangling between China and the United Kingdom, Hong Kong has all along been operating as an agent. Basically, this forms the basis of democratic development in Hong Kong and explains why Hong Kong maintains a status of having freedom without democracy.

I will now give a brief summary. On 2 March 1994, Express News published an article entitled "Truth unknown and facts uncertain" written by Mr WONG Yuk-man, former Member of the Legislative Council. President, the article precisely explains the circumstances under which we are having this debate today. It says: "The struggle between the Communist Party of China and the United Kingdom on the constitutional development of Hong Kong involves all sorts of conflicts of interests. As it is a struggle between two organizations, each of them has to mobilize the public, the basis of mobilization is power, and power is maintained by beliefs. While the Communist said that the United Kingdom has 'wolfish ambition', the United Kingdom commented that if it acquiesced to Communist's demands, it would have no room to retreat. Both of them are using …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, having spoken for 5 minutes and 30 seconds, you have not addressed the subject under discussion. If you continue to digress, I will stop you from speaking. Please return to the subject. That is my final warning. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1043

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Very well. In that case, Members can in their own time the article written by Mr WONG Yuk-man during the climax of his life. It was published on 2 March 1994.

The political struggle of an agent takes the form of fighting but not breaking up. The 31 August Resolution of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 2014 declared that dual universal suffrage could not possibly be implemented in Hong Kong, thus giving rise to political turmoil in Hong Kong in the past few years and resulted in the Umbrella Revolution.

Let me briefly summarize now. I will quote from Mr WONG Yuk-man's article which I mentioned earlier. It says, "It is almost like coaxing Hong Kong people into fighting on the battlefield until they are crushed to death." I am afraid these remarks have rightly described our situation today. Two groups of people have been, involuntarily and unknowingly, mobilized and possibly they have even been coaxed into debating or arguing about something which has occurred for some unknown reasons.

President, the real issue is that the motion today demands the Security Bureau to produce evidence. I firmly believe that since the Hong Kong SAR Government is so arrogant, it will take the video clip uploaded by FCC to YouTube as evidence. Nevertheless, FCC has certainly not uploaded the video clip of Andy CHAN's speech to YouTube or the Internet. This shows that FCC might have considered that the Government might invoke the Societies Ordinance to institute prosecutions nowadays. Is there any chance that FCC may be implicated? Yes, there is.

We have spent a lot of time today discussing the doubtful incident of someone being invited to give a talk. In fact, the SAR Government should have sufficient time to stop the invitation by way of legislation and administrative means. Certainly, if the Government adopted that approach, I would surely rebuke it on the premises of freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Considering that the Government should have sufficient time to stop the invitation, why did it resort to such a dishonourable approach in handling the matter? In this debate today, Members are merely declaring which side they stand regarding this issue; after all, we are only agents. However, from the perspective of a Hongkonger and a member of the public, how should I position myself?

1044 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

President, I have explained the relevant background in the hope that Members can review the history of the past 30 to 50 years. Have we been promoting democratic movements in order to achieve democracy for people of different "colours" or foreigners and check if they support us, or are we really dealing with our own situation of having freedom without democracy in Hong Kong? I am going to read out something which is entirely relevant to this point.

Ms Claudia MO's motion mentions the HKSAR Government's refusal to renew the work visa of Mr Victor MALLET, Asia news editor of the Financial Times. The refusal is related to the sovereignty of China. The pro-establishment camp thus put forward a tu quoque argument, querying why pan-democrats did not reprimand those countries which also expelled journalists. This argument is not completely false. However, the recent brutal murder of Jamal KHASHOGGI, a Saudi Arabian journalist, at the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul has shocked the world. It shows that even though a sovereign state can do anything it likes within its territory, there will be political consequences if it has gone too far.

How has CPC strengthened its authoritarian strategy on Hong Kong? How has the Western bloc used the current situation of Hong Kong to open up new battlefronts against China and make our homeland a political and economic battlefield of many countries? Hong Kong people are totally passive.

Members and public officers, in this battlefield, agents for China and the United States fight for their own masters, but have you considered the interests of Hong Kong …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please stop speaking immediately.

(Dr CHENG Chung-tai kept on standing while speaking)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, I have warned you repeatedly, but you are still digressing from the subject. Please stop speaking immediately, otherwise I will order you to withdraw from the Chamber.

(Dr CHENG Chung-tai remained standing while speaking)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1045

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please sit down.

(Dr CHENG Chung-tai did not comply with the President's instruction)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, I am giving you my final warning. If you do not sit down, I will rule that your conduct is grossly disorderly.

(Dr CHENG Chung-tai remained standing while speaking)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please sit down.

(A Member indicated his wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Let me deal with the problem of Dr CHENG Chung-tai's conduct first.

Will the Clerk please escort Dr CHENG Chung-tai to leave the Chamber.

(Security officers tried to assist Dr CHENG Chung-tai in leaving the Chamber, but Dr CHENG Chung-tai remained standing while speaking and refused to leave)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, your conduct is grossly disorderly. Please leave the Chamber immediately.

(Dr CHENG Chung-tai left the Chamber with the assistance of security officers. At this juncture, Mr Andrew WAN indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, what is your point of order?

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. Today's motion discusses freedom of speech, and I think this Council should have an enormous room for freedom of speech. And yet, I would like to raise a point of order with regard to your earlier approach. I am worried that when Dr KWOK 1046 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Ka-ki or I speak later, we will be treated in the same way as Dr CHENG Chung-tai. Which part of Dr CHENG's earlier speech do you think has digressed from the subject? I have been listening to his speech, and I firmly believe his speech is relevant to the motion. Although he did speak in a roundabout way from time to time and cited certain examples to support his arguments, he subsequently returned to speak on the incident in question. Can you briefly explain so that we can get a better grasp of the standard?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai continued to digress from the subject despite repeated warnings and failed to speak on the subject after speaking for seven to eight minutes. The ruling was made only after repeated warnings were not heeded, and you may listen to the relevant recordings. Please sit down.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please speak.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion moved under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law to summon the Secretary for Security John LEE, who is now preparing to leave the Chamber, and the Director of Immigration to explain before the Council the refusal of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government to renew, for no reason, the work visa of Mr Victor MALLET.

President, I would like to quote a very interesting comment, which is the comment of Global Times on the Victor MALLET incident. It says: "One less MALLET will not bring down Hong Kong's freedom of speech", meaning that Hong Kong's freedom of speech will not be reduced because of MALLET. It holds that the targeted action of the Government would not inflict substantial damage on freedom of speech, nor tarnish Hong Kong.

President, after the MALLET incident, Hong Kong's foreign investors and business sector as well as Chairman of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China Marco RUBIO and British Foreign Secretary Jeremy HUNT have all made comments and criticisms about the incident, and demanded an explanation. From this, it can be seen that the incident is not purely an ordinary incident where a journalist was not issued a work visa. British Foreign Secretary Jeremy HUNT made it very clear that this move was politically motivated. Also, this is the sword that is attacking Hong Kong. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1047

As we may recall, at yesterday's Legislative Council meeting, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward YAU told us that he hoped that, through his efforts, Hong Kong could manage to stay out of the ongoing trade war between China and the United States and receive special treatment. Let us not forget that under the Hong Kong Policy Act, differential treatment was granted by the United States to Hong Kong on the premise that the latter should be a separate entity. According to the Basic Law, the set of rules and laws in Hong Kong is completely different from that of the Mainland, and all Hong Kong people enjoy freedom of speech, of association and of the press. Article 41 of the Basic Law also provides that "[p]ersons in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region other than Hong Kong residents (including foreigners working in Hong Kong) shall, in accordance with the law, enjoy the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong residents prescribed in the Basic Law." However, what actually do we see in Hong Kong every day? "One country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" have all turned out to be lies. We are gradually heading towards "one country, one system", and tying in with the Mainland.

In Mainland China, expelling a journalist is just a piece of cake and this is not a big deal, as stated by Global Times. The Mainland authorities can either put a journalist behind bars or ask his entire family to leave a certain place, or even China. In the case of Victor MALLET, he was only refused to have his work visa renewed, which is simply not to up to par as regards the standard practice of the Mainland. He should actually thank the Government. Some pro-establishment Members went so far as to say that MALLET should be sentenced to canning, or even imprisonment where appropriate. The Government is already very lenient by not allowing him to remain in Hong Kong. What kind of logic and reasoning is this?

What does Hong Kong rely on to survive? It is the core values of Hong Kong. These core values have not only gained the recognition of the people of Hong Kong and the Mainland, but are also accepted, respected and embraced by the international community, especially the business sector. Hong Kong has the rule of law and an independent judicial system, through which we survive and become valuable, and we are able to earn more foreign exchanges and … President, not only the people of Hong Kong have benefited, many senior officials of the Mainland have also sent their children and grandchildren to Hong Kong to study, for example, the grandson of JIANG Zemin, the daughter of LI Zhanshu and the daughter of Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs surnamed HE. 1048 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

All of them have come to buy properties in Hong Kong and become Hong Kong residents. Why did they come to Hong Kong instead of remaining in Beijing? Is it not good to remain in Beijing as the second generation of the rich or the second generation of high-ranking officials? They came to Hong Kong because of our special room for freedom. They hoped that their children and grandchildren could continue to live under a system that is independent of the Mainland, otherwise they would remain on the Mainland as "kings". The Government is now stifling everything with its own hands.

Victor MALLET is the Asia news editor of the Financial Times. I wonder how many people in Hong Kong have read the Financial Times, which is indeed a heavyweight newspaper in the international community. MALLET has all along been working in different parts of the world on behalf of the Financial Times and other media since 1983, including South Africa, Zambia and India, places which we considered to be very backward in the past, but his work visa had never been suspended in such a despicable way. Is Hong Kong even worse than Zambia? Now it appears so, and the reason is that the Government does not consider his words pleasing to its ears. Let us go back to the crux of the issue. What exactly has MALLET done? He had, in his capacity as the Acting President of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC")―he was actually the First Vice President―invited Andy CHAN to give a speech. As we all know, the vast majority of Hong Kong people do not support "Hong Kong independence", but one point is very important, and that is, people of Hong Kong agree that freedom of all individuals should be protected, unless he has breached the law.

As for Andy CHAN, the Government has, for unfounded reasons, forcibly prohibited the operation of his Hong Kong National Party pursuant to the Societies Ordinance. This is certainly not the subject of today's debate, and I have no intention to dwell on this vicious approach of invoking the Societies Ordinance. But regardless of what a person advocates, how can an invitation for that person to give a speech be regarded as a promotion of his ideas? The Mainland Government had previously invited Donald TRUMP and the British Foreign Secretary to visit China and give speeches at Tsinghua University and Peking University, but does this mean that the Mainland Government supports them? Is inviting Donald TRUMP tantamount to supporting him? Is inviting the Japanese Prime Minister tantamount to supporting him? Of course not. The invitation only gives them an opportunity to understand the situation of Hong Kong, which is particularly the case of FCC. The reports of foreign journalists LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1049 are fair enough. A foreign journalist who had interviewed Andy CHAN asked him for the number of members in his political party, and CHAN replied that he had never counted the number. Thus, the journalist reported that "This is indeed uncountable and I have no idea of how to count the number of his supporters." In conclusion, we may say that he has a large or a small group of supporters, but the readers should have an answer in their hearts. We understand that for the journalists or individuals, the most sought-after freedom being protected in Hong Kong are freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Assuming that I am going to invite John LEE to attend a seminar one day, does it mean that I support him? No, maybe I invite him to talk about how he has eliminated societies in Hong Kong. Let us see if he would attend. This nonetheless does not imply that I support him, nor his ideas; and he is duty-bound to explain his position on that occasion. This is exactly the approach adopted by FCC, that is, inviting different guests to speak on a myriad of controversial topics. Likewise, in Hong Kong, many societies, universities, student unions and even the Government organize seminars to allow people with different views to express their opinions. If the Secretary is unhappy about this, he might as well invite people who love the country and Hong Kong to talk about their affection for the country and Hong Kong day after day. Wen Wei Po and can also organize similar workshops every day. Hong Kong is a free place where everyone can speak freely, so long as he has listeners. The question is Victor MALLET had not taken any concrete action to support "Hong Kong independence". I have read all the articles written by him, but there is not a single word supporting "Hong Kong independence". The Government's targeted action against him is therefore unfounded.

Why should we summon the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to attend before the Legislative Council? Because the reason given by the Government is unfounded, which runs contrary to the established principles of Hong Kong. If the Secretary has the guts, he could tell us that he was instructed by Beijing to do so against his wish, and there was no way he could refuse. This may be the answer to reflect the real situation, as expected by Members. According to Carrie LAM and other government officials, Hong Kong has always respected freedom of speech. They also respect freedom of speech and would not stifle any media. In other words, they were saying that the incident has nothing to do with them, implying that they were instructed by the Mainland to do so. In that case, Secretary John LEE could tell Members here that he was instructed by the boss of his boss. In fact, when the Secretary 1050 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 visited Beijing earlier on, he could say, "Yes, I have heard about the news and I confirm that we were told by the Mainland to take that action." The truth will then come out and the international community will get a true picture of Hong Kong's "one country, two systems". The international community will find out that the protection of rights under the Basic Law is nothing but a lie. Why had the Secretary not done so? The Secretary's failure to do so has aroused the concern of countries having trade relations with Hong Kong.

Marco RUBIO made his views very clear, that is, whether Hong Kong can continue to maintain its unique economic and trade position in the future depends on its continuous upholding of the core values under the protection of the Basic Law, and its independent status in respect of the system, the judiciary and the rule of law. How can Hong Kong distinguish itself from other Chinese cities if it loses its core values? If Hong Kong is no different from Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou or Shenzhen of China, why should we enjoy a unique position, and why should foreign businessmen come to Hong Kong but not Beijing or Shanghai?

We should not think it is a matter of course for the World Bank and the Heritage Foundation to give Hong Kong very high ratings in the past. They did so because Hong Kong people―not government officials―have always upheld Hong Kong's unique position and core values, which include freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Such values are what Hong Kong people have been very keen to preserve and do not want to give up. We have already given up too many things. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars of our hard-earned money on "white elephant" projects, and we can do nothing to resist the increasing interference from Beijing.

Yesterday, I was infuriated by the specious arguments presented by Members of the pro-establishment or royalist camps. Some pro-establishment Members queried why Hong Kong people had not spoken up for LAU Nai-keung when Hong Kong Economic Journal cancelled the column that he had written for many years. LAU Nai-keung was a member of the HKSAR Basic Law Committee and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. If he wanted to publish any article, Wen Wei Po, Tai Kung Pao and the China Central Television would readily serve him. After his column was suspended, red tycoons of the Mainland had acquired a number of Hong Kong media. There are now plenty of newspapers, television and radio stations at his disposal. The present Hong Kong Economic Journal is probably no longer the same as it once LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1051 was. While people with opposing views are now left with shrinking space and have no way out, the pro-establishment camp, which is holding enormous power, was so pretentious to say that LAU Nai-keung was being gaged. Nonsense!

The pro-establishment camp should not think that "independence" is a mortal sin. What did MAO Zedong, the founding father of the Communist Party of China ("CPC"), advocate in 1919? He demanded "Hunan independence". In 1920 and 1921, he repeatedly advocated "Hunan for the Hunanese" because he knew that this was the only desirable way to provide a future for the Hunanese back then. In the early days of CPC, some founding members of CPC advocated the federal system and there were initially two autonomous "united provinces". We should not toe the line too closely as no one knows how the world is going to change. No matter what, we vow to protect freedom of speech of all Hong Kong people, which is of utmost importance, otherwise we will lose everything, including Hong Kong's unique position, and (The buzzer sounded) … the goose that lays gold eggs.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, please stop speaking.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to state clearly that I will quote the views of other people in my following speech. I hope that the President will allow me to speak and listen to what I am going to say before ruling prematurely that I have digressed from the subject. President, I speak in support of the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law to summon the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to attend before the Council to produce government records and relevant documents and to testify or give evidence in relation to the incident of the Government's refusal to issue, for no reason, the work visa of Mr Victor MALLET, Vice President of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC") and Asia news editor of the Financial Times.

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

Deputy President, the MALLET incident is not a trivial matter as described by some pro-establishment Members in the past two days. Earlier on, a number of pro-establishment Members had digressed from the subject when they spoke, 1052 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 but I am not going to name them one by one. The Deputy President has just taken the chair. At first, I wanted to ask President Andrew LEUNG why he did not remind pro-establishment Members to speak on the subject when they had digressed. Deputy President, to put it simply, this motion seeks to demand explanation from the Director of Immigration and the Secretary for Security for refusing the entry of Mr Victor MALLET. Yesterday, pro-establishment Members kept talking about "Hong Kong independence"; in fact, the two issues were totally unrelated. They strayed very far, engaging in discussing different political views which was completely unrelated to the subject in question. As President Andrew LEUNG showed great tolerance to pro-establishment Members yesterday, I presume other Members could do the same but I am wrong; Dr CHENG Chung-tai has just been expelled from the Chamber for digressing from the subject.

Deputy President, as I said just now, pro-establishment Members seemed to turn yesterday's debate into a heart-to-heart talk. All of them were filled with righteous rage as if they were possessed. As pro-establishment Members would rather be leftists than rightists, they lashed out at "Hong Kong independence" and the Hong Kong National Party with many archaic words commonly used by the Communist Party of China ("CPC"). I have no objection to their expression of views about "Hong Kong independence"; we do not endorse "Hong Kong independence" either. However, they should have expressed their disagreement in a lawful, reasonable and civilized manner. In the debate, they should not, without evidence, accuse others of colluding with foreign forces, being pawns of the United Kingdom and the United States to besiege CPC, endangering national security, and so on. Deputy President, their speeches yesterday were fraught with this kind of wording and were completely meaningless. After listening to them for the whole day, I thought that the President would allow discussion from a macro perspective, but I was wrong.

The pro-establishment camp is apparently using the incident of Victor MALLET being denied a visa to kick up a fuss, but the core issue of this motion is freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Victor MALLET has clearly indicated his objection to "Hong Kong independence". However, regardless of whether he supports "Hong Kong independence" or not, FCC merely hosted a luncheon talk, and this arrangement is a common practice. Regrettably, this act has overstepped the red line drawn by the CPC Government or drawn by the Hong Kong Government in compliance with the CPC Government. In fact, there is more than one red line. As Mr LAM Cheuk-ting pointed out just now, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1053 the Government will from time to time suppress remarks advocating "Hong Kong independence" and oppose the advocacy of "self-determination". Deputy President, I am perplexed as regards why we are not allowed to talk about "self-determination". That is weird. Some Members may recall that I studied social work in the past, and I learnt about self-determination as one of the seven principles of social work. It does not matter; these red lines are drawn arbitrarily. As I said earlier, "ending one-party dictatorship" has also become a taboo subject. As more and more red lines are drawn, some people refuse to accept but some are more than happy to accept them. We all know that drawing red lines on one's face would make that person a clown. I hope that pro-establishment Members will heed my warning.

Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan cited a number of examples yesterday to illustrate that the United Kingdom and the United States had also refused the entry of some people, and he questioned why we did not criticize those countries. It is not that we have not criticized them. Let me cite my personal experience of arguing over refused entry to a foreign country. My younger brother was denied entry when we travelled to the United States to attend our younger sister's wedding ceremony. I argued with local immigration officers on the spot and the argument escalated. Eventually, my brother was expelled. Why do I use this case as an example? The United States Government later informed us of the reason for his refused entry, which had something to do with his occupation. My brother has been as a senior chef in a five-star hotel for years, and the United States Government considered his occupation highly sensitive. The immigration policy of the United States Government might sound silly to us, but at least, a reason was given. On the contrary, the Hong Kong Government has not provided any reasonable explanation for refusing the visa application of Victor MALLET. That is our point. Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan alleged that the United Kingdom adopted the same practice as Hong Kong, and yet his allegation was later refuted by the British Government, bringing Hong Kong into disrepute in the international community. Andrew HEYN, British Consul General to Hong Kong, clarified that it was wrong to compare the practices of the two places because the British Government, unlike the Hong Kong Government, always gave reasons for refused entry.

The current incident is rather ridiculous. A number of Members stated yesterday that the person concerned provided a venue for Andy CHAN to speak, thereby endangering national security. Is inviting Andy CHAN to speak tantamount to endorsing and supporting him, giving him an opportunity to 1054 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 advocate "Hong Kong independence"? Deputy President, this logic is daunting. Let me once again cite my experience when working as a social worker. At that time, I invited some members of the pro-establishment camp to speak although I did not share their views. I criticized them for betraying local residents because their redevelopment proposals did not bring benefits to residents. However, this would not stop me from inviting pro-establishment members as speakers; otherwise, the resident groups would not have the opportunity to debate and discuss with them.

Deputy President, it is daunting if the authorities do not allow inviting people with different views to speak. The talk organized by FCC was neutral in nature and Victor MALLET, the host, did not take side. The talk was just meant to allow an exchange of views, and some foreign journalists present even criticized Andy CHAN for his naïve and impracticable ideas, considering his advocacy as an empty talk with no forward planning. Why don't pro-establishment Members quote these opinions? If the view of pro-establishment Members is substantiated, all media reporting the proposition of "Hong Kong independence" will be in danger because the authorities may at any time order their closure. Do not tell me that reporting the proposition of "Hong Kong independence" is tantamount to advocating "Hong Kong independence". To me, this logic is seriously wrong.

Most ridiculous of all, FCC had also invited some pro-establishment heavyweights and government officials to speak in its luncheon talk. One of the speakers was LEUNG Chun-ying. Deputy President, LEUNG Chun-ying had given a speech. He came to FCC to publicize his specious arguments which were disliked by many people in Hong Kong. How come it is alright for him to speak at FCC while people holding views different from the Government are not allowed to do so? What kind of logic is this? The authorities give a big smile to those speakers who side with the Government, but make an outcry against those speakers with different views. What kind of logic is this? However, after listening to the debate held yesterday and this morning, I finally realize that this logic is highly reasonable. That is the logic of the pro-establishment camp. We seldom call them "the pro-establishment camp"; some people may jokingly call them "indigenous communists". The pro-establishment camp and CPC share the same logic: They allow their supporters to speak up while their opponents are gagged. If we follow this logic, we will see that they are in the right. At first, I wanted to mock them for their illogical thinking, but after a second thought, I find that they are acting on the logic of their master.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1055

Deputy President, as I stated just now, FCC and many foreigners actually consider that the advocacy of "Hong Kong independence" is uncalled-for; some of them even think that "Hong Kong independence" is doomed to failure. While it is common for pro-independence advocates around the world to propose specific plans, feasible options and conditions, the person who advocated "Hong Kong independence" was like a piece of white paper in interviews and this has actually turned into a laughing stock. Some foreign media have also repeatedly highlighted that "Hong Kong independence" lacked widespread support. Apart from the foreign journalists whom I know in person, TIME magazine also stated a similar observation in its feature interview with Andy CHAN published on 14 August. Although the author was polite in her comments, she more or less ridiculed him. In her article, she said that Andy CHAN was just an individual claiming to be leading a party whose numerical strength was unknown and his quest was just "a Children's Crusade". What a strong statement! We dare not use such words to mock them. To a certain extent, foreign media have teased him about his unrealistic thought.

Some people have rushed to put labels on others. When FCC invited Andy CHAN to speak, they said that it collaborated with foreign powers and pan-democrats supported "Hong Kong independence". This kind of indiscriminate labelling is really too common in our Council debates.

Yesterday, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan made fun of pro-democracy Members, saying that when we rose to speak, we always played safe by declaring that we oppose "Hong Kong independence". As a matter of fact, we do oppose "Hong Kong independence". Please review my past remarks. I persistently oppose "Hong Kong independence" and consider this advocacy unfeasible. However, I do not think we should thus stop Andy CHAN from speaking. Likewise, while I do not concur with Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, but should he be gagged for this reason? I can debate with him. I met Andy CHAN on a number of occasions. The pro-establishment camp will attack us, people dissenting views, on all fronts. I am fine with that because we need to have freedom of speech, of the press and of association in Hong Kong. Yet, Deputy President, ironically, your party comrade Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan indirectly encouraged "Hong Kong independence" in his speech. He said that pro-democracy Members had failed to sincerely declare their support for "Hong Kong independence" when they rose to speak. Was he trying to encourage us to show our sincerity?

1056 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Another point made by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan was also ridiculous. He queried why we did not say a word about the many overseas incidents in which freedom of speech and freedom of the press were suppressed. It was indeed wrong for him to make this point. At the moment, the Council is handling the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO as empowered under the Basic Law. We must hence speak on this motion, which is directly about the business of Hong Kong. I find Mr CHEUNG's view extremely ridiculous. If Donald TRUMP has made some anti-human rights and discrimination remarks, should we discuss these remarks in the Council? We are certainly against TRUMP's remarks, but I urge Mr CHEUNG not to "tailgate". He should read our Facebook posts before speaking. Pro-establishment Members should not hang around with each other all the time, they should be aware of our previous comments and criticisms.

However, Deputy President, the aforesaid issues should not be put to the Council for discussion. We support Ms Claudia MO's motion because the incident involved is directly related to Hong Kong. For what I know, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan is a "Japanophile" and he told me earlier that he was learning Kendo. Buddy, the relocation of the Tsukiji Market is a big issue in Japan, but should it be put to the Council for discussion? It has nothing to do with Hong Kong. Don't they understand this simple logic?

Deputy President, I would like to respond to a point made by a Member yesterday. Deputy President is looking at me now; maybe she wants to ask what I am going to say. I must say that the pro-establishment's arguments against Ms Claudia MO's motion are extremely weak and pointless, without any substance. Yesterday, there was even a view alleging that her English speeches were written by ghostwriters. Well, I think most of the Members were not born in English-speaking families. This is common sense. When I pursued further studies back in the old days, I asked my friends in the English Faculty to polish my essays. As I am not a native English speaker, my English usage may be different from that of native speakers in terms of logic and usage. How come Ms MO's relatively well-written English speeches is taken as an evidence to support the saying that she supports "Hong Kong independence" and that she is manipulated by others, and subsequently her motion should be opposed? There is no relevance at all. In English, there is a saying "beat about the bush", I would like to present it to the Members who made this point. This saying describes exactly what they are doing now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1057

Deputy President, the Hong Kong Government has made itself a fool before the world in the MALLET incident. Some of the viewpoints raised by pro-establishment Members yesterday had likewise made them look foolish. Obviously, we have a clear stance on the issue of "Hong Kong independence". On the other hand, it is a common practice for FCC to invite speakers with different views to its luncheon talk. According to various parties, Andy CHAN does not seem to have the support of any sector. I do not see why some Members consider that inviting Andy CHAN to speak well justifies the suppression of Victor MALLET and the rejection of his work visa.

Also, I think the Government's act in this incident is terrible and stupid, and pro-establishment Members, in particular, should condemn the Government for its stupidity. While "XI Dada" is deeply troubled by the China-United States trade war and has to pull out the big gun, i.e. rare earth elements, the Carrie LAM Government has stupidly added fuel to the fire at this very moment. Some pro-democracy Members are now lobbying in the United States, hoping that Hong Kong will not be affected by the trade war. Hong Kong is an independent economy―Members please listen carefully and do not make a fuss of these words when they speak later; Mr CHAN Hak-kan is laughing―what I want to say is that Hong Kong is an independent economy. I hope people will not court their own ruin like moths to flames. In the MALLET incident, it is sensible, reasonable and lawful that the Government should return justice to the community and offer a reasonable explanation to Victor MALLET.

A number of presidents of foreign chambers of commerce―such as President of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong Tara JOSEPH―have stated openly that without a free press, capital markets cannot properly function, and business and trade cannot be reliably conducted. In my view, these foreign chambers of commerce are voicing their warnings or concerns to the SAR Government in a polite manner. We must take them seriously and stay alert. Some Members have doubted whether this mystery incident is sufficient to bring down the ranking of Hong Kong on the press freedom index. On this point, according to the survey of Reporters Without Borders on press freedom, Hong Kong has fallen from the 18th in 2002 to the 70th at present after its reunification with China. They are among the reasons for the plunge. Given that a large number of Hong Kong media have turned "red" after being acquired by the Mainland's capital and many senior media managers have been honoured with awards by befriending the Government, pro-establishment 1058 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Members have never said a word about these matters. Therefore, the pro-establishment camp has somehow "contributed" to the significant decline in Hong Kong's freedom of speech.

Given the aforesaid reasons, I support Ms Claudia MO's motion, and I wish to clear my reputation too. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak against the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO under Article 3(5) and (10) of the Basic Law to summon the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to attend before the Council to provide all the relevant documents and give an explanation of the Victor MALLET incident.

Deputy President, I think Ms Claudia MO's motion has improperly escalated the incident to a high level and made an issue of it. Yesterday, pan-democratic Members pointed out that it was utterly unnecessary to discuss this motion in the Legislative Council and I absolutely agree with them. We have already wasted several hours discussing an unnecessary motion. There are problems with the wordings of Ms Claudia MO's motion, which stated that the Government had refused to renew, "for no reason", the work visa of Mr Victor MALLET, Vice President of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC"). There is definitely a problem with this statement. The Government's refusal to give an open account does not mean there is no reason at all. It is indeed an established practice of the Government not to comment on this individual case concerning the refusal to renew the work visa of Mr Victor MALLET, which is also an established practice of the international community. This nonetheless does not mean that the refusal was made "for no reason". Therefore, it is a waste of time for us to discuss Ms Claudio MO's motion as the proposition itself is wrong.

Hong Kong is a place where foreigners are absolutely welcome to come here for sightseeing, travelling and work, and it is also a place where people can have freedom of speech and freedom of the press. When Mr Andrew WAN spoke earlier on, he admitted that the MALLET incident was just an isolated incident, but pan-democratic Members has exaggerated the severity and claimed that it would affect Hong Kong's freedom of the press and freedom of speech. This reminds me of the story told by Mr SHIU Ka-chun earlier that three people spreading reports of a tiger make you believe there is a tiger around. Many LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1059 foreign media now think that Hong Kong has no freedom of the press and freedom of speech at all. Why is that so? Because a lie repeated often enough becomes accepted truth. Pan-democratic Members often claim in public that Hong Kong has no freedom of speech and freedom of the press, such that people who are ignorant of the truth would believe in them. But is that true?

If we go to the newspaper stands, we can see that there are many different kinds of newspapers and magazines in Hong Kong. Also, there are numerous online media. How many of them support the SAR Government? Only a small minority. How many of them have lambasted the SAR Government or hurled criticisms at the Chief Executive, the Secretary for Security and other principal officials? The majority of them. Does this mean that Hong Kong does not have freedom of speech and freedom of the press? Definitely not. When various media in Hong Kong can freely express different political views, can we say that there is freedom of speech? Can we say there is no freedom of the press? Of course not. Please do not use freedom of speech and freedom of the press to intimidate Hong Kong people all the time. In fact, since the reunification, the pan-democratic camp has been saying for more than 20 years that Hong Kong has no freedom of the press and freedom of speech. They have repeated the same claim for more than 20 years and can still continue to say so. Does this mean there is no freedom in Hong Kong? I trust that people's eyes are discerning.

Just now, many colleagues pointed out that Hong Kong ranks the 70th in the World Press Freedom Index, which is pretty low. I would like to use Japan, a place which Hong Kong people are very familiar with, as an example. Do Members know the ranking of Japan? Japan is also a country with freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but it only ranks the 67th in the World Press Freedom Index. In fact, the gap between Hong Kong and our neighbouring Asian countries in respect of the press freedom ranking is not very large, so there is no need for us to bother ourselves with self-created worries or belittle ourselves. Pan-democratic Members kept saying that the MALLET incident has serious impact on freedom of speech and freedom of the press, but I must point out that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are also subject to the Basic Law. While the Basic Law protects freedom of the press and freedom of speech, it does not mean that these two kinds of freedom can override the Basic Law. Therefore, it is wrong for pan-democratic Members to quote the Basic Law out of context. They only cited provisions favourable to their remarks, but were silent on other provisions relating to the protection of the country's independent 1060 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 sovereignty and territorial integrity. They even used the Basic Law as a pretense and queried why "Hong Kong independence" could not be used as a subject for academic research. Pan-democratic Members only cited provisions favourable to them, but were silent on other irrelevant provisions. In other words, they adopted a "head I win, tail you lose" attitude and have the final say on everything.

The MALLET incident is actually a Foe-Glass. I hope that the pan-democratic camp can respect "one country, two systems" and explain to their friendly foreign forces that the issuance of work visas is an internal affair of HKSAR and should not be interfered by foreign governments. Some members of the public may be perplexed as to why the SAR Government refused to renew the work visa of Mr MALLET without giving any explanation. With regard to this point, just now many Members have already explained that the issuance of work visas falls within the autonomy of local governments. Giving an explanation to foreign countries on such matters is tantamount to compromising our autonomy. Let me give a very simple example. I would like to go to Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's house, but he would not let me in. He did not have to give me an explanation because it is his house, right? Likewise, if a person's work visa renewal was denied, he should think what he had done resulting to this treatment.

As we all know, Mr MALLET is a journalist, a renewal of his work visa is to enable him to engage in news reporting and news-related work, but not to engage in any other work. However, as we can see from the television, instead of doing what a journalist should do, Mr MALLET organized a forum on "Hong Kong independence" in FCC and invited Andy CHAN to give a speech. The Central Government or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had made it clear that this activity should not be held as it had not only violated the Basic Law and the principle of "one country, two systems", but also crossed the political red line. Mr MALLET, knowing that he should not organize the forum, insisted to do so. Why should the Government renew his work visa when he had engaged in activities that were unrelated to his work as a journalist?

Some pan-democratic colleagues pointed out that it was inappropriate for the Government to deny the renewal of the work visa of Mr MALLET, who is a journalist. Are journalists so superior that they can act indiscriminately beyond the control of the law? This does not make sense. This morning, some Members said that we, as Members of the Legislative Council, cannot do whatever we want. As Members of the Legislative Council, we cannot seize the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1061 mobile phones of other people, keep cats or dogs within the Legislative Council Complex or recharge our electric vehicles in public places. No one can do whatever they want by taking advantage of their status, and everyone should act in accordance with the law. Therefore, it is right for other people to prohibit us from doing unlawful acts. If we insist to do so, we must face the consequences of our action. The logic is very clear.

Just now, Mr Andrew WAN said that FCC had previously invited people from the pro-establishment camp and LEUNG Chun-ying to speak in its forums as well. Yet, the question is not who have been invited to speak, but the subject of the speeches. If a country in Europe or the United States organizes a luncheon talk in Hong Kong, do you think it will invite a terrorist, al-Qaeda member, or even a terrorist advocate or sponsor as the speaker? Of course not, and this is a clear fact. Pan-democratic Members should not confuse the facts.

Deputy President, after speaking for so long, I consider it downright unnecessary to conduct a debate on this subject in the Legislative Council as Members have already expressed similar viewpoints on different occasions. Once again, I would like to advise pan-democratic Members not to whitewash "Hong Kong independence" and unduly overplay the MALLET incident. Members should join hands with me to oppose Ms Claudia MO's motion. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I support Ms Claudia MO's motion to summon the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to attend before the Council to give an account of the Government's refusal to renew the work visa of Victor MALLET.

In fact, 8 to 10 Members of the pro-establishment camp have spoken in these two days and Mr CHAN Hak-kan said that it was a waste of time to discuss the issue. If it was a waste of time, he should not speak but sit patiently, waiting to cast his vote. Of course, I think it is good for him to speak because the international community is listening to this debate of the Legislative Council today. They are more concerned than Hong Kong people about the Government's refusal to renew, for no reason, the work visa of Victor MALLET. While the speeches given by the pro-democracy camp are within the expectation of the international community, the latter is eager to listen to the arguments, fallacies or logic presented by the pro-establishment camp. If one day any 1062 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 pro-establishment Member is refused entry by other regions, they do not have to ask for the reason because, in their words, they should have a clear idea about the situation.

I have listened very attentively to the speeches made by those 8 to 10 pro-establishment Members, and among them the first to speak was Deputy President. I have the feeling that Deputy President was reaffirming the position of the party, which undoubtedly is just, noble and correct. If Members review the video recordings, they may find that Deputy President Starry LEE had raised her voice and spoken in a pretty unnatural way, which is different from her normal speech. Deputy President may take a look at the recordings later on. I try not to liken Ms LEE to the women of the Communist Party of China ("CPC") back then. I trust that someone will produce an edited version later on.

As for Mr Christopher CHEUNG, although I was unable to hear clearly his entire speech, I did notice that he had uttered the words "have a clear idea", and so had other Members. The reason for moving this motion today to summon government officials is precisely because we do not want to hear something like "have a clear idea", or leave Members to guess which red line has been crossed and what should or should not be done. We want the Government to openly provide an explanation and state the obvious. It should tell Hong Kong people, foreigners working in Hong Kong and the international community what exactly are the reasons for its refusal to renew the work visa of Victor MALLET.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG is most candid, and today all pro-establishment Members are indeed more candid than the Government, which has chickened out and dared not explain what it had done. Dr Priscilla LEUNG stated very clearly that even the provision of a platform should be prohibited. Does the Government dare say so? It would be great if the Government dares say that.

Just now, Mr Andrew WAN used a very good analogy. An election forum is meant for providing a platform for participants with divergent views to debate, why then would the host of the forum support a particular participant? What would happen if someone advocates "Hong Kong independence" at the election forum? I finally understand―but in a roundabout way―why the Government had to disqualify certain candidates. It is actually helping the media. If a media organization organized an election forum and during which a candidate talked about "Hong Kong independence", it might not be able to have its licence renewed later on. If the media organization allowed that candidate to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1063 speak without pointing out his mistake and the speech was broadcast live internationally … I remember that the Deputy President has also used the term broadcast live internationally. Deputy President, it is no big deal broadcasting live internationally because anyone can broadcast live on Facebook at home.

I am sure that the Government has the right to do so without giving any reasons. If the Government does not have the right to do so, I would sue it. Members mentioned established practice all the time. When we discussed the provisions in the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance yesterday, we learnt that it was not necessary to give any reason for any interim classification, but that does not mean explanation cannot be provided. We hope that the Government can give a clear account as this is not only good for both members of the public and Hong Kong, but can also "contain the damage" caused by the Victor MALLET incident to Hong Kong. I can only say "contain the damage" because the damage has been done, and it is much more serious than you think.

Many pro-establishment Members said that the Government had followed the international practice. I am not going to talk about the "international" aspect but will focus on the "practice" first. Practice means something that is done by a lot of people and there are plenty of examples. Even if something is done by other people, does it mean that it is the right thing to do? The logic that it is alright for me to do things that others have done is terrifying. The Saudi consulate in Turkey arrested and killed journalist KHASHOGGI, but such kind of incident had not happened in Hong Kong. Can the Government say that if Hong Kong and the Mainland follow suit, they are merely acting in accordance with international practice? The Government cannot say that it is alright for us to do something that others have already done. It involves a judgment on the appropriateness of the action.

If you think what the Government has done is an international practice, it means that you have been poisoned by the SAR Government and do not have any international vision. Of course, similar incidents are happening around the world. I wonder if any Member has shared on Facebook the comment that the United Kingdom did not give any reason for refusing the entry of a certain person. The British Consulate-General in Hong Kong has recently issued a statement in a high-profile manner, stating that the United Kingdom would explain to the persons who had been refused entry so that they could lodge an appeal. As a matter of fact, given that an appeal mechanism has been put in 1064 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 place, the Government is obliged to give reasons for refused entry otherwise the person whose visa application has been denied will make wild guesses about the reason of denial. This is the first reason why I support Ms Claudia MO's motion. Since the Government allows the person who has been refused entry to appeal, it should clearly explain why the visa application was denied.

If this motion is passed, it would provide an opportunity for the Government to openly give an account of the true reasons for not renewing the work visa of Victor MALLET. I think this should be the international practice and the right approach. Only by so doing can Hong Kong follow the international practice, rather than toeing the line of the Mainland. Apart from forcing the Government to bring our immigration policy in line with the international practice, disclosing the document relating to the visa rejection can also reveal the relevant decision-making process of the Government, thereby clarifying whether the decision is related to Victor MALLET's hosting of the luncheon which Andy CHAN had participated.

The pro-establishment camp has never seriously tried to understand why the American Chamber of Commerce, the United Kingdom and the European Union have reacted so strongly to the MALLET incident. In fact, the strong reaction from the European countries and the United States was precisely because they feared that MALLET's work visa rejection had something to do with freedom of the press and his work. In the eyes of the developed regions, MALLET's invitation merely intended to provide a platform for members of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC") to know more about the ideas of Andy CHAN, rather than advocating "Hong Kong independence". As a matter of fact, FCC did invite people of different political stances to speak from time to time. Will the Government strongly criticize or even retaliate if the content of the speech is unfavourable to Hong Kong, or if their political stance is at variance with that of the Government?

Over the past years, Presidents of the United States, be they Republican or Democrat and regardless of their political stance, had been invited to speak their mind freely at the annual White House Correspondents Association dinner. Therefore, to the governments and journalists of developed countries, they can hardly understand why inviting a person to speak at a luncheon is tantamount to colluding with an advocate of "Hong Kong independence". The pro-establishment camp has unduly overplayed the incident such that whoever speaks in support of Ms Claudia MO will be accused of secretly supporting LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1065

"Hong Kong independence". I welcome Members who have yet to speak to rise and clearly explain why Members who speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion today are secretly supporting "Hong Kong independence".

If the Government refused to renew Victor MALLET's visa because he hosted the luncheon, it can honestly make a confession to Hong Kong people. In Europe or America, is it an infringement of freedom of the press if the Government cancels the work visa of a person because of a news activity? If the Government can produce documents to prove that refusal to renew MALLET's work visa has nothing to do his hosting the luncheon but is attributable to other technical issues, it can surely give an open account. In fact, apart from news organizations, many foreign institutions in Hong Kong and even large-scale enterprises or the business sector also found that the standards of CPC and the Government largely elusive, which has aroused their grave concern. If the motion is passed today, I think it would enable foreign enterprises to gain a better understanding of the policy adopted by the Government for vetting and approving entry visas, especially work visas.

The refusal to renew the visa of Victor MALLET has actually caused widespread anxieties among foreign enterprises and institutions as they have no idea of the standard adopted by the Government. Instead of giving an explanation, the Government merely said that we "have a clear idea". It is sinful to act tacitly and the Government can "shut the gate" at any time. No matter how much a person has invested in his business, the Government may refuse his entry to take care of his own business. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for foreign enterprises and institutions to feel anxious. What is tacit support? If I am a foreigner and run business in Hong Kong, dining with Andy CHAN can be seen by the Government as giving tacit support of "Hong Kong independence". The Government may then refuse my entry and hence I cannot take care of my business in Hong Kong. The Government should not only consider from its own perspective, but should think if the concerns of other people are justifiable. Instead of making any announcement, the Government has "leaked out information" that Victor MALLET's visa renewal was denied because he had done something undesirable to Hong Kong. This is how white terror has been created. It is the Government's intention to let Hong Kong people guess the scope of the red line, and the wider the scope, the safer.

Finally, I would like to share a viewpoint with Members. I have all along failed to figure out the logic behind the Government's present approach, it was not until I read an article entitled "From e-cigarettes to 'Hong Kong independence'" 1066 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 that I have an idea. Of course, I do not agree with the viewpoints of the article. What is the relationship between e-cigarettes and "Hong Kong independence"? I finally figured out the logic after reading the article. The reason why the Government introduced a total ban on e-cigarettes rather than traditional cigarettes is that the opportunity cost of imposing a total ban on the latter is too high. Given that e-cigarette is a new product, the Government thus decided to ban it. My logic is that there is no law to stop Andy CHAN or any Hong Kong people from speaking, even if he is accused by the Government of violating the Basic Law in Hong Kong. If MALLET's visa is still valid for a very long time, it will be very difficult for the Government to cancel his visa and order him to leave Hong Kong right away; but if he has to apply for a renewal of his visa, the Government can simply reject his application in accordance with the law.

The same applies to television stations. If a television station is about to renew its licence, it will behave properly in order not to infuriate the Government, which has the power not to renew the licence. A university lecturer enjoys freedom of speech and academic freedom, but the Government can refuse to renew his contract. This is an authoritative government. As the Government cannot invoke any law to directly deal with Andy CHAN, to arrest him or to imprison him, it then turned to the people around him and taught them a lesson by all means. This is tantamount to punishing the innocent or giving a warning to other people, disregarding the cost to be paid for the lesson. It is the current approach of the SAR Government to exercise excessive control even to the extent of victimizing the innocent.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the refusal to renew the work visa of Victor MALLET, Asia news editor of the Financial Times, has raised concerns in the community, particularly among journalists. I understand and am concerned about the worries expressed by representatives of the press sector and news organizations over the incident. That said, the community has diverse views on whether the incident has indeed impacted on freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Hong Kong.

