LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10221

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 13 May 2015

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.

10222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

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

THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10223

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

10224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

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

THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.

DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10225

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE TSANG TAK-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

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

THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

10226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats.

TABLING OF PAPERS

The following paper was laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:

Report No. 19/14-15 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Use and Management of Public Sector Information

1. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, in 2011, the Government launched the portal, Data.Gov.HK, for release of public sector information (PSI) in digital formats for re-use by the public free of charge. The information on the portal is provided by various government departments and public organizations with the aim of stimulating community creativity and ingenuity by enabling the public to make use of PSI data to develop innovative and practical applications for bringing convenience to the public and benefiting the community. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether an interconnection mechanism is in place among the various policy bureaux, government departments and public organizations for the integration of PSI data released through Data.Gov.HK and the facilitation of the shared use of such data; if so, of the details; if not, whether the authorities will study the feasibility of setting up such an interconnection mechanism;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10227

(2) whether it will consider putting in place an interconnection mechanism among the various policy bureaux, government departments and public organizations for the shared use of closed data, so as to improve work efficiency and encourage users to make use of the data to develop new applications;

(3) whether the various policy bureaux and government departments have adopted common standards for the management and analysis of various kinds of PSI data at present, so as to enhance the Government's electronic services and upgrade the quality of public services; if they have, of the details;

(4) of the respective numbers of courses on information technology topics, such as Big Data analysis, data management, etc., among the induction courses, continuing education courses and e-learning resources as well as the external courses under the Training Sponsorship Scheme organized by the authorities for civil servants in the past three years; whether the authorities will allocate additional resources and manpower to provide more trainings in PSI data for civil servants;

(5) whether it has studied adding requirements on the collection, management and release of PSI data when granting franchises, licenses or service contracts to public utilities, telecommunications service providers, public transport operators and the organizations providing education, financial and social services, so as to promote the application of PSI data and develop Hong Kong into a smart city; if it has, of the specific details;

(6) whether it will study hiring private companies to assist the various government departments in the management and analysis of PSI data and engagement of the advisory services of such companies; and

(7) whether the authorities will provide subsidies for developers of applications to assist them in developing new products using PSI data, so as to encourage more talents to join the telecommunications and information technology industries and promote the development of these industries?

10228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, my reply to the seven-part question is as follows:

(1) The Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO) has established the Data.Gov.HK one-stop portal to release public sector information (PSI) in digital formats. The Data.Gov.HK portal, built on the open source CKAN platform technology, collects and releases PSI from different departments in real time. The datasets are all available in digital formats (including CSV, JSON, RSS and XML, and so on), with some also released with application programming interfaces to facilitate downloading, processing, meshing and use. The platform and data formats of the portal are widely adopted by PSI websites in other advanced digital economies (such as the United States, Britain, Singapore, and so on).

PSI presents good potentials for development: the more datasets, the greater the benefits. Therefore, Data.Gov.HK also allows non-governmental organizations to upload their PSI for reuse. At present, datasets provided by the MTR Corporation Limited and the Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation are available on the portal.

(2) Government departments share and exchange data as and when necessary to enhance operational efficiency and quality of public services. For instance, the OGCIO has integrated the data on addresses of buildings and streets across the territory for sharing among different departments to facilitate fast and accurate searching and verification of addresses, significantly reducing the costs of updating and maintaining the address database.

This notwithstanding, as some internal data within Government involve personal privacy or confidential information, and different government departments have different business needs and operational modes, sharing of data will only be considered having regard to actual circumstances. If sharing of data is considered necessary, the departments concerned will determine the scope of data to be shared and work out the operational arrangements, subject to consent of the data subjects and compliance with the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10229

(3) The OGCIO promulgated the "Interoperability Framework" for e-Government in 2002 to provide guidance on the standards and formats of data for integration and sharing within the Government. Under the "Interoperability Framework", various types of data can be seamlessly exchanged and shared to facilitate the development of e-Government services, despite the adoption of different IT systems by departments. The "Interoperability Framework" defines the specifications and standards of various types of data, including country and area code/designation, name, address, identity card number, marital status, and other information in relation to lands, works, trade and health records, and so on.

(4) In the past three years, the Government through the OGCIO arranged over 50 training courses on big data analytics and data management, and provided related online learning resources for government staff. The Government will continue to strengthen its training on big data analytics and data management for government staff.

Regarding the release of PSI, the OGCIO has issued guidelines and arranged seminars to brief departments on the new policy of releasing PSI in digital formats and introduce to them in detail the technical arrangements for data management. The OGCIO has also set up a dedicated team and a hotline to provide technical assistance for departments.