The wording in Ms Claudia MO's motion claims that the SAR government rejected, "for no reason", Victor MALLET's application for work visa renewal. While we have no way of knowing the real reason behind, that does not mean the Government did so "for no reason". As in many places around the world, when the Immigration Department ("ImmD") considers whether or not to grant work LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1067 visas in accordance with the laws and established policies, it will look into the circumstances of each applicant, apart from his compliance with the general application requirements.

The media pointed out recently that in 1998, when responding to a Member's question, the SAR Government mentioned that it had six criteria when processing applications for work visas. Such criteria included whether the applicant had any adverse records, and whether the activities of the applicant and the employer concerned would be beneficial to Hong Kong as a whole. Hence I think the ImmD's decision was well grounded and made after due and careful consideration.

Many people speculated whether the refusal to renew MALLET's work visa was linked to the invitation of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC") to Andy CHAN, founder of the Hong Kong National Party, to a lunch event. While I have no idea if that was the reason behind the Government's visa refusal, the speculation is not unreasonable. Hence, it is unfair to conclude that the Government has used political means to suppress freedom of the press in Hong Kong.

We all agree that media workers play a very important role in society. They disseminate timely and diverse information to the public, monitor the Government and often expose unfairness in society to ensure that justice is done. Journalists and media practitioners have the right to conduct interviews and investigations as well as to edit and comment without interference. Freedom of speech, of the press and of publication are essential requirements for a civilized and open society. In Hong Kong, these rights are protected by the Basic Law and the Government has a duty to ensure that such rights are not infringed.

Yet, in this incident, Mr MALLET, Vice President of FCC, organized the lunch and hosted the talk in his capacity as the person in charge of FCC rather than as a journalist. He invited the leader of an illegal organization, the operation of which would soon be prohibited as expressly stated by the Government, to talk on "Hong Kong independence", a topic that violates the Constitution of the country and the Basic Law. Mr MALLET attended the event as the person in charge of the organizing body and the host of the talk, but not as a journalist performing his news reporting duties. Hence I cannot be convinced that the incident was connected to the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. The SAR Government and Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China had 1068 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 reminded and advised the organization and persons concerned about the problems of the event, all of which had fallen on deaf ears. In view of these, it is difficult to convince the public that the activities of these individuals would benefit Hong Kong as a whole. In other words, his actions can hardly make him a welcome figure in Hong Kong.

Now I would like to discuss whether a government explanation is necessary for ImmD's decision. Following the MALLET incident, many organizations have demanded the Government to give an account of the incident and even withdraw its decision. However, I am aware that as an international practice, governments generally refrain from commenting on individual cases and explaining their decisions. The reasons can vary, such as the incident being sensitive in nature, or there is a need for confidentiality or for avoiding diplomatic scuffles. Whichever the case may be, we should not set a precedent as such incidents may occur frequently.

As a Special Administrative Region of China, Hong Kong's immigration policy falls within the scope of its autonomy under "one country, two systems". The decisions of the Director of Immigration are based on the existing legislation, policy and circumstances of each case. Like other countries and governments, the SAR Government does not need to give an explanation.

I would like to give my thoughts on some of the views just expressed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. To begin with, he asked the SAR Government to "state the obvious". In fact, under the existing laws and regulations, the measures that the Government can take in this incident are limited.

In fact, this incident involves the question of whether national security is adequately safeguarded. The Central Government has entrusted the Hong Kong SAR with the mission and duty to enact its own laws on national security, and this mission and duty have not yet been fulfilled. Therefore, our national security is not yet reasonably and adequately protected. This incident highlighted the need and urgency for Hong Kong to draw up its own national security laws.

He also mentioned that the SAR Government has abused its powers. I must point out here that power and responsibility are different sides of the same coin. The Government, of course, has its power, and when it exercises that power, it comes with a responsibility that is crucial to our country, to society and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1069 to the people. The responsibility is to protect national security, so as to ensure that society will be harmonious, people's life will not be interfered and chaos will not arise.

Mr CHAN also touched on the question of right and wrong. My opinion is that if we can, through this debate, understand that the SAR Government had done the right thing in this incident, the problem of wrongful act will no longer exist. He also cited the pro-establishment camp's criticism that the opposition camp is actually tacitly supporting "Hong Kong independence" by criticizing the Government for disallowing FCC or Mr MALLET to organize such kind of activity.

I would like to say that on this cardinal question of right and wrong, accusing the SAR Government of wrongfully exercising its powers is essentially supporting illegal behaviour and activities.

Deputy President, this incident has certainly aroused the concern of the press sector and some members of the public. Nevertheless, as long as the SAR Government can maintain its long standing practice of safeguarding freedom of the press and the media's right of reporting under the Basic Law, and use practical action to convince the local and international community that freedom of the press in Hong Kong has not been affected by the incident, I trust time will prove that this incident does not have a negative impact on Hong Kong.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have listened carefully to the speeches of my colleagues over these two days. I will not repeat the views of our pro-democracy camp in support of the motion. I only want to add one point.

Deputy President, I certainly support Ms Claudia MO's motion. I also understand that the SAR Government and the Central Government adopt a zero-tolerance policy on "Hong Kong independence", so as to ensure national security and unity. I fully understand that the SAR Government has to discharge its constitutional responsibility and even has to constantly mention the zero-tolerance policy under pressure. However, this decision is certainly a 1070 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 political decision. Even if the Government has acted in accordance with the law, it must be a political decision made by the top echelon of the Carrie LAM Government. I think we need to examine the actual effects of this decision.

The Government adopts a zero-tolerance policy on "Hong Kong independence", so as to ensure national security. As the forum was held and the speech delivered, what else does the Government want to combat? If the forum is yet to be held, the Government can take some practical action to prevent it from being held. This will be another issue. However, for unknown reasons, or probably due to legal restraints, the forum was held. Now the Government should not refuse to issue a visa to a journalist whom the international community believes is innocent. Victor MALLET happens to be the First Vice President of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC"), and the forum was held by FCC rather than by MALLET on his own capacity. The Government now expelled him, and when he came to Hong Kong again as a British visitor, the Government only allowed him to stay for several days. By doing so, is the Government stepping up or curbing the publicity of "Hong Kong independence"?

Deputy President, at present international media organizations (including newspapers and magazines) have covered the incident extensively, and the governments of various countries have also expressed their concerns. The United States, the European Union and Canada have all issued statements. Though Victor MALLET is the Vice President of FCC, foreign media organizations are not helping their peer, but rather reporting on how the incident would affect Hong Kong and what Victor MALLET has done wrong. Victor MALLET has erred in allowing FCC to hold that forum. This is something that can happen in any place in the world. The newspaper to which Victor MALLET belongs and he himself have never said that they support "Hong Kong independence". For this reason, Hong Kong is actually suffering losses. Such a move is very stupid. In respect of combating "Hong Kong independence", no publicity has been generated in either Hong Kong or the international community. As many of my colleagues have spoken on this, I will not repeat the harm inflicted on Hong Kong, namely, freedom of the press being undermined and "one country, two systems" being questioned.

As far as combating "Hong Kong independence" is concerned, the Government's is actually telling the world that "Hong Kong independence" does exist in Hong Kong, and the SAR Government or the Central Government is very concerned. Hong Kong or foreign reporters had made their evaluation after LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1071 listening to Andy CHAN's speech. A Member quoted just now the comments of the TIME magazine, saying that CHAN's quest is a Children's Crusade, which will not go anywhere. No further coverage will be given due to lack of interest. They do not think that Andy CHAN will be Hong Kong's SUN Yat-sen, that Hong Kong has any hope of obtaining independence in the future, or that Andy CHAN will exert any influence on the situation. Apart from Carrie LAM, Andy CHAN has appeared in foreign media reports over the past six months. Being the founder of the Hong Kong National Party, he has been given the same amount of coverage as that given to the Chief Executive. The comments on Andy CHAN were initially very negative, but the expulsion of such an important journalist by the Hong Kong Government has instead helped Andy CHAN gain more exposure. The Government has been really stupid in doing so.

Deputy President, for the time being I still believe that the Hong Kong Government made the decision after realizing the Central Authorities' zero-tolerance policy on "Hong Kong independence". The decision was probably made by the Chief Executive or the Secretary, and the Director of Immigration could not have made this decision. Certainly, I personally believe that the Chief Executive or the Secretary could easily make such a "rather left than right" decision these days. The Chief Executive has started to be rather left than right, closely following the Central Authorities. However, is it a wise decision that takes account of the overall situation? The overall situation is that if you have done the right thing, your superior will praise you for you have followed his direction or you have realized his direction; but if you have made a mistake, that will be your own fault. This is the culture of the Chinese officialdom.

I hope that the Chief Executive or the Secretary will take a look at the current world situation and the rivalry between China and the United States. We need to know why our country recently invited the Japanese prime minister to pay a visit, saying that China-Japan relations had been put back on track. The editorial of the Global Times even further indicated that it would be naïve and ignorant if the Diaoyu Islands dispute would affect China-Japan friendship. Merely within a few weeks, the Global Times has totally changed its position.

Deputy President, what is the overall situation? What is a wise decision? Has the Government's act invited trouble? In this complicated China-United States imbroglio, how should Hong Kong position itself, so that the whole world, particularly the United States Government and the European Union … I am not 1072 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 merely talking about the interests of Hong Kong, but the interests of the country. The so-called national interests refers to "making long-term planning and taking full advantage" of Hong Kong, so that "one country, two systems" can play its role. President XI mentioned this point several times, particularly over these two years. If such an incident occurred two or three years ago when the situation was calm and tranquil, the implications would not be so significant. Deputy President, from the perspective of the country, this decision is victimizing our country by inviting trouble.

A "rather left than right" decision is not a wise decision. I am quite worried about the possible return of LEUNG Chun-ying, and hence I will not add insult to injury. There are different levels of wisdom, and vision is required for political analysis. If such a decision is made by someone who is not a politician, but by one who is only well-versed in Hong Kong affairs but ill-informed of national affairs and complicated international trends, remedial measures can actually still be adopted. We support Ms MO's motion, with the hope of prolonging the process of resolving this issue. Given the ongoing rivalry between China and the United States, it will be a wise decision if, through the appeal by the Financial Times, the Government can renew the work visa of Victor MALLET. I hope the SAR Government will think wisely. While "Hong Kong independence" should be combated, it is more important to safeguard national interests and properly position Hong Kong's status, so as to avoid exerting further pressure on the China-United States relations. This overall situation is more important.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, recently when I was having tea with a bunch of old friends, someone said he sympathized with us, Members of the Legislative Council, because very often we were forced to participate in the farces staged at Council meetings. I will not comment on whether today's debate is a farce as I will leave it for the public to decide. But since it is a big show, it must have a title and I think it should be called ZHONG Kui 1 Catching Ghosts. Why do we have to catch ghosts? What are the ghosts? The ghosts are, in the words of the opposition Members, suppression of freedom of speech or interference with freedom of the press, etc. However, after listening to the speeches of opposition Members for some time, I found that the

1 A deity famous for vanquishing ghosts in Chinese folklore. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1073 title should be changed from ZHONG Kui Catching Ghosts to ZHONG Kui Worshiping Ghosts or even ZHONG Kui Scaring People. The quotations cited by many opposition Members are: certain foreign institutions said so and so; the American Chamber of Commerce said so and so, or the British Government said so and so. As long as the comments are made by foreigners or foreign institutions, they are regarded by opposition Members as divine instructions and are absolutely correct. Opposition Members thus use those comments to attack the SAR Government.

Some other Members, like Mr James TO, have come up with new justification. In fact, many opposition Members have mentioned this point before, which is, the SAR Government's refusal to renew Victor MALLET's work visa in the midst of the trade war between China and the United States will arouse the United States' resentment and retaliation, which will in turn jeopardize the economy of the Hong Kong SAR. It that a fact? That is truly scary.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Let us look at a recent example. KHASHOGGI, a journalist who wrote for a United States newspaper The Washington Post, was killed in the consulate of Saudi Arabia in Turkey. The President of the United States declared his position immediately and said that he would not sanction Saudi Arabia because that would jeopardize the nation's interests. In the news report this morning, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom also said the same thing, that is, while considering the relationship with Saudi Arabia, he also has to consider the commercial interests of the United Kingdom. In other words, the governments of many foreign counties put the interests of their countries first before anything else. However, the Legislative Council Members in Hong Kong seem to think that Hong Kong's interests are not as important as the right and interests of a foreign journalist. President, I will not speculate why the visa application of Victor MALLET, a journalist of the Financial Times, was turned down. It is the established practice of the SAR Government not to comment on individual cases and hence there is no way we can find out the reason. Yet many Legislative Council Members have unfairly accused the SAR Government today for reasons that they speculated.

1074 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Today, we, The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, oppose Ms Claudia MO's motion mainly because we support the SAR Government's enforcement of the immigration policy within our own sovereignty in accordance with the Basic Law. Article 154 of the Basic Law provides that the Hong Kong SAR Government may apply immigration controls on entry into, stay in and departure from the Region by persons from foreign states and regions. This is within the ambit of the SAR Government's sovereignty conferred on it by the Central Government through the Basic Law. I believe that any countries in the world will do the same. If anyone is suspected of causing damage to the interests of a certain place or country and is deemed unwelcome by that place or country for certain reasons, the government of that place or country can deny his entry anytime.

As Victor MALLET, the person involved in this incident, is a journalist, someone makes an issue of the incident and overplays its impact. We should not forget the political forces behind. The United States and the United Kingdom have also repeatedly refused the entry of foreign journalists before. There is nothing uncommon or strange about it. Journalists may take up many other tasks apart from their work as news reporters, and when undertaking other tasks, will harm be done to the local interest that is unacceptable to that place? I believe no one knows today. The opposition Members use some speculative reasons to accuse the SAR Government, I find this highly unfair. Hence, we will certainly lend our support to the SAR Government to act in accordance with the empowerment of the Basic Law, in accordance with our law and in accordance with our established practice, so as to safeguard Hong Kong's own interests and perform the duty assigned by our country, which is to protect the security and sovereignty of our country. Under the principle of "one country, two systems", this is also very important. I believe it is not as simple as merely considering our commercial interests.

Thank you, President.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion to inquire into the Immigration Department's rejection of work visa renewal for journalist Victor MALLET under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). This incident has aroused grave concern locally and internationally, as well as among the press. The European Union, the Consul General of Canada, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom, and the American Chamber of Commerce have issued statements to demand an explanation from the SAR Government. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1075

To start with, I must condemn the Chief Executive for she justified the Government's failure to give an account of the incident by claiming that the Government had acted in line with the international rule, so as to evade the serious queries from the local and international communities. It is grossly wrong for her to do so. What kind of "rule" is this? Is it common for Hong Kong to refuse the entry of journalists and dissidents or refuse the renewal of their work visas? Is that a "rule"?

In fact, the number of refused entries by the SAR Government has been on the rise in the past few years. People who were refused entry included Taiwanese editor of Hong Kong's City Magazine CHANG Tieh-chih, Taiwanese student activist LIN Fei-fan, Taiwanese scholars HO Ming-sho and WU Jieh-min, city councillor from Japan's Chiba Prefecture Kenichiro WADA and, most recently, Deputy Chairman of the United Kingdom Conservative Party's human rights commission Benedict ROGERS. The acts of refusing entry for international exchanges and rejecting work visa renewal for journalists are not what we call a "rule"; instead, they are evidence showing that Beijing keeps on intervening in Hong Kong affairs with different excuses, damaging "one country, two systems".

Hong Kong people and the Legislative Council, however, must not go numb because freedom of the press is the very thing that gives Hong Kong an international footing, and it is a valuable trademark of Hong Kong. Even if the values and freedom of the press that Hong Kong upholds happen to grate on Beijing's ear and nerves, Beijing has no right to interfere under "one country, two systems". This is exactly the original intent of "one country, two systems", which the Government should be well aware of.

This time, as some SAR Government officials have submitted to the interference by Beijing in Hong Kong affairs and acted on "one country" to damage "two systems", we have to invoke the Ordinance. By invoking the Ordinance, the Council can take up the responsibility of monitoring the Government by way of inquiry and, at the same time, warn the Chief Executive and other government officials that if they fail to defend "one country, two systems", they will be in breach, in dereliction and in negligence of duty. People in Hong Kong will condemn them and hold them accountable to the fullest extent.

1076 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Besides, this incident has aroused grave concern among the numerous foreigners staying in Hong Kong. They are worried about Beijing's violent interference in "one country, two systems" and that freedom of the press and freedom of speech established and safeguarded by the Basic Law may no longer exist in Hong Kong. They have such worries because the SAR Government has yet to reasonably explain what was wrong for Victor MALLET, Vice President of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC"), to host an ordinary luncheon talk for participants to have a free exchange of views. In the absence of such an explanation, how can the SAR Government earn trust locally and internationally that the SAR Government and Beijing will adhere to the Basic Law? In fact, the luncheon did not only invite the advocate of "Hong Kong independence", but also its opponents, government representatives and other stakeholders. How could such an open and free discussion platform be smeared as a platform advocating "Hong Kong independence"? The pro-establishment camp has failed to tell the full picture.

As we all know, denying journalists' visa renewal is a tactic long adopted by Beijing to suppress freedom of the press. Recently, a female French journalist was also denied of visa owing to her long-term concern over Xinjiang. In the MALLET incident, it is clear that the SAR Government had toed the line of Beijing and blatantly carried out Beijing's order in Hong Kong by barbaric means. Noting that I said Beijing ordered the denial of visa renewal for Victor MALLET, pro-establishment Members may ask me for evidence to support my accusation. Yet, evidence is not necessary in this case, as this is the impression of people in Hong Kong. The general public has a strong feeling that Beijing ordered the retaliatory action against the journalist. As the Government took the initiative to damage "one country, two systems", the Chief Executive and government officials have, driven by their guilty conscience, made up excuses by saying that is an established rule to do so and it was not necessary to give explanation.

I urge the SAR Government to reflect on what it has done. It has resorted to administrative means time and again to carry out the political missions from Beijing. I would describe this unconscionable action as an evil of banality. I have to particularly remind the Government not to think that being submissive to Beijing can make Mainland-Hong Kong relations turn from hostility to harmony; it is an ignorant belief. If the Government takes the barbaric orders of Beijing to let it interfere in Hong Kong affairs, it is indeed lending a hand to Beijing in destroying the values of Hong Kong. Moral responsibility will fall squarely on those who act on such orders. Do you guys, I mean the government officials, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1077 consider yourselves doing the right thing? In reality, you will be condemned for betraying Hong Kong's freedom of the press, freedom of speech, the rule of law and core values, and you will lose the trust of Hong Kong people.

This incident has reflected how authoritative the SAR Government is as it determines who can work in Hong Kong or who can express views based on its liking and the will of Beijing. Any who is not to the liking of the Government will be driven away by administrative means, given that the power lies in the hands of the Government. This situation is not unique to this case. If the Government dislikes any Members owing to their political stance and remarks, it will label them as "Hong Kong independence" activists and kick them out of the Council. Isn't this a kind of barbaric screening? For candidates of the Legislative Council Election, they will also be labelled by the Government based on their remarks, political stance and advocacy. Likewise, the Government will, through administrative means, appoint a civil servant as the "disqualifying officer" to disqualify candidates, depriving them of the eligibility to stand for election by way of screening …

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

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I am speaking on the subject that the Government has constantly resorted to such means. I hope you have listened to my earlier elaboration.

When it comes to the Chief Executive Election, do people really have a choice? The candidates are also subject to screening. Worse still, people whose words are not pleasant to the Government will be denied entry to Hong Kong …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I remind you that we are now debating on the motion moved under Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China to summon public officers. Please come back to the subject of this debate.

1078 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Thanks for your reminder. Just now, I talked about the Government's culture of screening out unpleasant remarks. President, perhaps you also find my remarks unpleasant and want to stop me from speaking by screening me out. Is that right?

Such incidents should not have happened in Hong Kong. Hong Kong is a free, accommodating and open society, but our Chief Executive candidates are subject to Beijing's screening. Right now, even candidates of the Legislative Council Election have to be screened by the Government before members of the public can give their votes. However, the election issue is not the subject for discussion at the moment. We are speaking on the problem facing Victor MALLET, which is, a foreigner who came to Hong Kong for work had his rights being screened by the Beijing Government and the SAR Government. Only foreigners to the Government's liking are allowed to stay in Hong Kong to give views, join FCC and set up platforms in Hong Kong to discuss important issues. Does this move of the Government tally with Hong Kong's core values? Or does it reflect the barbaric and autocratic attitude of the SAR Government and the Beijing regime? Have the basic freedoms and rights of Hong Kong people been banished?

As things have developed to this present stage, I urge pro-establishment Members to cherish this opportunity to get rid of the stigma of being "rubber stamps". When the Government refuses to account for an incident, shouldn't pro-establishment Members exercise the power of the Council to urge for an account? The pro-establishment camp should stop defending the Government blatantly. It is the duty of the Legislative Council to exercise its inquiry power in order to stop the Government from abusing its power. Maybe that is not the duty of the pro-establishment camp; defending the Government should instead be their bounden duty. The pro-establishment camp should face squarely the international community's query about the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, and show Beijing how to restore the overall confidence of this generation of Hong Kong people. Hong Kong should not perish in the hands of royalists; Hong Kong should not perish in the hands of the Government which always toes the line of Beijing; Hong Kong should not perish in the hands of the Beijing Government which violently interferes in the freedom of Hong Kong.

Mr LEUNG, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1079

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

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick indicated his intention to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please speak.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, do you wish to speak?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I wish to speak but I will let Mr Paul TSE speak first.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have just called upon you to speak. If you wish to speak, please speak now.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, I will now speak but can I place the lectern properly first? Thank you, President.

Many colleagues are present during this debate, a situation that rarely happened. This debate is really important. Although many colleagues, especially pro-China colleagues, may think that this is a farce, I know that many people, foreign institutions and media organizations are very concerned about the views of the Legislative Council on the Victor MALLET incident.

1080 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

The pro-China camp raised a few main points. First, the practice is not to publicly explain why some people are expelled and refused entry; second, the practice is to cite some foreign examples when expelling some people, so to illustrate that expulsion is not a problem; and third, some colleagues mentioned that though the SAR Government has not explained why Victor MALLET was expelled in disguise, the reason is that Victor MALLET and the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC") has overstepped the red line. If he is not taught a lesson, how can Beijing save its face? How can the SAR Government save its face? How can pro-China colleagues save their face? Hence, all of them are well aware of the answers and they have given three reasons.

The first reason is that the practice is not to explain publicly. Many colleagues have already discussed this point. Philip DYKES, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association, has also queried why the reason was not provided given that the person in question could appeal. In respect of licence applications or other matters, if there is an appeal mechanism, why not informed the parties concerned of the reasons? When we discussed the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance yesterday, we talked about the classification of Haruki MURAKAMI's novel. The Commerce and Economic said that the publisher of the banned novel could ask for the reasons and then made an appeal. How come no reasons could be provided in this incident? The reasons are crystal clear and I am not going to elaborate.

The second reason is that the incident has something to do with sovereignty, so we have the right to expel someone. Some colleagues have cited examples in the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. I share the views of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and I hope that Honourable colleagues will not cite certain examples but not some others. In fact, there is a yardstick in everyone's mind; we should tell others our arguments; and we should not say since others act indiscriminately, we can follow suit. Do Honourable colleagues think that there are justifications for killing a journalist inside the Saudi consulate in Turkey? There should be a yardstick in everyone's mind.

In the case of this incident, according to Dr Priscilla LEUNG, the sequence of events was the banning the Hong Kong National Party ("HKNP"), followed by the FCC forum and then the expulsion of Victor MALLET in disguise. The most explosive argument of the whole incident is why a party should be banned for no reason. Many people mocked HKNP as a "two-person party" and "Children's Crusade", etc. Why should HKNP be banned in Hong Kong for no LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1081 reason? Let us look at the examples in the United States, the United Kingdom and Japan. In Japan, the Kariyushi Club advocates the independence of Ryukyu and some members of the Club stood for election. Some might say that the Japan National Press Club had not held a forum and invited those who advocated the independence of Ryukyu to speak, but they have not mentioned the point that the Ryukyu Independence Party, i.e. the Kariyushi Club is allowed to conduct activities in Japan. The United States Constitution specifies the number of states in the country and the composition of the federal government. In 2015, the Yes California Independence Campaign strived for holding a plebiscite in 2019 to decide whether California should be independent. When Dr LEUNG cited examples of the United States disallowing the entry of journalists from Yemen and Iran, she should also cite the example of "Yes California" to illustrate that independence movement is allowed in the United States. Why is an independence movement not allowed in Hong Kong? Another example is the Scottish National Party in the United Kingdom, but I am not going to elaborate.

If the pro-establishment camp wants to cite international practice, a party should not be banned, and worse still, after the party was banned, a person's right to speak has also been stripped. A forum was held by FCC and Victor MALLET unfortunately hosted the forum, leading to his deportation in disguise. The Government has used a known-to-all strategy to execute one person as a warning to a hundred. If "we can also do what others do" can be a reason, we will really be ridiculed for having so many authoritarian debaters defending autocracy in the Legislative Council. Though being members of an elected parliamentary assembly, they rationalize the Chinese Government's completely unreasonable act. They have autocratically drawn a red line and continuously extended it. Only a few reasons have been given. For example, when some Members were disqualified from office, they said that this had nothing to do with them and with the Department of Justice, and the decision was only made by the Returning Officer. They should not have this kind of puerile mentality.

The third reason is that the red line should not be overstepped. Beijing said that the red line should not be overstepped and Dr Priscilla LEUNG said that Victor MALLET was asking for trouble. This incident involves the conflict between two sets of very different values. The first set of values is the "red line theory". The Communist Party of China ("CPC") considers that the incident has challenged its authority and its red line, therefore all those who have directly or indirectly overstepped the red line should be eradicated. In this process, they even sacrificed freedom of speech, of association and of the press. This is the first set of arguments which are strongly advocated by pro-China colleagues. 1082 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Unfortunately, Hong Kong people have always believed that Hong Kong should not act like that. CPC has forcibly imposed its rules on Hong Kong people and Hong Kong. All the rights previously enjoyed by Hong Kong people have to give way to the red line, which is supreme. So, the present situation is rather interesting; although we have freedom of speech, the freedom is restrictive; although we can participate in politics, the right to participate in politics is also limited. The proviso means that we have power but there are some restrictions. In fact, we do not have any power.

I hope the public will not, after being brainwashed, forget the mainstream values, i.e. freedom of speech, of association, of the press and of assembly. These are deep-rooted values and freedoms that we must have. Honourable colleagues should not mistakenly think that I highly appreciate the colonial era under the British rule. In fact, during the colonial era, demonstrators were also beaten, sentenced to imprisonment or deported, and the formation of parties was also banned.

During the wrangling between China and the United Kingdom, the mainstream idea in Hong Kong was that no matter whether Hong Kong was governed by China or the United Kingdom, Hong Kong people could have freedom of speech, of association and of assembly. Demonstrators could be beaten but their ideas would not be wiped out.

This incident has a domino effect and we saw falling row of dominoes. I have already made this point and I will not repeat it now. What has FCC done? After the fall of the first domino, the Government threatened to ban HKNP but FCC stood up. I am not sure if FCC did so intentionally but I greatly appreciated its act because FCC was still willing to stand up when many Hong Kong people were scared. FCC strongly advocated freedom of speech and was not scared.

They sacrificed as a result; they were subject to verbal intimidation and rattling and they also sacrificed Victor MALLET in order to maintain a line of defence for Hong Kong people, so that the dominoes would not continue to fall. Therefore, I am very grateful to FCC and Victor MALLET but we should not express gratitude to them only.

Why do we support Ms Claudia MO's motion? The answer is simple enough, we must stop the falling dominoes. We also need to reorganize the dominoes. Why do we ask the Government to produce all relevant papers and provide explanations to the Legislative Council? First, we ask them to be frank LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1083 to Hong Kong people and disclose all the related remarks made by Dr Priscilla LEUNG. Second, we must correct this wrong decision. They can oppose "Hong Kong independence" but this does not mean that HKNP should be banned. HKNP should be allowed to raise opposition, though not in a loud voice. For example, there is a very small party in Ryukyu in Okinawa and it only has 10% to 20% supporters at most. People in power have ulterior motives. They have not only drawn a red line but also beat opponents indiscriminately, just like bulls in a china shop.

Lastly, I would like to remind pro-China Members that freedom of the press is not the value we have just decided to defend. In 1967, under the pressure of the British Hong Kong Government, WU Tai-chow and POON Wai-wai from Ta Kung Pao were accused of writing seditious reports and put behind bars. At the time, it was stated in Ta Kung Pao that the hideous act of the British Hong Kong Government well demonstrated its persecution against compatriots of the territory and its political persecution against patriotic newspapers. The All-China Journalists Association, People's Daily, the Xinhua News Agency and the Asia Journalist Association also issued statements to denounce the British Hong Kong Government for trampling on freedom of the press. Nonetheless, after a serious protest, the British Hong Kong Government intensified their efforts and continued to target newspapers.

If I could go back in time to 1967, I would also support them. What reasons did the British Hong Kong Government have to persecute them? Yet, they could not say that they would only advocate freedom of the press when they were beaten and they would not do so when they were beating others. This is absolutely unreasonable. I so submit.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, first of all I have to declare that I have been a member of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC") for over 30 years. Besides, I would like to say that in this debate today, apart from the issues mentioned by Mr CHU Hoi-dick and the stances or attitudes of certain Members, there are also other issues that I will not discuss.

First, I will not comment on or speculate whether this incident has anything to do with the so-called red line theory or why the SAR Government made such a decision; neither will I discuss the status of Mr Victor MALLET with regard to the handing of this case by the authorities. Second, I will not discuss issues such as "Hong Kong independence", whether the incident was related to FCC's club 1084 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 lunch or Mr Andy CHAN's talk, and the ban on the political party. Third, I will not discuss freedom of speech. Basically, in my view, freedom of speech has nothing to do with the subject now under discussion. Of course, if there is time, I may make some comments on that but I will not focus on that subject.

Fourth, I will not discuss whether it was sensible for the SAR Government to make the decision in question, in particular, as pointed out by Mr James TO just now, whether the Government's decision would add fuel to the fire under the current climate when China and the United States are having trade disputes; or whether the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO would add fuel to the fire and blow the incident out of proportion. These are the issues that I do not want to discuss.

In addition, I will not discuss whether the Government of a liberal and progressive society should make a decision that is more avant-garde, advanced and consistent with the culture and civilization standards. As mentioned by some Members, the United Kingdom explains the reason for refusing the entry of certain persons, so that the persons concerned can appeal against the decision. As these issues can be discussed at committees on policy matters should opportunities arise in the future, they are irrelevant to the subject of the motion today; neither are they related to the question raised by Deputy President Ms Starry LEE on whether the reasons should be made known to the applicant for filing an appeal; or whether there should be a yardstick to measure if the practice is advanced, civilized and fair. I will discuss none of those issues today.

I wish to focus my speech on the argument of the motion itself. Ms Claudia MO pointed out that the Government refused, for no reason, to approve the visa application. Based on this assumption, she requested the Government to produce papers to make an explanation. The argument is built on a vague base. At the present stage, we do not know if there is a "reason" and what the "reason" is, and as I said just now, we need not discuss these issues here.

However, President, what should be discussed then? In view of the various situations in Hong Kong today, no matter it is the relation between the Central Government and the Hong Kong SAR Government, the China-United States relationship, the laws of Hong Kong, our so-called tradition, and also the so-called public interest, I wonder if we should, as requested by Ms Claudia MO, open up a can of worms by forcing the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to produce all necessary papers and attend before this Council to explain its decision. It is the subject that I really wish to discuss today. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1085

President, many colleagues have mentioned that Article 154 of the Basic Law confers on the Immigration Department ("ImmD") the power to apply immigration control. I do not quite agree with Mr CHU Hoi-dick who cited other examples and compare them with the actions taken by ImmD. To me, it is more appropriate to make a focused comparison between the actions taken by ImmD when handling certain immigration problems or certain persons and the actions taken by other countries when handling similar immigration problems or similar persons. We should not compare the merits of the practices of different countries. Otherwise, we can say Hong Kong is better than the United Kingdom as prisoners in Hong Kong have the right to vote while prisoners in the United Kingdom are not allowed to vote. Even though the European Union has criticized the United Kingdom for violating the constitution and human rights by not allowing prisoners to vote, the United Kingdom Parliament still uses its power to ban prisoners from voting. Is it right to do so? Let us leave it for discussion later.

I have to thank Mr Frankie YICK who said yesterday that every year there were many cases in which people were denied entry to Hong Kong but the authorities did not make public the reasons. I have to thank other Members, especially Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan who cited many examples (more than those cited by Dr Priscilla LEUNG and Mr Christopher CHEUNG) and explained in detail how other countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, handle relevant problems. This is a focused comparison. As regards this kind of control, needless to say, that is an international practice. Of course there are always exceptions to international practices. For example, as I have mentioned before, the United Kingdom provides the reason to facilitate the applicant's appeal. But the mainstream practice is that a government exercises independent power and gives no explanation why certain people are refused entry. That is a general practice.

I have also said that if we are to discuss whether the Government should adopt a more advanced and civilized approach, I may agree. In the case of TANG Lung-wai, although I think the authorities have done much work, perhaps more can be done. But should we invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to request the authorities to produce papers? We certainly should not do so hastily because this is not a general practice and we should not hastily set a precedent.

1086 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

President, there is another comparison that has caught my attention. I hope that no one would criticize me for making an inappropriate comparison but I think there is a similarity. Article 154 of the Basic Law is concerned with the power of ImmD while Article 63 is concerned with the prosecution right of the Department of Justice ("DoJ"). The word "control" is mentioned in both Articles. It is a well-known fact that DoJ should not and it is also inappropriate for DoJ to comment publicly on its decision on instigating prosecution in any case or against any person. No matter prosecution is instigated or not, no comments should be made. I had a chance to look up the Code for Prosecutors published by DoJ some years ago and paragraph 29 clearly states this rule, which I will not quote owing to time constraints. When serving as the Attorney General, Michael David THOMAS made the following remarks in 1987 at the Legislative Council. He said that the reason for not explaining or making public whether or not to instigate a prosecution was to avoid anyone being unfairly suspected of having committed certain crimes. Even if the suspicion was already in the public domain, an open discussion on whether a prosecution should be instigated would stimulate more public debates about whether there was sufficient evidence or whether the suspect was guilty, which would be totally unfair to the suspect. It would only be fair and reasonable to leave it to the court to decide if the suspect was guilty; rather than openly discuss if that person was suspicious or if there was sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

By the same token, as regards ImmD's decisions, some may speculate whether it was related to the red line theory or the Andy CHAN incident, the real identity of Victor MALLET, or MALLET's capacity as the Vice President of FCC. All these speculations are unfair to the incident and the persons in question and will not bring any benefit. Right now we are only making various speculations but if the authorities take the lead in stimulating debates, it would affect public interest.

President, if Mr Victor MALLET wanted to appeal, he would naturally ask the authorities for information to find out why his visa application was rejected. Should he decide to appeal, he can certainly do so and let the authorities make public the reasons. The Legislative Council should not, as proposed by Ms Claudia MO, invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to force the Security Bureau or the relevant officials to attend before this Council and produce papers to make an explanation. This approach is no different from forcing the Secretary for Justice to attend before this Council to explain why the authorities instigate or not instigate prosecution against a certain person. This approach is inappropriate. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1087

Of course, if we really want to speculate whether there were other reasons, allow me to slightly contradict myself, that is, even if there were other reasons, would it be that the very high profile manner adopted by the Legislative Council in handling this incident had invited the authorities to review afresh, perhaps even with a magnifying glass or a microscope, Victor MALLET's behaviour in Hong Kong over the years, to see if there were any problems? My remarks are certainly unfair as I have no evidence at all. I am purely speculating. It is a well-known fact that Hong Kong is one of the places where, to put it nicely, information is actively exchanged, or to put it in offensive words, espionage activities are most rampant. It happens that FCC is being accused of engaging in information exchange. Hence, when the case was examined under a magnifying glass, would there be things that were unknown to us? Although this incident happened at a rather inconvenient time, if the case was examined under a magnifying glass, there might be things that were unknown to us but known to the Government and it had to make the decision accordingly. I will stop here because these are all my personal speculations.

President, I have said that I would not talk about freedom of speech. But as a matter of fact, to comment on Hong Kong's freedom of speech, I can quote the saying that there is much room for improvement. I have just casually looked up the information and found that our record is indeed far from satisfactory. Hong Kong's ranking has fallen from the 18th in 2002 to the 70th in 2018, but for the same period of time, it seems that the United States, where freedom of speech is stipulated by the First Amendment of its constitution, has not fared too well either. In 2002, the United States had a similar ranking as ours with Hong Kong ranking the 18th and the United States the 17th, but in 2018 Hong Kong ranked the 70th and the United States the 45th, a very significant drop. The United States always flaunts its freedom of speech and the First Amendment to its constitution stipulates that its people have freedom of speech. As the United States President keeps accusing the media of being the enemy of the people and producing fake news, and threatens to cancel the licences of media organizations, I believe the United States' ranking will drop further next year.

No one would find it odd that within a week, the United States President … There has been a rather interesting news video lately and I wonder if Members have watched it. In the aftermath of the Saudi Arabia incident, the President said at the outset that the arms deal between the United States and Saudi Arabia was worth US$110 billion, the amount then became US$450 billion in just a 1088 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 week. It is more interesting and absurd that the size of the American working population affected by deal had fluctuated, from 40 000 at the beginning to 450 000 in less than two days, to 500 000 in less than two days, to 600 000 in less than two days, and then finally to 1 million within just a week. We can see the effects when the President of a country makes indiscreet comments. If we want a responsible government, a responsible Security Bureau and a responsible ImmD, we do not wish to see officials in charge recklessly violate some relatively common international practices when no significant public interest is involved. Hence, we must be very discreet when handling this issue. Whether it is the case of Mr Victor MALLET or other people, we must avoid making irresponsible comments, unless we have very significant reasons to do so. At the same time, other countries also have similar practices.

Therefore, concerning this motion, if we arbitrarily lift up the authorities' veil or security cover and force officials to produce papers and make public all reasons before this Council without a solid base, especially without a firm support to prove that the authorities have made the relevant decision for no reason, then as I have said, it is no different from forcing the Secretary for Justice to reveal her decision on whether prosecution will be instigated in each case or forcing the Secretary for Justice to explain her decision because the person involved has a sensitive identity; otherwise the people's right to know will be compromised, and so on. This argument is unacceptable. By the same token, as we clearly know, we should not force Executive Council Members to make public the reasons why a certain policy is made, the issues they discussed or how they vote on a certain decision, and so forth.

Or from an even further perspective, by the same token, we will not force jurors to explain why they make a certain decision. There may be cases that we are well aware that certain questions should not be asked according to public policies and when public interest is involved. Indeed, we must strike a balance among the so-called public's right to know, public interest, power of the authorities, international practices and Hong Kong's established practices, and having considered all such conditions, we can then decide whether such an unprecedented approach should be taken to move this motion.

With these remarks, President, I oppose the motion. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1089

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, I really love hearing Mr Paul TSE speak. At the beginning, he said there were four issues he would not discuss; but in the end, he has spoken for 15 minutes.

Mr TSE said just now he is a member of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC"), and I know from his Facebook page that he often goes there for meals. Imagine that Mr TSE is having lunch at FCC. After the first dish is served and he has just started eating, someone says to him, "You have to leave now." He asks, "Why do I have to leave?" That person replies, "No reason. You just have to leave. We will not explain to you. Just leave the premises." Mr TSE is certainly very dissatisfied, so he keeps asking for an explanation. That person says, "Do not force me. We do not have a reason and we do not have to explain to you; just leave." However, I think Mr TSE certainly will not leave. Being such an eloquent speaker, Mr TSE can surely argue them into letting him stay and continue to enjoy his lunch there.

By the same token, the incident we are discussing today … Members have to understand that the incident has aroused international concern that the Hong Kong Government has acted in a rather puerile manner. Are the two incidents directly related? Considering the responses of the Chief Executive and the public officers, we dare not say that the two incidents are directly related; but the Government's message is that the red line should not be challenged in any case. The Government said that the incident was not related to freedom of the press. Is it true? Victor MALLET, Vice President of FCC, was refused entry to Hong Kong for no reason. That is similar to Mr TSE being expelled, for no reason, from FCC when he was having a meal there. Frankly speaking, if Mr TSE was really expelled from FCC, I believe Members would support him in safeguarding his right to have a meal there.

Returning to the subject, we are discussing a serious topic today. Is there a reason for the decision? Is Victor MALLET innocent or not? Victor MALLET is innocent and he was refused entry to Hong Kong. Is the matter unrelated to freedom of the press? Certainly not. Mr TSE made the point earlier that the motion seeks to uncover the lid and expose the facts, so as to compel the officials concerned or representatives of the Department of Justice to give an explanation. Our purpose is not to uncover the lid; the problem is that emotions have reached boiling point and we have no choice but to enquire what has happened. We cannot turn a blind eye to the matter and ignore the boiling emotions. We try to uncover the lid, using Mr TSE's analogy, to enquire what 1090 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 has happened. Victor MALLET has worked in Hong Kong for many years and has encountered no problem in entering Hong Kong before. Why was he refused entry to Hong Kong for no reason when his position happened to be involved with freedom of the press? Certainly, some will say, "That is not true. He can enter Hong Kong now." Please do not make such a puerile remark; we know a red line has been drawn to impose obstacles and make things difficult for him.

More ridiculous still, a Member just now said that acts of espionage were common in Hong Kong, which might be true. Oh, I thought he was telling us the script of a movie titled FCC Spies. I wonder what I am hearing. I may be hearing the script of a movie similar to The Post, telling us that a very small place in Hong Kong may be linked to acts of espionage. The Member advised us to be very careful in our quotations, as we do not know the ins and outs of the incident and there may be inside stories unknown to us. It is easy to speculate, but we must pay attention to the history of FCC. In the beginning, FCC was not established in Hong Kong. If Members look up its history, they would know that FCC was established in Chongqing. The argument of the Member is really baffling.

I will return to the subject of our discussion today. I strongly endorse Mr TSE's saying that we should adopt a more modern and civilized approach. How can we prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in the future? Honourable Members, we cannot deny that this incident is related to freedom of the press. The international community has given us a very significant signal. In early October, FCC issued a statement to express its grave concern about the incident and described the Government's approach as unusual. FCC said that if the Government did not provide a reasonable explanation, it would ask the Government to withdraw its decision. The incident fermented. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom also issued a statement to express its grave concern about the incident; it asked the Hong Kong Government for an urgent explanation and stressed that Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy and press freedom were central to its way of life, and must be respected. The international community has become concerned about the incident. Ms Claudia MO's motion seeks to ask public officers to attend before this Council to give a clear account of the incident, so as to put the minds of Hong Kong people who are concerned about freedom of the press at ease; and at least to clarify the doubts arising from the unnecessary speculations in the international community. If the Government does not even take such actions, how can it explain why Victor LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1091

MALLET was refused entry for no reason? The Government's stance is that "We will not give an explanation. Do not come to Hong Kong; if you come, we will stop you." Such a bad approach is hardly acceptable.

Freedom of the press in Hong Kong is not easy to come by. In the Press Freedom Index published by Reporters Without Borders, Hong Kong ranked the 70th at present. Many reporters are now listening to the live broadcast of the proceedings; they have been working very hard all these years to safeguard freedom of the press. They have to face the office culture of their news organizations, which may be affecting freedom of the press and professional independence, and at the same time, they must also face the general environment. If freedom of the press in Hong Kong is lost or challenged, we will not be able to hand over Hong Kong, which we take pride in, to our next generation.

Members may be familiar with this famous quote from President Thomas JEFFERSON, "Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." Why did he say so? That is because the press represents the fourth power which is responsible for monitoring the government. A government is an organization with public powers, but if it abuses its power … this incident is a case in point. The Government has the authority to say, "I don't have to give you an explanation". I remember that President Ronald REAGAN once said these meaningful words, "government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem". That is an insightful remark. Why has the Government created this problem for no reason? Its response after the incident is abominable. It refused to give an explanation to the public and said that other cities and countries also did not have to give explanation. However, the issue is very sensitive. Victor MALLET was punished after he happened to host that activity. If that was the general practice, when Joseph TSE hosted City Forum in the past, he would have been refused entry to many places. This incident has aroused the concern of the international community because the Government's response is really too disgraceful.

Pro-establishment Members, do you think that the Government's response in this incident is appropriate? Perhaps you may think that the Government should stand firm and give a clear explanation. Nevertheless, the Government's ambiguous approach has aroused the concern of the international community about the incident. Initially, the incident did not have a wide coverage; but the development has now become intense since freedom of the press, the central issue of our discussion today, has been challenged.

1092 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

How important is freedom of the press? Without it, we would not be able to disclose many social problems in this Chamber in the past; we would not know there are unauthorized building works at the residence of the Secretary for Justice; and we would not be able to learn about many social issues which concern public interest. Being ignorant may be a blessing, but here in the Legislative Council, we Members have the responsibility to know where the problems lie. Ms Claudia MO moved this motion to help the Government clarify the matter. She has set up a platform for the Government to openly explain the incident. The purpose is simple enough. The Government should give an explanation, so that those who show concern in the international community would know the cause of the incident.

Regarding this incident, the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong has issued a statement. It states that the Hong Kong Government's rejection of a renewal of work visa for Victor MALLET sends a worrying signal and without a free press, capital markets cannot properly function, and business and trade cannot be reliably conducted. The spokesperson for the European Union Office to Hong Kong and Macao said that the European Union would keep a close watch on the incident and hoped that the Hong Kong Government would clearly explain the reasons for its refusal to grant the journalist a visa. It also pointed out that the incident has cast doubts on the freedom of the press in Hong Kong, which is protected by the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. All these comments actually indicate that there is a need for the Government to respond. Right? The Government should, at least, not let the concerns spread. Let me assume that the Government has taken the right approach which is in order and complies with procedural justice, the public officers should come here to give an explanation. If they do, our arguments will be rebutted and the Government can say that the incident is not related to freedom of the press.

We are merely seeking to summon public officers to attend before the Legislative Council to give an explanation, yet such a request has to be debated. Certainly, we know very well what the voting results will be. I notice that Mr Steven HO has pressed the "Request to Speak" button. I hope he can tell us why we should not summon public officers to give an explanation in this Council to allay the concerns of the international community. To say the least, I believe the organizations which I have cited earlier have not raised questions without a reason, am I right? If they have not raised questions recklessly, shouldn't the Government answer them one by one? Does the Government really think that it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1093 is unnecessary to give an explanation? I hope not. At this time and on this occasion, we must safeguard freedom of the press. I urge the Government to ensure us that freedom of the press in this city, which is precious, has not been affected, so that we do not have to speculate any more.

How important is freedom of the press? Justice Hugo BLACK said, "Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". I think many journalism students will quote this statement in their assignments. Is freedom of the press a vague concept? You can say it is intangible as its existence is not physical, but one can at least tell whether a city has freedom of the press from its atmosphere. In handling cases which involve journalists and media reports, has the Government righteously and responsibly upheld our system, which is not easy to come by?

I remember an earlier case which had infuriated Members. A journalist was assaulted while reporting news in Beijing. It was suspected that he was treated with violence, handcuffed and taken into a car. I strongly believe that pro-establishment Members, despite their stance, do not wish to see the occurrence of such kind of incident. Journalists use their pens instead of their fists to disclose the truth, why should the authorities take such actions? We must stay alert and remain vigilant to observe whether our system has been eroded; and whether any incident has occurred without our notice and hence failed to timely question the Government. If we do not question the Government on the MALLET incident this time, we may become accustomed to similar incidents that may happen in the future and fail to stay alert. If so, we cannot continue to protect freedom of the press which, as I said just now, is intangible but its existence can be felt; and we can no longer protect this city.

President, I cited Mr Paul TSE as an example when I started to speak; I hope he does not mind. In fact, that is an apt example. Mr TSE has been a member of FCC for more than 30 years. Will he be angry if he is compelled to leave for no reason while having a meal there? At present, many international organizations and media have asked the Hong Kong Government what had happened in the MALLET case, but the Government did not answer. Some people say that it would suffice for the applicant to follow up the case and find out the truth. Nevertheless, there are strong signals indicating that concerns have arisen. Have we ever seen an organization boldly criticize that the Government "sends a worrying signal and without a free press, capital markets cannot properly function, and business and trade cannot be reliably conducted"? 1094 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Is the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong too sensitive and has it made an improper comment? No. The warning, given in good faith, is worthy of our serious consideration. We must consider whether we should ask public officers to be more transparent by giving a detailed account of the incident. As Mr TSE said earlier, the authorities should handle the matter with a more civilized and proper approach. Will such an approach more effectively safeguard freedom of the press which we are worried that it is gradually disappearing in our generation?

Freedom of the press is not easy to come by. We very much hope that one day, Hong Kong will have a better ranking in the Press Freedom Index again. I have confidence in the reporters of Hong Kong (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please stop speaking.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, Mr KWONG Chun-yu gave us a specious example at the beginning of his speech. He compared the case to the situation in which a man entered a shop to have a meal, but was asked to leave, for no reason, soon after he had a few bites. I think the example is not entirely appropriate, and we should ask what the customer had done before he was asked to leave. He might have put poison in the food of the shop, or the boss might have seen him urinate at the shop entrance the night before, or there might be other reasons. The boss was actually very lenient by asking the customer to leave; how dared him still demand a reason? The customer should know the reason and as many Members said earlier, he should be well aware of the situation. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said the authorities should "state the obvious". Thus, if the customer had urinated at the shop entrance, or had put poison in the food, the boss should have spelled it out. Mr CHAN's argument is not invalid either.

Nevertheless, in handling the MALLET case, the Security Bureau or the Hong Kong SAR Government actually have unspeakable reasons. The incident no longer merely relates to the refusal to extend Victor MALLET's work visa; it has now been escalated to a politicized level, particularly by the opposition camp. Many people asked what Victor MALLET has done. Is the incident related to the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC")? Or, are smuggling and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1095 tax evasion the underlying reasons? The Government should spell it out. If the SAR Government has to explain everything to the public, it will certainly help in enhancing the right to know and transparency, but it may not do any good to the case. How did the Government know that Victor MALLET was the main organizer of Andy CHAN's talk? Should the identity of the informer be exposed as well? The Government has actually obtained information from various sources and it will be meaningless for Members to pursue.

Mr KWONG Chun-yu also said that the Government should be given a chance to explain, and he might accept the Government's explanation. Let us review the response of Members of the Legislative Council in the past and we do not have to look very far. In the past six years or so since I become a Member of this Council, I have never seen opposition Members felt satisfied after hearing the Government's explanation on a political incident. After the Government has given an explanation, opposition Members will definitely find fault with it and will raise more questions than the Government can handle. I am only guessing this time. If the Government said that the decision was made because Victor MALLET hosted the talk at FCC, opposition Members would say he was only a host; why did the Government make a big fuss? He did not support Andy CHAN's stance at all. Opposition Members would cite many different examples to further attack the Government. Thus, providing an explanation will only give opposition Members more excuses and ammunition to launch attacks.

Let us return to the fundamental question. Hong Kong people should honestly ask themselves: Will it really be beneficial to Hong Kong to let Victor MALLET or other FCC members like him come to Hong Kong? The acts of Andy CHAN going to FCC to advocate "Hong Kong independence" and FCC providing a platform for him to do so have not benefited Hong Kong and have seriously contravened the Basic Law and the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. Thus, as Hongkongers, we cannot condone such acts.

Alternatively, the Government might simply say "we do not welcome him as he affects us." While we who love the country and Hong Kong would accept this explanation, opposition Members would not. They would ask the Government in what way Victor MALLET had put our freedom at risk. Then, they would put forward sugar-coated arguments such as "one country, two systems", freedom of the press, freedom of association and freedom of speech to argue their case. Hong Kong people would be very confused then. I think we should end this farce and stop discussing the reason. I think Victor MALLET is 1096 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 pathetic, why? I honestly do not know if he is the real organizer. If it is FCC which actually provides the platform for Andy CHAN to advocate "Hong Kong independence", Victor MALLET should not be the only one to be held responsible. The Government should consider whether it should continue to lease the premises to FCC. Am I right? Certainly, I know that the Security Bureau is infinitely resourceful and it will keep an eye on any possible reoccurrence of similar incidents. This incident is not related to freedom of the press at all. It is an incident in which the Basic Law is contravened as someone intended to promote "Hong Kong independence" and provided ammunition for "Hong Kong independence" activists. I think such acts should not be tolerated.

Thus, I have considered for a long time about the way forward. Should Hong Kong people continue to live under the smearing of the opposition camp? Mr HUI Chi-fung spoke for 15 minutes earlier, but I did not know what he was talking about. It seemed to me that he kept repeating a few terms, but some Hong Kong people might actually believe him. Nevertheless, I did not see any logic in his speech; I just wonder why such a person would be elected as a Member under the political system of Hong Kong. Surprisingly, the pro-establishment candidate even lost in the last election to Mr HUI Chi-fung.

(Ms Claudia MO raised her hand to indicate a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, it bothers me a lot that Member so-and-so has launched a personal attack against Mr HUI Chi-fung.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): I have not attacked him.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I request that the audio recording be replayed.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): How did I attack him?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1097

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, please hold on.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I do not know if you have just dozed off. He clearly said, "Why would such a person be elected as a Member?"

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): You often …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, please hold on.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): He said, "Why would such a person be elected?"

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): I have not finished speaking …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, please continue.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Will Members please listen to what follows first. The problem does not relate to politics or the system. In fact, Hong Kong people elected Mr HUI Chi-fung not because of his quality, but because of his stance, or even because of the electoral machinery of the democrats and so on.

Anyway, Mr HUI Chi-fung has spoken a lot, including saying that Members on this side should not be rubber stamps. I now formally tell Mr HUI that we are not rubber stamps; instead, we are upholding "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, particularly in respect of Article 1 of the Basic Law which provides that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China. As pro-establishment Members who love the country and Hong Kong, we should step forward to do something, and we do not just follow the Central Government's commands. If opposition Members label us as rubber stamps just because our actions and stances are consistent with those of the Central Government, I cannot accept it.

1098 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Thus, I hope that opposition Members will not pin labels on us in each and every matter, although I understand that this may be their way to survive in elections. If Members do not pin a label on me, they cannot create an enemy and may not obtain any votes as a result. But after all, should we let the MALLET incident continue to burn? I think it will really do Hong Kong no good and we should stop it now. However, I must reiterate that the provision of a platform for Andy CHAN to advocate "Hong Kong independence" by FCC is something I cannot accept as a Hongkonger. The responsibility should not be borne by Victor MALLET alone, but by the entire management of FCC; and terminating FCC's lease is an action the SAR Government should take. Certainly, the SAR Government has not adopted this suggestion; and I can understand the reasons behind. It will indeed be harsh if the Government immediately terminates FCC's lease. But the Government should seriously consider the suggestion when the lease is about to expire. I think if FCC continues to do what it has done, it will create serious clashes in Hong Kong. It would be better to use FCC's premises for transitional housing to avoid causing so much trouble again. Building public housing units on that piece of land may create more value and make a greater contribution to Hong Kong.

Anyway, Victor MALLET is only a pawn and there may be many satellite groups like FCC operating in Hong Kong. A Member asked me earlier whether we should take this opportunity to make our stance clear to the international community. I cannot speak for the entire pro-establishment camp, but there is something I must tell the international community as a Member of the Legislative Council. I will not allow and will, by all means, stop any action to be taken (with the use of resources, land or even imported talents) in Hong Kong to undermine or affect our national security; disrupt Hong Kong; or even cause Hong Kong to secede from China. This is what any Member of the Legislative Council, member of the public and Chinese will do.

President, I so submit.

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

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Victor MALLET incident is obviously related to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Mr Steven HO has just stated that there is no problem with Victor MALLET. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1099

Evidently, his application for visa renewal was rejected because earlier he chaired a public forum in his capacity as Acting President or First Vice President of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC") which invited Andy CHAN to speak on the Hong Kong National Party's position on "Hong Kong independence". Because of what he did, Victor MALLET's application for visa renewal was rejected by the SAR Government. Obviously, these two issues are directly related.

However, this is an act made by FCC rather than by Victor MALLET. He chaired the forum in the capacity of the Acting President of FCC and this was acknowledged and agreed by FCC and its Board of Governors; thus, this is not his personal issue but FCC's. The incident reflects the basic positions of FCC and many foreign journalists or news agencies in Hong Kong. After Victor MALLET has been refused a visa, many countries have expressed concern over freedom of the press and freedom of speech and have asked for explanations.

Victor MALLET only chaired a forum; he did not endorse "Hong Kong independence" and neither did FCC. They have clearly stated their position. However, as they believe that journalists have the responsibility to listen to different views, the forum was held so that Andy CHAN could freely express his views.

I do not know which law Victor MALLET or FCC has violated and I do not know which law Andy CHAN has violated. If you say that his remarks are inconsistent with the Basic Law, this is indeed a fact. Article 1 of the Basic Law stipulates that Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China and advocating "Hong Kong independence" is definitely against the Basic Law. Nevertheless, is violating the Basic Law tantamount to violating the law? Not necessarily. Many people may not fully agree with the Basic Law and even Chief Executive Carrie LAM had publicly stated that she might not fully agree with Article 107 of the Basic Law.

Is "Hong Kong independence" an issue that discussion is not permitted? Is it that no one can discuss "Hong Kong independence" on a public occasion or at a seminar? This is a very important point and this is the core issue. Why could Victor MALLET's visa renewal be rejected after he had taken that action?

1100 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

I taught at a university before my retirement. We studied policy changes at that time; is it that we cannot discuss independence now? In the course of historical development, is there a country which has not experienced division, convergence, independence, colonization and independence again? Is it that this process cannot be discussed?

The United Nations has relevant conventions and past practices. After the Second World War, many colonies broke away from their sovereign states and launched independent movements. Many countries became independent and exercised self-determination under the supervision of the United Nations. Is it that these historical facts cannot be discussed? If these historical incidents happen in Hong Kong, can we not discuss them? If we, during the process, invite people with different views to discuss with students, will such act be allowed?

President, is this incident related to freedom of speech, academic freedom and freedom of the press? I am not sure why the authorities have suddenly drawn a red line, prohibiting the discussion of certain issues. Although it is not unlawful to discuss such issues, the Government will use various means to suppress the persons concerned. In cases where entry visas are required, the Government will refuse to issue visas. Some Members and the former Chief Executive have also said that he should not be allowed to stay in Hong Kong, what other methods are available then? The authorities have made threatening gestures to intimidate him and used methods allowed under the law to silence him. This is Hong Kong in the 21st century and we boast that Hong Kong is Asia's world city, an international financial centre and an important hub under the Belt and Road Initiative. This is our international vision. We want the international community to know that if a red line is drawn, the authorities will try to suppress all kinds of freedom. To show loyalty, the SAR Government has anxiously suppressed these voices. Some colleagues have also showed loyalty today by stating clearly that they toe the line of the Central Authorities. Therefore, all remarks about independence cannot be allowed, the provision of venues for discussion is not allowed, and even foreign institutions have to be driven away. Does this manifest that one of the visions of the SAR Government is that the economy will flourish under the Belt and Road Initiative?

FCC has a long history and it advocates freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Can these basic core values still be maintained? The SAR Government pays no heed to these values but only considers the red line drawn LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1101 by the Central Authorities and toes the line closely. Thus, other areas will also be affected. The SAR Government has invoked the Societies Ordinance to declare that the Hong Kong National Party is an illegal organization. Today, the ordinance which aims to combat the triad society has surprisingly been invoked as a political suppression tool.

President, freedom of speech is not without restrictions; on the contrary, there are a lot of restrictions. Freedom of speech is unacceptable if it triggers hatred, causes harm to other people or if it even incites violence. Are Andy CHAN's remarks directly related to inciting violence and causing harm to others? If so, the SAR Government should have prosecuted him.

Freedom of speech has restrictions but those remarks have not contradicted the basic core values. Based on this principle, even if I disagree with his views, I should let him express his views. These are our basic rights and the human rights recognized under the Basic Law. The implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Hong Kong also clearly shows that we have the responsibility to protect these rights.

For this reason, it is reasonable for us to ask the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to attend before the Council to explain this incident. We not only have to figure out what had happened but also have to ask them to explain the reasons. We also want to know whether this incident is directly related to the Central Authorities. Have the Central Authorities given instructions? Do we have to consult the superior bodies, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR, the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office and even the State Council? Have direct orders been made to disallow the renewal of Victor MALLET's visa? If so, the Basic Law may be violated and we ask the SAR Government to give the public a clear account of the incident.

We must uphold the basic core values and safeguard the protection provided to us under the Basic Law, i.e. we have freedom of speech and freedom of expression. If we do not speak up, the authorities may arbitrarily resort to suppression. The tradition of FCC over the years is that it will not only invite representatives from certain parties to attend meetings, but will also invite many senior officials, including senior officials of the SAR Government and the Central Authorities.

1102 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Victor MALLET, being a very senior journalist, had been invited to attend the World Economic Forum to express his views alongside the leaders of many countries. The order of the international community is based on the fact that people are reasonable and they express their views in a civilized way rather than prohibiting those they dislike from speaking or from staying in their countries.

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

I believe that the Chinese or the SAR governments should not behave in such a savage way. We should allow all people to have the basic freedom of expression in a civilized, liberal and open manner instead of toeing closely the red line drawn by the Central Authorities. Hence, I speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion to summon the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to attend before the Council to explain the ins and outs of the whole incident.

I so submit.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I do not support the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO pursuant to Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law. If she queries the work of the Government, she can raise a question at the question session. If she wishes to summon the Secretary for Security or the Director of Immigration to attend before the Council on 21 November to explain why they refused to grant a visa to Mr Victor MALLET, she can propose a motion in accordance with the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. To me, what she is doing now is neither fish nor fowl.

Deputy President, the reasons for my opposition are as follows. First, as I just said, the approach is wrong and I will explain later. To me, Ms Claudia MO has abused the procedure in moving this motion. As we all know, the Immigration Department ("ImmD") handles a large volume of immigration applications every day, it is impossible to provide an explanation for each case. I do not care who Mr Victor MALLET is or what background he has, if he enters Hong Kong as an individual, his visa application should be processed in the same way as anyone else. I do not care if he is the editor of the Financial Times, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1103

Epoch Times or Ming Pao Daily News; this is not my concern and neither do I consider it a big deal. Whether his application is approved or rejected should be decided by ImmD as part of its routine work.

Why do I say that Ms Claudia MO has abused the procedure in moving this motion? If she could wait, she could raise a question under the normal procedure and it only takes 20 odd minutes for this Council to answer her question. However, from yesterday to today, over 30 Members have spoken on this motion, spending more than seven hours altogether, just to speak for Victor MALLET. Given that over 50 million visitors enter and leave Hong Kong every day, if we talk about them every day, can the Legislative Council still operate?

I must ask the Members who have spoken on and discussed this incident before me whether they have established any personal friendship with Mr Victor MALLET; if they have, whether they have declared interest. Secretary, I have not. Hence, I would like to ask those Members: "Are you holding a private brief for Mr Victor MALLET?" If not, I think a Member who moves a motion pursuant to Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law for no reason is a big problem and this is an abuse of procedure.

Second, this motion is meaningless. Why do I say that? Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law is different from the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) in the sense that once a motion proposed under the latter is passed, it truly has "teeth" that can bite. If the party concerned refuses to comply with and deliberately ignores a summons issued by the Legislative Council and delivered by a police officer or a public officer, the Legislative Council can then issue a warrant and force that party to attend before this Council. However, Article 73(10) of the Basic Law does not confer this power on the Legislative Council. It only states the right or power the Basic Law confers on the Legislative Council. In respect of the right, if the Legislative Council raises a question with the Government, the Government can choose not to answer and it bears no liability. However, if the Legislative Council makes the same request pursuant to Cap. 382, the party which refuses to answer will have to bear legal consequences.

Of the two motions to be handled today, one is proposed by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance while the other is proposed by Ms Claudia MO pursuant to Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law. The two motions are different. A Member can do whatever he likes but if he issues a summons to Secretary John LEE, John LEE will ask if 1104 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 the summons has legal effect. If the summons is issued under Cap. 382, the Secretary will have to face legal consequences if he ignores it. However, if the Legislative Council issues a summons with no legal effect to me, I am doing the Council a favour if I respond, but I have the justification not to respond.

She cannot even distinguish such a fundamental difference … I wonder if she can tell the difference. From my experience gained during my short service in the Legislative Council, I know that Members usually invoke Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law to filibuster, trying to accomplish something that cannot possibly be accomplished. When this Council was trying to pass the motions to amend the Rules of Procedure last year, Members of the Pan-Democratic United Front―"pan-DUFF" for short―moved some 10 to 20 motions, trying to stall for time. Some frivolous motions were ruled inadmissible by the President while some were ruled admissible. The Members proposed motions for putting up shows, their real purpose was to filibuster and fool everyone. They just wasted their own time and the time of others.

However, the pan-DUFF Members are fond of good-for-nothing things. Why do they choose to move motions pursuant to Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law? I am totally baffled. I specially asked the Legislative Council Secretariat if there was any difference in effect between the two articles of the Basic Law and the provisions of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. They told me that the effects were the same. My understanding is that there are differences. If they are the same, we will have to find out which provision can be invoked to achieve the desired goal. If the Legislative Council suddenly issues a summons to request Secretary John LEE to produce certain paper, he will ask under which provision and which ordinance the request is made. If no specification is made, how can he comply? Article 73(5) and (10) of the Basic Law provide the legal basis but not the enforcement power; otherwise, why is it necessary to legislate for Article 23 of the Basic Law?

Secretary John LEE, the pan-DUFF Members want to summon you to attend before the Council, and if you do not comply, they will arrest you. As such, we need not legislate for Article 23 of the Basic Law because if the few elements stipulated in the Article are met, arrest can be made. Hence, Members have certain rights but they may not have the relevant power. To turn their rights into power, legislation must be enacted. That is why I think Ms Claudia MO has abused the procedure. She has been a Member for two or three terms, yet she still knows nothing about the Rules of Procedure. She is just wasting our time and misleading the public. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1105

Third, is the Victor MALLET case still in the course of development? The incident happened in early October and today is 1 November. Ms Claudia MO cannot wait to speak out for him. Is she trying to fish for information in her capacity as a Member? The Government must have its justification when it makes a ruling for a case. When it says it will not comment on individual cases, "no comment" does not mean without justification. The Government may have a highly indisputable reason, but it needs not tell anyone and that is its prerogative. However, Ms Claudia MO has now become the spokesperson for Victor MALLET. Is she trying to draw information for him in a sneaky way?

Of course, I am not, as depicted by the pan-democratic Members, a worm in the belly of an official, being able to read his mind. We are not parasites. We have wisdom and we want to demonstrate our reasoning power. From the various sources of evidence, we understand that although the Government is unable to speak in self-defence for the time being, we are well aware of the reasons.

We always hear pan-DUFF Members say that discussing "Hong Kong independence" is not a problem, but legally it does not work. At present, some pan-democratic Members say that even if we do not legislate for Article 23 of the Basic Law, the legal system in Hong Kong is very sound because there are laws against acts of secession, incitement to hatred and revolt. But that is exactly where the problem lies. How come Benny TAI can still walk free after committing so many serious crimes of sedition? I shall continue to pursue his punishment. This reflects that it is not necessarily … At present, some laws have been enacted but have not been invoked for a long time, hence government officials have much to consider and they are still in the process of consideration. Let me make an analogy. If a mobile phone always displays the icon of an hourglass on its screen, it means that the speed of the phone is very slow, hence I may as well throw the phone away.

In the case of Victor MALLET, is there someone behind the scene probing for him? I feel uneasy about this situation. What is she trying to find out? When the Government says no comment, it has the prerogative and the right to exercise its sovereignty. The Government makes no comment because fewer mistakes will be made with less talk and no mistake will be made if nothing is said. The Government knows that those Members want to apply for a judicial review and that is why no information has been revealed and they can do nothing about that. That may be the innermost thoughts of Secretary John LEE. Let me just pretend to be a worm in his belly for the moment. 1106 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Deputy President, is Hong Kong in a predicament as depicted by the pan-DUFF Members? Please give us the proof. The findings of a study conducted by the Fraser Institute indicate to the whole world that Hong Kong has an excellent economic system. Hong Kong is a free metropolitan and it is very convenient to enter and exit Hong Kong. One can reach the Mainland directly by taking the express rail at the West Station in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has been commissioned recently. Someone once said the Bridge was useless, but the reality is that the bus stations there are often jam-packed with passengers and there are not enough shuttle buses to provide service. Many people like to fight against the past view with the present view.

Hence, do not just talk about the press freedom ranking. How many items are mentioned in the report? We should not just look at the ranking. I do not know the people who compiled the report. But we must look at their aim. Is Hong Kong's performance really bad as described in the report? Has Hong Kong really rotten to the core? We must have confidence in ourselves. We should not think we are doing poorly just because others say we are. When those people berate us, they are worse off.

I have also mentioned just now that with 50 million people entering and leaving this city, it is wrong to say that we do not have freedom here. Is our city like a desert? No. The consulates of all countries have set up in Hong Kong. If one feels unwell or have any health issues, they can seek treatment at any public hospitals, only that they have to wait for a long time. They may also ask their consulates to find them a private doctor for immediate diagnosis.

Is information technology advanced in Hong Kong? We are now talking about installing the 5G network. Are there many media representatives in Hong Kong? There are over 100, be they traditional or online media. Is it necessary for operators to obtain a licence? No. If one has money, he can set up more than one online station but he may be falling into a trap as he may have to spend a lot of money.

Lastly, does Hong Kong have a sound legal system? Of course it has. At the meeting of the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services held last week, we talked about the recruitment of more judges. How many cases are heard in Hong Kong each year? Over 500 000. How many lawyers are there in Hong Kong? About 12 000. We also have the best legal aid system with no LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1107 ceiling set, and the recipients may even include colleagues who have been disqualified. They are about to enter the stage of final appeal. No one stops them; just that they are sore losers.

We also have a most tolerant judicial system under which people who have obviously erred can still get off the hook. The idea is rather let the guilty walk free than wrong anyone. Deputy President, the situation is really bad now. They let the animals walk free but those animals turn and bite us, which I think is most disappointing. They keep saying that they are safeguarding Hong Kong's economy but they take the lead to harm Hong Kong's interest. The number of rich people in Hong Kong has exceeded that of the Big Apple. We do not have people like SNOWDEN who cannot return home after leaving Hong Kong, neither do we have people like KHASHOGGI who was killed and dismembered in the consulate of his country. You should stop badmouthing Hong Kong because if you continue to badmouth Hong Kong, you will be blamed one day.

Thank you, Deputy President.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO. Dr Junius HO has just criticized that Ms Claudia MO has abused the procedures but she has made it clear that she moved the motion in accordance with Article 73 of the Basic Law. Article 73 of the Basic Law sets out the powers of the Legislative Council and Article 73(5) specifies that the Legislative Council has the right to raise questions on the work of the Government. Ms Claudia MO moved this motion to summon the Secretary for Security Mr John LEE and the Director of Immigration Mr Erick TSANG to explain why the Government refused to renew, for no reason, the work visa of Mr Victor MALLET, Asia news editor of the Financial Times. The wordings of the motion are clear enough. The Basic Law empowers Members to raise questions on the work of the Government. It is lawful and constitutional for Ms Claudia MO to put question to John LEE through this motion.

Article 73(10) of the Basic Law states that the Legislative Council can summon, as required when exercising the powers to raise questions on the work of the Government, persons concerned to testify or give evidence. Through this motion, we would like to ask the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to give a clear account of the whole incident. Mr Victor MALLET 1108 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 has not encountered any problem when he applied for work visa in the past. He is only applying for visa renewal now and this is not a new case. As the authorities have suddenly refused to renew his work visa for no reasons, shouldn't a clear explanation be given?

We summon officials to attend before the Legislative Council because this incident has aroused the concern of the local and international communities. All sectors have expressed concerns about whether the SAR Government have suppressed freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Hong Kong through political means. We only want to find out more about the incident. Hence we ask the Government to produce all relevant papers, books, records or documents and to testify or give evidence. This motion is actually based on the Basic Law and the debate is conducted with the approval of the President of the Legislative Council. Although the motion to summon Carrie LAM is not approved, this motion to summon officials will certainly be approved. Therefore, I disagree with Dr Junius HO's remark that Ms Claudia MO has abused the procedures.

Certainly, we also understand that the pro-establishment camp has been trying hard to weaken the powers of Legislative Council Members. In particular, in respect of questioning and investigating the Government by invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, have pro-establishment Members ever supported the Legislative Council to exercise its powers and perform its duties? They only want to keep reducing the powers of this Council. As their name implies, the "royalist party" must safeguard and harbour the Government. Therefore, they think that summoning government officials to attend before the Legislative Council is an abuse of the procedures. In fact, they do not know that this is the fundamental power of this Council. They have sworn allegiance to the Basic Law and this motion is moved under the Basic Law. They think that discussions are unnecessary and they attempt to muddle through. Yet, this incident has not only aroused the concern of the press and the public in Hong Kong but has also aroused the concern of the international media. This motion seeks to give the Government an opportunity to give a clear account of the whole incident.

Some Members have just said that the Government has unspeakable reasons, so it did not need to give an explanation. As a Legislative Council Member, I also want to know the unspeakable reasons of officials of the Executive Authorities when exercising their powers. Had Secretary John LEE been reprimanded when he visited Beijing so that he had to sanction Andy CHAN by declaring that his party was illegal under the Societies Ordinance ("the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1109

Ordinance")? I believe Members and many members of the public would like to learn about the unspeakable reasons of the Government. Have they been held duress by some people? Has the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR ("LOCPG") instructed them to do so? Has President XI Jinping asked them to enforce the red line and wipe out all supporters of "Hong Kong independence" without showing mercy? Is this the real situation, Dr Junius HO? Is this the real situation, Secretary John LEE?

It is absolutely necessary for us to know whether officials have performed their official duties according to the Basic Law, their conscience and free will, or whether they have been constrained as many decisions are made by Beijing rather than Hong Kong. The refusal to renew a work visa was originally a trivial matter, why has it become international news? Has this issue been classified as foreign affairs so that Hong Kong officials do not have the right to make their own decisions and Beijing or LOCPG will call the shots? The authorities must give a clear account of these issues involving "one country, two systems". Is the Victor MALLET incident related to national defence or diplomacy? If so, John LEE should attend before the Legislative Council to clarify. If he admits that the incident is related to national defence or diplomacy, he should explain clearly that he cannot make decision on the incident as it is not within his scope of duty and power. He must give a clear explanation and provide us with evidence because we have the right to know. If he indicates that the SAR Government cannot make decisions on similar incidents in the future, will the decisions be made by Beijing, LOCPG or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs? He should give a clear explanation.

Some have questioned whether Members who spoke on the motion have personal relationships with Mr Victor MALLET or whether they have any interests. First, I do not know Mr MALLET and I am not a member of the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC"). I believe there are many Members having closer link with FCC. Mr Paul TSE admitted a while ago his FCC membership, but in the latter part of his speech, he suspected that FCC was an international intelligence agency collecting international intelligence in Hong Kong. I do not quite understand why he joined FCC if he knew or suspected that it was an international intelligence agency. Does he join FCC to collect and disseminate intelligence or simply to have a meal there? I really do not know. I am not a member of FCC but I have been invited once or twice by some FCC members to go there for meals. Therefore, Dr Junius HO should not claim, for no reason, that Members who spoke have personal interests or have any conspiracy. 1110 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

What offence has Victor MALLET committed? Why is his work visa not renewed? According to current speculations, Victor MALLET's work visa renewal application was rejected because he invited Andy CHAN to speak on "Hong Kong Nationalism" at FCC. Victor MALLET, being the First Vice President of FCC, was the moderator at the forum. It is really appalling that hosting a forum is punishable by not having his work visa renewed and being expelled from Hong Kong permanently.

As an academic, I often attend public meetings and have acted as a moderator for many times. I have also invited different people to deliver speeches. As a professor of general studies, I certainly have to listen to different opinions. The reasons why journalists invited Andy CHAN to speak at FCC has a lot to do with the Security Bureau. The Security Bureau announced at 17 July that the Hong Kong National Party ("HKNP") set up by Andy CHAN would be banned under the Ordinance. FCC considered that this incident was newsworthy because the Security Bureau had not cited the Ordinance to ban any organization for a long time.

After the Security Bureau invoked the Ordinance to ban Andy CHAN, foreign journalists became more interested in his background and advocacy, they thus invited him to give a speech, so that the public would learn more about him. Was the decision of the Security Bureau to ban HKNP reasonable? Members of the public wanted to know the answer by listening to Andy CHAN's speech. Did FCC's invitation to Andy CHAN to speak imply that FCC or Mr MALLET supported "Hong Kong independence", embraced "Hong Kong independence" and promoted "Hong Kong independence"? I believe Honourable colleagues would not be so stupid to have such ideas, right. As this journalist organization is different from the party newspapers Ta Kung Pao and Wen Wei Po, it can certainly allow speakers to voice different opinions. Is inviting a "Hong Kong independence" advocate to give a speech tantamount to supporting "Hong Kong independence"? Certainly not. I hope Honourable colleagues will be coolheaded and do not become too indulged in and over sensitive towards "Hong Kong independence" or "anti-Hong Kong independence". We are most worried that the SAR government officials may not be able to exercise free will and judgment because they want to curry favour with certain people or they are subject to pressure exerted by certain people.

Reverting to the issue of "Hong Kong independence", a number of pro-establishment Members have just showed loyalty when they spoke. The Democratic Party has all along disapproved of "Hong Kong independence" but LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1111 we support the return of democracy. It has been more than 20 years since the reunification but Hong Kong still does not have democracy and I do not know when this account will be squared. The principles of democracy are mentioned in the Basic Law. Mr Steven HO said just now that he did not know how some Legislative Council Members could be elected and he also said that these incidents were not related to the political system. These incidents are absolutely related to the political system. The fact that there are many functional constituency Members has created obstacles as some Members can be elected without having to stand for election. Members with zero votes or merely some 100 votes can join the Legislative Council. Surprisingly, Mr HO is now questioning Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections who had tens of thousands of votes.

About the problems that Hong Kong is facing, "Hong Kong independence" definitely violates the Basic Law. Article 1 of the Basic Law clearly states that "[t]he Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China". Of course, promoting "Hong Kong independence" violates the Basic Law but I believe most Hong Kong people do not support "Hong Kong independence". Hong Kong people are known for their pragmatism and with a garrison of the People's Liberation Army being stationed in Hong Kong, how can "Hong Kong independence" be attained? I do not know how "Hong Kong independence" can proceed. Hong Kong is now connected to the Mainland through the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the Express Rail Link. If the garrison in Hong Kong is not enough, an unlimited number of soldiers can be dispatched from the Mainland to Hong Kong once an order is made. Mr WONG Ting-kwong, am I right? So, how can independence be achieved? Moreover, from an economic perspective, independence is unfavourable to Hong Kong. The economy of China is taking off and Hong Kong people will consider from a pragmatic perspective. At present, only a handful of people in Hong Kong may support "Hong Kong independence" because they are dissatisfied with China or because of various reasons such as the 31 August Decision. I do not know the actual number of supporters but the Government should listen to the opinions of various people.

Indeed, only a handful of people support "Hong Kong independence" and want Hong Kong to be separated from China; what can they do? An organization with only a few members has occasionally made certain remarks but the Government has already become panicky. The Security Bureau failed to 1112 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 provide any evidence to prove that the words and deeds of Andy CHAN or HKNP has actually threatened national sovereignty and national security. The Government is so scared that has to nip HKNP in the bud. In fact, we are most worried that the authorities may have such a motive.

Regarding the non-violent "Hong Kong independence" remarks, even if there is no substantial evidence to prove that national sovereignty will be undermined, the authorities may find these remarks intolerable and tend to stop them. Even those who reported these remarks will not be spared, which is most worrying. When the international media or foreign governments responded to this incident, they voiced their concerns, stating that the approach of the Hong Kong Government was deeply disturbing. After conducting a thorough investigation on this incident, we hope that we will know how to defend freedom of speech, of the press and of association provided under the Basic Law, so that we will not be deprived of academic freedom, etc. as stipulated in Articles 27 and 34 of the Basic Law. The authorities often inextricably make "anti-Hong Kong independence" remarks. All of us must remember that "one country, two systems" is the most precious asset of Hong Kong at the moment, and the spirit of "one country, two systems" is to reject "Mainlandization". If Hong Kong is fully "Mainlandized", "two systems" will disappear, which is certainly a disaster for Hong Kong people and the country. Preserving the original characteristics of Hong Kong complies with the country's development needs.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Regarding Ms Claudia MO's motion, this Council has conducted a rather long debate yesterday and today.

Earlier today, the President ruled that Dr CHENG Chung-tai had digressed from the subject when he spoke, and after repeatedly ignoring the President's orders to stop speaking, he was finally ordered to leave the Chamber. While I certainly support the President in exercising his powers, I have to voice my different views on digression. Many members of the pan-democratic camp in the Chamber have asked the Government to give an explanation and state the obvious. When Dr CHENG Chung-tai spoke, he had not only stated the obvious, but also the minute details. He saw the truth beyond the surface. Victor MALLET's visa renewal rejection was essentially a conflict between China and the United States.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1113

Today, many pan-democratic Members have said that the pro-establishment camp is the rubber stamp for the Central Government. I find it more pathetic that these Members are pawns in the campaign that acts against China and stirs up trouble in Hong Kong. Whenever foreign powers, such as the American President and the British Prime Minister made a remark, the yes-men in Hong Kong will act crazily and propose all sorts of debates in this Council.

Some Members say that if no one speaks up, similar incidents will recur time and again. That is exactly what I want to say. If we, Members who are accountable to Hong Kong, do not speak up, people who stir up trouble in Hong Kong will keep coming. Today, many remarks made by those Members can in fact apply to them as well. There are sayings that some actions were taken under certain pretext. They have exactly taken subversive actions as journalists in disguise to act against China and stir up trouble in Hong Kong under the pretexts of safeguarding freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

Some people said that the Immigration Department's refusal to renew Victor MALLET's visa was related to his work. That was certainly the case, as he was not working as a journalist. If he came to Hong Kong to stir up trouble but not to work as a journalist, why should his work visa be renewed? I do not know if the SAR Government will issue a work visa for troublemakers; if it will and if he applied a visa for "stirring up trouble" and his application was rejected by the Government, then the Government would be lying to reject his application.

MALLET should stop deceiving himself and stop "using false silver coins with a loud voice". We are all aware of his deeds in Hong Kong. As Dr Helena WONG said earlier, "one country, two systems" is stipulated at the outset in Article 1 of the Basic Law. Members of the opposition camp are often upholding "two systems" while disregarding "one country". In the absence of "one country", how can "two systems" exist? I must make this point clear.

There are also Members who said that freedom of speech should be subject to restrictions and one should not make remarks that cause harm to others and society. These Members have also admitted that freedom of speech should not be unrestricted. While remarks should not be made to harm people, should remarks that harm the country and the nation be allowed? Should restrictions not be imposed on such remarks? Are people out of their minds? Harming the country and the nation is more unacceptable than harming people.

1114 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Speaking of the "red line", a Member said that the red line was drawn by XI Jinping. I have no idea why he has this idea. This red line is inherent in us, it is our responsibility to the country, to the nation and to Hong Kong, and this red line is always present in our heart. Your red line is clearly different from ours. That is why this is a cardinal question of right and wrong.

Today, Ms Claudia MO moves a motion to summon the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration to attend before this Council to give an explanation. In fact, the Secretary has explained everything in his speech and his concluding speech to be delivered later will respond to their remarks. Actually their remarks are not worth refuting at all.

Deputy President, seeing that the Council has spent considerable time on this motion, I will not use up my speaking time. I so submit.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I originally considered Ms Claudia MO's motion to be devoid of any meaning, but having listened to Members' speeches for almost two days, I now find it quite meaningful. I will explain in a moment why the motion is meaningful, but I will first say a few words on why the motion is meaningless. The motion requests the Secretary for Security and the Director of Immigration of the SAR Government to give an account of the refusal to renew, for no reason, the work visa of Mr Victor MALLET. The key words of the motion are "for no reason", but a dignified SAR Government certainly would not make a decision for no reason. Being a free port and an open city, Hong Kong attracts a lot of tourists and businessmen each year. Many people come to Hong Kong for international exchanges, disregarding of their divergent political positions. As such, the Government must have a reason for making this decision and but it does not necessarily have to give an account.

Many Members cited a number of cases just now. Though I may repeat, I still have to mention some of the cases. In 2016, BBC female journalist Rana RAHIMPOUR and her family members planned to travel to the United States to visit her brother, but her entry was denied because of her Iranian nationality, and the United States offered no explanation. This journalist, who has been working with BBC for years, had travelled to the United States for several times, but her entry was refused for unknown reasons on that occasion. I wonder whether the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1115 problem lied with her nationality as the authorities in the United States might think that she had connection with the terrorists. The American Government offered no explanation.

The second case was even more ironical. In October 2017, renowned Yemeni female journalist Afrah NASSER, winner of the International Press Freedom Award, was denied entry by the United States. When even the winner of the International Press Freedom Award was denied entry by the United States, has the United States interfered with freedom of the press in a heavy-handed manner? There was a saying that the refusal was probably due to her nationality. In fact, it is a great irony that a journalist, who upholds press freedom in dire peril, cannot enter the country which upholds the banner of freedom to receive an award. However, this explains that every country attaches great importance to national security to the extent of straightening the crooked to excess and being overly sensitive.

There is also a precedent in Hong Kong. In 1991, when Taiwanese journalist CHANG Yu-hua said in Hong Kong that "chaotic situations in Arab, in India and Pakistan, and in Burma are all related to the United Kingdom", officers of the Special Branch of the British Hong Kong Government came to his hotel on the following day and ordered him to leave Hong Kong within 48 hours, for the reason that a non-local journalist should not participate in political activities. This was a heavy-handed approach adopted by the British Hong Kong Government before the reunification.

Let me cite a case unrelated to politics. RAO Yi, a renowned biologist and director of the Centre of Life Sciences at Peking University, had worked in the United States for some 20 years. He relinquished his United States citizenship and returned to China in 2007 to contribute to his country. When he intended to join an academic exchange in 2016, he was not granted a visa by the United States. Since this was related to academic studies and unrelated to politics, was the United States suppressing academic freedom?

It is truly puzzling that opposition Members dare not mention even one of these typical cases. What are the reasons? In fact, they uphold double standards deep in their hearts. In their view, foreign governments are always right in whatever they do; but for the SAR Government, all matters, important or trivial, must be examined with a magnifying glass and a conspiracy theory. In fact, I very much agree that as far as all the cases are concerned, each place, 1116 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 including the United States, does not need to offer any explanation, for each place has the power of vetting and approving applications for entry. If countries do not have such power, people need not apply for visas and can travel freely to any places in the world. The whole world may one day be united as one, but now national boundaries still exist, sovereign states still exist, and immigration controls are thus needed. If any person is considered by the government of a country or a region to jeopardize national security or social interest, he will be denied entry.

The immigration control of the United States is actually very strict. A young single lady who intends to travel alone to the United States for sightseeing very often cannot get a visa. The reason is that the American Government is probably worried that she may marry an American right after her arrival―either genuine or fake marriage―and thus stay in the United States, even as an illegal worker. The United States is so concerned that it refuses the entry of certain persons for various reasons. Should an explanation be offered for each case? It will be unfair if an explanation is offered in respect of some cases, but not so in respect of some others. Why must an explanation be offered in respect of the case of Victor MALLET, while no explanation is given in respect of other cases? As such, the Government should follow its consistent and unified practice, treat all persons who are refused visas equally without specifically offering any explanation.

The Government has adopted a mild approach. It has neither arrested nor imprisoned him, but simply informed him that he was not welcomed in Hong Kong. I have no disrespect for any religion, but if a person carries out other religious activities at a Buddhist temple, such as singing songs of another religion, people in that temple will certainly urge him to leave. Beating the man is inappropriate as this is a savage act, but urging the man to leave is a civilized move. I believe this complies with the norms of a civilized society.