(5) The Government has no plan to mandate operators to release PSI, but encourages public bodies and non-governmental organizations to release in digital formats the PSI they collect and produce so as to spur creativity and create business opportunities. At present, information on train stations and services released by the MTR Corporation Limited and accessibility facilities collated by the Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation are available on the Data.Gov.HK portal.

(6) Government departments collect and produce a vast quantity of data in their day-to-day operations. In order to enhance operational efficiency and public service delivery, where necessary departments will procure data management system and related services in the market to manage and analyse various data.

10230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

(7) Government's aim of releasing PSI is to facilitate application developers to develop innovative products. The OGCIO has been proactively promoting the use of PSI among application developers through various channels, such as publicity campaigns and a series of promotional activities like talks, training courses, app development competitions and exhibitions. At the same time, the OGCIO publicizes app developers and their PSI-based products through media interviews and feature articles. The OGCIO also showcases mobile applications and solutions using PSI datasets on the Data.Gov.HK portal. We believe that application developers are generally sensitive to market demands and business opportunities. At this stage we have no plan to provide funding support to them.

Regulation of Vehicle Repair Workshops

2. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, on the 26th of last month, an explosion and fire occurred in a vehicle repair workshop located on the ground floor of a residential building in Tsz Wan Shan, resulting in a number of casualties. Afterwards, many people residing on the floors above the workshop and in the vicinity called me to enquire about the regulation of vehicle repair workshops (especially those alleged to have engaged in illegal repair of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles) and the safety of their premises. Besides, some taxi drivers pointed out at a radio interview that even though they knew that certain vehicle repair workshops were not workshops approved for repairing the fuel system of LPG vehicles (approved workshops), they still must patronize them as instructed by vehicle owners in order to keep their means of living. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of vehicle repair workshops in Wong Tai Sin District, and among them, the number of workshops located on the ground floor of residential buildings;

(2) among the 29 approved workshops in Hong Kong, of the number of those located in Wong Tai Sin District;

(3) whether the authorities have immediately inspected the workshops in Wong Tai Sin District after the occurrence of the aforesaid incident to check if they have contravened the Fire Safety (Buildings) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10231

Ordinance (Cap. 572) and the Gas Safety Ordinance (Cap. 51); if so, of the details, including whether cases of repair of LPG vehicles without approval have been found; if not, whether they can conduct inspections immediately; and

(4) what policies and measures are in place to impose regulation on taxi and minibus companies and vehicle owners who, for the purpose of saving repair costs, have the fuel systems of their vehicles repaired by workshops which they know are not approved workshops?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Administration would like to explain the regime of the Gas Safety Ordinance as it is applicable to the control of storage and use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

The Gas Safety Ordinance regulates gas safety matters, with a view to ensuring the safety of importation, manufacture, storage, transport, supply and use of town gas, LPG and natural gas. In respect of LPG storage and installation, any containers with the aggregated nominal water capacity of more than 130 litres of LPG are "notifiable gas installations". The construction and use of "notifiable gas installations" requires the approval of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD). At present, there are 571 approved LPG "notifiable gas installations" including 29 vehicle maintenance workshops that have been approved for storing LPG fuel tanks of more than 130 litres. In considering whether approval should be granted to vehicle maintenance workshops for storing LPG fuel tanks of more than 130 litres, the EMSD will consider if the vehicle maintenance workshops comply with the safety requirements in respect of the design, construction and location, including good ventilation, restricted from locations for occupation, and the installation of gas detection system, mechanical ventilation systems and fire prevention systems, and so on.

For the purpose of enforcing the Gas Safety Ordinance, the Gas Safety Inspectors of the EMSD conducted in each of the past three years over 1 300 inspections to the approved LPG "notifiable gas installations". These inspections included inspections at least once a year of the 29 vehicle maintenance workshops that have been approved for storing LPG fuel tanks of more than 130 litres, as well as random surprise inspections.

10232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

For maintenance and repair of LPG vehicles not involving LPG fuel systems, the work may be carried out in general vehicle maintenance workshops. As for any work on or in relation to a gas pipe, including work on the fuel tank or other associated components, the Gas Safety Ordinance stipulates that such work should be carried out by a competent person or under the supervision of a person who is competent. Any replacement of LPG fuel tanks or any maintenance, repair or replacement work for other associated components are required to be carried out by a Competent Person (Class 6) or a person under the supervision of a Competent Person (Class 6). Competent Persons (Class 6) approved by the EMSD are required to complete the LPG Vehicle Servicing Programme provided by the Vocational Training Council and possess practical experience. At present, there are over 1 100 Competent Persons (Class 6) in Hong Kong, and they may replace LPG fuel tanks or carry out any maintenance, repair or replacement work for other associated components in any vehicle maintenance workshops.

(1) According to the EMSD's record, there are 67 vehicle maintenance workshops located in Wong Tai Sin District, among which 49 are located on the ground floor of residential buildings.