The motion was originally not worth discussing, but as I listened to Members' speeches, I noted that they had deviated from the topic. And such deviation has instead made this motion meaningful. While this international practice is known to all as saying the obvious that "mothers are women", many opposition Members have staged shows, turning this debate into a Foe-Glass. What exactly are they defending? They are not defending freedom of the press, they are not defending freedom of speech; to put it plainly, they are defending the freedom for advocating "Hong Kong independence". Our bottom line is to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1117 firmly oppose "Hong Kong independence". We must nip "Hong Kong independence" in the bud and suppress any room for its development in Hong Kong, for it will deal a fatal blow to "one country, two systems" of Hong Kong, bringing severe damage and calamities to our country and nation. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, people have lived in misery. Should our country follow in the footsteps of the Soviet Union?

Certainly, some opposition Members have cited certain cases to argue that it is all right to discuss independence in certain countries and regions. Different countries indeed have different history and backgrounds, but our country, China, has been a strong and unified country since the Qin and Han dynasties. Our national wisdom is that secession certainly means the loss of people's lives and widespread destitution. Our experience over the past 2 000 years or so has indicated that only when we Chinese are united can our country be strong and development can proceed, hence we can live and work in contentment and live a better life. For this reason, we must not relax our vigilance for any suggestions concerning independence, no matter how few people are involved. The Secretary for Security, as an official of a responsible Government, and we, as Members, must guard against the ideology of "Hong Kong independence" that harms our country and nation. We should not allow it to develop and flourish under the banner of freedom.

Some say that the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong merely provided a platform. I would like to ask a simple question. Is it right or wrong to sell narcotics? If a person argues that he is not a seller, he never publicizes narcotics and merely provides a platform for others to sell narcotics, is he in the right or in the wrong? Will he be guilty? We can easily understand this situation. If a person clearly knows that it is not right to do something but provides a platform for others to take that action, he is actually their accomplice. While these people claim that they do not support "Hong Kong independence", they are actually accomplices who help promote "Hong Kong independence". They have adopted an insidious approach to achieve a disguised ignoble end. We can hardly accept such unconstitutional and illegal acts that jeopardize "one country, two systems".

Mr CHU Hoi-dick often talks about liberty. English philosopher John Stuart MILL raised two points in his book On Liberty, that is, a person's behaviour should not be subject to regulation if it does not involve other people's interest or social order, but if his behaviour affects other people, social order or 1118 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 public interest, it is then inappropriate and should be subject to regulation. As for my remarks just now on some people in Hong Kong advocating "Hong Kong independence", I must stress that advocacy and general discussion are two concepts. We are now more or less discussing "Hong Kong independence", but we are certainly not advocating it.

Andy CHAN, however, has been blatantly advocating "Hong Kong independence". The reason for prohibiting the operation of his Hong Kong National Party ("HKNP") is his flagrant promotion of "Hong Kong independence" in its manifesto. In fact, his remarks are also not in compliance with the Basic Law. Certainly, some say that there are no laws that prohibit people from discussing "Hong Kong independence" these days. Therefore, I believe that the SAR Government should forge a social consensus at an opportune time and proceed to enact legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law. The Basic Law stipulates that "[t]he Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets". Andy CHAN's HKNP is in complete violation of this provision in terms of the spirit it upholds, but how to enact legislation in the future is a matter to be considered in the future.

As far as this incident is concerned, we must stick to our position on safeguarding "one country, two systems". I hope that opposition Members will not stage such shows whenever such issues are raised, otherwise their true self will be reflected in the Foe-Glass, and members of the public will know that they do not sincerely uphold the Basic Law or sincerely bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the People's Republic of China. Many members of the public believe that these Members were not sincere enough when they took the oath and assumed office. If Members sincerely believe in the oath they read out when assuming office in the Legislative Council, they should put aside their political stances and, on such a cardinal issue of right and wrong, safeguard our "one country, two systems" and resolutely make a clean break from any "Hong Kong independence" forces. Any ambiguity or shielding is pointless. Concealing "Hong Kong independence" under a veneer of "self-determination" or "discussion allowed" is, to put it plainly, clearing the way for its implementation.

Deputy President, the debate on Ms Claudia MO's motion was originally devoid of any meaning, but it has ultimately become meaningful, for a Foe-Glass has exposed some opposition Members―I do not want to tar all opposition Members with the same brush―who claim that they do not support "Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1119 independence" but actually hope to constantly create room for "Hong Kong independence", and create a platform for promoting "Hong Kong independence" in the name of freedom.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak against Ms Claudia MO's motion. I would like to stress that the SAR Government has the right to decide on the renewal of work visas. Visa matters fall within the sovereignty of "one country" and no individuals or organizations have the right to interfere. In my opinion, the decision was founded on concrete evidence and complied with the law, it was thus lawful and constitutional. Therefore, the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO is simply an attempt to make an issue of this incident.

What is she making an issue of? I have listened to the speeches of many Members and, as Members have stated very clearly, the opposition camp is linking the incident to freedom of the press and freedom of speech, without regarding what has actually happened. How is this incident related to freedom of the press and freedom of speech? To be honest, I do not see a direct connection. Although there is a saying that the incident may be related to the invitation from the Foreign Correspondents' Club, Hong Kong ("FCC") to Andy CHAN to give a talk, that is merely a speculation, and even if that is the case, so what? By inviting Andy CHAN to give a talk on "Hong Kong independence", FCC was in fact setting up a platform to promote "Hong Kong independence". Pan-democratic and opposition Members said that they could not understand why it was unacceptable to set up a platform for Andy CHAN to give a talk; they queried if supporting FCC's provision of a platform for Andy CHAN was tantamount to tacitly supporting "Hong Kong independence"? I am sorry to say that this is indeed unacceptable and this act is indeed a kind of tacit support for "Hong Kong independence".

The incident is not an ordinary event. We must bear in mind that "one country, two systems" is of vital importance to Hong Kong. "One country, two systems" is inviolable, and its core lies in "one country". Having listened to the speeches made by Members, I think most Members of the pan-democratic and opposition camps actually have no regard for "one country", which explains why they would come up with so many absurd arguments to say that the Security Bureau and Immigration Department have done wrong. 1120 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

As a matter of fact, the Security Bureau has sound justification to consider banning the operation of the Hong Kong National Party ("HKNP"). From the remarks made by HKNP, we know that they are advocating and promoting "Hong Kong independence", and mainstream public opinion is against "Hong Kong independence". I am sure most members of the public would see that "Hong Kong independence" will jeopardize "one country, two systems"; it is not a way out for Hong Kong and will bring no benefits to Hong Kong. After the Security Bureau's announcement that HKNP would soon be banned, FCC paid no heed and still invited CHAN to spread the idea of "Hong Kong independence" at FCC. This was an act of deliberate provocation. When faced with political provocation, should the Hong Kong Government turn a blind eye? Hence, I do not see this incident is related to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.

How much freedom does Hong Kong have? The answer should be obvious to all. The views and position of DAB have been expressed in the speeches of Members and the Deputy President. Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan has also cited a number of examples to indicate that not giving explanation by the administration was the international practice. Mr CHAN Hak-kan has also cited numerous examples to prove that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are certainly present in Hong Kong. Many newspapers, though lashing the Government on a daily basis, have been running for years, and mass gatherings, rallies, protests and petitions are held every day. All these indicate that freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Hong Kong have not been affected by the incident at all. The situation is not, as depicted by pan-democratic and opposition Members, that the Government has, for no reason, banned Victor MALLET from entering Hong Kong or disallowed freedom of association; these are all trumped-up opinions. In fact, the reason why they do not support the banning of HKNP and do not think that there are problems with FCC is because deep in their hearts, they do not see anything wrong with "Hong Kong independence", and that is why this motion is moved today with their support.

I really do not see how this incident is related to freedom of the press in Hong Kong. However, if pan-democratic and opposition Members attach such great importance to freedom of the press and highly respect reporters, let me remind them of a video clip on the Internet featuring "Boss LAI" who is their boss. In that video, "Boss LAI" swore at a journalist and was suspected of threatening the journalist by saying, "I have taken a picture of you and I will surely send someone to teach you a lesson." Yet, I did not hear Members of the opposition camp lambaste or condemn "Boss LAI", nor have they propose a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1121 motion in this Council on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to put a question to the Secretary for Justice as to why "Boss LAI" has not been charged. If opposition Members attach such great importance to freedom of the press and freedom of speech, please do not hold double standards and treat all journalists equally. Do not look down upon Hong Kong journalists while respecting foreign journalists.

This debate is nothing but a political hype to build a platform for "Hong Kong independence". What is more, Members of the opposition camp are exploiting this opportunity to bad-mouth and defame Hong Kong at this Council, accusing the Hong Kong Government of being unreasonable and saying that there is no freedom of the press and freedom of speech in Hong Kong. Hence, I think this debate is simply unwarranted.

Deputy President, I so submit.

(Dr Helena WONG stood up)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, what is your point?

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): I have a point of order.

When Mr LUK Chung-hung and Dr Elizabeth QUAT spoke just now, they mentioned that a number of opposition Members were … sorry, I did not intend to rise to speak, since just now Mr LUK Chung-hung …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please raise your point of order promptly.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure states that "A Member shall not impute improper motives to another Member." Mr LUK Chung-hung said just now that Members from the democratic camp claimed that they opposed "Hong Kong independence", yet they actually either overtly or tacitly render support. I did not say anything at that time as I immediately checked the Rules of Procedure in order to make a response. I then 1122 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 heard Dr Elizabeth QUAT's speech. In fact, I also think that Dr Elizabeth QUAT was also implying that democratic Members, though claiming to oppose "Hong Kong independence", were actually intending to set up a platform to advocate "Hong Kong independence".

I would like to ask the Deputy President to make a ruling on whether these two Members have contravened Rule 41(5) of the Rules of Procedure.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, this debate has been going on for some time, during which Members who have made such a judgment are not restricted to the two members whom you have mentioned just now. I think Members are merely stating their judgments when they speak during the debate, and they have not breached the Rules of Procedure by imputing improper motives to another Member in their speeches, as you have claimed. Dr WONG, please sit down.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, you cannot say, "I can read your mind and I think that is not what you think" and then say, "I believe this is what you are thinking of." That is defamation, framing and imputing improper motives to Members from the democratic camp. Therefore, this is clearly a breach of the Rules of Procedure. Deputy President, you must not condone them to make unjustified smearing here.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please sit down. Members who have listened attentively to the debate would know that Members based on their own judgments and perspectives when they spoke, and tit-for-tat exchanges among Members are inevitable. I have been applying the same yardstick in making my rulings, and I do not see any Member has breached the Rules of Procedure.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1123

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary to speak again. This debate will come to a close after Ms Claudia MO has replied.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in respect of the motion moved and the various views expressed by Members during the debate, I have the following response.

First of all, I must reiterate that the SAR Government will not comment on individual cases or make public the information concerning individual cases. Next I will respond comprehensively to all the views expressed by Members in the debate from the perspective of our policies, rather than in respect of individual cases.

Like all immigration authorities around the world, the Immigration Department ("ImmD") handles each application in accordance with the relevant laws and policies. It will fully consider the prevailing circumstances of the case before deciding whether to approve the application or not. The SAR Government is obliged to exercise effective immigration control in Hong Kong. This is the power and duty of the Director of Immigration ("the Director"). It is normal that some applications will be approved while some will be rejected. In the first nine months of this year, ImmD received a total of 51 326 applications for visit visa, entry permit or extension of stay under the General Employment Policy, of which 665 (about 1.3%) were rejected. Like other places and countries, each year there are applications for work visa being rejected, which is quite normal.

According to ImmD's usual practice, it generally does not inform the applicants of the specific reason why their applications are rejected. Under the Immigration Ordinance and other laws applicable to Hong Kong, ImmD is not required to disclose the specific reasons to persons whose entry or application for extension of stay was turned down. ImmD has acted in accordance with the law.

If anyone is dissatisfied with ImmD's rejection of their application for entry or extension of stay, there is a mechanism and a set of procedure for addressing their concern. It is inappropriate for Members to move a motion to summon government officials to attend before the Council to testify and make public all relevant papers. To make public all relevant government information will give 1124 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 rise to the risk of compromising our immigration control. For example, people with dubious intentions can, upon learning such information, evade immigration control and enter Hong Kong undetected. That will compromise the effectiveness and integrity of our immigration control, thereby increasing the risk and jeopardizing Hong Kong's interests. The Government also has to consider the issue of personal privacy and the consequence of making public the information. Hence, the SAR Government's position is that it will not comment on individual cases; neither will it reveal information concerning individual cases.

I notice that many places have adopted the same practice of ImmD in not disclosing the reason when it turns down a visa application. For example, in the country that is a favourite tourist destination for Hong Kong people and which they are very familiar with, the following announcement is made in the website of its immigration bureau, which states: "We do not give you the specific reason of the rejection because if we do so, the information would eventually become known to the public. Once that happened, there is a danger that some people might misappropriate such information to get around the visa examination process and try to enter for illegal purposes. It would impede the proper visa examination process in the future and have negative effects on Japanese society." (End of quote) The website also indicates that this practice is adopted in accordance with the law. Another country that Hong Kong people frequently visit also announces on its official website the following, which basically means: "We are sorry that we will not disclose the reason for rejecting any visa application. Please do not telephone or email us to inquire about the reason for the rejection." (End of quote) Everyone can browse these websites to look for this information. The above examples show that there are reasons for ImmD to adopt such a practice.

During the debate, various Members have brought up the issue of "Hong Kong independence". Although what I am going to say has nothing to do with the case under discussion, I must emphasize that the SAR Government has a very clear position that it will not tolerate any acts that advocate "Hong Kong independence". The Basic Law clearly stipulates that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China. "Hong Kong independence" seriously violates the Basic Law and undermines the national sovereignty, national security and territorial integrity of our country. Hence, foreigners who are allowed to come to Hong Kong are obligated not only to obey the laws of Hong Kong but also respect the Basic Law.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1125

In their speeches, some Members query the implementation of "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong. Here I must clearly and solemnly point out that since the unification, the HKSAR has always been implementing "a high degree of autonomy" in strict accordance with the Basic Law. The full and successful implementation of "one country, two systems" has been widely recognized by the international community. Immigration control is within the limits of the autonomy of the HKSAR under "one country, two systems". All immigration decisions, including those concerning the application for extension of stay, are made by ImmD in accordance with the relevant law and policies. Under Article 154(2) of the Basic Law, "[t]he Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may apply immigration controls on entry into, stay in and departure from the Region by persons from foreign states and regions." That is the manifestation of the SAR Government's implementation and enforcement of this Article.

In the motion moved and in the views of some Members, the decision made by the Director in accordance with the law and immigration policy has been described as "political suppression". This is incorrect. In handling each case, ImmD must pragmatically take into account the actual situation of each case before making a decision. Let me stress once again, the Director must take into account the facts and the actual situation when handling each case. No one and no trade or industry should be given special treatment. I also ask the Director to exercise immigration control under the principle of equal treatment to all, without giving any privileges. The case under discussion was also handled under this principle and ImmD's decision should not be described as suppression of freedom of speech or freedom of the press through political means.

The media can report news freely in Hong Kong. Hong Kong welcomes overseas media to work here. Over 80 overseas media organizations have set up offices in Hong Kong. They can operate freely in diversified ways, as in the case of local media. It is known to all that we come into contact with various media or receive their questions, reports and even criticisms every day. Freedom of the press and of speech in Hong Kong is fully protected under the Basic Law.

Article 27 of the Basic Law stipulates that "Hong Kong residents shall have freedom of speech, of the press"; and Article 39 of the Basic Law also stipulates that "[t]he provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political 1126 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Rights … as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force". Therefore, Hong Kong people's rights and freedoms are clearly provided for and protected under the Basic Law.

Deputy President, in view of the aforesaid reasons, I call upon Members to vote against the motion. I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Ms Claudia MO to reply.

MS CLAUDIA MO: It is quite a sorry sight to hear that official speaking like some broken gramophone. He said, "Oh, when it comes to visa applications or extensions, we may approve them, we may deny them, it is all very normal. But, by the way, we should also note our ban on 'Hong Kong independence' talk." How dishonest, how intellectually dishonest, can he be?

There was this Beijing loyalist by the name of Hak-kan, who said something like "if I came to your place and you refused to let me in, you would not need to tell me why". With him, I probably do not need to do that, but who does Gary CHAN think Hong Kong is a private property of? My place is my private property. Whose private property is Hong Kong? Beijing's? Carrie LAM's? That sort of argument is not just juvenile; it is infantile. What a farce!

On the one hand, government officials, Carrie LAM included, stupidly, moronically refused to either confirm or deny that this Victor MALLET controversy is all political. They would not do it; not quite, anyway. But, on the other hand, all the Beijing toadies in this Legislative Council would confirm to you, "Oh, yes, Mrs LAM's Government is doing all that at the behest of Beijing, and Mr MALLET is practically guilty of, firstly, advocating albeit inadvertently 'Hong Kong independence'; secondly, harming, again, indirectly Chinese national security; and thirdly, promoting or at least condoning hate speech, or virtually committing some hate crime." But whatever happened to our autonomy, our "one country, two systems" promise? All out of the window. Only "one country" applies, they say. They are turning Hong Kong into some LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1127

Mickey Mouse city, and this Government, this Administration, a Mickey Mouse regime. In effect, they are saying that Victor MALLET, somehow as a journalist and as some vice president of some club, has committed the crime of "political incorrectness", thus causing a huge loss of face to Beijing and he needs to be punished. That is the message, not just to Hong Kong but to the international community. It is a confirmation that the Carrie LAM Government is a puppet government. What she did was just … She is so eager to please her boss up north.

And indeed, somebody―I forgot who now, as they are all quite faceless―actually quoted the Chinese Foreign Ministry's statement, which was put out earlier on, to the effect that "we, China, resolutely oppose any external forces providing a platform―so they repeated―for 'Hong Kong independence' elements to spread fallacies". Very sadly, one big fallacy about Hong Kong is that people would keep asking, "Don't you have free press, still, and free speech? Aren't you just speaking now?" The sad thing is, I am speaking here, thank God, and I am still under some powers and privileges protection which is official in the name of the legislature. But what about people out there? "Red Star" over Hong Kong. Free press? Self-censorship has been so, so rampant ever since 1997 amidst Hong Kong's local press. Thank you very much for fear, for favour! And free speech? Carrie LAM now reminds you there are red lines which can go up and down, back and forth. You watch out!

If Carrie LAM thinks she could have humiliated a foreign journalist as such, she is quite wrong. She has actually put a gold medal in Mr Victor MALLET's journalistic career. Thank you. And this very sorry saga has left a very huge, absolutely mammoth black mark in Hong Kong's journalistic history. Hongkongers, journalists in particular, will never forgive or forget that.

Many people would wonder why Carrie LAM, as a long-time career civil servant, bothered to stage such a farce altogether. The reply naturally was that she was just being sort of a "yes woman" to Beijing. She had to do it, and she has always to do what Beijing orders her to. A veteran journalist friend of mine called this "the banality of evil". The Banality of Evil is the title of a book describing somebody who is harmless on the surface, almost innocent looking, but could do works of evil for his employer, his boss, or his superior. Evil could appear very banal. Hongkongers, watch out. This veteran journalist friend of mine is actually a Hongkonger just like you and me. He has been around for at 1128 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 least 40 years in Hong Kong. He is a permanent Hong Kong resident. He does not need any work visa or any permit from the Government to work in Hong Kong as a journalist. He has been a journalist all these four decades. What if it was him and not Victor MALLET that got into the centre of this controversy? What was the Carrie LAM Government going to do about him? Throw him into jail? Expel him back to England? He is an Englishman. What was the Government going to do about him? I cannot think. I do not want to think about it because anything terrible could just happen with this Government now. It is going authoritarian, they say, and I agree.

Carrie LAM can dismiss all our political talk. She would say, "A speculation." And then she would not give any explanation, let alone any revision of this visa decision for Mr MALLET. And what is the conclusion? I would call it "Mainlandization" of Hong Kong, a further step in that direction, and telling not just Hong Kong but the international community that out of official spite or vengeance the Government can just do anything to sort of take it out on anyone it thinks fit. What is the opposition going to do about it? Seriously, not much, except talking about it.

Two years ago, I told The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom that that could be, at the time, marking the beginning of the end of Hong Kong. Now, today, in 2018, the end of Hong Kong seems to be happening very fast. It is fast-forwarding. That reminds me, again, of some of the parting words made by Hong Kong's last colonial governor, Chris PATTEN. He said something to the following effect: "My anxiety is not that this community's autonomy would be usurped by Beijing, but that it could be given away bit by bit by some people in Hong Kong." That is exactly what is happening these days. Try what you may to attack free press and free speech. But free press and free speech are humanity, and humanity never dies.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1129

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

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Claudia MO rose to claim a division.

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

(While the division bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

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, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the motion.

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 Christopher CHEUNG, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, 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 Tony TSE voted against the motion.

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

1130 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 9 were in favour of the motion and 19 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 15 were in favour of the motion and 17 against it. 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): Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting will each move a motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, and the subject matter of the two motions is concerned with the construction works of the Shatin to Central Link.

The Secretariat has informed Members in writing that this Council will proceed to a joint debate on the two motions. After the joint debate has come to a close, this Council will first proceed to vote on Ms Claudia MO's motion. Irrespective of whether Ms Claudia MO's motion is passed or not, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting may move his motion.

The joint debate now begins. Members who wish to speak on the two motions will please press the "Request to speak" button.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1131

I will first call upon Ms Claudia MO to speak and move her motion. Then I will call upon Mr LAM Cheuk-ting to speak, but he may not move his motion at this stage.

MOTIONS UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I move the motion under my name. Frankly speaking, the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") scandal can be described as "Government shielding, MTRCL getting out of control". The situation is totally unimaginable. The Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Government has been conducting investigations, firstly on the Hung Hom Station. However, workers of the main contractor, subcontractor and sub-subcontractor did not know what had happened. Some presumed that certain works procedures had gone wrong but they dared not disclose the blunders. Some workers said that they had disclosed some faults to superiors but such faults had been concealed.

Honestly, the focus of the motion is on people's confidence. Carrie LAM said before the commissioning of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") that if the public lacked confidence, they could travel northward by other means other than taking XRL. In other words, the public could choose not to take XRL if they are afraid. The same applies to SCL, if the public think that there are inadequacies, they could choose not to take SCL trains. This is a shameless remark. These large-scale projects are constructed with the hard-earned money of Hong Kong people. During the construction process of the SCL project, monuments were found and there were cost overruns. Although I have been tolerant, I still think that the situation is getting more and more outrageous.

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

I am particularly concerned about the problem at To Kwa Wan Station. Just now I mentioned that if members of the public were worried that the situation of SCL might be similar to that of XRL, they should not travel on SCL. It makes no sense to ask the public not to be afraid, and say that they will be safe if 1132 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 they do not take SCL trains. The most frightening fact is that the settlement problem has affected residential buildings. I have collected a lot of newspaper clippings and the headline of a one newspaper is "MTRCL concealed the SCL scandal again". According to that headline news report, 23 residential buildings in To Kwa Wan have settlement problems, but the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") pretended that there was no problem and asked people not to worry. The MTR project has affected residential buildings. While shopping malls are important, residential buildings are private properties and for many people, their biggest asset is their residential unit. I hope the authorities will not jest about the residential units of the public because those are their homes.

Some say that there are also problems at Exhibition Centre Station, but why do we not show any concern? Though I am also concerned about the problem, I am more concerned about residential buildings. Private properties in high rise buildings are homes of the public, they involve significant public interest and public safety, and they are the properties of the public. Yet, they have been damaged by the MTR project. MTRCL has very cleverly stated that building structures are safe upon examinations by experts, so the public need not worry. In saying that building structures are safe, MTRCL means that the buildings are not in danger of collapsing and they are not dangerous; otherwise, the residents would have been evacuated. Even though there is no structural danger today, we do not know what will happen tomorrow, next month or next year.

The MTRCL's argument is unfair; it only said that the public did not need to worry because the experts said so. MTRCL has been concealing the facts since late 2016. There are views that the sanction mechanisms of the Government and MTRCL are inadequate. As Mr Abraham SHEK is also aware of the fact that the major shareholder of MTRCL is the Hong Kong Government, hence the payment of fines is just like moving money from one pocket to another, which is fundamentally superfluous and totally meaningless. Even if the sanction mechanism is improved, the fines will only be paid with the hard-earned money of Hong Kong people.

How should the structural safety of buildings be ensured and how should maintenance and compensation matters be handled? Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has also proposed a motion asking the Legislative Council to appoint a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the incident and do justice to residents, tenants and landlords in Ma LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1133

Tau Wai. The premises affected are residential buildings, not shopping malls, commercial buildings or government properties. They are purchased with the hard-earned life savings of the public. I hope Honourable colleagues will be aware that some buildings have settlement problems. I do not want to talk about property prices because this is a boring topic. How will MTRCL compensate for a fall in property prices owing to the settlement problems?

Regarding the diaphragm walls at To Kwa Wan Station, according to the original drawings, the diaphragm walls on both sides should be supported by seven layers of steel reinforcement bars but a sudden revision has been made to revise the requirement to six layers. An MTRCL engineer asked me not to be agitated as there is little difference between seven layers and six layers of steel reinforcement bars, as long as there is sufficient support. However, why should the original requirement of seven layers of steel reinforcement bars be revised? Revising the drawings is very troublesome―Mr Abraham SHEK also nodded to indicate that he agreed with me―revision of drawings should be approved by other departments such as the Highways Department and revisions cannot be made casually. The contractor carries out the works according to the drawings and upon the completion of the project, if he claims that there is no problem, payment will be made. That is the normal procedure but unauthorized revisions have been made to the drawings. Why should the drawings be revised? The answer given to us is that efficiency will be enhanced. Obviously, the drawings have been revised to speed up the works to save cost, including the expenditures on workers' wages and materials. Simply put, this is cutting corners. They said that there is no problem with the supportive structure; I am not sure about that as I am not an engineer. I have been trying hard to grasp some engineering knowledge so as to have a better understanding of the reasons behind a number of scandals concerning the SCL project. A number of scandals happened in August and that is intolerable; shocking incidents almost happened every day. Is there anything wrong? What has the Highways Department done? The staff of the Transport and Housing Bureau are simply asleep.

How come the situation has come to this pass? The settlement problem caused by the SCL project has made residents in To Kwa Wan feel frightened, detested or furious. These emotions, especially fear, are contagious and may have a snowball effect. However, some people―I am not referring to you, of course, you are just the figure thing up there―denied the obvious and did not speak up. In fact, it is most important to find out what has been concealed.

1134 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

In addition, according to some MTRCL engineers, the safety factors and safety standards are very high, and it can be said that nothing will go wrong. Therefore, I need not be over worried if the limits have been exceeded. Yet, please allow me to be worried; I will not cry out of fear but it is unfair to conceal the situation. At the end of August, they were still concealing the situation, but as known to many people, there were settlements in the peripheral areas of some other stations of SCL.

There are 1 500 monitoring points of SCL but the settlement readings of some 130 monitoring points exceeded the permitted level. What does that mean? A settlement of 30 mm is not a problem, but problems will arise if the settlement exceeds 30 mm, or if the settlement readings largely exceed the permitted level. Although the settlement readings of a number of monitoring points in To Kwa Wan had exceeded the permitted level, MTRCL stated that the project had been completed and worries were uncalled-for. Yet, as it turned out that since October last year, the settlement readings of 20 monitoring points have persistently exceeded the permitted level, indicating the ongoing settlement problem and nine buildings nearby have been affected.

Even if the safety standards are very high, to be fair, only the wearer knows where the shoe pinches. The affected area is extensive, including Ma Tau Wai Road, Lok Shan Road, Chi Kiang Street, Maidstone Road and Kowloon City Road. By saying that the building structures do not have any problem or are rather safe, do they think that if they pretend the problem does not exist, the problem will drop out of sight and disappear into thin air? Definitely not.

I also know that when the problematic project was completed in 2016, the District Council also asked at the time whether there was any settlement problem. However, the persons concerned did not provide the relevant readings and only gave vague answers, thinking that the situation could be concealed. Although the settlement standard is high and the performance of MTRCL is sound―I also believe that the performance of MTRCL is sound―after a self-adjustment was made on the safety standard to tally with the settlement readings, the readings have become very different. There are great fluctuations, just like the movements in the Hang Seng Index these days. For example, as reported in the press, the original safety standard of settlement was set at 47 mm, but MTRCL has self-adjusted the safety standard to 61 mm. As it turned out, the actual settlement was 61 mm. That was a perfect match, meaning that the settlement was not a problem. The extent of self-adjustment made by MTRCL is just like the variation of seafood prices. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1135

The safety standard of settlement in another location was originally set at 32 mm, but MTRCL revised the safety standard, making settlement of 39 mm to be within the safety range. As it turned out, the settlement of 39 mm was recorded at that location; what a perfect match! There are also problems with the To Kwa Wan Complex. We can hardly ask people going to the market every day not to worry.

In addition, some professional engineers told the press that the underground facilities most affected by settlement are gas pipes and water pipes. Is that very scary? If water pipes are damaged and water supply is suspended, people can buy bottled water or collect water in buckets, so the situation will not be too astonishing. What will happen if gas pipes are damaged? (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, your speaking time is up.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): … thank you, Deputy President.

Ms Claudia MO moved the following motion:

"That this Council appoints a select committee to inquire into the incident of serious land subsidence of buildings near the construction site of To Kwa Wan station of the Shatin to Central Link, and whether the incident involved ineffective monitoring by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government and the MTR Corporation Limited and their deliberate concealment of the land subsidence problem, and other related matters; and that in the performance of its duties the committee be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance."

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

1136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak on behalf of the Democratic Party in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion, and I urge Honourable colleagues of the Legislative Council to support the motion proposed by me. To facilitate the viewers watching the telecast in understanding my motion, I will state the content of my motion in brief: That this Council appoints a select committee to inquire into matters relating to the MTR Corporation Limited's ("MTRCL") alleged concealment of the substandard construction works and alternations to the construction drawings of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), alleged failure to suspend the construction works and notify the public when the settlement of some monitoring points is found to have exceeded the pre-set trigger levels during the construction of eight stations along SCL, and subsequent proposal of relaxing the pre-set trigger levels for temporary suspension of works of the monitoring points near the construction site of the Exhibition Centre Station of SCL, and other related matters. I also hope that the select committee be authorized to exercise the powers under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) ("P&P Ordinance") to carry out the investigation.

Deputy President, some members of the public or colleagues from the pro-establishment camp may query why this motion is proposed again when similar motions were proposed in the previous session of the Legislative Council. Please allow me to explain it briefly. First, the Legislative Council has the constitutional duty to monitor the Government. According to Article 64 of the Basic Law, "The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must abide by the law and be accountable to the Legislative Council of the Region …" At issue is that MTRCL is in a significant management crisis and embroiled in major construction works scandals. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") is the principal shareholder of MTRCL, whereas several officials of the SAR Government are members of the MTRCL Board. Hence, the incident is not merely a management issue of a listed company, as it also involves important issues like significant public interest and the supervision of the Government. The Legislative Council has the important constitutional duty of pursuing accountability for issues concerning significant public interest. It should also demand accountability on the part of the Government and examine the actual facts of the issues in question. Hence, the Legislative Council will not be deprived of its powers and due constitutional duty because of the work of the independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission"). I hope Honourable colleagues will not use the Commission as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1137 an excuse, saying that the Legislative Council should not conduct an investigation because an independent inquiry is under way. In fact, in the history of this Council, Select Committees were set up by this Council to conduct investigations into a number of incidents involving significant public interest concurrently, even though the incidents were already under the investigation of relevant independent commissions of inquiry. Hence, I hope Members will fulfil the constitutional duty of the Legislative Council and support my motion.

Second, the existing terms of reference of the Commission, that is, the terms of reference authorized by Chief Executive Carrie LAM, cover four aspects. First, the facts and circumstances of the construction works at Hung Hom Station; second, the review of the project management and supervision system of MTRCL; third, the extent of the monitoring and control mechanisms of the Government, and fourth, the recommendations for suitable improvement measures.

Deputy President, when Chief Executive Carrie LAM proposed the scope of inquiry covering the four aspects mentioned, the outbreak of the construction works scandal of SCL was just in the middle. Since many issues were not exposed then, the scope of the inquiry is quite restricted. After the Humg Hom incident was uncovered, we noted a series of problems with the construction works at To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station. These problems are not included in the terms of reference of the Commission. Yet the SAR Government replied ambiguously that it was not necessarily the case that the issues were not included, for the Commission will review the project management of MTRCL and all the issues would be included therein. However, this does not tally with my understanding. Since it is stated clearly in the relevant terms of reference that Hung Hum Station is the only project under investigation, Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN may only conduct the inquiry according to the terms of reference. As for issues outside the terms of reference, he cannot interpret the terms of reference boundlessly to include every problem concerning SCL in the inquiry. If he does so, he will be open to challenges. Since the scope of the terms of reference is too narrow, there is no way to comprehensively investigate the whole incident.

Let us review the incidents that occurred since the setting up of the Commission. First, in August 2018, the media exposed that the reports of MTRCL and the Government were incorrect all along. According to reports, 1138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 government officers discovered that MTRCL had used a construction drawing which had not been approved by the ("BD") for the concrete pours of East West Corridor. According to the Director of Highways, the new drawing includes some major alterations to the original drawing, where the design in the new drawing is estimated to have reduced the number of couplers used in the original design by 2 000. As for the 32 concrete pours of East West Corridor, the works of 20 concrete pours was carried out according to construction drawings which had not been approved. MTRCL has blatantly submitted false reports to the SAR Government. This falsification is extremely serious and involves integrity. Besides, this is not the only falsification scandal in which MTRCL is involved.

After that, we discovered another problem―settlement. It is reported that according to the internal consultant report of To Kwa Wan Station, during the excavation works for the Station's platform carried out in 2016, the settlement readings of 23 buildings near the Station exceeded the permitted level, and the settlement reading of one of the monitoring points located next to a gas station reached the highest level of 62.9 mm, exceeding the cap by 30%. However, MTRCL had neither instructed the contractor to suspend the construction works nor demanded the contractor to adopt strengthening measures or mitigation measures. And more ridiculously, MTRCL had not notified the residents affected.

What was MTRCL thinking? I consider this strictly unimaginable. As Ms Claudia MO said just now, the settlement will affect the residents. Since the lives and properties of the public are in their residence, settlement is an important issue. Why did MTRCL not notify the residents, thus causing them to be gripped by fear all the time now? This is extremely irresponsible.

Then, we noted that the problem involving the alteration of drawings was more serious than we thought. We learnt of the unauthorized deletion of the reinforcements of 77 diaphragm walls by Leighton Construction (Asia) Limited ("Leighton") and that the Government was not notified of the deletion. MTRCL and BD only discovered the case after two years and resorted to the removal of a layer of wall structure as a remedy to the removal of steel reinforcement bars from the top layer of the 77 diaphragm walls after some twists and turns. The contractor, Leighton, is acting arbitrarily at its own will. We can see that Leighton is completely out of control. Deputy President, one issue makes me extremely angry. Recently, the Expert Adviser Team for the Shatin-to-Central LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1139

Link Project ("Expert Adviser Team") composed of three former senior government officials appointed by the Government has completed the examination of the falsification of reinforcement, and proposed to MTRCL that concrete structures be opened up for spot checks to confirm the seriousness of the falsification. Yet, with regard to the suggestions made by the Expert Adviser Team appointed by the Government, MTRCL dared to adopt a superficial approach by identifying several locations for concrete spot checks in a perfunctory manner. As a result, the Expert Adviser Team cannot but issue an interim report, stating that the existing number of checks performed by MTRCL is far below the statistical standard, and requires and presses MTRCL to draw up another testing proposal.

In fact, when the incident was first exposed, I did tell the Secretary that concrete structures must be opened up for spot checks. MTRCL said that only 10-odd steel reinforcement bars were affected, yet the number far exceeds that as revealed by the existing sources. Nonetheless, the Secretary refuses to open up the structure concerned for spot checks and insists that it is unnecessary do so for the authorities have already conducted loading tests to test the capacity of reinforcements. Back then, I told the Secretary that even if the capacity of reinforcements proved to be able to support the structure and the structure would not collapse, consideration must be given to the capacity for 120 years, for the structure of the platform is designed for a lifespan of 120 years. Yet, the Secretary has all along adopted a procrastination approach. Eventually, the Expert Adviser Team appointed by the Government considered the current approach undesirable and demanded the opening up of concrete structures for spot checks. Yet, in opening up the concrete structures for spot checks, MTRCL introduced a partial an approach, whereas the Expert Adviser Team considered such an approach unacceptable and issued an interim report criticizing such practice of MTRCL. How can Secretary Frank CHAN, as a Director on the MTRCL Board, allow MTRCL to respond perfunctorily to the report issued by the Expert Adviser Team?

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

President, the credibility of MTRCL is going downhill as in the settlement cases, yet the worst is yet to come. How much further will it sink? In retrospect, the management of MTRCL seems to be in a critical state. It has 1140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 completely lost its control over frontline construction works, it is incapable of monitoring its contractors and the quality of construction works, and it continues to play down the incident, conceals the facts and misleads the Government and the Legislative Council. When a company has come to this pass, what should we do? Some says that MTRCL has grown excessively big and it is extremely difficult to remove its monopoly status in the market. I understand this, yet what we need to do now is to find out the truth of the incident. How serious is the problem? How did it happen? Who should be held accountable? If we do not find out the truth clearly and gain a full understanding of the case, how can we learn from our experience and learn a lesson for the future?

President, the existing independent Commission led by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN will definitely perform its role and functions, yet as I said in the beginning of my speech, the scope of the terms of reference of the Commission is quite narrow. Besides, the Legislative Council has the constitutional duty to investigate incidents involving significant public interest, so we should not shirk our responsibility and avoid doing what is required of us, and we should not shift our responsibility to a former Judge and an independent commission of inquiry. Theoretically, we are a body of public opinion representing the citizens of Hong Kong. Many people may ask: Why would Hong Kong have come to this pass today? Why would MTRCL have fallen to the present state? We must find out the truth of the incident, for only by doing so can we start again and review how MTRCL should be reformed. The incident should not be covered up, as in the present cases of falsified reinforcements covered by concrete, steel reinforcement bars having been cut short and couplers not secured, for we do not know whether there will be problems in 100 years, 50 years or 20 years. This is not the proper approach. We should be responsible to the people of Hong Kong and our next generation. We must investigate this major SCL scandal involving MTRCL, so that the public will fully understand such a hard lesson.

With these remarks, I urge Members to support my motion. Thank you.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") is a territory-wide strategic railway project. Since it involves the construction of various underground stations and tunnel sections, it is inevitable that, during the construction stage, works would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1141 cause impacts to the surroundings. These impacts may include causing settlement to buildings, bridges, underground utilities and roads in the vicinity of the works sites.

To monitor the settlement potentially caused by the SCL works, the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") needs to carry out assessment and establish a stringent monitoring system at the design stage of the project, before installing monitoring points at suitable locations and conducting regular monitoring. With the monitoring data, MTRCL could understand the impacts brought by the works to the ambient environment and take appropriate actions to contain the impacts within a controllable and safe range.

Before taking forward the foundation and excavation works of SCL, MTRCL had established a monitoring mechanism with a three-tier activation mechanism which stipulates the prescribed actions to be taken by MTRCL when settlement reading reaches the pre-set levels of each tier. Upon commencement of construction when more field information, such as soil parameters, underground water levels, excavation sequences and condition of structures, can be gathered, MTRCL could estimate the acceptable potential settlement levels of the affected structures and facilities and consult the Highways Department ("HyD") and the Buildings Department ("BD"). MTRCL pointed out that the established trigger levels are normally set at a more conservative level so that progressive and continuous monitoring work can be done and the predetermined mitigation measures can be adopted.

Hence, the highest pre-set trigger level under the three-tier activation mechanism is by no means a watershed. Even if the settlement of some structures exceeds the highest pre-set trigger level (irrespective of whether it has been revised or not) due to the railway works nearby, it does not mean that structural safety problems will appear. It is important that MTRCL shall monitor the settlement of the relevant structures and facilities in a frequent and continuous manner during the implementation of works. Upon consulting the relevant departments, MTRCL would carry out mitigation measures to ensure the structural safety of the facilities. At the request of the Government, MTRCL consolidates the settlement data of affected buildings and facilities for reporting to BD and HyD. As safety is always the top priority, works on site shall be suspended immediately if the highest pre-set trigger level of settlement is reached 1142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 to safeguard safety of the public, construction personnel on site and facilities nearby.

The excavation works of the SCL To Kwa Wan Station located under ground at Ma Tau Wai Road, which is the object of Ms Claudia MO's concern, was completed in November 2016. According to MTRCL's records, the settlement readings at some monitoring points had exceeded the pre-set trigger level during the construction period. MTRCL had taken the relevant measures in accordance with the three-tier activation mechanism, which included increasing the monitoring points, inspecting the condition of buildings by registered structural engineer and grouting to reinforce the underground stratum. According to MTRCL's assessment, all buildings with settlement readings reaching the highest trigger level near To Kwa Wan Station have a tilting less than the limit specified in the "Practice Notes for Authorized Persons, Registered Structural Engineers and Registered Geotechnical Engineers" of BD. Regarding roads, readings of certain ground settlement monitoring points located at the footpath of Ma Tau Wai Road and Lok Shan Road reached the highest trigger level as early as January 2015. Following the reinstatement work by MTRCL, the relevant pavement had subsequently been opened for public use. As for the underground utilities, MTRCL has contacted the Towngas for an inspection of the underground gas pipes to ensure their structural safety and normal operation.

Besides, MTRCL had arranged inspections of 23 buildings affected by settlement near the works sites of To Kwa Wan Station by registered structural engineers. The result confirmed that all the 23 buildings were structurally safe.

At present, the accumulated settlement readings of settlement monitoring points located at the affected structures, including buildings, utilities and roads, near To Kwa Wan Station do not exceed the existing or revised pre-set trigger level. The monitoring data submitted by MTRCL indicate that the settlement in the vicinity of To Kwa Wan Station's works sites has become stabilized. MTRCL would continue to monitor the situation of these monitoring points.

The Transport and Housing Bureau established on 15 August this year an Expert Adviser Team for the SCL Project. Comprising three senior retired government officers, the Expert Adviser Team will conduct an overall review of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1143

MTRCL's project management system and recommend additional management and monitoring measures to be undertaken as appropriate in taking forward the SCL Project. In response to concerns in the community, the Expert Adviser Team will also examine the settlement issue of SCL.

As the implementation of the SCL Project is authorized under the Railway Ordinance (Cap. 519), any person suffering loss from material or structural damage of building due to railway works of the Tai Wai to Hung Hom Section of SCL may submit written claims to the Secretary for Transport and Housing. The relevant claims will then be handled by the in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the Railway Ordinance.

On the other hand, upon receiving reports of cracks in buildings from residents, MTRCL's project team will conduct site inspections along with staff of its contractors, which include visual inspections of building, making photographic records, reviewing the records of the relevant monitoring points and checking up the records of the building condition surveys of the relevant units carried out by MTRCL prior to construction, to ascertain whether those cracks have appeared after the commencement of the SCL Project before referring those cases to a loss adjuster, an independent third party, for investigation and follow-up. MTRCL has revised the relevant procedures, enabling the loss adjuster to pass the reports directly to the claimants with copies sent to MTRCL upon completion of investigations. MTRCL will not preview the reports in advance. I have been given to understand that MTRCL is working on a scheme, putting aside legal liabilities, to provide financial assistance in a pragmatic manner for affected owners near To Kwa Wan Station to repair the walls in their flats. MTRCL will streamline the procedures by all means and launch the scheme as soon as possible.

As regards the settlement readings recorded along SCL which had once exceeded the pre-set trigger level, MTRCL published on 30 August this year the latest settlement monitoring data along SCL. Earlier at the works sites of SCL Exhibition Centre Station, as part of the readings of the settlement monitoring points installed in the vicinity exceeded the pre-set trigger levels for suspension of works, MTRCL has consequently suspended the relevant excavation works since 10 August this year. MTRCL has completed a detailed analysis of the 1144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 settlement of structures in the vicinity arising from the works, and proposed, with justification provided, to resume excavation works at Exhibition Centre Station. With confirmation that public safety would not be compromised, the relevant government department agreed to MTRCL's proposal of works resumption and updating of trigger levels.

Hyd, BD and MTRCL have reviewed the existing arrangement and followed the advice from the Expert Adviser Team to set up an announcement mechanism for the SCL works. On 28 September this year, the Government promulgated the mechanism to monitor and make announcements on the impact of the SCL Project on nearby structures and public facilities. Under the mechanism, MTRCL shall temporarily suspend the part of works which may contribute to the problems when the extent of settlement reaches the pre-set trigger levels for suspension of works. The relevant departments will then carry out inspections of the affected buildings and utilities while issuing press releases to announce the updating of pre-set trigger levels for temporary suspension of works by MTRCL and the arrangement for works resumption.

The first interim report by the Expert Adviser Team set up by the Transport and Housing Bureau was submitted to the Bureau on 19 October and released on 24 October. The Expert Adviser Team indicated that it would audit selected cases of the SCL Project to assess the effectiveness of the monitoring and control system.

Regarding the steel reinforcement fixing works in respect of the diaphragm wall and platform slab construction works at the Hung Hom Station Extension under the SCL Project implemented by MTRCL, the Chief Executive in Council appointed a Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance on 10 July this year. Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN, former Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal, has been appointed as Chairman of the Commission. The Commission will inquire into the incident and review, among others, MTRCL's project management and supervision system as well as the monitoring and control mechanism of the Government while making recommendations on suitable measures with a view to promoting public safety and assurance on quality of works. Apart from the Commission, the Police have independently initiated investigations while BD has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1145 launched an investigation into the incident under the scope of the Buildings Ordinance to ascertain if any offences have been committed.

Meanwhile, the Development Bureau has taken regulatory actions in accordance with the Contractor Management Handbook against contractors concerned for construction issues associated with Hung Hom Station, To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station under the SCL Project implemented by MTRCL. For the construction issues associated with Hung Hum Station, Leighton Construction (Asia) Limited ("Leighton") is suspended from tendering for all works categories under which it is listed on the Approved Lists for a period of 12 months effective from 8 October 2018. The Government reserves the right to take further regulatory actions. In case more information on the construction issues associated with Hung Hom Station is available in future, the Development Bureau will review the situation and, if necessary, recommend and take further appropriate regulatory actions.

To strengthen the supervision of the SCL works by MTRCL, HyD has taken various enhanced measures, which include requiring MTRCL to provide the data of "Non-conformance Reports" issued by MTRCL on contractor works and to report on any signs of improvement or worsening on the quality of works for taking appropriate measures, increasing the number of site visits of monitoring and verification consultants, conducting independent surprise checks to sites by HyD's staff and requesting MTRCL to strengthen the mechanisms for reporting within the Corporation and with the Government while improving the construction supervision system. And BD will continue to monitor the structural safety of the platform of the Hung Hom Station Extension, including weekly site inspections.

The Transport and Housing Bureau and the Expert Adviser Team are now requesting MTRCL to formulate a comprehensive and holistic strategy to ascertain the building structural condition of, among others, the platform slab of the Hung Hom Station Extension works, which would include: (1) reviewing and verifying all construction records; (2) breaking open a portion of the concrete connecting the platform slab and the diaphragm wall for inspection; (3) conducting non-destructive tests; and (4) load tests. Regarding the initial report on the verification of the actual building condition of the East West Line platform slab and diaphragm walls of the Hung Hom Station Extension works 1146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 submitted to the Government by MTRCL on 15 October, the Government has examined the report rigorously and given its suggestions to MTRCL. In its Interim Report No. 1, the Expert Adviser Team noted that the initial report of MTRCL had a limited scope, which fell short of the requirement of a holistic assessment. The Government requested MTRCL to submit a holistic strategy covering the actual construction details of the entire building structure of the Hung Hom Station Extension works.

In respect of a news report on 19 October about the unauthorized removal of part of the reinforcement at the top part of 77 diaphragm walls by the contractor of the diaphragm walls of Hung Hom Station, according to the information provided by MTRCL, Leighton the contractor suggested in July 2013 an alteration in the relevant reinforcement design to facilitate such works processes as steel reinforcement fixing and concreting. The altered design was subsequently implemented. It was not until January 2015, when MTRCL began providing BD with information of the completed works, that BD discovered the inconsistency between the as-built record plan and the previously approved plan in respect of the structural details of the steel reinforcement bars connecting the diaphragm walls and the East West Line platform slab. Refusing to accept the relevant certificate on works completion, BD notified HyD in May 2015 for follow-up and requested MTRCL to submit a report on the incident and a remedial proposal. MTRCL submitted a report on the incident on July 2015 and presented to BD in January 2016 its remedial proposal for the relevant design, confirming that the altered design for the steel reinforcement bars at the top part of the diaphragm walls was compliant with structural safety requirements. The remedial proposal was accepted by BD in March 2016. As for the issue of yet another alteration in the design of the top part of the diaphragm walls by MTRCL and Leighton as mentioned in the report, since it is precisely part of the facts which the Commission will ascertain, it should be left to the Commission to follow up.

As regards a news report on 19 October concerning the settlement readings of Hung Hom Station, the Hong Kong Coliseum in Hung Hom and the Harbour Plaza Metropolis exceeding the pre-set trigger level in December 2014, MTRCL at the time had been monitoring the settlement of the relevant structures and facilities in the vicinity of the Hung Hom Station Extension in a frequent and continuous manner, taking appropriate actions and carrying out mitigation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1147 measures to bring the impacts to within controllable and safe range in a bid to ensure structural safety. The settlement readings have become stabilized.

President, the Government attaches great importance to the settlement of buildings near the railway works sites and the building structural problems of the Hung Hom Extension works. As I said just now, the Government has actively taken the relevant measures to bring the impacts of settlement to the structures, including buildings, utilities and roads, near the works sites to within controllable and safe range to safeguard public safety. In respect of the non-compliant works and alterations of construction drawings revealed regarding the Hung Hom Extension, the Government has set up the Commission vested with statutory powers under the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance. The Commission is conducting an independent and comprehensive inquiry and hearing the case in public. There is absolutely no compromise on railway safety. After considering the inquiry result and recommendations of the Commission and taking into account the suggestions of the Expert Adviser Team, we will further improve the monitoring of MTRCL by the Government in the hope that the SCL Project can be taken forward more effectively.

The Government considers it unnecessary for the Legislative Council to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") to establish a select committee to inquire into the incident. In respect of the settlement issue, the Government has been open and transparent, not only releasing the settlement monitoring data along SCL, but also establishing a monitoring and announcement mechanism to increase transparency. The Expert Adviser Team, meanwhile, will audit selected cases of the SCL Project to assess the effectiveness of the monitoring and control system. As regards the non-compliant works and alterations of plans uncovered in respect of the Hung Hom Extension, in the light of the hearings commenced by the Commission and the investigations conducted by law enforcement agencies, establishing a committee under P&P Ordinance to look into the incident yet again would only lead to duplication and redundancy, and inevitably cause serious impacts on the progress of the SCL Project. It is therefore unnecessary.

I so submit, President, and urge Members to negative the motion. Thank you.

1148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): I speak in support of the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO and the one to be moved Mr LAM Cheuk-ting to set up a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") to inquire into the construction works of To Kwa Wan Station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL").

I believe many Members who rise to speak in the joint debate today, especially those pro-establishment and pro-Government Members, would echo what Secretary Frank CHAN just said, claiming that the Government has already appointed the independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") to undertake various tasks. The Secretary has talked eloquently for 20 minutes, saying that it would be superfluous for the Legislative Council to invoke P&P Ordinance to inquire into the incident. I can almost assert that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, the next Member to speak, would follow suit.

President, I am going to explain clearly why the select committee proposed to be set up by the pro-democracy Members to probe into the SCL incident will be a cut above the Commission appointed by the Government in terms of its wider scope of investigation, which would render its dimensions of work more extensive and comprehensive. I hope Members can develop some in-depth views and understanding of the matter before casting their votes.

Reviewing the interim report submitted to Secretary Frank CHAN by the Expert Adviser Team on the Shatin to Central Link Project ("the Expert Adviser Team"), which was released by the Government on the 24th of last month (i.e. last Wednesday), nine out of the 16 preliminary recommendations made therein are related to the Hung Hom Station Extension works. The Expert Adviser Team, comprising three senior retired government officers, carried out site visits, reviewed relevant documents and met with the Government and relevant departments, etc. in the past two months to examine the built structures at some parts of the Hung Hom Station Extension site. Their examination encompassed a combination of methods, including verifying records, physical inspections through opening up the structures and conducting non-destructive tests, instead of relying solely on the load test as previously proposed by the Government.

Four recommendations relating to settlement problems at the Exhibition Centre Station and To Kwa Wan Station sites were set out in the report and, as the Secretary mentioned just now, the Expert Adviser Team would audit selected cases of the SCL Project. President and Honourable colleagues, the SCL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1149 incident has been exposed for five months already. The Secretary, five months have passed and yet the Transport and Housing Bureau as well as the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") have just come up with an interim report. This shows their slow response, belated awareness, dereliction of monitoring duties and failure to exert adequate efforts.

Meanwhile, the Commission inquiring into the construction works of the SCL Hung Hom Station conducted its eighth-day hearing yesterday. We can see how shocking it is simply by reading some of the extracts of the hearing. When making his statement, Mr Jason POON, Managing Director of China Technology Corporation Limited ("China Technology") exposed the faulty connection of 30 000 couplers in the Project, among which 5% of them, that is, some 1 300 steel reinforcement bars were cut. Does the Secretary remember that some news came to light on that day? The media exposed that 200 or even 500 steel reinforcement bars had been shortened, and Hong Kong people were already in an uproar. Now, some 1 300 steel reinforcement bars are said to be questionable. Mr Jason POON even pointed out that he had signed a confidentiality undertaking with Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton") last year, under which he had, at the request of Leighton, deleted from his mobile phone two photographs and a video clip showing the cutting of steel reinforcement bars. He was also requested to delete the photographs saved in cloud storage and to reformat the computers involved. Everything has been deleted and all evidence has been destroyed. We can see from the SCL scandal that the contractor, Leighton, and the subcontractor, China Technology, each stuck to their version of the story, and they have been in continuous disputes by upholding their own stance since the first day of the hearing.

With the development of the issue so far, MTRCL and the SAR Government have to bear the largest share of the responsibilities after all. MTRCL certainly has failed to discharge its monitoring duties properly and there are serious loopholes in its monitoring and notification mechanisms. The frontline representatives and supervisory staff of MTRCL played their monitoring roles in a slipshod manner in that they failed to report the irregularities spotted but concealed them instead, paying no regard to the safety of construction workers and passengers. This is the reason why Hong Kong people are so furious with MTRCL. Similarly, the incident has also displayed the ineffective monitoring by the Government, the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Highways Department ("HyD"). The Government thus cannot stay aloof from the SCL scandal.

1150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

The Commission set up by the Government would merely inquire into the diaphragm wall and platform slab construction works at the Hung Hom Station Extension under the SCL Project. SCL is comprised of 10 stations and the existing Commission would only conduct an inquiry into the construction works at the Hung Hom Station Extension. The construction works elsewhere are not covered. Yet, in the past five months, there have been signs indicating that the Hung Hom Station is just the tip of the iceberg in the SCL scandal. The problems are not confined to it but will even involve the Exhibition Centre Station and To Kwa Wan Station. I believe more construction blunders will surface one after another.

After the media had exposed the SCL scandal, some members of the and I went to the Police Headquarters in Wan Chai to report the case on 2 June 2018, requesting the Police to step in and investigate the suspected fraudulent and concealing acts as well as the making of false statements in regard to the SCL Project. What has the Government done? Government officials responded slowly, for it took the HyD two whole weeks to admit to the public on 15 June that there were suspected fraudulent acts and that the Government would also report the case to the Police.

What has the Secretary done? In his reply to a Member's question regarding the quality of the construction works of the SCL Project on 20 June, the Secretary said that he learnt about the incident only from the news and it was deeply regrettable that MTRCL had not reported the incident to the Government. The Secretary boasted in his 20-minute speech just now that the Government, attaching great importance to the incident, had effected supervision properly and would deal with it proactively. But is this the truth? Instead of dealing with it proactively, the Government just adopted a passive approach and employed a delaying tactic. The Government has not been honest, contrary to the Secretary's claim just now.

On 23 July, some members of the Neo Democrats and I hosted a press conference again in collaboration with a number of professionals to express our concern over the problems of water seepage in tunnels and shortened steel reinforcement bars in the SCL Hung Hom Station. We urged the Government and MTRCL to conduct inspections by opening up the walls and randomly examining 5% couplers of each bay, so as to work out the non-compliance rate and identify appropriate remedies. This is to ensure the structural safety of the Hung Hom Station.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1151

However, the Government exhibited its belated awareness again. It was even more startling that the Government only admitted on 3 October that, with a view to responding to society's aspirations, it would kick-start actions and request inspections through opening up the concrete at the Hung Hom Station platform. It took the Government two months (i.e. 60 days) to react. As a result, we can see from the two incidents on 2 June and 23 July that we cannot simply rely on the Government and MTRCL to monitor the construction works. It is absolutely not enough, even though the Commission has been set up.

Therefore, the Legislative Council should invoke P&P Ordinance to initiate a further inquiry into the SCL scandal, in order to find out the causes for the failure of the MTRCL management to report construction blunders and even their deliberate concealment having become a norm or malpractice. Only through finding out such causes can we avoid repeating the same mistakes in future. While there are serious problems with MTRCL's governance, it can be seen that there are also plenty of loopholes in the Government's supervision.

Secretary Frank CHAN, even though some MTRCL's management personnel have quitted, such a remedy is still not enough. Sending a few people away does not guarantee that MTRCL will make sufficient efforts at carrying out institutional reforms to prevent the same grave mistakes from recurring in future when undertaking large-scale works projects and transport infrastructure projects.

The incident involves the overall internal management structure of SCL and there exist structural problems in the management as the responsibilities have been contracted out from top to bottom. In this SCL scandal, has the consultancy commissioned by HyD regularly sent its staff to monitor the works progress on the SCL sites and examine the quality or actual situation of the works? Did the consultancy notify HyD immediately upon discovering irregularities in the works?

Secretary, we still do not know at this moment whether the Commission set up by the Government would look into and review the internal management structure of the SCL Project. We know very little about it and have doubts over this point. We hence request to set up a select committee under P&P Ordinance to carry out a further investigation.

1152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Therefore, if the two motions are passed and a select committee comprising of Legislative Council Members is set up, the conduct of an in-depth investigation into the serious settlement of buildings in the vicinity of the To Kwa Wan Station site will certainly be the very first step to take. The ultimate goal of the select committee is to carry out a thorough investigation into the works relating to the whole SCL Project, including the 10 stations of SCL as well as the related tunnel and viaduct works.

In addition, the tendering process of SCL will also be a subject to be investigated by the select committee to examine whether proper arrangement was in place. It is because the Transport and Housing Bureau has never disclosed the relationship between the Government and Leighton, neither has it mentioned how the Government can, being the owner of the Project, pursue a claim against Leighton.

For a very long time in the past, some media which have been keeping a watchful eye on the SCL scandal have repeatedly made enquiries about the issue but no clear explanation has ever been tendered by the Government. The Commission appointed by the Government has not carried out an investigation in this direction either. For this reason, the pro-democracy Members have proposed the setting up of a select committee to examine if MTRCL's Board of Directors has effectively fulfilled its statutory and contractual responsibilities, as well as whether the mechanisms for reporting, mitigating and rectifying irregularities and non-compliant works are sufficient and effective.

When the select committee of the Legislative Council conducts its inquiry, it will focus on whether there is good governance and value for money in the works projects. The investigation will even cover the internal management structure of SCL. There will be no overlapping with the functions of the Commission set up by the Government or even the criminal investigation undertaken by the Police. Just now the Secretary said that a select committee would be superfluous, but it is crystal clear that there is actually no overlapping. We hope that our select committee will do a better job than the one set up by the Government, in the sense that it will conduct its inquiry in a comprehensive manner and make more constructive recommendations, thereby preventing incidents similar to the SCL scandal from recurring.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1153

Being the people's representatives, we Legislative Council Members can exercise the statutory power to investigate the construction blunders of the SCL Project to uncover the whole truth. By giving the public a clear account, the sole purpose is to prevent the Government from committing the same mistakes again when taking forward large-scale infrastructure projects or transport infrastructure projects in future.

I hope the pro-establishment and pro-Government Members, particularly those representing the Kowloon West Constituency or even the New Territories East Constituency, can give it some serious thoughts. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ms Starry LEE and Mr Vincent CHENG told the residents that they attached great importance to the settlement of buildings in To Kwa Wan during their visits to the districts. However, when it comes to voting to enable the Legislative Council to perform its duties, and to exercise its power to investigate the reasons leading to the SCL scandal, I call on them not to leave the Chamber and not to vote against the motions. Doing solid work for the public is our bounden duty. I therefore support the motions of invoking P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee to investigate the whole SCL incident (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, please stop speaking at once.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr Gary FAN was right in saying that Members should do solid work. In my following speech, I mainly wish to respond to the occurrence of settlement in 20-odd buildings near the To Kwa Wan Station relating to Ms Claudia MO's motion.

I remember that when we received news about settlement having occurred in some 20 buildings, I was really shocked. Why had this matter never come to our knowledge? How could the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") make no announcement when settlement had occurred in 20-odd buildings? Even the District Council ("DC") did not know this, and they felt very angry. Members of the Kowloon City DC said they had held meetings with MTRCL and the Highways Department ("HyD") in 2016 and 2017. The last meeting was held in July 2017―sorry, they also had a meeting in 2018. At the meetings, they still maintained that there was no problem and everything was normal, but actually settlement had already taken place at that time. Why did MTRCL not tell them the truth at the DC meeting? This is one question. Were the public officers 1154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 assigned to the meeting unaware of this matter? It was impossible. On this point, I hope the authorities can make improvement. If HyD discovers any new problems in the course of works implementation in various districts, it must report such problems to the DCs in a timely manner so that the DC members will have knowledge of the relevant matters. They had indeed been kept in the dark and came to learn about this matter out of the blue. I think this incident has infuriated members of the DC covering To Kwa Wan.

Now that we have known the problem, how should we deal with it? Being a member of the pro-establishment camp, I will not hasten to openly criticize the Government of being useless, deliberately concealing the matter and blatantly deceiving the public, with the malicious wish that safety problems will emerge from the settlement of the buildings. I will not acquit myself with such an attitude. On the contrary, I will think from the angle of members of the public about what I should do if I were a local resident living in a building where settlement has unfortunately occurred. I would certainly wonder whether the gas pipes would explode because the building would tilt upon settlement. If the gas pipes became loose, an explosion might happen. Moreover, I would think about building safety. If the settlement continued, would the whole building collapse? I would feel frightened. In that case, being a Legislative Council Member, I consider it our due responsibility to immediately find answers to the questions about which they feel concerned.

I contacted various organizations to make enquiries here and there, and received different replies on and off. For example, the Towngas said there was no need to worry. The monitoring data of three gas pipe monitoring points was found to have reached the set thresholds, and the relevant pipes affected by settlement have already been replaced. Now everything is back to normal. Moreover, the pipes used by the Towngas as replacement are of higher elasticity. Hence, we need not worry. Besides, the Buildings Department sent its officers to inspect the safety level of those 23 buildings and issued a statement indicating that it did not see any structural safety problem. According to MTRCL, the works near the To Kwa Wan Station have been completed. Now the rate of settlement of buildings and underground utilities has stabilized. That means no more settlement will emerge. Having checked and confirmed that the relevant tilting ratios or all such levels can meet the requirements now, they guarantee that building safety has not been affected.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1155

Although building safety is not in jeopardy now, some members of the public feel concerned about what they should do if any problems, damage or other circumstances arise later. MTRCL has provided some notarial documents, adding that if any problem appears in those buildings, the notary will send its staff to conduct inspections. After inspecting a number of flats, the notary has certified that all the problems are unrelated to MTRCL. Are all the problems really unrelated to MTRCL? MTRCL is conducting such a large-scale works project next to those residential buildings, doing piling every day. Is it really unrelated? Hence, not readily believing any side, I personally found different relevant engineers and went to the affected areas with them several times, visiting all the buildings along the line. If settlement, cracks or any safety problem which might be related to MTRCL had appeared in a building, I would lead the engineers to conduct an inspection and take photos all over the place. We also conducted inspections inside the buildings. We even used magnifying glasses to look at the cracks closely and took photos. We found that many cracks were actually caused by problems of concrete.

That said, during my discussion with MTRCL, I stated that before the commencement of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") Project, those buildings were in good shape without any concrete problem. But after the commencement of the SCL Project, the concrete problem was observed. MTRCL said this had nothing to do with the project. I actually do not agree. I still hold that the two are somehow related. For this reason, during my discussion with MTRCL, I said that given the occurrence of this incident and the impact of the project on society, I hoped MTRCL would assume its social responsibility. In fact, every large enterprise has its social responsibility.

In the past, many local residents complained to me that buildings were being constructed next to their homes, and piling on the site had caused concrete spalling inside their flats. Then I went for an inspection and found that it was really the case. The concrete spalled off like snowflakes. Can we say that piling on the site nearby had nothing to do with this? We cannot say so. It was somehow related. We thus relayed our views to the construction company and the developer. Do not ever think that it is not related at all. President, do you know what they did? They sent someone to help the residents fix the place in the first instance, mending and repairing the parts which warranted such works. Then after a certain period, members of the public found that everything was back to normal, so they could rest assured.

1156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

President, being a Member, I would only think about sharing the people's urgent concern and how to help them resolve problems. I would not hold the microphone in my hand every day, telling people far and near that their buildings are very dangerous and may collapse anytime. Consequently, now members of the public can neither sell nor rent out their flats. Those people are happy now, are they not? Do Members know how miserable many members of the public actually are? They said if their buildings were indeed going to collapse soon, we had better ask MTRCL to acquire the whole buildings as soon as possible. But this is not what is happening now. MTRCL has already released a safety report. Now some members of the public still hold some doubts. For this reason, I have told MTRCL that I hope they can do two things. Firstly, I request that in respect of each building and each flat, if residents are worried about building safety, MTRCL should issue a document certifying the structural safety of their building. This can at least make the residents feel assured.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, this Council is now debating whether the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance should be invoked to appoint a select committee to inquire into the incident of land subsidence at SCL, rather than discussing the issues of spalling concrete or building safety. Please come back to the subject of this debate.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): The second point is, as I have said, if members of the public are really worried that such problems as cracks may have emerged in their flats because of the MTR project, I hope MTRCL can take the initiative to help the affected residents carry out maintenance and repairs. Lastly, I hope MTRCL can have more communication with DCs and HyD in future, so as to enhance mutual knowledge and understanding. In my view, everything should be opened up and disclosed to the public. President, at this moment, what members of the public need most is a remedy to fix the matter properly so that they can rest assured, rather than, as stated by Ms Claudia MO, summoning all the officials and relevant parties and then interrogating them as though they are criminals. Now the residents in To Kwa Wan hope most keenly for early commissioning of SCL because they have long suffered from traffic problems. Therefore, President, I do not see how Ms Claudia MO's present proposal on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance can help members of the public. To genuinely help members of the public, we should cater for their needs, resolve their present concerns and ensure that every LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1157 flat is safe. Here let me say in passing that if any members of the public still feel worried, I hope they will contact the office of Dr CHIANG Lai-wan or DC members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. We will definitely help them follow up the matter to the end. I oppose the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO. I so submit.

MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, now we are discussing the motion moved by Ms Claudia MO and the one to be moved by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance"). The motions respectively seek the appointment of a select committee by the Legislative Council to inquire into the issues of land subsidence relating to the works of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") in To Kwa Wan, and matters relating to substandard construction works, alterations to the construction drawings, etc. of SCL.

All along, the public transport system in Hong Kong has been convenient and highly efficient. Commanding international recognition, it is something in which Hongkongers take pride. Regrettably, in the past five months, scandals of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") concerning the cutting of steel reinforcement bars, settlement, etc. in the SCL Project were exposed. Moreover, serious failures in the signalling systems of the railway lines have occurred one after another, making members of the public feel worried and angry and even develop a crisis of confidence in the reliability and safety protection of MTRCL.

President, Hong Kong's railway network covers an extensive area. In making planning on new development areas, the Government lays emphasis on the railway as the backbone of public transport. To a large extent, Hongkongers, no matter whether they live on Hong Kong Island, in Kowloon or in the New Territories, need to commute by the Mass Transit Railway ("MTR") every day. In the foreseeable future, Hong Kong's reliance on the railway will only keep increasing. For this reason, the safety and efficiency of the railway is our prime concern. To attain safety and high efficiency, the quality of railway works is critically important.

Since the exposure of the SCL scandal at the end of May this year, the Legislative Council has held a number of special meetings on the incident, which were attended by representatives of the Government, MTRCL and China Technology Corporation Limited. The Subcommittee on Matters Relating to 1158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Railways convened a special meeting in respect of To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station on 6 July, discussed the alleged substandard reinforcement works at Hung Hom Station on 13 July, and deliberated on issues relating to the settlement of buildings and other facilities in the vicinity of construction sites of the SCL Project of MTRCL on 31 August this year. On the same day, the Panel on Transport also held a special meeting to discuss issues relating to the alleged defective reinforcement works at the diaphragm wall and platform slab of the Hung Hom Station Extension of SCL.

In view of such grave blunders of MTRCL, the Government promptly took a decisive action. On 10 July, Chief Executive Carrie LAM announced the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry. Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN, former Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal, and Prof Peter George HANSFORD, Professor of Construction and Infrastructure Policy at University College London in the United Kingdom, were appointed to conduct a comprehensive, objective, in-depth and independent investigation into the works at the Hung Hom Station Extension of SCL. The independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") already commenced its hearing on 22 October. It is expected that the taking of all evidence will be completed by the end of December, and each party will make its final submission in January next year. Finally, a report will be written by the Commission and submitted to the Chief Executive. Moreover, the Government has appointed three senior retired government officials to form the Expert Adviser Team on Shatin to Central Link Project ("the Expert Adviser Team") to assist in reviewing the project management of SCL.

The SCL scandal has exposed loopholes in the monitoring system of large-scale projects. The monitoring efforts of MTRCL were obviously ineffective. The main contractor, Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited, has gone missing and has yet come before the Legislative Council to make an explanation. Even the Government can do nothing about it. Hence, I understand that the purpose of Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting in proposing their motions is to find out the truth.

President, it is only by finding out the truth about the works quality problems of SCL and ascertaining who should be held responsible that we can give an account to members of the public who travel by MTR every day. Now the Commission has commenced its hearing. The Expert Adviser Team appointed by the Government has also submitted an interim report. I believe the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1159 existing mechanism can force MTRCL and various subcontractors to produce more evidence so that the experts can uncover the truth and glean from it the reasons for ineffective monitoring of large-scale projects.

Some Members may refute that the scope of investigation of the Commission is confined to the Hung Hom Station Extension. It is different from the proposal of the two Members which is focused on the investigation into To Kwa Wan Station and other works. In my view, however, regarding the issues of the SCL Project, initially, it was exposed by the media that steel reinforcement bars had allegedly been cut short. Later, there was news about water leakage and settlement of buildings in the vicinity. The incident has kept developing. In addition, now new information is disclosed in the hearing of the Commission every day. Why do we not wait for a while and look at the conclusion of the Commission before deciding whether the Legislative Council needs to set up a select committee to conduct an investigation?

If the Legislative Council invokes P&P Ordinance to conduct an investigation in parallel with the Commission when the latter is yet to draw its conclusion, I am afraid it is not an effective way of making good use of the resources of the Council. President, I am inclined to wait until the Commission has drawn its conclusion. After that, we will see if any puzzles of the SCL Project remain unsolved by that time. Only then should we consider whether to invoke P&P Ordinance to conduct an investigation. For this reason, please pardon me for being unable to support Ms Claudia MO's motion and that of Mr LAM Cheuk-ting at this stage.

President, I so submit.

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, just now I have listened carefully to the speeches of the two Members who are moving motions under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") and the response of Secretary Frank CHAN. The 17-km Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") is a mega railway project in recent years, which involves the construction of 10 stations across a number of districts to form the North South Corridor and the East West Corridor. Its early commissioning is keenly awaited by hundreds of thousands of residents. This railway, solely funded and built by the Government, has been entrusted to the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") after the merger of the Mass Transit Railway Corporation and the 1160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation. President, the construction cost is exceedingly substantial, standing at $97.163 billion.

Today it is really disappointing to see that some works of SCL have to be suspended for an extensive inquiry, and the explanation we heard from the Secretary just now is still far from satisfactory. First of all, as regards the shortened steel reinforcement bars, it seemed that the Government learnt of the incident only because a subcontractor had spilled the beans, triggering an inquiry to be conducted by an independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") appointed by the Government. A long list of accusations against the contractors and subcontractors comes to our ears every day, and meanwhile, the Secretary's explanation for the settlement issues at Exhibition Centre Station and other stations of SCL just now is also far from satisfactory.

First, the Secretary has indicated that the trigger levels are set at a more conservative level, giving us assurances that settlement actually will not reach the critical point at which safety concerns arise. Despite the fears of residents, he maintains that things are going to be fine. Nevertheless, we are also aware of the deviations from the construction drawings for the construction of diaphragm walls. If I have not got it wrong just now, it was the Buildings Department which approved the alterations to the construction drawings. But subsequent to the alterations to the construction drawings in 2016, the deviations of the works from the construction drawings were not discovered until recently. That is why the Hung Hom Station incident and the settlement incidents at other stations of SCL have given people the impression that MTRCL's monitoring of its contractors is ineffective, and the Government's monitoring of MTRCL is also ineffective, leaving the Government with no choice but to appoint the Commission. As reported by the Secretary to us earlier on, the Government has also set up an Expert Adviser Team comprising several retired senior government engineers to supervise the construction of SCL. Hence, we can understand why Honourable colleagues of the Council were boiling with anger when reflecting public outrage and disappointment.

That said, I still cannot support the motions under P&P Ordinance moved by both Honourable colleagues. The President also knows why. Motions moved under P&P Ordinance seeking to inquire into major issues of public concern are not always voted down in the Legislative Council. In the past, at least three inquiries got the green light from a clear majority of Members in the Council: the first one was the substandard piling works case, the second one was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1161 the incident of suspected acceptance of deferred benefits by LEUNG Chin-man, a former senior official who joined the business sector after retirement, and the third one was the Lehman Brothers minibonds incident in which investors suffered losses that took place precisely a decade ago. We should conduct an inquiry when necessary because as pointed out by an Honourable colleague earlier on, the Legislative Council has the function of monitoring the Government.

But the problem is that such inquiries into the irregularities of construction works, deviations of works from construction drawings and safety impacts should really be conducted by parties with expertise, which I believe will be more efficient with much greater accuracy than that conducted by a committee comprising dozens of Members. In addition, President, if an inquiry is to be conducted by the Legislative Council, we do not have much time left in the current four-year term as we are more than two years into it. And even if a committee is to be set up, it will not happen until next year. If we inquire into such construction incidents, I believe MTRCL will definitely enlist the services of Senior Counsel for its defence. By then, the contractor Leighton and its subcontractors will engage counsel, which in turn may just bring more business to such Senior Counsel, turning the Legislative Council into a courtroom where the parties present their cases, and sometimes they will even request that information be submitted in camera.

Hence, I believe the efficiency and effectiveness of a public inquiry conducted by a committee which may comprise 50 of the 70 Members of such a large organ as the Legislative Council will actually pale in comparison to that by an expert team of engineers. For this reason, President, I consider that at this stage, our resources and time simply do not allow a large-scale inquiry. We are very unhappy with the performance of the Government and MTRCL, but insofar as the Hung Hom Station incident is concerned, I think the most effective way is to wait for the findings of the Expert Adviser Team appointed by the Government. As to the settlement incidents of SCL, if I have not got it wrong, the Secretary indicated just now that the Expert Adviser Team appointed by the Government had submitted a report. Under Secretary Dr Raymond SO, is that correct? I hope the Government may advise us in its response later on when the next report will be available. When will the Expert Adviser Team complete its report on the settlement incidents? When will it give an account to the Legislative Council, so that we may have the opportunity to ask the professionals about their safety assessment of stations other than Hung Hom Station of SCL? 1162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

I consider that compared with an inquiry conducted by the Legislative Council by invoking P&P Ordinance―even if it offers members of the public the opportunity to vent their spleen―an independent inquiry conducted by experts is far more effective.

Hence, President, the New People's Party will not support the two motions under P&P Ordinance.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the subject matter of this debate is related to the motions proposed by Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting respectively to request that the Legislative Council appoint a select committee to conduct relevant inquiries according to the powers conferred on it by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance").

Ms Claudia MO requested that an inquiry be conducted into the incident of serious settlement of buildings near the construction site of To Kwa Wan Station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), and whether the incident involved ineffective monitoring by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and their deliberate concealment of the land settlement problem, and other related matters. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting requested that an inquiry be conducted into matters relating to MTRCL's alleged concealment of the substandard construction works and alternations to the construction drawings of SCL, alleged failure to suspend the construction works and notify the public when the settlement of some monitoring points is found to have exceeded the pre-set trigger levels during the construction of eight stations along SCL, and subsequent proposal of relaxing the pre-set trigger levels for temporary suspension of works of the monitoring points near the construction site of the Exhibition Centre Station of SCL, and other related matters.

Since the subject matters of the motions proposed by Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting respectively are both related to SCL, I believe it is appropriate of the President in deciding to conduct a joint debate on the two motions. However, I must stress that I consider it inappropriate of Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting to move these two motions at this stage, still less are they worthy of our support.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1163

President, today marks the fourth occasion on which the non-establishment camp has requested the Legislative Council to invoke P&P Ordinance to inquire into matters related to SCL. There are 10 stations in total under the SCL Project and SCL's catchment area covers Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, so it is a project involving quite an extensive scope. I believe nobody dares guarantee that no new problems would arise after the end of the debate today. However, I can almost assert that in that event, it is highly likely some Honourable colleagues will propose motions to request again that the "imperial sword" of the Legislative Council be wielded. In that event, the dignified Legislative Council of Hong Kong will revolve around MTRCL, or even just around the specific issues of a certain infrastructure project and there will be interminable wranglings. I believe this is not in the overall interest of Hong Kong, nor does the general public wish to see such a situation.

President, since the problems related to the construction works at the Hung Hom Station Extension of SCL are related to public safety and have aroused widespread concern in society, the SAR Government is also keenly concerned about them. On 12 June, the Chief Executive. Mrs Carrie LAM, decided to establish a Commission of Inquiry in accordance with the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance (Cap. 86) to look into the incident thoroughly. On 10 July, the Chief Executive in Council formally appointed a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into the steel reinforcement fixing works and any other works which raise concerns about public safety in respect of the diaphragm wall and platform slab construction works at the Hung Hom Station Extension under the SCL Project implemented by MTRCL. The Commission will also make recommendations on suitable measures with a view to promoting public safety and assurance on the quality of works. The Government has also appointed an Expert Adviser Team comprising of several retired heads of departments to examine the technical aspect of the relevant works and make recommendations.

Concerning the Government's decision to establish the independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission"), Members of various political parties and groupings in the Legislative Council expressed their rare unanimous agreement and support, since the status of the Commission is extraordinary. First of all, it is a statutory Commission of Inquiry established in accordance with the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance. The inquiry is deemed as judicial proceedings and the Commission has the statutory power to summon any person to give evidence or to produce any article or document, so it is a veritable "sharp-toothed tiger".

1164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Second, Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN, former Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal, has been appointed Chairman and Commissioner of the Commission, and Prof Peter George HANSFORD, Professor of Construction and Infrastructure Policy at University College London, has been appointed as Commissioner. The professional qualifications and experience of these two persons are indisputable. In 2014, the Government established an Independent Expert Panel to examine the project management systems and cost control mechanisms of MTRCL in overseeing the project of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and the monitoring processes of the Government. Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN was the Chairman and Prof HANSFORD was one of the experts on the Panel. Both are thus very familiar with the implementation of railway projects in Hong Kong under the concession approach.

In addition, although the Commission was established for the problems with construction works of the Hung Hom Station, the terms of reference of the Commission includes reviewing the adequacy of MTRCL's project management and supervision system, quality assurance and quality control system, risk management system, site supervision and control system and processes, system on reporting to Government, system and processes for communication internally and with various stakeholders, and any other related systems, processes and practices, the extent and adequacy of the monitoring and control mechanisms of the Government, and also making recommendations on suitable measures with a view to promoting public safety and assurance on quality of works. This is important and significant in preventing the recurrence of similar incidents as far as possible in future.

President, the Commission will report to the Chief Executive within six months from the date of its appointment or such time as the Chief Executive in Council may allow. After several months of preparations, including collecting documents and information from various parties, the Commission formally commenced its inquiry on 22 October. What equally aroused the concern of various sectors in society was the fact that on the first day of the inquiry, the Senior Counsel representing the Commission, Mr Ian PENNICOTT, pointed out in his introductory remarks that the Commission constantly monitors the coverage by the press and other media outlets. He cited the name of a newspaper, saying that in recent days, there had been a number of newspaper reports based on some of the information believed to be related to the inquiry, including emails and photographic materials. All parties concerned were reminded that the inquiry is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1165 deemed to be judicial proceedings and the relevant information could only be used in the inquiry and that dissemination of any such information to third parties is unlawful and constitutes contempt unless they have been disclosed in the inquiry. He also stressed that the Commission would make its determinations and recommendations in due course after examining all evidence and that it pays no attention and has no regard for any media reports that amount to sensationalism and are taken out of context. I believe the Commission has demonstrated an attitude of objectivity and impartiality and it is only by doing so that the outcomes of the inquiry will be convincing. Various sectors of the community should give the Commission an appropriate amount of time and room to complete its inquiry and come up with constructive recommendations within the proposed time limit, then take corresponding follow-up actions according to the report submitted by the Commission.

The most important issue and focus of concern is: Be it the SAR Government, in its role as the supervisor, or the MTRCL, as the project manager of the SCL Project, must both ensure that the quality of the project is not affected and that public interests and safety are the prime considerations. If irregularities are detected, they must be dealt with solemnly, including referring them to law enforcement agencies for investigation.

President, land settlement is attributable to natural or human causes. If the construction works involve such processes as excavation, it is necessary to monitor settlement. Even if the settlement at some monitoring points is found to have exceeded the trigger level, it does not necessarily mean that there is danger, rather, it is necessary to carry out analyses and take follow-up actions. Stringent monitoring of settlement has long since been carried out on works processes involving the excavation of foundations in Hong Kong and such monitoring is carried out mainly in three areas, that is, building structure, buried utilities and ground surface. I believe the works departments of the Government and utilities companies all carry out their respective monitoring and no neglect will be condoned.

The established mechanism is also adopted in the monitoring of settlement in the works of SCL. At present, the relevant departments and companies have not detected any unsafe condition. On the issue of the settlement near To Kwa Wan Station of SCL having exceeded the trigger level, I approached the Director of Buildings for more information and learnt that his department had immediately inspected the 23 buildings in the vicinity of To Kwa Wan Station and the results 1166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 indicate that they are safe. The Director also undertook to continue to follow and monitor this matter closely, so I believe this is a responsible attitude.

If property owners feel concerned about building safety, MTRCL will also arrange for a claims adjuster to carry out assessments and the report will be handed to the property owners concerned direct. I have also communicated with the Towngas and the condition of the gas pipes near the To Kwa Wan Station was explained to me. The results of inspections indicated that they were safe and they would be closely monitored on a continued basis. Moreover, the materials used and the design of the pipes nowadays were also more flexible. As regards other public utilities, such as the water supply and electricity supply systems and roads, there are also corresponding departments or companies responsible for monitoring them.

The excavation works at the Exhibition Centre Station of SCL have resumed after being suspended for more than one and a half months due to the problem of settlement. The Government has a scientific and prudent approach for monitoring and controlling settlement. Ever since Mass Transit Railway projects were carried out in Hong Kong in the 1970s, no safety problems resulting from settlement have ever arisen. The Buildings Department, the Highways Department, the Water Supplies Department and the Towngas all have the responsibility for monitoring the effects of settlement on their respective facilities and public safety and MTRCL is not the only party involved. The Government, in agreeing to MTRCL's revision of some of the upper trigger levels for some monitoring points at the construction sites of the Exhibition Centre Station, must have considered the structural safety of the surrounding buildings and the conditions of public utilities, as well as doing some prudent and scientific calculations. In view of this, on the one hand, we have to ensure that MTRCL is open, transparent, frank and sincere to the Government; and on the other, we should not arouse the concern of local communities unduly.

President, it is certainly our duty to look into the various problems with the works of SCL and learn lessons from them, as well as ensuring sufficient transparency in incidents involving works safety, so as to assert the right of the public to know. However, as I have stressed repeatedly, these engineering issues are professional issues of enormous technical content, so they are not readily comprehensible by the general public. We must refrain from making speculations or allegations based on fragments of information and even believe in groundless gossips, thus spreading error and falsehood. Rather, we should hand LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1167 the problems over to qualified professionals for action. Otherwise, unnecessary panic among the public may be aroused and the reputation of the construction industry in Hong Kong built up over the years will also be seriously undermined.

President, in these circumstances, if the legislature invokes P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry into these matters, as proposed in the respective motions of Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, I am afraid this would only politicize the engineering issues. At the present stage, doing so may even affect the work of the Commission but will not help solve the problems.

President, both the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong and I do not support Ms Claudia MO's and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's respective motions because they are neither necessary nor appropriate at this stage, and will not help solve the problems.

President, I so submit.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to make a declaration, that I am an employee of a company hired by the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") as auditor, but I am not engaged in any work relating to MTRCL.

President, MTRCL has been making blunders in recent years non-stop, and the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") is the hardest hit area, greatly enraging people. In sum, MTRCL and the Government have made at least four major mistakes in the SCL Project: ineffective monitoring, concealment of settlement, recurrent cost overruns and indefinite date of commissioning, which are all grave mistakes. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") feels completely disappointed with MTRCL's performance in managing the SCL Project. The actions of MTRCL are unacceptable and fail to meet people's expectations, for which MTRCL should bear full responsibility. In this connection, DAB strongly condemns MTRCL and requests that the Government thoroughly pursue the accountability of MTRCL.

Renowned for its safety and reliability, the Mass Transit Railway has always been regarded as a world-class railway system and MTRCL is well known for its railway operation and management. However, recently it has been discovered that steel reinforcement bars have been cut short in the construction 1168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 works of the Hung Hom Station, followed by the walls in this Exhibition Centre Station and the To Kwa Wan Station being removed, the settlement of a number of stations along the entire line being found to have exceeded the upper limit, even the deformation of gas pipes as a result of the settlement and thus the need for replacement. All shows that the blunders are not isolated incidents, but most likely systemic problems have arisen.

What has enraged the people more is that, before the series of incidents were exposed, the senior management of MTRCL and even the regulating government departments had all been kept in the dark. For example, when Chairman Frederick MA was asked by a reporter earlier if the MTRCL management "could not do anything about" the contractor, Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton"), he answered "yes", much to our surprise. Moreover, the Secretary also stated that, in response to Members' questions, he learnt about the problem only from reading the news. It demonstrates categorically the deficiencies of MTRCL and the Government in terms of works quality, works supervision and the reporting mechanism.

President, other than ineffective monitoring, the second problem is the concealment of settlement. In addition to the quality of works and supervision being not up to par, we find the attitude of the MTRCL management in dealing with the problems even more disappointing. After the blunders, instead of being sincere and honest to make reviews and improvements, they concealed the matter until it was exposed by the media. And in their subsequent responses to the incident, they evaded the key questions but dwelled on trivial matters. For example, during the construction of the SCL Project, many residents in the vicinity of the construction site of the To Kwa Wan Station discovered cracks in their housing units. They made complaints to MTRCL but were given the reply that the cracks were results of ageing of the buildings or repairs carried by residents on their own. In other words, the appearance of the cracks was not related to MTRCL. In addition, the District Council ("DC") found out that papers submitted to the District Council Working Group on SCL all indicated normal conditions of settlement, rendering people exceptionally furious when the press exposed the excessive settlement occurring in the SCL Project. It is certain that MTRCL has deliberately concealed the incident from DC and people, causing public confidence in MTRCL to hit rock bottom.

The third mistake is cost overruns. I believe the SCL Project is likely the most expensive single railway project thus far. Though a high construction cost is not what people wish for, there are a number of reasons for it. I remember LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1169 that the first reason for cost overruns was the discovery of a monument on the construction site. Then bombs were found on the site. And unexpectedly these monitoring problems have now arisen as well. I believe the final bill of the project will be astronomical. The high construction cost is one thing, but it is unanticipated that, in addition to an expensive price tag, so many problems have emerged. The Legislative Council may face pressure to approve supplementary provision in future. I hereby request that, during this period of time, the Special Administrative Region Government must carry out examinations to ascertain if such cost overruns are unclear and dubious, which part should be borne by MTRCL and which part should not be met by taxpayers. The Government should clearly figure them out so as not to let taxpayers readily bear such cost overruns.

The fourth mistake is the indefinite date of commissioning. As a matter of fact, SCL has been under construction for a long time. I am also a member of the DC where the construction site is located. The general public have indeed been waiting for a long time; yet problems in the SCL Project can be regarded as surfacing one after another. As I have just mentioned, on the construction site, first a monument was found, followed by wartime bombs. The original plan was that it would be commissioned next year. In the light of the myriad of problems now, I have repeatedly enquired with the government departments and people have also asked me the date many times, and yet there is no answer. Since the incident was exposed, what exactly has the Government done? Nevertheless, the Government ought to tell people the expected date of commissioning. Now several lanes on Ma Tau Wai Road are still closed. In the course of construction, people have been subjected to a great deal of disturbances. Coupled with the series of problems in works quality that have now arisen, people are truly concerned. I hope the Secretary can give an actual expected date of commissioning in his reply to be given shortly.

President, in the face of a series of problems in the SCL Project, we have been actively following them up. In our view, apart from pursuing responsibility, it is more important to address the people's most pressing demands.

First, we request an independent inquiry. Indeed, as early as it was uncovered that steel reinforcement bars in Hung Hom Station were cut short, Members of DAB, myself included, immediately lined up a meeting with Secretary Frank CHAN and requested that an independent commission of inquiry 1170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 chaired by a Judge be set up to conduct a thorough inquiry into the incident and summon engineering personnel of the contractors and subcontractors to ascertain responsibility, for the reason that we consider a commission of inquiry chaired by a Judge more professional and credible. Recently, the Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") chaired by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN has started conducting hearings. Every day, people are eager to learn the inquiry progress like binge watching television dramas. The Commission is expected to complete the inquiry report in six months' time. We consider that the Government should find ways to facilitate the Commission in completing its inquiry and publishing the report expeditiously. We also hold that should other systemic problems, including those in To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station, be identified during the inquiry, no further delay should be allowed and an inquiry into the stations in question should commence immediately.

Second, it is more important to ensure safety. Since the incident of excessive settlement was exposed, apart from pursuing responsibility and requesting the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry, we immediately requested that the Government deploy personnel to inspect the safety of the project in various aspects to assure people, rather than only shouting on the street every day about the great danger arising from settlement of buildings. Helping people solve the problem is the most important task. Just as a number of Members have stated, the To Kwa Wan Station is one of the hardest hit areas because there are more old buildings. Eventually, after many endeavours, the authorities undertook to send personnel to ascertain the structural safety of the affected buildings and have already carried out a number of inspections. Representatives of MTRCL and the Towngas have also answered questions from people in DC and residents' meetings on many occasions. However, I hope the authorities can understand that such problems will not simply come to an end as such because after commissioning―though it has been delayed but SCL will be commissioned one day―a new round of settlement may occur. The reason is that the service of SCL will have commenced and trains will run continuously underground. Therefore, people request that the authorities maintain monitoring of the settlement problem for at least three years after commissioning and that MTRCL provides warranty for the SCL Project for a minimum of three years. I hope the Secretary will give positive responses to such issues that are of great concern to people so as to make them better rest assured.

The third thing the Government and MTRCL need to do is to undertake to make compensations. President, as I have stated, during the implementation of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1171 the SCL Project, many residents had found cracks on the walls in their flats, and every time they made a complaint to MTRCL, their case would be passed to the loss adjuster of MTRCL which would then give a response. And typically the response is that as the building is old and the cracks are a result of individual repairs carried out by the residents, the Corporation would not be responsible for them. When excessive settlement was reported, residents became more worried. Therefore, previously in the meeting of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways, I requested the senior management of MTRCL to consider the actual effects of the settlement on the residents of the district and make concrete compensations. To my knowledge, the deliberation on this matter by MTRCL has reached the final stage and it is actively considering providing assistance to residents to this end. I hope people concerned about this matter or those in need will continue to contact our offices. In this regard, we have never ceased our follow-ups and have been helping people to solve problems.

The fourth point is certainly to continue to thoroughly pursue the accountability of MTRCL. Such a series of problems in the SCL Project all serve to expose the Government's inadequate monitoring of major infrastructure projects, particularly monitoring of contractors. Also, the roles of MTRCL and the contractors in terms of project monitoring need to be rationalized. In fact, government departments ought to follow up on a whole host of matters. The Government owns more than 70% of the shares of MTRCL but it seems that it is completely unable to perform proper monitoring of it. We cannot allow such a situation to persist. What problems have arisen? The incident took place a while ago and what has the Government done exactly? We believe the Government needs to give an account to the people. More importantly, we have earlier proposed to the Government that if the inquiry proves that MTRCL needs to assume responsibility―people generally think so―the Government must deduct a corresponding amount from the project management fee payable to MTRCL, and if the senior management of MTRCL is to be held responsible, their remuneration should be adjusted accordingly.

President, next I will discuss whether the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") should be invoked so that the Legislative Council will appoint a select committee to inquire into the problems relating to the construction works. Indeed, it is not the first time that such a motion against MTRCL is proposed, neither do I think it will be the last. The performance of MTRCL has truly disappointed people, but our stance on invoking P&P Ordinance is the same. We consider an inquiry not the work of 1172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 the Legislative Council, and as the matters to be inquired into are technical in nature, the more appropriate way is to let a commission of inquiry chaired by a Judge to take charge of it. Such a commission of inquiry has the power to carry out legal procedures and will be assisted by experts to find out the truth. Therefore, we hope the Commission can speed up its work and complete the report as soon as possible. After the report is made public, we will continue to monitor the problems. Of course, we will also continue to follow up when necessary.

Meanwhile, we also understand that the Commission presently chaired by the Judge is working at full steam, and the Police are conducting a criminal investigation in tandem. As a matter of fact, while the authorities should spare no effort in facilitating various investigations, as I have just said, people expect the Government to continue to follow up on many other issues and give regular updates, such as the safety level of SCL, compensation made to affected residents in the vicinity of the works sites, the date of commissioning and even the lessons learnt from the incident and how to improve the governance of MTRCL, etc. I think people are hugely concerned about all of these issues. I hope the Government will give a response later on so that people will have better knowledge of the present situation.

President, I so submit.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, this is the fourth time that Members propose to invoke the powers under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") to inquire into the scandal relating to the works of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"). Strictly speaking, it is actually the fifth time because a joint debate is being conducted today on the motions proposed by Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting. The Civic Party will certainly support the motions proposed by the two Honourable colleagues.

The motions of the two Honourable colleagues both focus on the settlement of nearby buildings caused by SCL works. The difference between this time and the three previous occasions on which Members sought to invoke the powers under P&P Ordinance is that previously we sought to inquire into the problems of the works inside SCL stations, in order to find out and correct the mistakes made LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1173 through detailed diagnosis before commissioning, so as to protect the personal safety of passengers in the future and MTR staff who will work long hours in SCL stations.

President, it is different this time around. The two motions propose to inquire into the settlement by invoking the powers under P&P Ordinance as the quality issues of SCL have extended from problems of the works, the railway and the underground stations to livelihood issues above ground. That is to say, even if I am not a potential passenger of SCL and that I will not take SCL after commissioning regardless of how convenient it is, the works have already caused cracks on the walls in my home, led to settlement in my workplace and put me in a constant state of anxiety, worries and fear.

President, the some 20 buildings in To Kwa Wan are undoubtedly affected by the settlement. Apart from that, many people, who may not take SCL, visit or work daily in the Convention and Exhibition Centre near the Legislative Council, the Fleet Arcade at the Fenwick Pier and the Hong Kong Coliseum on the other side of the harbour that we can see. Hong Kong people used to be confident about our public works and trust our public organizations. Why should they bear the consequences of the fear brewed by an engineering company which changed the plans arbitrarily, government departments which did not stop the works despite excessive settlement, and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") which was found to have failed to make reports repeatedly?

President, in fact, most pro-establishment Members in the Council today are also dissatisfied with MTRCL. They are also dissatisfied with the problems arising from this works project and even wish to pursue responsibility. It can thus be seen that the reactions aroused this time are not merely political. Instead, the issue is deep-rooted and involves a subject of concern to most Hong Kong people.

Ms Starry LEE and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan both made a good point just now. They are very concerned about the residents and urged the residents to approach them if anything happens. This is indeed the duty of Members. However, I should remind everyone that they are not social workers. They are here not to help residents solve problems and address their concerns only. As Members, apart from solving problems, we have a further duty to find out the truth and seek justice for the public.

1174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

I certainly know that the Commission has been established which I firmly trust is capable of acting as our gatekeeper professionally, fairly and openly. However, does that run contrary to the Legislative Council performing its functions? Does that mean Legislative Council Members should just sit there with folded arms and do nothing? Of course not, President. We are not current affairs commentators who can call it a day after expressing our opinions here. We have a constitutional duty conferred by the law. Why do we not discharge it? Some Members said it is because we do not have the professional knowledge. If that is the case, under what circumstances are we qualified to establish a select committee to conduct an inquiry?

As mentioned by Mrs Regina IP just now, the Legislative Council has set up select committees to inquire into matters on several occasions in the past. Were we incompetent and unable to prove to the public that the Legislative Council was fair in those inquiries? I believe no one will say so. Mrs Regina IP did not mention the inquiry into the "West Kowloon-gate" incident involving LEUNG Chun-ying by the Legislative Council in 2012. Did the Legislative Council do an unprofessional job on that occasion? I do not think so. As such, why do we not have more confidence in our Honourable colleagues? Why do we not discharge the due duties and functions conferred on us by the Council and the system in order to live up to public expectations?

President, this is the fourth time that we propose to invoke the powers under P&P Ordinance to inquire into the matters related to SCL. Why did the pro-democracy camp make this proposal time and again? We have failed three times, why are we so persistent in proposing to invoke P&P Ordinance? Why do we wish to get involved when the Commission set up by the Government has already commenced its inquiry? As I already mentioned just now, it is our constitutional duty. We are certainly concerned about the residents and duty-bound to extend sympathy to them. However, I wish to emphasize once again that we do have another noble duty, and that is, to find out the truth for Hong Kong people. We are duty-bound to request MTRCL, Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton") and government departments to give an open account of the details in the Council.

As a matter of fact, I believe Members have many questions that they want to ask MTRCL and Leighton direct. So why do we not give Members the opportunity? As the mouthpiece for the people, is it not our priority task to question relevant parties directly on behalf of the people?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1175

President, I would like to point out in particular that, although I do not agree with excessive reliance on the railway, the impact of the simultaneous breakdown of four MTR lines in the morning on 16 October shows that the railway does dominate the lives of Hong Kong people to a very large extent. As I have said, residents along SCL are indeed longing for this railway, but I believe they actually want a railway that is safe and up to Hong Kong standards. Honourable colleagues who voted against the motions on the three previous occasions still have two more chances today. I hope Members can see clearly the public grievances and the concerns of Hong Kong people after the summer recess. I believe after pondering and reflection, they will do Hong Kong people justice in today's votes. I support the motions of the two Members.

I so submit.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link was commissioned on 23 September. While there is still room for improvement in the ticketing and baggage arrangements, the overall operation has been pretty smooth. Particularly, the co-location clearance arrangement, which attracted quite a lot of controversies, has been implemented in order so far. The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, another infrastructure project which plays a critical role in the development of Hong Kong and even the entire Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, was also commissioned recently, though the connecting roads are yet to be fully completed. The consecutive commissioning of two large-scale transport infrastructure projects in two months is indeed a most significant milestone.

Unfortunately, the construction of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), being one of the 10 Major Infrastructure Projects proposed years ago, has been beset with difficulties. One can even say that the SCL Project has met various setbacks and obstacles. These include the discovery of historical monuments at the Sung Wong Toi Station site, such that part of the alignment and stations have to be redesigned, thereby causing cost overruns and delays of the Project. A few large bombs were also discovered during the construction but luckily no injuries or deaths were caused.

In this year, problems such as non-compliant works and ground settlement exceeding the trigger levels at the Hung Hom Station, the To Kwa Wan Station and the Exhibition Centre Station were exposed one after another, resulting in the 1176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 partial suspension of some works. Scandals such as the cutting short of steel reinforcement bars, unauthorized alteration of construction drawings and the use of substandard concrete in respect of the extension works at the platform of the Hung Hom Station were exposed successively. As illegal acts might be involved and there are potential safety hazards, the time of commissioning of SCL is yet to be determined. No one wants to see this happen.

The SCL incident has more or less undermined public confidence in the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and the Hong Kong Government in their implementation and monitoring of railway projects. At the same time, it has somewhat dealt a blow to Hong Kong's reputation in terms of our quality of works projects and professional conduct. Representing the public and being a watchdog on the Government, the Legislative Council should proactively follow up this incident and request the Hong Kong Government, MTRCL as well as the contractors concerned to give an account and explanation of the incidents. We should also examine whether it is necessary to work out remedies and how to prevent similar incidents from recurring in future.

Before the summer recess, the Legislative Council held debates on three motions requesting to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") to probe into the SCL incident. When this Council sits again in October, Members have proposed another two motions on SCL in accordance with P&P Ordinance. I reckon there are political considerations inevitably, but it also reflects the public's concern over and discontent with the series of incidents. However, as I said in my speeches on the three motions moved in accordance with P&P Ordinance previously, the Legislative Council is not the most appropriate body to investigate the SCL incident.

The statutory independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") appointed by the Chief Executive, comprising a retired Judge and an international railway engineering expert, is now holding a public hearing on the SCL incident. It is estimated that it will present an investigation report within half a year. MTRCL is also discussing with the Expert Adviser Team appointed by the Government the best way to conduct safety tests of the platform of the Hung Hom Station. They do not rule out the possibility of opening up some concrete for in-depth investigation into the quality of the steel reinforcement bars and concrete therein.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1177

As these matters involve engineering techniques and professional supervision, I believe they should be left to the objective and scientific investigation conducted by independent professionals in a non-politicalized manner. I consider it more appropriate and efficient for the Legislative Council to wait for the Commission and the experts to come up with investigation findings after looking into the causes and effects of the problems, their seriousness and the parties to be held responsible, and examining if there are man-made, institutional or policy problems. They will also explore, if necessary, technical solutions and recommendations for improving the relevant systems. By then we can further follow up the issues, such as considering whether actions should be taken against the relevant parties, including government officials and the senior echelon of MTRCL.

I bet Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting might claim that their motions cover the investigation into settlement problems caused by the SCL Project as well as whether MTRCL and the Hong Kong Government have deliberately concealed the incidents and if there has been dereliction of their monitoring duties, etc. They would insist that a separate investigation is necessary as all these are beyond the Commission's terms of reference.

President, I am not well versed in ground settlement but still I have some points to share. First, it can be said that most of the land in Hong Kong's urban areas was derived from reclamation throughout the years. It is certainly not that abnormal to see ground settlement when large-scale foundation or excavation works are in progress. The most important point is whether the settlement levels have exceeded the safety standards, and whether there is impact on the structure of buildings in the vicinity which will give rise to safety concerns. It was the normal practice in the past that such incidents would not be made public if structural safety was not affected.

Settlement exceeding the pre-set trigger levels was recorded at monitoring points in some of the SCL sites. It might not be unreasonable for the authorities to relax the relevant trigger levels and permit the resumption of construction works after site survey by MTRCL and the professional government departments concerned. If the original trigger levels are applicable to all types of works, locations and sites across the board, such levels are certainly the most rigorous and prudent. That said, are greater settlement levels acceptable for some works and at some locations or sites without causing safety concerns? The conclusion has to be drawn by relevant professionals and experts (including engineers and 1178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 land surveyors) after conducting on-site inspections for subsequent analyses and studies. For instance, railway viaducts and underground tunnels as well as Light Rail stops and tracks built above ground are all railway premises, but the tolerable settlement levels are different among them. Given the complicated, professional and technical nature of these issues, an investigation by the Legislative Council might not be the most appropriate arrangement.

Lastly, I would like to express views on behalf of our industry. Many members of our industry have observed that if the works of private developers have allegedly affected and caused settlement of properties or facilities managed by MTRCL, MTRCL would always demand the contractors concerned to suspend their works immediately even if the impacts are very minor which might not necessarily give rise to safety issues. Yet, I hope MTRCL will apply the same standards on occasions when its works have affected the properties and facilities of other parties, or even the development of its own projects. It should refrain from treating oneself and all others differently. Some surveyors have stated that there are insufficient qualified land surveyors to monitor ground settlement caused by the works of quite a number of large-scale infrastructure projects in Hong Kong. Early detection of problems is thus disabled. It is hoped that the Government and MTRCL can address this problem squarely. President, I so submit.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, as mentioned by a number of Honourable colleagues in their speeches, this is not the first time we propose invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") to investigate the construction works of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), and it does not matter whether Members consider this the fourth time or the fifth time. I trust colleagues from both the democratic camp and the pro-establishment camp are familiar with the arguments advanced during the discussion and the content of Members' speeches will be similar. In view of this, I have decided to play the role of the first speaker or the second speaker of a debate team and I hope Members will not mind me doing so. I will not explain the relevant arguments as Members have already heard a lot about them. I will make an effort at responding to the various arguments presented by colleagues. Will colleagues please pardon me if you feel offended. I hope what I am going to say will be fair.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1179

Just now, I have heard the discussion of a number of Members and I would like to respond to Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's remarks. According to what I have heard, he has put forth three arguments. These arguments have been raised by a number of Members in some measure, and the Secretary may have grown tired of listening to these similar and repetitive remarks. For instance, Ir Dr LO and a number of Members from the pro-establishment camp have mentioned that if we invoke P&P Ordinance to investigate SCL, we are using the "imperial sword" of the Legislative Council, whereas the content of our investigation will overlap with that of the Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") set up by the Government. Hence, they consider this approach inappropriate. In the meantime, some other Members have pointed out that there are limitations with the scope of investigation of the existing Commission. For instance, Ms Starry LEE has pointed out in her speech that there are limitations with the existing Commission―I believe she has no intention to refute the viewpoints of Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok. She said that the scope of investigation is restricted to Contract 1112 of SCL, that is, the extension works at the Hung Hom Station.

Some colleagues from the pro-establishment camp proposed an expansion of the scope of investigation, for the issues mentioned cannot be solved otherwise. However, the Government did not respond to this request. I think Members should think over this seriously, for now the Government even refuses proposals of Members from the pro-establishment camp. It refuses to expand the scope of investigation and merely points out that the Commission should be allowed to be more focused in its work. Since the Government has refused the expansion of the scope of investigation, how can we investigate issues concerning the To Kwa Wan Station and the Exhibition Centre Station? Every time, the Government just gives the same reply, trying to hide behind the Commission and urging Members to wait for the results of the inquiry. Yet, as Mr Tony TSE mentioned earlier, we have to wait at least six months for the results. During these six months, I do not know if other problems will be exposed. Besides, after the six-month wait, we may find out that the results of the inquiry merely cover the Hung Hum Station. By then, will the Government set up another commission of inquiry? I do not know how the Government will deal with other problems found at the To Kwa Wan Station, the Exhibition Centre Station and SCL.

Hence, if we have the choice, should the Legislative Council not take a step forward to start the investigation of other issues earlier than the Government? Since the issues involve many viewpoints and concerns and Members often 1180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 criticize that it is time consuming to conduct an investigation through the setting up of a select committee, it will save us some time if the investigation is started six months earlier. Indeed, the sooner the investigation starts the better. Issues relating to SCL have aroused concerns in society and I think it is very important that we should request the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") to give an account on the case as soon as possible.

The second argument of Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok is also advanced by many Members. It says that the Commission set up by the Government is comprised of a lot of professionals, including academics and lawyers, and we should listen to their professional views first. They query why the Legislative Council should conduct an investigation, doubting if our professionalism is comparable to that of the Commission. In this connection, I must reiterate that the scope of investigation of the Commission is restricted to the Hung Hom Station. Hence, even if the investigation is undertaken by academics and that I trust the professionalism of academics and lawyers, the scope of investigation is still restricted and the advice offered will only be focused on the Hung Hom Station. Can we request the Commission to comment on other issues? Such practice does not fall within the terms of reference of the Commission and they are de facto restricted by the terms of reference.

On the other hand, do Members of the Legislative Council really lack the professionalism? In my view, according to our experience, Members from both the democratic camp and the pro-establishment camp have raised relevant questions at meetings. In terms of professionalism, Ir Dr LO is an engineer. Though only a relatively small number of Members of the current term are engineers, quite a number of them are lawyers. Upon the setting up of a select committee to conduct an investigation, the Legislative Council may summon different witnesses to testify. I think our inadequacy in professionalism may be overcome by summoning different professionals to analyse the issues. At meetings of various committees and during discussions about SCL in the past, Members had put forth very professional views and skillfully applied different materials and legal arguments in posing questions. Hence, we must trust the capabilities and professionalism of Members. Sometimes, it is because we do not trust our professionalism that some people would criticize Members for not knowing what questions they are asking and look down on us. Hence, we have to prove that we can do that. I believe we can do that.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1181

The third argument from Ir Dr LO is that by invoking P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee, we will politicize the incident, which he considers will not help solve the problems. I certainly consider this argument untenable for, based on this argument, we can do nothing. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has also put forth a similar argument, saying she does not see the setting up of a select committee of any help to the public. If that is the case, we may as well see if the Commission set up by the Government will really help the public.

I would like to cite a previous investigation as an example. In 2014, an investigation panel led by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN was set up to investigate the cost overrun and delay of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. I believe Ms Starry LEE will find, in some measure, the answer to the question she pursued just now. I heard her express in her speech her aspiration to having Secretary Frank CHAN give an explanation for the cost overrun of these railway construction works. Frankly, the investigation panel led by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN already examined the relevant problems in 2014. I do not know if the Secretary will quote from that report later, yet I think the Secretary knows full well the course of events leading to the examination back then. Let us come back to the problems concerning SCL. As Ms Starry LEE said, the current construction works will definitely lead to a cost overrun of an astronomical amount. First, there was the discovery of monuments, and then came the unearthing of bombs. After that, a series of problems relating to the construction works were exposed, and since compensation is involved, the amount needed to be paid will be substantial.

Referring to the justifications of the investigation as stated by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN back then, he attributed the cause of the problems to the "concession approach". I wonder how many people have followed up this point. Back then, the investigation panel came to this conclusion and recommended that the Government should improve the institutional arrangement under the concession agreement, as the Government could not prevent cost overruns without doing so. Regarding the background, it is about the approach adopted for the construction of railways in Hong Kong all along. Traditionally, more often than not, the authorities would compensate MTRCL for expenditure incurred in the construction of railways with the rights to property development, which is also called the "ownership approach". This is the reason for a lot of properties on top of MTR stations being owned by MTRCL today. When the Government invited MTRCL to construct railways, it would allow MTRCL to develop residential properties. Yet, later, this practice was challenged by many 1182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 for spurring MTRCL to develop into a real estate kingdom in some measure and leading to some kinds of transfer of benefits. Basically, this is part of the history of transport development in Hong Kong.

Later, I believe for the purpose of avoiding repetition of past mistakes, the Government adopted another approach called the "concession approach", which is the approach queried by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN in the relevant report of the investigation panel. Under this approach, the Government invites MTRCL to construct railways and the Government owns the railways, whereas MTRCL will be granted the service concession on a yearly basis for operating the railways. What issues are subject to query? My view on this is purely hypothetical and it has not been examined in depth: Will MTRCL be slack in carrying out the construction works because the railways are not owned by them but the Government, not its own son, so to speak, and will MTRCL fail to act cautiously in overseeing contractors for the same reason? I do not know if this is the actual case. This is a hypothesis, yet we need to examine this hypothesis and prove if there is such a problem with the approach. However, Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN mentioned that railways were run by MTRCL under the "ownership approach" in the past, and now the "concession approach" is adopted. He also said that MTRCL might have been less cautious in performing its monitoring role under the "concession approach" and had thus resulted in serious cost overruns. The report did not mentioned problems concerning construction works, yet we can see problems with construction works arising in succession nowadays. Should these be attributed to the same cause?

It has been more than four years since Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN presented the report of the investigation panel, what follow-up actions has the Government taken? I have not seen any action taken by the authorities. I only see that history is repeating itself. It is evident in some measure that our earlier remarks are justified. They say it is sufficient for the Government to set up the Commission and the incident will be politicized if the Legislative Council conducts an investigation. First, the handling of these issues is already part of politics, and this is "Politics 101". Second, which is a more important point, we see that the setting up of the Commission by the Government alone may not necessarily solve the problem. As in the case of the report of the investigation panel presented by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN in 2014, I have not seen any follow-up actions taken by the authorities.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1183

Since no follow-up actions have been taken, it reveals the importance for the Legislative Council to invoke P&P Ordinance. We can start the investigation earlier than the Government, make up for the inadequacies of the Commission of the Government and reveal the problems to the public in the first place, as many members of the public are concerned about the incident. A number of Members of the Legislative Council from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong have repeatedly expressed their determination to follow up the issue. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has vehemently expressed her concern that residents affected cannot sell or lease their units and they are left helpless. If she wants to follow up the incident, we should consider other alternatives. Am I right? I apologize for my exaggerated tone just now, which has frightened Dr Priscilla LEUNG. I have no intention to frighten Members. As I heard her speak in this manner earlier, I am just trying to mimic her. I think we can adopt a multi-pronged approach to addressing the issue and get back to the basics, and this is the reason for my supporting invoking P&P Ordinance.

Lastly, it is about the problem of settlement. I think it is definitely a professional issue, and the earlier speech from Mr Tony TSE reflected in some measure the concern raised by the sector, that is, whether the settlement trigger levels can be relaxed. Yet, many Members are worried about that. They query why the trigger levels should be relaxed instead of tightened, for a relaxation of the standard will only result in widespread substandard cases. I have read the readings of various monitoring points carefully. I notice that at certain locations, the settlement has slowed down. However, at some other locations, the settlement continues while the construction works is still going on. How can we handle those cases? After repeated requests of the Legislative Council, the Government eventually agreed to provide the relevant trigger levels. Yet, should the authorities not set up a permanent mechanism for addressing settlement issues? More importantly, we should pursue accountability on the part of MTRCL. If Members have come to the consensus that buildings in To Kwa Wan are really affected by settlement, and that residents may be liable to losses, MTRCL should examine the issue of compensation, should it not? MTRCL has another poor practice and, that is, colluding with loss adjusters. The liability of this incident must be pursued, for this is a very poor practice. How can we allow MTRCL to get away with this?

President, I so submit.

1184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, with regard to the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), it can be said that while a problem has yet been settled, another is poised to arise. I still recall that before the Summer recess, we called for the setting up of a select committee to investigate the problem of reinforcement steel bars and couplers being cut at the platform of Hung Hom Station of SCL of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"). During the past few months, MTRCL disclosed on its own initiative that Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton") had, without notifying the Government, altered the drawings arbitrarily. It was followed by the exposure of unusual settlement at the To Kwa Wan Station and the Exhibition Centre Station of SCL but the Government has turned a blind eye to the crisis and even substantially relaxed the settlement limits. What is more, it has been exposed recently that the contractor had, without permission, altered the drawings of the diaphragm wall at Hung Hom Station and as a result, the reinforcement steel bars connecting the diaphragm wall at the platform were significantly reduced both in length and number. Coupled with the recent exposure of serious settlement caused by the construction works of the Hung Hom Station, all of these incidents are so startling that they can be likened to a drama series, or to a horror or thriller movie. What have been most terrifying are not only MTRCL, the contractor and the Government but also this Legislative Council, and you people are even so shameless as to accuse us of repeatedly proposing invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") to set up a select committee. It is precisely because of your opposition whenever this proposal was made that the ills have snowballed and proliferated.

Various sectors of the community wish to know why MTRCL, being such an experienced mass transport system operator given charge of so many projects before would commit such grave mistakes. Why did MTRCL conceal the problems of the relevant works? Is there anyone in the senior management of MTRCL or even the higher echelons of the Government who should be held responsible for these problems? Did the Government cover up these problems? Is there any problem in the monitoring system of the construction works which made it possible for MTRCL to cover up the relevant works problems? Criticisms of MTRCL and government departments have never ceased and today, I have also listened to the remarks made by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan who spoke in a most righteous, impassioned manner. She said, to this effect, "We must get to the bottom of the matter and conduct a thorough investigation; we must pursue responsibilities and do justice for the public and therefore, I oppose the motions on invocation of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1185 proposed by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Ms Claudia MO." There is just no logic to speak of. So, let me tell members of the public that when they listen to Members' speeches, they must listen to everything they said from beginning to end. Despite that impassioned part of Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's speech when she appeared to be even fiercer than Ms Claudia MO and more anxious than Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, she eventually said that she would not support invocation of P&P Ordinance.

When it comes to who should carry out an investigation, some Members have refrained from talking about it. These Members are still better than those who pretended to be zealous and concerned but who invariably voted against such motions for no reason at all. How can they explain themselves to the public? When it comes to ineffective monitoring by MTRCL and the Government, many pro-establishment Members would shut up; some would make criticisms but after making them, what then? What can they do about them? Then they came to the conclusion that intervention by the Legislative Council was unnecessary and that an investigation should be carried out by the Government independently. In fact, the purpose of this motion today is to discuss whether the Legislative Council should, in tandem with the investigation into the problems of the construction works of Hung Hom Station by the independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") established by the Government, set up a select committee to investigate the contractor, with the scope of investigation covering the alteration of the drawings without permission as well as the occurrence of settlement at a number of SCL stations. I will explain why I support these two motions.

First, the investigation currently conducted by the Commission of the Government does not include the areas of investigation proposed by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Ms Claudia MO. Second, the conduct of an investigation into the reasons and responsibilities for settlement is to sense the urgency of the public. Third, the Government and the senior management of MTRCL may not follow up these incidents seriously, whereas the conduct of an investigation by the Legislative Council is, I think, more objective. Fourth, the Commission is, to a certain extent, no more than a fig leave for the Government, whereas an investigation by a select committee of the Legislative Council can exert greater pressure on the Government, urging it to immediately respond to the various problems concerning SCL. Lastly, I believe the public would have no worries when disclosing information to a select committee of the Legislative Council.

1186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

The scope of investigation of the Commission set up by the Government is far from comprehensive. Actually we already made this point from day one, and this is also why we Members have kept proposing the setting up of committees to conduct investigations into different areas and at different levels. In the last several months, problems have surfaced one after another, such as abnormal settlement caused by SCL in the vicinity of a number of stations. The Commission will only investigate problems relating to the construction works of the Hung Hom Station. But during the past several months, it was first exposed that unusual excessive settlement had occurred persistently at a number of monitoring points in the vicinity of the To Kwa Wan Station, which has seriously affected the structure of the buildings. Subsequently it was further exposed that settlement at Exhibition Centre Station had far exceeded the limit. These occurrences of settlement have pointed to many underlying problems. Why would settlement take place? When did MTRCL learn of it? When did the Government learn of it? Did MTRCL and the Government deliberately cover up the situation of settlement? Who should be held responsible for these occurrences of settlement? These questions are most important. But the Commission established by the Government will not deal with these questions, for its terms of reference is only confined to problems with the construction works of the Hung Hom Station, while members of the ordinary public or even the media cannot carry out any in-depth investigation. Over the past few months, neither the Government nor MTRCL has clearly given an account of everything they know to the public honestly. It is indeed difficult for the public to make government officials and MTRCL's senior management answer questions; nor can this Council do so. Since the Commission cannot investigate the settlement incidents, nor can the public find out the reasons for settlement from the Government and MTRCL direct, the best way to probe into the settlement problem is for the Legislative Council to carry out an investigation, whereby the select committee will summon officials and the senior management of MTRCL to answer Members' questions on the settlement.

Second, we certainly sense the urgency of the public. But some Members are saying that we should wait and see what developments there will be and that we should first look at the results of the inquiry conducted by the Commission, whereas some Members have had themselves "insured" against risks by saying that while they do not support us at this stage, they will make further consideration if the results of the Government's investigation turn out to be unsatisfactory. There may be no urgency for you to take actions but the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1187 residents of Kowloon West are on tenterhooks. As we all know, over the years, MTRCL has committed quite many blunders in its construction works, affecting structures or buildings along the alignments. In the New Territories, for instance, even though the area is mostly made up of agricultural land, the construction works of MTRCL still brought about effects of varying degrees. When the public demanded compensation―Just now Mr AU Nok-hin also highlighted this point but did not analyse it in depth―MTRCL would engage some most partial notaries to assess the liabilities. In the vast majority of cases, despite actual damages caused to the structures or despite the loss of groundwater underneath the agricultural land, thus causing the ponds and farmland to completely dry up, and despite that these are facts, what conclusions were drawn by these notaries? They said that there was nothing to do with the construction works of MTRCL. In the vast majority of cases, the affected residents could not obtain reasonable compensation and worse still, from the perspective of responsibility, no apology was ever tendered. MTRCL said that it had nothing to do with the problems; so did the notaries say.

Regarding the incident of settlement in To Kwa Wan, if the investigation should continue to be carried out by these notaries consistently hired by MTRCL, I could conjecture what the conclusion would be. It would be the same as those made previously. First, the construction works would be said to have caused no obvious impact on the structures despite that cracks appeared on the structures and that the groundwater underneath the agricultural land had all dried up. All these would be said to be unrelated to the construction works. In fact, to those notaries long engaged by MTRCL, for the sake of continuous business opportunities, they certainly dare not offend MTRCL and therefore, seldom had they come to conclusions that were unfavourable to MTRCL. If the residents engage other people on their own to look into their cases, MTRCL would not consider it a fair practice that is not biased in favour of the residents. If the residents resort to legal proceedings, the litigation costs would be exorbitant and in case the Court ruled not in their favour, they would lose their hard-earned money and suffer double losses.

I hope that through a select committee set up by the Legislative Council, we can exercise the powers of the Legislative Council to summon the senior personnel of the Hong Kong Government and MTRCL before the Legislative Council to answer questions on the responsibility for ground settlement, pressing MTRCL to make public the relevant information. I hope that through analysing 1188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 and examining the information, we can find out how the construction works of MTRCL are related to the occurrence of cracks and settlement in the affected buildings, especially those inhabited by members of the public, or those that are assets and properties owned by the public, in order to ascertain the responsibility of MTRCL and the Government for these settlement incidents. If MTRCL had committed mistakes in the course of the construction works which hence caused unusual settlement, it should tender an apology and make compensation. It is necessary to clarify the relation between ground settlement caused by the construction works of MTRCL and the structural damages of the buildings, and it is also necessary to ascertain the responsibility of MTRCL for the settlement that occurred on the construction site of the To Kwa Wan Station. I do not rule out the possibility of Members having to assist the residents in seeking compensations in future. After these settlement cases at a number of stations were exposed, I was reminded that the local residents demanded not only the disclosure of these incidents but also a solution to the problem. The question that the residents most wish to resolve now is who should be held responsible for their losses. Therefore, when the pro-establishment Members oppose the setting up of a select committee today, the residents can only rely on the mechanism which is not at all fair and not too trustworthy, one which is controlled by MTRCL to pursue the responsibility of MTRCL. But if, today, Members can support the establishment of a select committee and work in concert to adopt an approach that can inspire greater confidence in the residents and exercise our powers to ascertain the responsibilities for these cases of settlement, irrespective of the final outcome, we would be showing the people of Hong Kong that we have done our utmost, rather than acting as onlookers or simply believing other people will carry out an investigation as they claimed and then, with our arms folded, waiting for other people to do it.

Will the Hong Kong Government seriously follow up the entire case of SCL? In fact, apart from matters relating to settlement, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion also covers investigation into matters relating to the alteration of drawings by the contractor and MTRCL without permission. The pro-establishment camp may ask why, since the altered drawings involved the Hung Hom Station, it is still necessary for the Legislative Council to carry out an investigation when the matter can be referred to the Commission set up by the Government for investigation. As I have said, from what we have seen now, we do not think that MTRCL and the Government have the motive to actively give an account on the truth of these cases. The unauthorized alteration of drawings includes alteration of the design of the platform without permission and alteration of the design of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1189 the diaphragm wall without permission, which are all horrifying. The alteration of the drawings involves not only alterations without the permission of the Buildings Department ("BD"). Quite a lot of members of the public even suspected that the contractor had altered the drawings for the purpose of jerry-building. Quite a large number of people have said to me that if the new drawings are truly better than the old ones as claimed by MTRCL, why did it not follow the formal procedures to apply to BD for alteration of the drawings but had to cover it up? Is it that jerry-building practices had long been at work and so, the drawings were altered in order to rationalize these practices? Worse still, it could be possible that these jerry-building practices were adopted by the contractor with MTRCL's knowledge of them and these untrue drawings were then used to conceal the problem. To members of the public or the residents, these questions are indeed all mysteries. Even though the alteration of drawings is a serious problem and we have seen sloppiness on the part of the contractor in many aspects of the construction works, whether the Government and MTRCL have the motive to follow up on these problems seriously is still questionable.

In fact, according to recent reports, MTRCL had long since known that the contractor had reduced the number of reinforcement steel bars of the diaphragm wall, but MTRCL only required the contractor to prove that the structure would pose no immediate danger and took no further action. This shows that MTRCL was just muddling along in dealing with the contractor's mistakes. It is also reported that although Leighton had altered the foundation design of Hung Hom Station without formally proposing the alteration of design to MTRCL, BD merely regarded this incident as a problem of communication between the contractor and the engineering team of MTRCL, adding that after making an assessment, the relevant situation was considered to pose no immediate danger to the Hung Hom Station and therefore, no follow-up action was taken. Even if I assume there would be no immediate danger, the effects of the station on the public do not appear instantly for the station will be in use for many years. After a decade or more than a decade, will problems arise from these shoddy works and unauthorized alteration of drawings? While the public said that they would not ride on SCL unless they have to, sometimes the people do not have a choice. Therefore, it was most infuriating that the Secretary said on a previous occasion that if we would investigate into so many incidents, the commissioning of SCL and the construction works would be affected. Then I asked the Secretary: Which is more important, human lives or construction works? Which is more important, money or time?

1190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Lastly, we have seen people still coming forth to blow the whistle. Why did these whistle-blowers disclose information not to the Commission but only to reporters and Members? It seems that Mr Michael TIEN has not yet spoken today. I hope he will rise to speak later, so that we will see whether or not he supports the motions. Now that we have voiced many queries, and when the pro-establishment Members vote against the motions, how are they going to face the public? We Members aim to reflect the public concern. We do this not for the purpose of political jockeying or stirring up waves on a windless day. How can waves be stirred up when there is no wind? I think the public are now even more anxious than us, and the people are calling on us to hold MTRCL and the Government accountable and answerable.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Today, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Ms Claudia MO have again proposed motions in the hope that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") can be invoked to investigate a series of scandals and problems relating to the construction works of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL").

Today is 1 November and this is the fourth time since June that the pro-democracy Members have proposed a motion on invoking P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee to investigate this incident. We have proposed different directions and scales of investigation not for reasons arbitrarily cooked up by us, but because the incident has been snowballing with the disclosure of more and more information. In the light of the development of the incident, Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting have proposed that it is necessary to extend the scope of investigation to cover the eight stations along SCL and in particular, they are concerned about the settlement problem which has affected many residents, and they also hope to find out whether MTRCL was ineffective in performing its monitoring role and whether it had deliberately concealed these problems in management.

As Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said just now, why should we propose a motion for the fourth time? We have to propose a motion time and again because the pro-establishment Members threw weight behind the Government on each and every occasion. They did not want the public to see the truth in the quickest way by making it impossible for this Council to exercise the powers vested in it to conduct an investigation. From June to November now, while Members have taken their summer holiday, the affected residents have been living in fear and anxiety.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1191

The main contractor of Hung Hom Station, namely, Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited ("Leighton"), has all along taken an uncooperative attitude, especially before the summer recess of the Legislative Council, by, among others, refusing to attend the meetings of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railway of the Legislative Council. The Chief Executive Officer of MTRCL said at the time that great efforts had been made to encourage and persuade the contractor to give an account of the incident to the public but they had all along not shown up and considered it unnecessary to give any explanation. It was only until the Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") started to conduct hearings recently that they eventually showed up and made a lot of comments. The pro-establishment camp said that since they have shown up now, we should listen to what they say in giving evidence, adding that probably other witnesses may make other allegations. You may wish to sit back and enjoy the show but our duty as Members is not to enjoy the show. We think that we should reasonably exercise our powers to find out the truth.

But come to think about this: What Leighton has done is, in fact, extremely unusual, and it is indeed impossible not to arouse suspicions of cover-ups on their part. I think anyone who is in his right mind can see that the entire process of inquiry to find out the truth now seems to be led by Leighton, rather than by the investigators as Leighton can provide information like squeezing toothpaste out of a tube as they like; they can say whatever they like and adopt whatever approach they like. Why? Because we have not exhausted all the means at our disposal. What is the result? They have kept playing a stalling tactic and dragging things on. What is the solution? We still have no idea even now.

I recall that in the Subcommittee we kept asking the Government and the staff of MTRCL what should be done to solve the problem. Should the concrete be opened up to conduct inspections? How can inspections be carried out? Everyone said that he did not know, and the problem had been put off continuously. Apart from the fact that there is no way to find out the truth, what is the objective outcome? The commissioning of SCL will have to be delayed, meaning that this grossly overspent railway on which numerous Hong Kong citizens have pinned hopes would not be put to use. This is already pathetic, and utterly wasteful, too. Moreover, as I said just now, many residents affected by the occurrence of settlement would go on living in fear and anxiety, for their problem would not be resolved. The entire process seems to be led by parties intent on covering things up or even by the wrongdoers. Why have things developed to such a sorry state? All we are asking for is the truth. On this 1192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 issue, I have every sympathy for the Secretary because he is, to a large extent, a victim, too. Finding out the truth will spare him strictures. So why are we not allowed to do it? Come on, open your mind. Actually we are doing this really for his good.

More and more problems with the construction works of MTRCL have been exposed. At the establishment of the Commission, the scope of investigation covered only the fraudulent practice of cutting the reinforcement steel bars at the Hung Hong Station of SCL. Obviously, the situation now is no longer that simple, but the scope of investigation cannot be revised after the start of hearings. Never has it occurred to me that the decision promptly made on establishing the Commission back then would produce the counter-effect of the scope of investigation being too narrow. Upon completion of the inquiry, it is possible that many problems that have arisen would be dragged on further and further, thus making it impossible to unearth the truth. Such being the case, the setting up of a select committee by the Legislative Council to conduct an investigation is actually the most effective and most sensible way, and what is more, it is actually a power vested in us. This is what we should do.

In August this year, it was disclosed that when MTRCL carried out excavation works at the construction site of the To Kwa Wan Station in 2016, the settlement data of as many as 23 adjacent buildings exceeded the trigger level, recording in the most serious case a settlement reading of 62.9 mm, which is over 30% higher than the trigger level. Besides, 17 monitoring points for roads and underground utilities were found to have exceeded the trigger level but neither the Government nor MTRCL made public these findings and worse still, they did not suspend the construction works and had even concealed these problems for two years. While the Government said openly that the situation was fine, the public had lost all their confidence. Moreover, it was exposed by the media that settlement had also occurred at Exhibition Centre Station with readings exceeding the trigger level at 14 monitoring points, and that the ground surface monitoring point with the most serious settlement reading was already found to have excessive settlement in 2015, with accumulated settlement of 83 mm, which is 2.3 times higher than the alarm level of 25 mm. But MTRCL and the contractor did not suspend the works to conduct a review as required by the guidelines.

However, President, when we found these construction problems in Hong Kong, some people would be telling us that we are no experts, that the alarm level can actually be adjusted a bit upwards, and that it is actually still safe even if the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1193 ground subsides a bit further, so we should trust them. The problem precisely lies in all the stalling and cover-ups. If they could make known these problems earlier, the public might probably still have some confidence, but when things have come to this pass, it is absolutely unacceptable to say, "I am an engineer, so you have to believe what I said." The public have lost their confidence completely, and this is not going to solve the problem.

The Government's Commission only probes into the fraudulent practice of the cutting of reinforcement steel bars at the Hung Hom Station, which is obviously inadequate. In proposing this motion, we demand invocation of P&P Ordinance to inquire into all the eight stations, while expressing concern over the settlement problem, so as to enable the public to truly find out whether the Government and MTRCL had deliberately concealed the problem. This is necessary and crucially important. Without an investigation into all the stations in one go, public confidence in SCL can never be restored. Even when the construction of SCL is completed, I would not know whether I should set foot on that platform, and the completion of SCL for use by the public would only be delayed further. If we are not allowed to formally start an investigation early, the completion of SCL or the date it can be made available for public use will definitely be delayed continual. This is what we very much wish to avert with this opportunity given to us here.

Then, Honourable colleagues in the pro-establishment camp said that while there are indeed problems with the construction works, it is not necessary to invoke P&P Ordinance to conduct an investigation. They said before that it was premature to make a decision and now, they said that it was not necessary to do so, or they sounded as if they considered an investigation most necessary but without saying how the investigation should be conducted, they voted against our proposal for invoking P&P Ordinance to conduct an investigation. In short, they said that since the Government is probing into the incident, we should, therefore, let them do it. The objective outcome is that they are not shielding the Government, nor are they shielding MTRCL, but they are doing a disservice to the public in rejecting an investigation when it cannot be clearer that problems do exist.

Earlier on I heard some Members keep suggesting that the Commission should be tasked to conduct an investigation, that the Legislative Council is not an appropriate avenue for it and that these are very technical matters that Members may not comprehend. However, it is not at all unprecedented for the 1194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Legislative Council to investigate works projects, and the Legislative Council is capable of doing it. During the last term we conducted an inquiry into the cost overrun incurred by the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). Even though we did not have the powers conferred by P&P Ordinance, I think we were able to find out part of the truth. It was regrettable that we could not summon all the witnesses, including the senior management of MTRCL, to come before us. But I do not think that we could not do much because we are not engineers, except for one or two representatives of the engineering sector or a few other Members. That is not true, and facts have proved that we were capable of doing this job.

Nevertheless, we have seen that more and more construction problems have been exposed but there is simply no way for us to identify or understand the inadequacies of the Government in monitoring the works. What problems are there in the supervision of works by MTRCL? All the problems were exposed by the media, or by whistle-blowers, whereas the contractor of MTRCL has responded like they are squeezing toothpaste out of a tube. Members of the public are dissatisfied and when we in this Council try to take actions on their behalf, we are barred from doing so. When the Government and MTRCL take such an attitude, how can public confidence be restored? How can there be assurances for the quality of works?

Similar incidents have never ceased to occur in Hong Kong in recent years. In all of these cases, one does not need any professional qualification to find out the truth. Regarding the occurrence of these incidents, I venture to say that 90%, if not all, of these cases were caused by poor management. Therefore, not even the Commission is fully made up of engineers as its members also include a Judge, which is no different from the practice adopted by the Legislative Council. Therefore, Members must not conclude on this ground that the Legislative Council is unsuitable for and incapable of conducting an investigation. This is absolutely not true.

Incidents involving major public interest have happened one after another. It is now time we invoked P&P Ordinance. If this "imperial sword" is not deployed, it would exist in name only and become no more than a dead, smelly fish, with due respect. If things continue to go on like this, this "imperial sword" actually will never ever be put to use. With the powers of the Legislative Council skewed towards the pro-establishment camp in future, all the more surely it will not be used for good. The Rules of Procedure might as well be amended LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1195 to the effect that P&P Ordinance be repealed. Since it will not be used ever again, its repeal or otherwise actually makes no difference.

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

Having said that, the fact is that from an objective point of view, it is only through invoking P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee to conduct an investigation that we will have the powers to summon any person to come before us to give evidence and produce the relevant documents, and people thus summoned cannot refuse to attend our meetings and must come before us, unlike those people summoned for the inquiry into the incident concerning XRL in the last term. This is precisely an appropriate distribution of powers under the legal system which has long been practised in Hong Kong and a tool for this Council to effectively monitor the Government.

But when the present circumstances are politicized … The pro-establishment camp likes to talk about politicization but actually it is not the pro-democracy camp that wants to politicize the situation. It is the pro-establishment camp that see everything in the political light. But then, when we demand that the Government be investigated, disregarding the mistakes involved, they never let us carry out an investigation, nor do they let the truth be revealed to the people, for they know that institutionally, there are still enough of them to be in control. Therefore, we can never find out the truth of these issues and as a result, no improvement can be made whether in respect of works projects, project management or the use of government resources. This is the situation that we have seen now.

Over the past few years, I have seen this situation continue and this, I think, is deeply saddening. We have proposed this motion four times and if it should be negatived today―I think it is going to be negatived―I cannot say for sure whether we will continue to make a fifth, sixth or seventh attempt. But I wish to tell all members of the public that we will definitely do everything we can to find out the truth, not "doing everything I can to find out the truth but I will vote against your proposal". We will definitely make the utmost effort to really uncover the truth. We will not go easy on the Government and MTRCL.

1196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion and that of Mr LAM Cheuk-ting. In August this year, the media exposed the occurrence of settlement at various Mass Transit Railway ("MTR") stations. It was reported that the sites near To Kwa Wan Station and Exhibition Centre Station had seen serious exceedances. Among them, it turned out that the monitoring point with the most serious exceedance had already exceeded the trigger level early in 2015. Yet regrettably, the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and the contractor did not suspend the works and conduct a review in accordance with the guidelines. They had all along concealed the matter and carried out the works as usual.

Similar to the other problems of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), it was not until the matter was exposed by the media that MTRCL tardily gave an account. Is such an approach not infuriating? According to the information obtained by the Legislative Council, the whole alignment of SCL consists of 10 stations. Apart from the Ho Man Tin Station and the Tai Wai Station, the settlement monitoring points at all the other eight stations have recorded exceedances. The settlement readings recorded at 131 monitoring points had reached or exceeded the pre-set trigger level. Among them, 77 were located in the Exhibition Centre Station area, and 36 in the To Kwa Wan Station area. The highest settlement level was recorded by a monitoring point near the Exhibition Centre Station. The settlement level reached 84.1 mm, exceeding the trigger level by about 10 mm. Another monitoring point even recorded an exceedance of 50 mm.

To Kwa Wan, a built-up area, can be described as hard hit by settlement with 36 monitoring points recording exceedances, involving 14 buildings nearby. As shown in an internal document obtained by the media, a monitoring point in To Kwa Wan has recorded the highest settlement level, reaching 60.9 mm. As a matter of fact, during the public consultation on SCL, residents in the Ma Tau Wai area held that the geological conditions in the district were unsuitable for construction of MTR. They had all along opposed MTR's alignment and excavation of underground tunnels along Ma Tau Wai Road. But how did the Government and MTRCL respond? As in the past, they did not listen or pay attention to the residents' views. Such an attitude of turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to the public still prevails. Now that an incident has occurred, the residents have no way to redress their grievances. Not only this, what matters most is that their everyday life is affected. Cracks are found in the buildings where they live. What should they do? Of course, MTRCL often acts in the following way. When cracks have appeared in a building, it would claim that it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1197 is because the building is too old, and it is unrelated. This is its usual tactic. It is acting in the same way now, holding an irresponsible attitude.

Just now Ms Claudia MO has put it most correctly. To many members of the public, their biggest asset is their property, a place for living in peace and even spending their twilight years. Now a misfortune has come out of the blue. In the worst case scenario, it may endanger their lives. How will the Government and MTRCL remedy and compensate for this? Just now the Secretary mentioned in his speech that MTRCL is going to launch a scheme to assist in repairing the affected dwellings near SCL. Deputy President, assisting other people in repairing their flats where cracks have appeared is actually the usual tactic of MTRCL. The so-called assistance in repairs is in fact very simple. It is merely opening up part of the wall, then plastering it with concrete, and that is all. But the real cause for the cracks will not be examined or tackled. As far as the residents are concerned, the safety problem still exists. In my view, it seems the Government has also adopted this kind of tactics and tricks to put out the fire, covering up the mistakes arising from the project itself. I do not think it can be handled in this way. Yet regrettably, they have all along adopted such an approach.

Deputy President, after all, SCL was constructed with the hard-earned money of all the people of Hong Kong who are the main target passengers. Now apart from settlement of buildings exceeding the trigger level, other facilities, including gas pipes, water pipes and sewers, are also exposed to such risks. Such a phenomenon is even seen on pavements. How should these problems be resolved? Certainly, the relevant departments have been doing maintenance and emergency repairs, but MTRCL just seems to hold an attitude of indifference. Deputy President, to the people of Hong Kong, this problem has already posed a crisis of confidence. It involves not only a crisis of confidence but also a question of integrity of MTRCL. MTRCL said casually that it would help residents carry out maintenance and repairs, and that would do. But questions remain. How should the relevant responsibilities, accountability and faults be handled? What is the truth of the incident? MTRCL has never given any proper account to the public. It did not assume the most important legal liability or openly apologize to the public either. None of these have been done.

Deputy President, the situation at the site of Exhibition Centre Station is similarly severe. As I mentioned just now, it was reported that the monitoring point seeing the most serious settlement had already exceeded the trigger level early in 2015. The accumulated settlement recorded was 83 mm, 2.3 times 1198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 higher than the trigger level of 25 mm. After such news was divulged, the Highways Department ("HyD") demanded suspension of excavation works. Later, MTRCL submitted justifications for resumption of works. After affirming that public safety would not be affected, HyD consented to the resumption.

As clearly stipulated by the Buildings Department ("BD"), if any works may cause settlement of the adjacent buildings, an allowable limit of settlement should be drawn up before implementation of works. In general, the recommended limit is 25 mm. The contractor may also work out the limit by itself and submit it to BD for approval. Certainly, we have recently noted another phenomenon. As exposed by the media, settlement at MTR stations has exceeded the limit again. It was reported that MTRCL requested BD to relax the settlement standard, and then it would take remedial measures. Take Tin Wing Station of the Light Rail as an example. After it was found that settlement at the station had exceeded the safety trigger level of 20 mm, the trigger level was then raised to 80 mm to avoid recurrence of exceedance. Deputy President, such an act has inevitably aroused suspicions. Can the so-called "settlement trigger level" be revised by the Government and MTRCL on their own from time to time without offering any reasonable explanation? Can this trigger level be adjusted upward or downward freely? Was it adjusted upward for the purpose of enabling MTRCL to evade its responsibility? Does the trigger level actually have any upper limit? Even the expert advisers appointed by the Government have suggested that the frequency of revising the settlement trigger level should be reduced to the minimum. That means it had better not be adjusted. However, now there have been frequent adjustments. Subsequently, problems would still appear, and then further adjustments would be made. These questions have lingered in the minds of the people of Hong Kong. After all, how much confidence can MTRCL give us? Would the Government and MTRCL harbour each other?

Just now Secretary Frank CHAN mentioned in his speech that now the works at various MTR stations of SCL have not exceeded the existing or revised trigger level. MTRCL also stated that the settlement level has stabilized. Deputy President, such remarks are indeed ridiculous because the trigger level is tailor-made by MTRCL itself. The level will be set according to the actual settlement level. How will there be any exceedance then? Can such remarks convince us that the safety standard can thus be reached? In fact, what are the criteria for devising the present safety standard?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1199

Just now the Secretary also mentioned that MTRCL will continue to do monitoring work, so we need not worry. Deputy President, is this not ridiculous, too? Every time we had raised a question, MTRCL would say it would keep monitoring, but after its monitoring, problems would arise again. How can we believe that its monitoring is effective? Moreover, MTRCL, which has allegedly concealed works problems repeatedly, is monitoring itself. Do Members think such an approach can ensure that it will not conceal anything again should another incident occur? What is more, as I said just now, public confidence in MTRCL has dropped to the lowest point. Does the Secretary really consider such "self-monitoring" effective? Will he review it afresh and think up a better approach?

Deputy President, the representative of BD said that the settlement trigger level was raised after detailed engineering analysis, implying that free adjustment is by no means easy, and a scientific basis is also required. Deputy President, even if that is the case, how will it be convincing if the trigger level is adjusted time after time? Furthermore, Deputy President, I believe most of the Honourable colleagues and members of the public are not experts in this field. Having little knowledge of this matter, we are unable to judge whether such adjustment to the trigger level is reasonable and scientific. For this reason, to avoid losing public confidence and let us clearly understand that it is reasonable to adjust the trigger level, we need to invite experts to the Legislative Council to give an account to the public, do we not? What are the actual criteria for adjustment? After adjustment, is it safe? And what are the reasons for and methods of adjustment? If we can let members of the public understand the truth by inviting experts to answer Members' questions and give an account in the Legislative Council, will it not be better?

As a matter of fact, scandals of the SCL Project have broken out one after another, indicating extreme rottening of MTRCL. Serious problems have also emerged in the Government's works monitoring system, thus making members of the public completely lose their confidence. Some Honourable colleagues have suggested that the independent Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government to inquire into the matters of Hung Hom Station should expand the scope of investigation and inquire into the settlement issue, too. Yet regrettably, the Government remains unmoved. It has only separately invited three former government officials to form the Expert Adviser Team for the SCL Project, but it will not disclose its proceedings or documents. Neither will it invite the media to do any interview. Given the complete lack of transparency, it is hardly convincing.

1200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Finally, on the basis of this principle, some Members have proposed invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") to proactively inquire into this matter, so as to raise the transparency of the whole issue and facilitate public understanding of the relevant matters. It is because in our view, even if the Government agrees to expand the scope of investigation, given its capacity as the majority shareholder of MTRCL, together with its duty of monitoring various large and small projects of MTRCL, it can hardly be considered impartial. Moreover, after the inquiry is completed, the full report may not be disclosed. It is difficult for the public to know the circumstances surrounding the whole matter.

Hence, we consider that it is not only necessary for the Legislative Council to monitor the Government but also urge the relevant parties to give a clear account of this matter so that members of the public can understand the whole course of the incident. For this reason, today some Members have proposed invoking P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry. In fact, P&P Ordinance has vested in us powers to inquire into matters involving significant public interest and summon the persons concerned to give evidence. Hence, I hope Members will really follow this direction and support this motion, restoring public confidence and protecting public safety through invoking P&P Ordinance.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of the motions respectively proposed by Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting in accordance with the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance"), requesting the Legislative Council to appoint a select committee to investigate the significant settlement of buildings in the vicinity of the To Kwa Wan Station site of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"). The investigation will also examine whether there is dereliction of monitoring duties and deliberate concealment of ground settlement by the Hong Kong Government and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL").

My speech in respect of the SCL scandal can be summarized into just a few words: "jerry-building with false documents; concealment of settlement exceedance; shirking of responsibilities by MTRCL and harbouring by the Hong Kong Government". Problems of MTRCL's SCL Project have arisen successively with scandals exposed one after another. Since the media exposed MTRCL's alleged fabrication of the quality of the SCL Project in May this year, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1201 the incident has sprawled from the Hung Hom Station to the Exhibition Centre Station and even the To Kwa Wan Station. Jerry-building practices have been discovered one after another. The media subsequently exposed that MTRCL had been concealing for many years the problems of ground settlement at the construction sites, thus undermining the community's confidence in the safety of MTRCL's projects and causing the same to drop to a record low.

Scandals concerning MTRCL's projects revealed collusion between the Government and the business sector, thereby dealing a severe blow to public confidence in MTRCL's management and stirring up grave dissatisfaction against government departments' capabilities of performing monitoring duties. If the Government does not give a clear account on the incidents and take actions seriously, or if it still harbours the relevant parties, this will be nothing short of playing with fire. The Government will then be toying with a political bomb which will result in society's distrust in the Government's governance.

In early August this year, the again exposed problems with the works at the SCL To Kwa Wan Station and their concealment. MTRCL's internal documents dated 2017 have revealed that settlement exceeding the pre-set thresholds had been observed at 23 buildings in the vicinity of the To Kwa Wan Station site as early as in 2016. Obvious long cracks were noticed on the external walls of and inside many buildings nearby, while the residents often felt the shaking of their buildings. At a District Council ("DC") meeting held in July 2017, MTRCL deliberately concealed the facts by insisting that the data collected at the monitoring checkpoints showed no abnormalities. After the ground settlement had been exposed, pro-establishment DC member HO Hin-ming even asserted that the data on settlement should be treated as privacy since property prices would be affected. It was also reported that ground settlement at the To Kwa Wan Station had led to deformation of underground towngas pipes, giving rise to explosion risks.

NGAI Hok-yan, an experienced civil engineer, criticized in a radio programme that MTRCL should be held responsible inevitably, pointing out that rectifications should be undertaken immediately if the actual geological conditions had deviated from the data under previous assumptions. Yet, MTRCL adopted another way of rectification by arranging for third party loss adjusters to visit the affected buildings to explain that the settlement was unrelated to the works. Instead of solving the problems, they tried hard to refuse admitting the existence of such problems. I have never heard of such a solution.

1202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

NGAI Hok-yan has also visited the affected buildings. While acknowledging that problems already existed in old buildings, he remarked that just as in the case of an elderly person suffering from osteoporosis, he would not break his bones for no reason if nobody pushed him down. Although MTRCL might not have to bear full responsibility, it should certainly bear a large part of the responsibility. How can MTRCL deny completely the relationship between the ground settlement and the works?

SCL has run into significant cost overruns and delays. The construction cost of SCL, with a total length of 17 km, has soared to the existing level of $97.1 billion while the average cost per kilometre amounts to $5.7 billion, which is even higher than the average cost of $3.247 billion per kilometre in the case of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). SCL has become the second most expensive railway project in the world but Hong Kong's MTR West Island Line still tops the list. It is so startling that an infrastructure project costing public monies of almost $100 billion ends up in shoddy works.

The Government and MTRCL have kept on shirking their responsibilities and made no commitment over the past few months. Their performance has failed to live up to the expectations of the Hong Kong people. When the media exposed the cutting short of steel reinforcement bars in the Hung Hom Station, MTRCL attempted to downplay it at the very beginning, and then discredited the integrity of the subcontractor by mobilizing public opinion. Frederick MA even grumbled to the media that "if we say it is OK, then it is OK". When there was concrete evidence, MTRCL just passed the buck to the contractor, refusing to admit its management responsibilities all along.

The Government has similarly played rascal. Frank CHAN, the Secretary for Transport and Housing, originally said that he was fully confident of MTRCL's management capabilities. Later when there was evidence indicating that his office had received a whistleblowing letter in September last year, he then corrected himself that he learnt about the incident only from the media because his subordinates had not submitted the letter to him. The Government again "made an about-turn" later and shifted all the responsibility to MTRCL, requesting its management to quit their jobs.

Now, the entire incident is not merely confined to the quality of works. It is a series of scandals involving collusion, in an active or passive manner, among the contractor, MTRCL and the Government. The Hong Kong Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1203 does not take any law enforcement actions or intervene in the incident even though it is fully aware of the risks of irregularities and evidence showing ground settlement exceeding the set thresholds. This is tantamount to collusion. Are there any crony connections or political conspiracies behind the scene which are beyond our knowledge? The citizens now even have more reasons for their suspicious.

Yet, does Carrie LAM's team really wish to uncover the truth? Carrie LAM refused to accept the resignation tendered by Frederick MA, Chairman of MTRCL, on two occasions and she fully supported Frank CHAN as well as other officials appointed by the Government to serve on MTRCL's Board of Directors, saying that they should not be held responsible as they had been kept in the dark. We can see that the Government does not intend to conduct a thorough investigation as quite a number of officials might be held accountable and they will have to step down once the truth comes to light.

Carrie LAM is very good at pretending to work. This is why she has appointed three retired government officials to form an Expert Adviser Team for MTRCL. It seems that she has the whole situation under control but if we think deeper, we would understand that the advisers do not have any real power. Looking at how the advice of the Task Force on Land Supply and the opinion gauged from the consultation on retirement protection were treated by the Government may give us some insights. Carrie LAM proposed reclamation in her Policy Address even before Stanley WONG released the Task Force's report. When she considered Prof Nelson CHOW's recommendations on retirement protection disagreeable, she simply regarded the professor as worthless. Can we still have confidence in the Expert Adviser Team?

If the Government does not believe in MTRCL's capabilities of managing the SCL Project, it should take this opportunity to cancel the Entrustment Agreement signed with MTRCL. The best solution is for the Government to take back the management of the SCL Project and take charge of the works. However, the Government is not courageous enough to do so as it lacks such will of governance. What does Carrie LAM actually fear? Or she has to protect or harbour somebody's interests? The public is keen to know all this. This is what we hope to achieve by proposing the motions in accordance with P&P Ordinance. When it comes to voting on the motions, the public should keep an eagle eye on which Members stand on the side of public safety and which Members stand on the side of parties with vested interests. I suggest the 1204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 pro-establishment Members to get a clear understanding of the situation and the truth, so as to avoid taking the wrong stance when the rage intensifies.

The SCL scandal is by no means an individual case of negligence. It represents systematic depravity which has long existed. Despite the Government's 70% stake in MTRCL, the Corporation is in fact an independent kingdom which accords top priority to making profits under the umbrella of the Government. Despite the fact that MTRCL recorded a net profit of $16.8 billion last year, it still raises its fares every year. Among those who have stepped down because of the scandal, the annual remuneration of Chief Executive Officer Lincoln LEONG amounted to $15.2 million while Philco WONG was earning $8 million per year. Though Frederick MA, the Non-executive Chairman, is not involved in the daily operation, he received a director's fee of $1.7 million in the past year. MTRCL has been entrusted to undertake XRL, SCL and other railway projects with a huge sum of public money. Yet, they resorted to jerry-building practices for feathering their own nest, and public monies are used to feed those who tried hard to hide the truth from the public. It is really absurd and unreasonable for Hong Kong to use public coffers to feed them. Our citizens have to contribute to their earnings but they have cheated us in return.

In fact, MTRCL's financial statements show that about 15% of its operating profits in 2017 (i.e. $3.2 billion) were derived from property development in the Mainland and overseas development relating to railway, among which profits from property development in the Mainland amounted to $2.3 billion. It is $2.3 billion, even much higher than the $1.1 billion revenue derived from property development in Hong Kong. It can be seen that MTRCL has become the master key for the Government to make investments. I can assert that the Chief Executive, seeking to accomplish her political missions, will soon use MTRCL as a vehicle for making investments in infrastructure and property development projects under the Belt and Road Initiative.

The series of incidents reflect that MTRCL has become a huge alien or monster, and the operation of local railway business has turned into a stepping stone for MTRCL to continue making investments worldwide. Apart from undertaking property development in Hong Kong, it has even engaged in investing in real estate projects in the Mainland as well as railway operation and management overseas. From the standpoint of the Hong Kong people, MTRCL's severe tilt to investments in the Mainland and overseas business is profit-oriented and it has gone astray.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1205

Given that the revenue from railway business accounts for only a small proportion, one would naturally look for an easy way out if we put ourselves in the shoes of the MTRCL senior management. The enormous revenue from shops in the stations, advertising, shopping malls and office premises can already guarantee maximization of profits for MTRCL. It can also be accountable to the shareholders by expanding its business overseas and in the Mainland. Yet, maintaining the quality of railway projects and services has been accorded an even lower priority. MTR's delays, problematic signalling systems and accidents involving station facilities have occurred so frequently that the citizens have grown accustomed to them. As railway operation has been monopolized by MTRCL following the rail merger ten-odd years ago, the citizens are "robbed" when MTRCL raises its fares every year as there is no alternative for them.

Looking at MTRCL's structure, the Government owns 75% of its shares. While the remaining shares are nominally held by the minority shareholders, they are in fact controlled by investment managers under the manipulation of consortia. It is not difficult to see that, apart from high-ranking government officials, MTRCL's Board of Directors is comprised of bigwigs in Hong Kong representing various parties with vested interests. MTRCL's mode of development has direct impact on the interests of real estate developers, those large consortia will never treat it lightly and they must arrange for agents to oversee it. Will the Government monitor MTRCL on behalf of the ordinary masses? The answer is very obvious when there is not even one elected Legislative Council Member sitting on the MTRCL Board. MTRCL has been engaging in black-box operations but the Government fails to perform monitoring functions on behalf of the public. Against this background, MTRCL has become an independent kingdom purporting to serve the community. It is in fact funnelling benefits to those large consortia, betraying the public's entrustment of their transport needs, and it finally becomes a tool of property speculation.

I can hardly estimate how many pro-establishment Members will support the two motions. However, I do not hope that the motions would only act as a demon detector showing again which Members support them and who objects. In my view, Members should accord top priority to public safety. Members from both the democratic camp and the pro-establishment camp should all support the establishment of a select committee to investigate the ground settlement caused by the SCL Project. I do not wish to see Hong Kong become a place where we pretend there is harmony in society by keeping our eyes and ears closed. Mr CHAN Kin-por made the remark that those opposing 1206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 reclamation will become sinners in history. Yet, I reckon those who possess the power to find out the truth today but act like ostriches and turn a blind eye to the problems are sinners in history instead.

Mr Jin Yong has just passed away and I would like to cite a quote of his in closing. He said that nowadays there are people who are very powerful, wealthy, knowledgeable and reputable in the Mainland but they generally in lack one thing―conscience. I call on Honourable colleagues in the legislature to act according to their conscience and support the motions. Thank you, Deputy President.

MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, construction blunders related to large-scale transport infrastructure projects in Hong Kong have arisen one after another in recent years. Following the exposure of the significant cost overruns and delays of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") several years ago, irregularities in the works and alteration of construction drawings in respect of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") Project have also been exposed this year. Ground settlement exceeding the set thresholds at a number of stations, connecting tunnels and areas in the vicinity of the construction sites has also been recorded at more than 130 monitoring checkpoints. Some of the settlement levels have even exceeded the set thresholds by as many as 60 mm. As many utilities such as towngas pipes, water pipes and road surface are involved, it poses significant threats to the residents or even puts their personal safety at risk.

In fact, I share the anger, anxiety and worries of many members of the public. I am worried about my personal safety as well. After the media has exposed this major incident, the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") has never made public the details of the entire incident. Neither has it explained the reasons causing such a serious incident despite the passage of several months. Many residents living along the alignment of SCL are extremely worried and they are full of doubts. They are always on tenterhooks, worried about whether ground settlement would affect the buildings in which they are living and the safety of their buildings. As such, I really hope MTRCL or the Government can give an account expeditiously, so as to assure the residents that their buildings are safe and suitable for dwelling. MTRCL should also put forth the remedial measures to be taken and the compensation package in case problems arise.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1207

Deputy President, the foundation works carried out by the developer of the topside development at the Tai Wai Station were suspended in July this year as a result of the ground settlement exceeding the set thresholds there. Several members of the Shatin District Council, district development officers and I invited representatives of the New World Development Company Limited, the developer, and MTRCL to conduct a site inspection in respect of ground settlement at the Tai Wai Station. We also requested MTRCL to give an account of the impact of ground settlement on train service, and enquired whether MTRCL had any remedial measures in place to ensure the safety of train service of the East Rail, such that members of the public could hence put their mind at ease when using train service. Apart from making repeated enquiries with MTRCL on the settlement level of the platform which called for suspension of services at the Tai Wai Station, I also asked MTRCL's representatives about the concrete measures in place for handling the incident as well as the progress made so far. In fact, I made an enquiry again last week. Unfortunately, MTRCL has yet to provide an answer even now and the situation is worrying indeed. On basis what indicators does MTRCL request works to be suspended? Or does MTRCL have a bunch of trigger levels which can be tightened or relaxed casually? This is still unknown.

Deputy President, the frequent occurrence of incidents and scandals involving MTRCL in recent years has dealt a further blow to our already weak confidence in the quality of its projects as well as railway safety. The SCL incident has not only revealed the faulty governance structure of MTRCL, but also highlighted the Government's failure to perform its monitoring function and leadership properly.

In my view, an independent commission of inquiry set up by the Government will be the more appropriate body to conduct an investigation into the problems of the works of the SCL Project, including the settlement exceedance of buildings and other facilities adjacent to the construction sites or the related issues. An independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") has in fact been appointed by the Chief Executive in Council to inquire into the steel reinforcement fixing works and any other works which have induced concerns about public safety in respect of the diaphragm wall and platform slab construction works at the Hung Hom Station Extension under the SCL Project implemented by MTRCL. Nevertheless, the Commission would only focus on the diaphragm wall and platform slab construction works at the Hung Hom Station Extension under Contract No. 1112 of the SCL Project, while the works at the tunnels to the north of the Hung Hom Station and at other SCL stations are 1208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 not covered. I believe it is impossible to expand the Commission's scope of investigation by now. Therefore, I hope the Chief Executive or the authorities can seriously consider appointing another independent commission of inquiry to conduct a thorough investigation into the works of the entire SCL Project and the ground settlement exceedance problem.

Quite a number of Members and colleagues have mentioned the merit of the Commission being its work can be completed in a more expeditious manner. It is because an independent commission of inquiry normally has to complete an inquiry within a rather short period of time. For instance, the current Commission is tasked to submit a report to the Chief Executive within six months. The Chief Executive has of course stated that more time would be allowed, but it is the norm for an inquiry to be completed within a short time frame. We also hope to obtain a report expeditiously to enable us to have a full grasp of what has happened. The appointment of another commission of inquiry by the Chief Executive is hence more preferable. As I said just now, the Commission currently led by Mr Justice Michael John HARTMANN would not investigate some aspects, including the tunnels in the north and other works of SCL, yet these are precisely the major concerns of the public. Therefore, we think the scope of investigation can be expanded and I really hope the Chief executive can consider this suggestion. Otherwise, will Secretary Frank CHAN or the Chief Executive, if she comes to know my suggestion later, please explain why it is impossible to appoint another independent commission of inquiry to inquire into problems of the SCL Project.

Deputy President, MTRCL being the body tasked to monitor the SCL Project and the Government should be held responsible for the problems that have arisen. It appears that the reports previously submitted by MTRCL to the Government have not truly reflected the abnormalities observed in the works. The works of the SCL Project were suspended only after the media had exposed the incident. Such crisis management has attracted much criticism. During our discussion on the delays of the XRL Project in the past, some officials claimed themselves as victims for having been kept in the dark, and they even admitted frankly that they had lost confidence in the MTRCL management. In fact, members of the public would be more anxious when government officials tell them so. They would feel more helpless as this reflects that the Government has failed to play the role of a gatekeeper. It is evident that problems indeed exist in the Government's existing monitoring system and the crux lies in how to make improvement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1209

The Hong Kong Section of XRL and SCL, on which construction blunders have been exposed, are both implemented under an Entrustment Agreement. Under this much disputed arrangement, the Government would bear all the construction costs while MTRCL is responsible for management. Despite the fact that the Government has the right to pursue a claim against MTRCL's faulty monitoring works, the cap on compensation renders it difficult to achieve a deterrent effect. Prof Anthony CHEUNG, former Secretary for Transport and Housing, also criticized the arrangement of entering into entrustment agreements for its deficiencies, saying that the Government should consider adopting other monitoring approaches as it is not the optimal choice.

In addition, while the Railways Development Office of the Highways Department has to perform the "check the checker" role, its SCL project team is manned with an establishment of 26 engineers only. It has to conduct on-site inspections and despatch its staff to station at the construction sites for monitoring this railway project of such a large scale. Is there sufficient manpower to monitor the works? The Government relies on MTRCL for information but what has been obtained often fails to meet the requirements of the various parties and the authorities. The Government seldom initiates an investigation proactively as it cannot obtain the relevant reports. We can see that the entire problem is a dead knot, where only standards have been laid down but the problem remains unresolved.

Deputy President, a wide spectrum of problems are involved in the SCL Project. Some people have also questioned whether the incident involves malpractices such as concealment, shielding and improper monitoring. The public hopes to find out the truth and to ensure that similar blunders will not recur in subsequent large-scale projects through conducting an investigation. I thus urge the Government to expeditiously appoint an independent commission of inquiry, sort of giving an account to the public, for the sake of restoring public confidence in MTRCL's projects and services.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I oppose invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the works of the SCL Project.

1210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting proposed invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") to set up a select committee to inquire into the settlement incident related to the To Kwa Wan Station of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"). I have participated in select committees established under P&P Ordinance on several occasions. Honestly, I do not hold anything against the establishment of select committees under P&P Ordinance because I, too, have requested the establishment of the Subcommittee to Study Issues Arising from Lehman Brothers-related Minibonds and Structured Financial Products on 10 October 2008. Why were there more than 30 members in this Subcommittee? Because it was not a select committee established under P&P Ordinance. Instead, a subcommittee was first established which attracted the participation of a number of Members. Then, the Subcommittee moved that the powers conferred by P&P Ordinance be exercised for the purpose of following-up the incident. Hence, it was composed of so many Members. Typically, a select committee should be composed of 12 members representing every political party and grouping. Therefore, I believe the inquiry findings of select committees established under P&P Ordinance do guarantee a certain degree of impartiality.

Despite the difference of opinion among Members sometimes, I very much understand their persistence in proposing to establish a select committee by invoking P&P Ordinance on this matter. I am saying this to the Secretary. It is because they have not done a good job. The independent Commission of Inquiry set up by the Government so far has not accepted our suggestion of extending the scope of inquiry at the To Kwa Wan Station, so how will the public accept it? New issues crop up every day now and we are terrified every day. I have participated in inquiries of select committees and I feel it is a pity that some Members have never done so because it is an important power of the Legislative Council which we should treasure. Hence, Members' proposals on invoking P&P Ordinance to establish a select committee should not be seen as a scourge. I hope the Government will respect the power of inquiry of the Legislative Council. The Government has to thus do a better job so that less Members will propose to invoke P&P Ordinance. I am sympathetic with the situation of the Secretary. We say that there is a clock in each term of the Legislative Council. This time around, the hand of the clock is pointing to the Transport and Housing Bureau and there are successive proposals on invoking P&P Ordinance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1211

Since it was exposed at end of May that steel reinforcement bars at Hung Hom Station had been cut short, Members found the situation terrifying and did not know what to expect the next day, let alone the public. I wrote to the Chief Executive on 8 June on behalf of the Kowloon West New Dynamic to request the establishment of an independent commission of inquiry. The Chief Executive subsequently established the independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") on 10 July and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") made a response on 7 August. Five senior staff members left MTRCL, although it was reported that they had still received their pensions and termination payments, so the penalty was actually not at all heavy.

The incident today actually involves four aspects. First, the issue of failure to report; second, the issue of public confidence; third, the issue of the truth; and fourth, our expectation.

Why did they fail to report? Why did Government officials fail to report the incident at the meeting of the Council in July 2017 which I was present? Why did they not report the settlement then? The current situation would not have happened, nor would Members propose to invoke P&P Ordinance, had they made the report at the time. I am really resentful of their approach which has turned nothing into something. There is a problem with the way the authorities handle the matter. The comments in a report were most correct. They were described as having a "works mentality", but not a "public mentality", nor a mentality of respecting the District Council and Legislative Council Members.

Secondly, I know a lot of engineers who all say that Hong Kong has a high standard of safety, which I believe is true. They are confident that the cutting short of steel reinforcement bars or the settlement will not pose a safety problem eventually. This is a "works mentality". But how is the mentality of the public? They have no confidence. There are inadequate supervision by the Government and failure to report by departments. I think MTRCL should be held largely responsible as it has concealed the facts or even confused the matter. The Commission chaired by a Judge reveals undisclosed matters every day. Even if they can get away with it this time, what will happen next?

Insofar as public expectation is concerned, I think the residents in that district are really great. I have asked them repeatedly whether they want the Legislative Council to invoke P&P Ordinance and inquire into the incident. I 1212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 have even explained to them that P&P Ordinance was invoked back then in regard to the Lehman Brothers incident. I have played a part in moving that motion and led more than 10 000 people in a demonstration in Central. I told the residents that invoking P&P Ordinance actually works. However, their response was that they were very much concerned about, first, whether the works could be completed as soon as possible; second, its safety, which was a territory-wide issue; and third, whether expeditious and sufficient compensation would be made.

I think MTRCL should be held largely responsible for the complaints made since 2012 which are classified as settlement cases. We have asked residents to meet with District Council members, which was done, and even proposed a compensation limit, as mentioned by the Secretary just now. If damages are to be claimed, contracts or even the Railways Ordinance, which I will talk about later on, will be involved. Damages must be claimed within one year upon the completion of the works and verified by a loss adjuster. If compensation is offered, settlements may be reached and resources can be used to address the immediate concerns of the residents. The work has commenced, but I find sincerity lacking and the amount of compensation unacceptable. As far as I know, the amount of compensation is eight-digit, which I find insufficient. I believe it should be nine-digit, with a reserve of at least $1 billion, otherwise, the matter will drag on forever. More than 10 buildings are involved in this incident. I believe the political parties in our camp have to listen to public opinions, too, so the situation may be different next time around.

I tend to trust the opinions of friends in the engineering sector, that safety may not be seriously affected, especially since one of my party comrades represents the engineering sector. However, this does not mean we have the same level of acceptance of the Government's approach in the incident. I find it unacceptable that relevant bodies kept telling us to trust them and the experts, as interpreted by Frederick MA, Chairman of MTRCL, "If we tell you it is okay, then it is." I find it hardly acceptable. There is a famous saying in the legal sector which goes "Justice should not only be done, but should also be seen to be done." Here, I have a remark for the Secretary and all officials which I hope they will accept: Safety must not only be assured, but has to be seen to be assured. Not only MTRCL or Chairman MA must say okay, the people must say okay, too.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1213

What else has happened recently? Four lines of MTR broke down simultaneously. The Government is inquiring into the hard-hit Hung Hom Station, to which many other incidents are related. I believe the Judge will inquire into them altogether. The accounts of To Kwa Wan are not yet settled. The Expert Adviser Team suggested to open up the diaphragm walls for inspection, which at least drew a line between its position and that of MTRCL. However, the Government is really slack in supervision and slow in its response in this matter. So, I really wish to say, after the breakdown of four lines, that MTR has been in operation for nearly 40 years since 1979, and there are actually two pieces of legislation on railways in Hong Kong, one of them being the Mass Transit Railway Ordinance. Even without the "imperial sword" of P&P Ordinance, the Mass Transit Railway Ordinance is actually another "imperial sword" of the Government. Section 16 "Default under franchise" stipulates that the Government may consider terminating the franchise in the event of "a substantial breakdown of the service". I notice Honourable colleagues rarely mention this Ordinance, but I think it is not impossible to take it into consideration. MTRCL has been in operation for 40 years and if there are more and more problems, the Government should somewhat give it a scare by stating that the franchise should not be taken for granted. Same as the question of accountability, the situation will not change if the deduction of directors' remuneration is not severe enough.

Society has changed after 40 years. The public expects more from the accountability system. The issue to be dealt with now is confidence. Therefore, I agree that the Government should tell us how it will regain public confidence even without a select committee established under P&P Ordinance. What will the Government do if we do not inquire into the matter through a select committee? Section 14 of the Mass Transit Railway Ordinance stipulates a financial penalty, but the amounts are extremely low. A fine at level 3 is only $10,000; a fine at level 5 is only $50,000; the penalty for any failure of a continuing nature is only $10,000 for each day, and the penalty is paid with public money anyway. The penalty under section 29, which stipulates that default by a staff member is a criminal offence, is heavier.

In my opinion, the Government must follow up proactively and pursue responsibility if the investigation reveals concealment or involves criminal liability. I believe the consequences will be more serious when everything are clearly sorted out in criminal proceedings in court. Why did the Subcommittee to Study Issues Arising from Lehman Brothers-related Minibonds and Structured 1214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Financial Products invoke P&P Ordinance to inquire into the Lehman Brothers incident back then? It was because someone initiated criminal proceedings, hence, the banks began to reach settlement agreements. This is a very practical issue. So, is it now time to review the Mass Transit Railway Ordinance in order to come up with a compensation and claims mechanism? During the construction of the Express Rail Link, residents of more than 10 buildings in Tai Kok Tsui were concerned about cracks. We have found out that the compensation mechanism follows sections 6(a) and 7(a) of Part II in the Schedule of the Railways Ordinance which stipulate that certification by a professional is necessary in case of a claim, so this really scares away the general public.

Hence, this incident involves three aspects: first, the accountability of officials. I think Chairman MA should not be reappointed. Instead, a replacement candidate should be ready to follow up the matter once Chairman MA's tenure ends. This is about the feeling and impression of the people. Although I know Chairman MA very well, this is a matter of public impression; second, staff members must be held liable, whether criminally or civilly. The organizations must be held liable civilly, while staff members must be held liable criminally. I am not sure whether this mess was caused by the contractors or someone else; third, the Government must address social grievances. I do not know how the Government should be held responsible to maintain public satisfaction and confidence.

Therefore, the Secretary should study with his team ways to restore the confidence of the people, including Legislative Council Members. One may get away today, but not necessarily tomorrow, as the incident will affect the future. I can only say that the inquiry into the Lehman Brothers incident was actually not completed. The report was written in a rush because we had a lot to learn about banking in four years. However, consequently, the banking system did improve, consumer protection was enhanced and less people purchased high-risk bonds blindly.

I would also like to comment on the fact that this Council has not set up any select committee under P&P Ordinance since 2012. There has been a lack of mutual trust between the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democratic camp since a time I do not even know. The establishment of a select committee is regarded as putting up a show. I once wondered whether it is necessarily true? Sometimes I cannot even convince myself. Is it possible that they will not put up a show after I supported the establishment of a select committee? Sometimes LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1215

I have an uneasy feeling chairing panel meetings. Therefore, I would like to say that select committees established under P&P Ordinance can make progress only with concerted efforts from both the pan-democratic and pro-establishment camps. However, after discussion with other Honourable colleagues, we have doubts about whether they are putting up a show even on livelihood issues under the current situation between the pan-democratic and the pro-establishment camps. Therefore, Deputy President, I can only abstain in the vote today, but I hope the Secretary has heard my advice to him just now.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, having listened to Dr Priscilla LEUNG's speech, I would like to make some responses. Certainly, she managed to apply her knowledge of law to read against the relevant Hong Kong laws and suggest the Government to review the relevant provisions of the Mass Transit Railway Bylaws and examine the need to increase the penalty in order to strengthen the governance of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"). I find all of these good suggestions. However, in her concluding remarks, Dr LEUNG mentioned her worry that a select committee established under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") would probably become a show, one that is performed by Members from the pro-democracy camps only, whereas Members from the pro-establishment camp have no part in it. I do not know what show she was referring to. It really beats me.

As I heard Dr Priscilla LEUNG repeatedly mention the Lehman Incident in her speech, I made the special effort to look up information related to the incident. The Lehman Incident took place in 2008, after we were elected Members of the Legislative Council. Back then, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Deputy President and I all stood in the Legislative Council Election in the summer of 2008 and were elected in September. The Lehman Incident broke out on 14 September, pushing the entire financial system of Hong Kong and even the global one into darkness, causing many victims to take to the streets as a result. Returning to 10 October 2008―as Dr Priscilla LEUNG referred to that date, my colleagues especially checked the relevant information―10 years ago, the Legislative Council invoked P&P Ordinance to inquire into the Lehman Incident. In fact, many Hongkongers still have vivid memories of the incident as many people consequently lost their fortune. Even some companies located near the Legislative Council Complex ran into grave problems as well. On 10 October 1216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

2008, Secretary LAU Kong-wah, a Member at the time, told the Lehman Brothers victims outside the entrance of the Legislative Council Building that he would persevere with them until the very end and pursue the matter until the end to help them get back their money. However, he made a turnaround and voted against the motion in the House Committee. He was really "awesome". Afterwards, the Lehman Brother victims had to beg the political party of the Deputy President to change their mind eventually. At the meeting of the House Committee on 17 October, Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") cast their votes of abstention. It was indeed a huge step forward, having changed from opposition to abstention. Finally, at the meeting of the Legislative Council on 12 November, DAB Members voted in favour of the motion. Given the support of the majority of Members from the pro-establishment camp, the Legislative Council managed to invoke P&P Ordinance to undertake a thorough inquiry into the Lehman Incident to seek justice for the victims, which also produced some results―I am sure they are common knowledge―such as the necessary changes made in sale practices of the entire banking industry.

Of course, we used to hear many Members from the pro-establishment camp cite reasons such as "duplication and redundancy" to oppose invoking P&P Ordinance to conduct inquiries. However, back then the Police were actually conducting a criminal investigation into the Lehman Incident. Having checked the relevant information, we learnt that the Police terminated the investigation only in 2012 because no case could be established. Moreover, at the time the Hong Kong Monetary Authority also made an investigation. Therefore, back then in relation to the Lehman Incident, several different organizations conducted relevant investigations in parallel, and they each had their respective relevant statutory powers. Nonetheless, the Legislative Council also set up a select committee under P&P Ordinance to inquire into the Lehman Incident so as to seek justice for the public.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

I believe Honourable colleagues all have good knowledge of information on the Shatin-to-Central Link ("SCL"), so I have already edited out considerable factual contents from my speech and do not intend to make repetitions. However, I wish to point out that, as regards the construction problems of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1217

SCL Project, apart from the Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") that is now conducting an inquiry into them―we certainly should refrain from making too many comments on it because, according to the Commissions of Inquiry Ordinance, the Commission is performing judicial proceedings, for which we should render our respect―MTRCL also has its internal project committee which will conduct an investigation. In addition, the Highways Department has requested MTRCL to engage an independent consultant to undertake a load test. And the Board of MTRCL has also asked its Capital Works Committee to conduct a review of the processes and procedures for SCL and a report is expected to be completed in three months' time.

Secretary, we have not yet received the report. MTRCL announced on 21 June 2018 that a review of the incident would be conducted and a report is expected to be completed in three months' time. It is 1 November today and we have especially browsed the website of MTRCL again but failed to find such a report. I wonder if the Bureau has received the report? Is it possible for the Bureau to provide more means to disclose such information to Members? Shortly, I will also present some views on the Interim Report No. 1 on the SCL Project recently submitted by the Expert Adviser Team under the Transport and Housing Bureau.

On 15 August, the Transport and Housing Bureau established the Expert Adviser Team on the SCL Project to make feasible and practical proposals to MTRCL. However, the matters on hand have to date undergone numerous changes, in particular, the motions proposed by Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, which mainly aim at dealing with the recent developments. When we think that excessive settlement is the latest construction problem in the SCL Project, to our surprise, the even latest problem is that two weeks ago news suddenly came about a "prequel" to the incident of steel reinforcement bars of diaphragm walls in the newly built platform of the Hung Hom Station having been cut short. It was found that indeed steel reinforcement bars of diaphragm walls of the upper platform for the future Tuen Ma Line were also cut short. Then now there are worries that the lower platform for the future use of the East Rail Line may likewise be affected.

Of course, as regards the problem of steel reinforcement bars of diaphragm walls of the newly built platform in the Hung Hom Station being cut short as just mentioned, because the relevant works were under contract number 1112, it has been included in the scope of inquiry by the commission of inquiry. However, excessive settlement does raise considerable concerns. A number of Members 1218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 representing the geographical constituencies of Yau Tsim Mong or West Kowloon have spoken on this. I believe the Secretary will understand people's concerns.

As a Member from the Hong Kong Island Constituency, I have noted the huge difference between the handling of the construction problems in the Exhibition Centre Station and those in the To Kwa Wan Station. The works site of the To Kwa Wan Station is in close proximity to a more concentrated residential area and the underground pipes for public utilities there may be more concentrated to cope with the large volume of domestic activities. There is one more thing. I believe the Secretary is aware that To Kwa Wan is home to a larger number of relatively old buildings and excessive settlement will likely cause significant effects on building structure. Much to our chagrin, MTRCL actually attributed the problems of the building to their old age but not the settlement, as though it had already handled the issue. On the contrary, once excessive settlement in the construction works of the Exhibition Centre Station was discovered and excavation was performed too deep without making any reports, the works had to be suspended immediately. As a Member, regardless of which functional constituency or geographical constituency I represent, from the perspective of Hong Kong as a whole, I cannot accept such an approach of handling.

Of course, people are more concerned and worried about the authorities "moving the goalposts". It is commonly known that there is underground water in many places in Hong Kong. In terms of construction works, settlement is not uncommon but it is a grave concern to the public. And more importantly―I have actually consulted members from the engineering profession―President, even and simultaneous settlement does not pose a big problem because it will not cause structural tilting or fracture. But if the settlement is uneven, underground pipes may fracture, meaning different rates of settlement already create a serious effect.

Certainly, we are also aware that the Bureau has made changes to the announcement mechanism. Under the previous mechanism, all items in various aspects were subject to monitoring, after which a safety assessment would be conducted before the decision of works suspension would be made. As per the current amended mechanism, the established standards must be strictly adhered to and any exceedance of the trigger level will warrant an immediate suspension of works, the reason for which may be only to perform inspections―there is no problem with it. In fact, works have to be suspended when the rate of settlement exceeds the pre-set trigger levels for works suspension or the warning threshold, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1219 to either conduct inspections to ascertain the conditions or to seek solutions, both are desirable and necessary. Such should be done, instead of again drawing reference or making further assessment before calling for suspension of works, otherwise the system and trigger levels would be rendered meaningless.

Sadly, we now see that, according to the information on the extent of settlement previously provided by the authorities, there are 10 stations along the entire SCL but excessive settlement occurs in eight of them, with the most serious settlement happening in the Exhibition Centre Station. The catchment area of the Exhibition Centre Station does not cover a large number of residential buildings but the station is an important transport hub where passenger flows are enormous during commute hours. The discovery of bombs on the works site of Exhibition Centre Station earlier had greatly affected traffic on Hong Kong Island. I believe the Secretary still has fresh memories of it. Therefore, it is most undesirable that excessive settlement occurs on the works site of this station.

Why did I especially mention Interim Report No.1 by the Expert Adviser Team? Franking, as the Secretary may have taken note as well, the report gives somewhat fair comments because it not only requests MTRCL to conduct inspections on the diaphragm walls, but also rules out the report of the load test. Secondly, the report requests MTRCL to conduct inspections on, in addition to the East West Line platform slab, the platform slab and diaphragm walls of the North South Line as well. Despite the absence of a scandal about the North South Line platform slab, the Expert Adviser Team has sufficient grounds to request MTRCL to follow up, but it did not take heed of it and has not yet submitted the report to date.

Since that time I have noticed that the Secretary has stopped saying good words for MTRCL. Secretary, I leave this point to you to do explaining. At the meeting held a couple of days ago, the Secretary also showed such a tendency, and I also made similar comments. However, honestly, whenever the question of excessive settlement was brought up, I found that his responses appeared to be all too casual. I am not sure if it is because excessive settlement also involves the relevant government departments, which should have already obtained the data and had knowledge of the problem long ago. However, as Dr Priscilla LEUNG suggested, given the excessive settlement in the vicinity of the To Kwa Wan Station, the Government did not notify the residents, shops, etc. that were affected at all. There has been no action and even no report has been made to the District Council. I consider such a handling approach most unwise.

1220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

The incident has developed to the present stage. Though the works of the Exhibition Centre Station were suspended, the Government then relaxed the pre-set trigger levels for works suspension of the monitoring points. President, I wish to tell a joke. Relaxation of the trigger levels makes the settlement that is originally about to exceed the trigger level now within it for a long time, because applying the new levels, on the works site of the Exhibition Centre Station, the trigger levels of five monitoring points―not all of them―have been relaxed by four times. Accordingly, it is very difficult for the existing settlement to exceed the trigger levels. Given the relaxed levels, if there is still excessive settlement, the condition will truly be extremely serious.

Regrettably, the interim report by the Expert Adviser Team only mentions people's grave concern over the settlement problem and so in future the trigger levels should be relaxed only with full justifications and the number of relaxation should also be minimized by all means. President, my greatest worry is that, if the trigger levels are to be relaxed, I would rather them be relaxed as much as necessary in one go so that there will be no need to make frequent requests for revision of the trigger levels. This is the situation that worries us the most. We certainly understand that there are experts in government departments who will examine the report submitted by MTRCL or consider relevant requests it will make. Yet, to us, we have completely no knowledge of the actions taken by the Government in this whole course. There is no transparency at all.

I have been hoping that, when MTRCL makes a request to the Government for revising or relaxing the upper limit of the monitoring points, the Government should make public the request and the justifications for them. When making the consideration, whether it will decline or approve the request, it should also make public the reasons for people's knowledge. Now, many residents and even commercial organizations in the vicinity of the works site, who are facing the possible effects of settlement of the buildings in which they are living or have rented, only have the limited information the Government was willing to provide but no knowledge of the conditions of past settlement. Frankly, to them, without such information, they will be unable to draw a comparison to rule out external factors so as to prove that the settlement is caused by the construction works of MTRCL, which then has led to structural problems of the buildings and thus the need for repairs, and so a claim can be filed. It is critical to the lodging of claims. The causation therein has to be established, i.e. the reasons causing the problem and the consequences brought by it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1221

By what means can the general public, property owners, tenants or shop operators obtain such information? I will not put a machine for daily monitoring simply because there are ongoing construction works in the vicinity of my residence or office; such is the responsibility of MTRCL. We also believe that the Government has put in place a monitoring mechanism. Regrettably, the Government has not done so. It is the very reason for people losing confidence in the Government and MTRCL. At the same time, with the continual development, we have felt deeply dissatisfied with the Secretary, Director and even the Railway Development Office. Also, the Monitoring and Verification Consultant concerned has gone missing. I feel that the company have done no monitoring and verification, as the role itself suggests, except fooling around. I do not know what it has done in the incident.

In the remaining one minute of my speaking time, I wish to point out that I certainly support Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting invoking P&P Ordinance to set up a select committee. I will also extend my support if the Chief Executive expands the scope of inquiry of the Commission early. But considering the current development of the situation, I am very much worried that it would not be the case. In this year or so, while Members still have the powers and time, why not let us make more efforts to solve the problems? Moreover, the incident absolutely involves public safety. I am sure the Secretary understands that no one can give a definite answer to the final fate of Hung Hom Station or whether it will be demolished and rebuilt. Nevertheless, we hope that Members, be they from the pro-establishment camp or any grouping, will support us in invoking P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry. Thank you, President.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, first of all, on the two motions proposed by Ms Claudia MO and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting respectively to request an inquiry into the problem of settlement involving the Sha Tin to Central Link ("SCL"), I will give them my support.

In fact, the incident involving SCL is perhaps the biggest scandal ever in the history of transport infrastructure development in Hong Kong. How large is the scale of the problem? I believe I need not talk too much about this. In fact, this incident reflects the inadequate supervision of the Government on the works of SCL, and public safety is completely disregarded. Not only are there problems involving steel reinforcement bars having been cut short, there is also the problem of settlement now under discussion. Even if one does not take the 1222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Mass Transit Railway ("MTR"), one may still be affected. Prior to this, we may say that the incident of steel reinforcement bars being cut short will only affect passengers taking the MTR but now, this is no longer true. Even people living in the vicinity of MTR stations are affected. Although these scandals have erupted one after another, I have not seen the authorities do any serious soul-searching. Take this motion proposing an inquiry into the problem of settlement involving SCL as an example, it precisely shows that the Government has not learnt any lesson from the bitter experience and still adopts the attitude of muddling through, trying to resort to slick talk to gloss over the problems.

The problem of settlement related to the SCL Project is serious. According to the paper submitted by the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") to the Legislative Council on 30 August, over 131 settlement monitoring points along SCL have recorded settlement readings exceeding their trigger levels and among the 10 stations, 8 of them have problems related to settlement. Among them, the situation at the To Kwa Wan Station and the Exhibition Centre Station is the most serious and 36 and 49 settlement monitoring points there respectively have recorded readings that exceed their trigger levels, and the most serious settlement readings were 61 mm and 75 mm respectively. In fact, 75 mm is about the length of a palm and it is by no means short; rather, it has far exceeded the original set threshold of 20 mm.

Settlement induced by construction works can affect nearby buildings, roads and even gas pipes and cause structural damage to them. Water seepage on the walls of buildings may also occur as a result of such damage. It may not be possible to detect this kind of seepage within a short period of time. If seepage on some walls occur, it is probably after the next rainy season that seepage is suddenly noticed inside a unit. In that event, property owners will have a hard time as they will be involved in a lot of disputes. Initially, it may be suspected that the seepage originated from the unit upstairs, so the Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints will be contacted, so as to carry out an inspection in the unit and after inspection, it may be found that the problem is related to the external walls. Then, the property owners may have disputes with their owners' corporations over their request to carry out repairs on the building, holding the view that if the problem is related to the external walls of the building, property owners should not assume the responsibility, rather, the owners' corporation should pay for the repairs. However, the owners' corporation may just be a scapegoat because these cracks are probably not caused by the so-called wear and tear or poor repairs and maintenance, rather, it is the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1223 construction of SCL by MTRCL that caused the cracks on the walls. Has any inspection for such cracks been carried out? Do not think that these cracks can be seen by the naked eye, rather, it may not be readily discernible. Cracks in concrete, particularly on walls covered by mosaic tiles, have perhaps already appeared but property owners are not aware of them. In that case, what has the Government done to protect them? Of course, gas pipes are an even greater cause for concern. I believe I need not talk further about the consequences if incidents like gas leakage occur.

According to a consultancy report prepared for MTRCL in 2017, it can actually be seen that large-scale settlement had occurred in the vicinity of To Kwa Wan Station of SCL and the affected area is very extensive. More than 23 surrounding buildings had experienced settlement exceeding the permitted threshold and in the most serious case, the highest settlement reading of 62.9 mm was recorded at BMW House, 34% in excess of the threshold, and the base of this building is a filling station of the Shell Hong Kong Limited. A settlement of 51 mm was also recorded at the To Kwa Wan Municipal Services Building, exceeding the threshold by 50%. As regards the monitoring points for ground surface and underground pipes, 17 recorded readings exceeding the trigger level. The underground gas pipes next to BMW House recorded the highest settlement of 54.2 mm, or 2.2 times above the threshold. The Hong Kong and China Gas Company Limited confirmed that the settlement of four pipes had exceeded the threshold and leaks even occurred at one connection point and replacement or service suspension was necessary. In view of this, the problems mentioned by me just now are not just imaginary, that is, one can say that in reality, gas does not leak so easily and gas pipes cannot be damaged so easily; rather, problems have really occurred and had they not been detected early, our topic of discussion today would have been very different.

The settlement at the To Kwa Wan Station or the Exhibition Centre Station did not happen today. It turns out the Buildings Department was aware of the problem of settlement at an early stage but not only did it not direct MTRCL to suspend the construction works, it did not even make public the problem. MTRCL and the contractor did not suspend the construction works according to the existing mechanism, instead it continued the works and did not notify the affected residents. I believe herein lies the greatest problem. They live there every day and it turned out there are problems with the buildings in which they live but MTRCL did not tell them. MTRCL and the contractor did not suspend the construction works in accordance with the existing mechanism. However, 1224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 one can actually ask if the construction works can definitely be suspended even if MTRCL wants to do so. This may not be the case either. If we look at the construction works of the Exhibition Centre Station, MTRCL once issued a cease work order to direct the contractor to suspend the works because it had failed to construct a layer of struts before workers continued to excavate but the contractor could go so far as to pay no heed and told the workers to continue the excavation. What is the whole Government doing? Why were such things allowed to happen? If the contractor could not be made to suspend the works even though MTRCL had issued a cease work order, who else can make them suspend the works? How can the penalty system under the whole mechanism be improved, so that contractors will no longer carry out these life-endangering works? In fact, this is just like what happened in the coal mines on the Mainland in the past. There was disregard for the lives of miners and all that one cared for was to keep on mining. Then, collapses occurred and many workers perished. It never occurred to me that this kind of thing would happen in Hong Kong. I have never thought of it. Is the problem of settlement we now see caused by illegal excavation, as I presumed, and is there any relationship between the two? In fact, why is it necessary to carry out reinforcement works on the sides while carrying out excavations? In fact, apart from ensuring the safety of excavation workers, it is also intended to prevent the surrounding buildings or the sides of the tunnel from collapsing. Is there any relationship between the two? We do not know because the Government has no intention of carrying out any investigation.

At that time, a District Council ("DC") member also made enquiries with MTRCL about the information on monitoring but the latter refused to disclose the information on grounds of privacy. In that case, I do not quite understand what kind of privacy this is. You carried out excavation on the site, then I enquired about information on the settlement in the surrounding area, so whose privacy is this? It said that this was residents' privacy, yet it did not tell residents about the relevant information either, and when a DC member made enquiries, it refused to disclose the information. In fact, ultimately, it only wants to cover up the matter, it can thus be seen that the Government and MTRCL have no desire whatsoever to solve the problem and only want to muddle through.

The Government chose not to address the problem squarely by carrying out a review in earnest. Even more ridiculously, the Government went so far as to revise the trigger levels in exchange for the so-called construction efficiency. This claim is exactly the same as that made by MTRCL in the incident of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1225 continued excavation works at the Exhibition Centre Station mentioned by me just now, that is, it was necessary to have construction efficiency, so the excavation had to continue, but was this not achieved at the expense of the safety of the public and workers on the construction site?

According to government papers, the set threshold of settlement for railway structures is usually 20 mm and the guidelines of the Buildings Department also state that if the threshold is exceeded, construction works must be suspended to avoid posing even greater dangers to structures. After the large-scale settlement on the construction site of the Exhibition Centre Station was exposed by the mass media, the Government actually once requested that the works be suspended but without offering any reasonable explanation, late at 11:00 pm on Friday 28 September―the Government is fond of doing this sort of things and I wonder if they love working overtime―a press release was issued only late at 11:00 pm, moreover, the Government chose to issue it on Friday night, hoping to take advantage of there being perhaps no one at work on Saturday … in this regard, it thinks a lot about wage earners. However, after the incident of service disruption of four rail lines of MTR, MTRCL also knew the "right" thing to do by setting the dates for offering fare rebates on a Saturday and Sunday, so what is the logic in all this? I am not quite clear about this either. Again, the Government issued the press release only at 11:00 pm on Friday to relax the trigger levels at 122 monitoring points substantially. Among them, the greatest change of trigger level is to 95 mm, that is, from 20 mm to 95 mm, so the deviation from the set threshold is very great.

It relaxed the levels, thus making locations that were originally seriously non-compliant suddenly compliant again. The Government claimed that the problem of settlement no longer existed and the works could resume. That is to say, if a student takes an examination and it is originally stated clearly that the passing mark is 50 but the student only scores 20 in the examination, the teacher then says, "It does not matter. We now change the passing mark to 20, so he has passed and can now go up one grade.". Would anyone do anything so ridiculous? This only makes me think of one thing, that is, this teacher has not set an example of how good teachers should be like for us to emulate. If the Government does this sort of thing, it is not the kind of behaviour we expect of public servants. It has moved the goalposts and doing so will endanger Hong Kong people. President, human lives are at stake here.

1226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Given the gravity of the problem and the Government's failure all along to give a reasonable explanation for relaxing the trigger levels, I reiterate that we must invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") to look into the incident of settlement related to SCL. On four occasions, the pro-government camp has voted against invoking P&P Ordinance to investigate the scandals involving such stations as the Hung Hom Station and the Exhibition Centre Station. Similarly, on this motion proposed according to P&P Ordinance, the pro-government camp has remained obdurate and cited various excuses for opposing today's motion. On the one hand, the pro-establishment camp does not support any inquiry; on the other, it portrayed itself as very concerned about this issue. On the problems along the entire SCL all the way to the Hung Hom Station, if one day, when Joey YUNG is giving a performance and singing "Painful Love" in the Hong Kong Coliseum, as she is singing "Loving you for giving me this sinking feeling/Loving you for making me cry/Content if the trashing goes on", she may find that in this course, Hung Hom Station is really sinking, and Secretary Frank CHAN, she will find that this is not the effect of any stage design but the result of settlement. (Laughter)

I so submit.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): I was struck by Mr Jeremy TAM's speech. I need to straighten out my script first. The first point I wish to make is, the focus of this subject discussed by so many Honourable colleagues today is settlement. Honourable Members, this settlement issue has really got a history, since the first incident of settlement discussed in the Legislative Council was the occurrence of settlement of viaduct piers near Yuen Long Station in , to which I belong. Before this incident, people actually did not know much about settlement. Neither did I. We are grateful that before the incident of serious settlement concerning the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") was uncovered, it happened that there was a most practical example in Yuen Long District teaching all the people of Hong Kong that settlement could pose such a great impact and danger.

I wish to give some responses as the start. Among various Honourable colleagues of the pro-establishment camp who spoke earlier, I appreciate Dr CHIANG Lai-wan the most―having listened to Members' speeches here all day, "Auntie MO" should have heard it, too―Dr CHIANG's speech is really incisive. In short, she said if anyone has any problem, please feel free to approach Dr CHIANG Lai-wan. She will help them follow it up till the end. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1227

So she opposes invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance"). What amazing logic! Just now I was thinking, as she was uttering such resonant remarks, she would probably vote for the motion. But it turns out to be otherwise. One minute she said she would follow up the matter till the end, but the next she said she would oppose invoking P&P Ordinance. We really cannot miss a single word.

After all, why is it necessary to draw this "imperial sword" today? Today many Honourable colleagues of the pro-establishment camp said, buddy, the Government has already set up an independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission"). But I wish to say, buddy, the Commission only inquires into the jerry-building issue of the Hung Hom Station, whereas the topic under discussion today is settlement. President, they are different. If the reason held by them for not supporting the motion moved under P&P Ordinance today is that the Commission is already in place, then they are wrong. The Commission probes into the matter of jerry-building at the Hung Hom Station, whereas the motion today focuses on the settlement issue. It is that simple.

Hence, I certainly need to make a most sincere appeal, since I came from an afflicted district. Yuen Long District has been bitterly affected by settlement. The occurrence of settlement of the viaduct piers at Yuen Long Station was like a stone tossed into the water, raising a thousand ripples. What came next was the Tin Wing Station in Tin Shui Wai. The two places have shown different problems relating to settlement. The settlement of viaduct piers in Yuen Long has taught us what settlement is, whereas the issue of the Tin Wing Station has made us aware of the criteria for "moving the goalposts". It turns out that according to the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123), the settlement trigger level can be adjusted. If the limit for settlement is not high enough, it can be adjusted upward until it is so.

I believe all of us find this exasperating. Members of the public are exasperated. So are Members. In fact, this time, regardless of political affiliations, we all consider that the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") has handled the matter improperly. Such being the case, failures have never stopped our colleagues from battling on. This time "Auntie MO" has proposed again invoking P&P Ordinance, focusing on the settlement problem. Being the initiator of inquiries into settlement issues, I need to uphold the power of investigation in respect of settlement. I will certainly throw my full weight behind "Auntie MO" and call on Members to support this motion.

1228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Honourable Members, the way of handling this incident is indeed lousy. The response of MTRCL gives us the feeling that it is using one lie to cover up another, but no one can wrap fire in paper. Do Members still remember that a few months before the summer recess, we seemed to be playing a game? What game were we playing? A territory-wide search for settlement. Every day we would guess in which station settlement had occurred. Initially, it only disclosed 64 monitoring points, but it dared not disclose the details. What is most unacceptable is―"Auntie MO" does not know this―I had raised an oral question to the Secretary. As we all know, when we raise an oral question, a complete written reply will be placed on our desk. But it turned out that when the Bureau responded to my oral question that day, it added a small part which was not included in the reply. I wonder if the Bureau hoped that we would not hear it. But this part was crucial because it admitted the existence of settlement, and it happened that there was also mild settlement at the Tin Wing Station. Without such incidents and history of settlement, we would not have known the close connections of these cases when we discuss the settlement problem of SCL today.

I would like to share a story with Honourable colleagues. Before it was discovered that gas pipes were involved in the settlement issue in To Kwa Wan, I was merely making a wild guess. I remember I received a call for assistance from a resident in To Kwa Wan that night. He asked, "Mr KWONG, has settlement occurred in our vicinity?" I said, "According to the information available, settlement has occurred, and the relevant investigation is under way." Then he said he had noticed something abnormal in the previous period. It was an abnormal smell. Most local residents knew there was such a smell at a certain location and time. He suspected there was gas leakage. President, at that time I felt alarmed. I thought, not really! This could be disastrous. Was that the case? The public had such a concern. Sure enough, Towngas confirmed this on the following day. There had been gas leakage from four pipes. Of course, the leakage was minor rather than substantial. It was fortunate that the settlement did not lead to any accident involving gas pipes. How lucky!

However, the most outrageous point in this incident is, who brought such big fears and worries to the residents? We did not, as Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said just now, carry a microphone every day, telling residents here and there that settlement had occurred in the buildings where they lived. She criticized that we should not say such things through the microphone every day―she even made a gesture―she said we are wrong. We should not conduct any further inquiry. We should not invoke P&P Ordinance. Instead, we should believe her. She LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1229 would follow up the matter till the end. If there is any problem, just approach her. Honourable colleagues, this should not be how we work. What happened a few months ago is still vivid in our minds. If we cannot make the Government further disclose more comprehensive information, especially the truth about settlement, how can we find answers for the residents plagued by settlement so that they can live in peace?

How innocent the residents nearby are! The railway works conducted downstairs of their homes were already a great nuisance. Then it was discovered that the settlement problem might endanger the residents' safety. In the past, we thought settlement was just slight sinking. If any problem arose with the platform structure, it would be gone after repairs. Honourable Members, that is not the case. Now the problem is so serious that there has been leakage from gas pipes. At the Exhibition Centre Station, there has even been angular distortion of pipes. Such situations are still vivid in our minds. Every day during the whole summer recess of the Legislative Council, we were dealing with the settlement issue. Today I can assert that the integrity of MTRCL has "sunk". To restore public confidence in large-scale projects in Hong Kong, it should find out the truth about all the problems from the past mistakes, rather than adopting an arrogant attitude, saying, "If I say it is OK, then it is." This famous remark has already wasted several months of our time.

We should hold a pragmatic attitude. The motion today precisely seeks to deal with this matter, and my utmost concern is the settlement issue. Some Members said the Commission is conducting an investigation. We should wait until the Commission has completed the investigation and then see what the situation is. But I wish to say they are two totally different matters. The Commission investigates whether there was jerry-building at Hung Hom Station, whereas a select committee set up under P&P Ordinance will probe into the settlement issue. If the motion is passed today, I believe that subsequently, there will be other cases into which we need to probe. Why? Honourable colleagues, because this is the bounden duty of Legislative Council Members. P&P Ordinance is an "imperial sword" which should be drawn where necessary. This incident concerns public interest across the whole territory. It has caused anxiety among residents in various districts, making members of the public worry whether their properties have any problem and even whether the gas pipes will be consequently affected. Relating to the residents' rights and interests, all these are public concerns.

1230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

Today we must pay attention to the votes cast by respective Members on this motion. This is a "demon detector". We can get a clue from whether Members vote for the motion, vote against it or abstain. Have we thought from the people's angle, genuinely shared their urgent concern and searched for the truth so that we will know how to avoid affecting the residents when projects, especially large-scale ones expending large amounts of public funds, are implemented in future?

Certainly, the motion today is not simply about settlement. There are many other problems such as concrete, steel reinforcement bars, etc. Many Honourable colleagues have spoken on these problems, so I am not going to repeat them. Why is it necessary to invoke P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry? Many people say we can adopt other methods. If the Commission is not sufficient, we can invite the Secretary to a meeting or raise questions on other occasions in the Legislative Council. Yet, if we personally go to the districts and say that to members of the public who are badly affected by settlement, we would know they are indeed full of grievances. How can we get the real power to progressively unfold the matter and set things right? P&P Ordinance just comes in handy at this juncture.

Today I have noticed that different Honourable colleagues, even those of the pro-establishment camp, have hurled criticisms at and expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency in the disclosure of the whole incident by MTRCL or the government departments. Is such immense dissatisfaction still unable to urge them to press the "Yes" button? They need only press it once. In fact, they have not furnished any good explanation before. If this time they press the "Yes" button, at least it can show that they have thought about it and made consideration from the angle of the public. Many members of the public hold that if the Legislative Council can serve its purposes, it can be regarded as having staged a good show for the public. It turns out that Members do care about public safety. I used the word "safety" because I did receive a call from a resident who asked about the relevant matters. At first I only pacified him, not knowing whether there was indeed any gas leakage. On the following day, when it was confirmed true, I was really angry. This is in fact putting people's lives at stake. Do the officers concerned need not bear any responsibility at all? They took the blame and resigned, but their bonuses were not deducted when they left office. Then they were deemed as having assumed the responsibility? Not really!

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1231

The Legislative Council is not the Court, but the public expects that apart from vetting and approving various funding applications, the Legislative Council will perform its other functions. Now that there is such a chaotic situation, we must monitor it thoroughly. To monitor and follow it up thoroughly, we do not simply need the Government to come to us. Rather, we need to activate the corresponding weapon at our disposal. P&P Ordinance is not any weapon of mass destruction, is it? We will only summon government officials to the Legislative Council to explain the whole incident. They will give explanations so that Members can grasp the information. However, a certain Member did not allow this avenue to be ever pursued. Then she said outside that she would continue to follow up the matter till the end. How could this be? This should not be the way we work. This time it so happens that parties and groupings across the political spectrum share the same view, so we should aim at the same target. In this case, please do not consider voting against the motion or an abstention. Try invoking P&P Ordinance once and stage a good show for the people of Hong Kong!

No matter whether the motion is proposed by Ms Claudia MO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting or whichever Member, we are not set on attacking anyone until he is finished, so to speak. We do not hold such an attitude. If there is such a great mess which is yet to be cleared up and clarified, we should find out who should be held responsible and track down where the problem lies, rather than arguing whether P&P Ordinance should be invoked, as we are doing now.

President, the last motion was about the incident of denial of Victor MALLET's visa. Honourable colleagues had a heated debate. This is understandable. However, Honourable Members, this time it is about the people's livelihood. Among clothing, food, housing and transport, the last one takes a very important position. Members of the public need to travel every day. We also hope for the commissioning of SCL, but while the problem remains unsolved, how can it be commissioned? Is it safe? Has the project caused any problem to the buildings nearby? Why was there leakage from the gas pipes? Why was there angular distortion of the water pipes? Why did problems emerge at all the 64 monitoring points in Hong Kong? Apart from these 64 monitoring points, did any problem arise at any other place? These are questions we have to ask. Since this is a livelihood issue right before our eyes, can we share the people's urgent concern? The voting button is right in front of us. Let us really draw the "imperial sword" once and do justice to members of the public and society!

1232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

President, we will earnestly listen to the speeches of all the Honourable colleagues. I only wish to emphasize again that the Commission is not the focus today. The fact that the Commission is conducting an investigation does not mean we should not support invoking P&P Ordinance. They are not in conflict with each other. The former probes into whether there was jerry-building at Hung Hom Station, whereas the latter will inquire into the settlement and monitoring issues. They are indeed two different matters. Hence, I implore Honourable colleagues to vote for the motion on invoking P&P Ordinance.

President, I so submit.

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I listened attentively just now to Mr KWONG Chun-yu's speech, but it should have been finished by the ninth minute for he seemed to be repeating his arguments in the remaining six minutes, and he did pause for a while. So, in the hope of saving as much time as possible, I will speak more quickly.

I will first talk about the motion of Ms Claudia MO who pinpoints the settlement issue near To Kwa Wan Station. I used to be Chairman of the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation ("KCRC"). Every time I attended a meeting on the construction works of the West Rail Line back then, I was fully aware that settlement was bound to occur when works were undertaken. This had in fact nothing to do with the railway. As long as building construction works are taking place on a construction site, settlement is bound to occur in the vicinity of the site. The occurrence of settlement is not a crime. The most important point is to have sufficient monitoring points placed and have each one of them observed in a sustained manner. In the entire process, the Government's Highways Department ("HyD") and Buildings Department ("BD") must be informed of the relevant situations, including the trigger levels set at each monitoring point and their revision. The MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") can only continue the works after the government departments have a full grasp of those situations and do not oppose the continuation.

The greatest crime of MTRCL is its failure to report all the situations. And it has reported only to the Government without giving any account to the public. Honestly, this is the case not just for MTRCL, but for KCRC back then as well. For years, the word "settlement" has never crossed anyone's mind. It is only until recently that we learnt about it, right? In my capacity as Chairman LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1233 of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways, I requested MTRCL to give an account at our meeting on 31 August. As clearly stated in the documents provided at the time, the settlement readings of 36 monitoring points at To Kwa Wan Station had exceeded the pre-set trigger levels, 19 of the monitoring points were installed at buildings, involving around 14 buildings. And the settlement readings of these buildings had not exceeded the pre-set levels eventually revised by MTRCL. Even with the pre-set levels in place, MTRCL must regularly report to BD and HyD each month on such monitoring results as settlement data. And every time when a certain designated level is exceeded, MTRCL must consult the relevant departments―include HyD and BD as I understand it, which will verify, by examining those data, whether there is uneven settlement, as this could be a sign of tilting in buildings about which they are most worried. It is not a big problem as long as the settlement is even. The occurrence of tilting, on the other hand, is a grave problem. The works can only continue with the confirmation that there is no problem. This is more or less how railway projects in Hong Kong work until now.

MTRCL and the Government has now set up a new mechanism of external announcement. When the settlement reading of a monitoring point has reached the highest pre-set trigger level, MTRCL must suspend works immediately. MTRCL, BD and the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ("EMSD") will notify each other right away. In the next 48 hours, BD will complete an inspection of the affected railway facilities to confirm their structural safety, and EMSD will complete reviewing MTRCL's rail monitoring data to ensure safe railway operation. BD and EMSD will then issue a joint press release to account the situation to the public. Works can then be resumed immediately.

Now that those buildings near To Kwa Wan Station with settlement readings exceeding the pre-set trigger levels have been confirmed as structurally safe and stable, as the Secretary said just now, the entire problem of To Kwa Wan Station has more less been addressed. Hence, I find it unnecessary to conduct an inquiry by invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Even with such an inquiry taking place, it will look no further than the impacts of the settlement. Therefore, I will oppose this motion.

Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion, meanwhile, covers a wider scope, encompassing such issues as substandard construction works and alternations to the construction drawings. In respect of substandard construction works, about which I have all along been most concerned, MTRCL had, as usual, denied their 1234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 existence at the beginning before conceding that, to its knowledge, only a dozen steel reinforcement bars had been cut short. But then someone told me with absolute certainty that the substandard works involved one fifth of the reinforcements, which translates into 5 000 steel reinforcement bars out of 26 000. I have no idea who I should believe. This incident has tormented Hong Kong for four months. No matter who is conducting the inquiry and even with 100 000 witnesses summoned to testify, there are simply no records at all. The only way is to open up the concrete. Seeing is believing, as the simple saying goes, President. Seeing is believing, and I am sure you would agree, Secretary.

Having recommended opening up the concrete walls, the Expert Adviser Team newly appointed by the Government also said that the investigation of MTRCL was too limited in scope, while alluding to evidence that warranted an investigation into the North South Line―which they thought might also have problems, I presume―as well. However, up until today, what I have heard from the Government is that, the Government and the Expert Adviser Team have requested MTRCL to formulate a strategy to confirm the structural condition of the platform, including opening up a portion of the concrete at the joint connecting the platform slab and the diaphragm walls. I do not quite understand what "formulate a strategy" or "including" means. I wish only to ask the Secretary one question, a question which answer will affect how I vote: Are we opening up the concrete wall, or not? If we are going to do so, I will vote against the motion. As for other answers, such as "request" or "formulate a strategy", I honestly do not know what they mean. If I cannot convince myself otherwise, I will have no choice but to support this motion on invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to conduct an inquiry.

I have spoken for six and a half minutes. Good. I have, as promised, saved some time so that other Members can have their turn. Thank you.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, there are four female Members of the Legislative Council representing Kowloon West, and it is Ms Claudia MO from Kowloon West and Mr LAM Cheuk-ting who are moving the motions under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("P&P Ordinance") seeking the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the incident of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") today. Earlier on, I also heard Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Dr Priscilla LEUNG, both representing Kowloon West, speak on the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1235 motions. And there is actually one more Member, Ms Starry LEE, who is also from To Kwa Wan.

I noticed that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Ms Starry LEE appeared to be most concerned when they spoke, and earlier on, Mr KWONG Chun-yu also commended Dr CHIANG Lai-wan for her awesome performance. I also think that just now she was quite an actress, adding a touch of drama to her speech in a manner reminiscent of YUEN Qiu. In an anxious tone, she expressed her concern over the issues concerning To Kwa Wan and SCL, asking members of the public to approach the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") if necessary, and they would follow things up. It seemed that they were really concerned about the incident, hoping for a thorough investigation. But Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ms Starry LEE and even Dr Priscilla LEUNG all came to the conclusion that it was unnecessary to conduct an inquiry by invoking the Ordinance.

I actually do not quite understand that. Since they expressed strong dissatisfaction with the performance of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") and great concern over public safety, asking members of the public to approach them for follow-up of the incident, why would they come to the conclusion that we should not proceed with an inquiry? There is no clear basis for this argument. How can the truth come to light without an inquiry? If we wish to pursue responsibilities, how can we do so with no information on hand? How can we assist members of the public? Can we simply tell them not to worry, saying that things are going to be fine? Just now, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan even told us not to always scare the public, but how will we possibly scare them? It is actually the people themselves who feel worried. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan went even further to say that our continued discussion on the settlement incident will lead to a fall in property prices. Such arguments which confound right and wrong are really awesome.

President, I heard the speech of Dr Priscilla LEUNG earlier on. She actually did not think that invoking P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry should never be an option, and contrary to the claims of some Members from the pro-establishment camp, she mentioned that the Legislative Council should have the power of investigation. Members from the pro-establishment camp are really strange, who will always exhaust every means possible to reject the invocation of P&P Ordinance on various pretexts. They will do the same every 1236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 time. Sometimes they will say that as two years have gone by and there is not much time left in the current term of the Legislative Council, we should not proceed with an inquiry. And sometimes they will say that since the Government has set up an independent commission of inquiry, we should not proceed with an inquiry. All in all, this "imperial sword" should never be drawn. Motions similar to this have been voted down by Members from the pro-establishment camp in the Legislative Council over the years. I very much hope that Mr Michael TIEN will show some guts to support the invocation of P&P Ordinance.

Having said all this, I actually do not wish to repeat the arguments advanced by a number of Members earlier on. Why must we invoke P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry? We have heard the speech of Dr Priscilla LEUNG, and she has actually hung a number of banners across Kowloon West, calling for an expansion of the terms of reference of the independent Commission of Inquiry ("the Commission") to thoroughly investigate the problems of SCL. Judging from the fact that she has put up such banners here and there across Kowloon West, I believe she is not quite happy with the Government's Commission investigating just the Hung Hom Station incident but not the To Kwa Wan Station incident or other construction problems of SCL.

But the problem now is that the Government does not heed the suggestions of Dr Priscilla LEUNG. It has turned down the proposals of some Members from the pro-establishment camp, refusing to expand the terms of reference of the Commission and widen the scope of inquiry to also cover the situation at To Kwa Wan Station, not just the shortened steel reinforcement bars at Hung Hom Station of SCL. Now that the Government does not heed Dr Priscilla LEUNG, should she show some guts to say that she, as a Member representing Kowloon West, will support invocation of P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry? It is because she once requested the Government and Mrs Carrie LAM to widen the scope of inquiry, but Mrs Carrie LAM refused it. Is the reluctance of the Government not an even stronger reason for her to indicate her support now? But all of a sudden, she said she was worried that we were playing games and putting up a show. Members from the pro-establishment camp actually do not practise what they preach, who will definitely vote in a way that contradicts what they said before. Hence, when something happens, how are those people who seek help from the pro-establishment Members going to find out the truth? How will they follow things up? They side with the Government, coming to the defence of Secretary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1237

Frank CHAN. That is why we, ultimately, still insist that we must invoke P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry.

President, I also wish to talk about my observations. While some Members queried why Ms Claudia MO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and the pro-democracy Members had repeatedly proposed to invoke P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry, unwilling to let go, I wish to say that it is because we are still kept in the dark over a number of issues even now. In fact, it has been reported in the press that the problems arising in the construction of SCL were actually known to the Government in 2015. According to the record back then, the Senior Structural Engineer of the Buildings Department already reminded the Government Engineer of the Railway Development Office of Highways Department by email in May 2015 that several site irregularities at Hung Hom Station were noted, reflecting shortcomings in the site management between 2013 and 2015, which would give rise to public safety concern and might have implication on the construction programme, if not rectified in a timely manner.

Nevertheless, why has the Government not addressed such incidents squarely after such a long delay? It has even been deceiving the Kowloon City District Council ("DC"). A DC member representing To Kwa Wan enquired about the settlement problems, but the Government joined MTRCL in telling lies, deceiving the DC and concealing the incidents from the Legislative Council. What makes it necessary to invoke P&P Ordinance to conduct an inquiry? The reason is that it is a means without which the truth can never be uncovered because the Government, MTRCL and the relevant contractors will not disclose the concrete details to us.

President, the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways of the Legislative Council held a special meeting on 31 August this year, during which the settlement problems of SCL were discussed. At the meeting, it was only because of the pressure from us that the Government submitted a heap of settlement data. But at that particular meeting, I actually queried why it only submitted the settlement data without providing the tilting data of buildings in the vicinity of SCL stations. At that time, MTRCL representatives and the Government undertook to provide me with the relevant information later on to enable public access to the tilting data of buildings affected by settlement. But now two months have passed. I requested the relevant data on 31 August. Two whole months have gone by, and now it is November. I wrote to MTRCL 1238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 again to request a reply, yet it just came up with excuses to turn me down, indicating that a reply would be given at a Panel meeting, making it an item on the list of outstanding issues for discussion of the Panel. But there has been no follow-up action over the past two months.

The settlement problems are actually caused by the construction works. In addition to the problems of SCL, settlement problems caused by the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") project have also been identified at Kowloon Station. Last night, I again inspected Lin Cheung Road adjacent to the XRL station, and the scene was simply shocking. I saw that while the pavement had been properly paved, the wall where it was jointed to the ground remained cracked open, with clefts wide enough to fit an egg in them. It was even hollow inside, with hoardings erected around some of them. The SCL Project has even affected the car parks of some hotels in Hung Hom, and the buildings are not immune, with appearance of multiple cracks. While the Government and MTRCL have told us that it is safe and sound, the residents wonder if they should believe such words. Have they employed an independent third party to verify such reports certifying the structural safety, thereby making the public feel assured with access to the relevant data? Now in the absence of such relevant data, we are left with a number of things that we are unable to tell whether they are safe. According to Mr Michael TIEN, if the Government refuses to undertake to open up the diaphragm walls of SCL to check whether the steel reinforcement bars have been drastically shortened and not screwed into couplers to full depth, he will support the invocation of P&P Ordinance.

Hence, the problem is the reluctance of the Government, MTRCL and contractors of the project to disclose the details, no matter how hard we push them. What is our last resort in finding out the truth? The Legislative Council will have sufficient powers to summon the parties concerned to provide the relevant data only by invoking P&P Ordinance, so that we can grasp and know the truth. If we do not invoke P&P Ordinance, even if I wrote to MTRCL repeatedly requesting the data, it would just give bureaucratic responses. When I asked for the settlement data of Kowloon Station, it merely replied "OK, no problem" without providing any figure, and that was all. While it has given me the settlement data of SCL, it has provided neither the tilting data nor third-party assurance to prove that the structures are safe and sound. There is no information at all. While the entire issue had long since been known to the Government, Secretary Frank CHAN went so far as to say that he did not have much idea what was going on, even as a member of the MTRCL Board. Even if LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018 1239 he had no knowledge, why did the new term of Government not ask its predecessor or request the civil service and senior officials of the Government to give a briefing during the handover? Does he have any knowledge? He must be working an easy job as the Secretary for he needs not make any enquiry even if he knows nothing. Would it not make him particularly vulnerable to being cheated?

Hence, I hope Members from the pro-establishment camp will give the matter its fair deal. If Members are truly concerned about people's livelihood, they should invoke P&P Ordinance to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident, instead of always seeing our request for an inquiry as an unmistakable attempt to play games and make a show of it. We do so for the sake of the public in a bid to seek justice because we have the right to know. We cannot just assume everything is fine just because the Government says so. Who should be held responsible in case of incidents? DAB have indicated the intention to pursue the matter, but I wonder on what basis they are going to do so. If they do not even have the courage to seek the truth, how can they hold the parties concerned responsible on behalf of the public and residents of To Kwa Wan? Now it remains unknown as to where the responsibility lies or who should be held responsible.

President, while we have had debates on motions moved under P&P Ordinance in respect of SCL on a number of occasions and some arguments may be repeated, the point is that the constructions cost of the entire project stands at $97.1 billion. It is profoundly disturbing that having spent that much on the project, we still cannot be spared such issues as falsifications in the construction process, supervisory failure and concealment by the well-informed Government. Just like the local residents, I as a Member representing Kowloon West am terribly eager to see the early completion and commissioning of SCL. Nevertheless, the potential safety hazards of SCL yet to be identified by us will undermine our confidence in its service in future. Certainly, if such construction works have affected the buildings and residents nearby, there is an even stronger reason to ensure the residents' right to know and protection for them, so that they will know when problems arise, who will be responsible for the repairs and maintenance? And who will foot the relevant bill? It must offer a clear and full explanation instead of muddling through as if nothing has happened, hoping that people will enjoy their ride on SCL once the incident fades from their memory in future.

1240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 1 November 2018

President, I hope that through this debate, more Members will support our effort to find out the truth, with the sole purpose of putting all residents using the rail link at ease and ensuring the safety of the homes of residents along the rail line.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As it is impossible for this debate to be concluded this evening, I now adjourn the meeting until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 7 November 2018.

Adjourned accordingly at 7:33 pm.