(2) and (3)

There are 29 vehicle maintenance workshops that have been approved by the EMSD for storing LPG fuel tanks of more than 130 litres. None of them is located in the Wong Tai Sin District.

Since the explosion and fire incident in late April this year, the EMSD has conducted 350 additional inspections to vehicle maintenance workshops (including all vehicle maintenance workshops in Wong Tai Sin District) to ensure that the vehicle maintenance workshops have not contravened the requirements under the Ordinance. This involved ensuring that the vehicle maintenance shops have not stored more than 130 litres of LPG without approval, and that replacement of the fuel tank or other associated components is carried out by a Competent Person (Class 6) or under the supervision of a person who is a Competent Person (Class 6). During the inspections, the EMSD identified two cases involving vehicle maintenance workshops with over-storage of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10233

LPG and investigation is in progress. The EMSD is also planning to inspect all 2 700 vehicle maintenance workshops in Hong Kong in the next few weeks.

In addition, following the explosion and fire incident on 26 April, the Fire Services Department (FSD) has immediately conducted inspections of all vehicle maintenance workshops in the Wong Tai Sin District. The FSD commenced a territory-wide inspection on 29 April, and expects to complete the territory-wide inspection of about 2 700 vehicle maintenance workshops in Hong Kong by the end of July.

As at 7 May, the FSD has inspected 558 vehicle maintenance workshops. During the inspections, four cases of suspected over-storage of dangerous goods in breach of the Dangerous Goods Ordinance (Cap. 295) have been identified. The FSD has taken enforcement action against the relevant responsible persons. If other suspected irregularities are identified during inspections, the FSD will make referrals to the relevant departments for follow-up.

(4) For maintenance and repair of LPG vehicles not involving LPG fuel systems, the work may be carried out in general vehicle maintenance workshops. As for the replacement of LPG fuel tank or any maintenance, repair or replacement work for other associated components, the Gas Safety Ordinance requires that such work be carried out by a Competent Person (Class 6) who has completed the LPG Vehicle Servicing Programme provided by the Vocational Training Council and possess practical experience, or by a person under the supervision of a person who is a Competent Person (Class 6). At present, there are more than 1 100 Competent Persons (Class 6) in Hong Kong, and they may replace LPG fuel tanks or carry out any maintenance, repair or replacement work for other associated components in any vehicle maintenance workshops.

The Transport Department has all along reminded the taxi trade that any repair work of LPG fuel system should be carried out under the supervision of a competent person approved by the EMSD.

10234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Appointment of Chief Executive

3. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the Central People's Government (CPG) plans to draft the "Method for the Appointment of Chief Executives of Special Administrative Regions" (the Appointment Method) within this year to regulate the appointment of the Chief Executives (CEs) of both the Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions. Some members of the public are worried that the purpose of CPG formulating the Appointment Method is to impose new requirements on the eligibility for the office of CE beyond those in the Basic Law. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has approached CPG to gain an understanding on the drafting of the Appointment Method; if it has, of the details, including the purposes of formulating the Appointment Method as well as the effects expected to be achieved by, and the specifics of, the Appointment Method;

(2) whether it has conducted any assessment on the possible impact of CPG's formulation of the Appointment Method on the selection procedures for CE, including (i) whether the inclusion of the new requirements on the eligibility for the office of CE in the Appointment Method will contravene local legislation, (ii) whether manipulation of the selection procedures for CE will be resulted, (iii) whether an unlevel playing field for the election of CE will be created, and (iv) whether corresponding amendments to local legislation are required; if it has not conducted such an assessment, of the reasons for that; and

(3) whether the authorities will truly reflect to CPG the worries of Hong Kong people about CPG's formulation of the Appointment Method and urge CPG to respect the policy of "one country, two systems" and the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" by avoiding taking any moves that may possibly violate such policy and principles; if they will not, of the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10235

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, according to our understanding, the question raised by Mr Frederick FUNG is based on a rumour published by a local newspaper on a certain day that had not been confirmed by any official source. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government is not aware of any such plan, and therefore it is inappropriate for us to comment on the rumour in a vacuum.

According to the stipulations of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive shall, after election held in the HKSAR, be appointed by the Central People's Government. The HKSAR Government has released the proposals for the method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage on 22 April 2015 in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant interpretation and decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. The HKSAR Government will strive to secure the endorsement of the proposals by the Legislative Council, so that 5 million eligible voters of Hong Kong could select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage through "one person, one vote" in 2017.

Safety of Vehicle Repair Work and Training for Vehicle Mechanics

4. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, in connection with the safety of vehicle repair work and training for vehicle mechanics, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the current number of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles in Hong Kong, and the respective numbers of taxis and light buses among them;

(2) of the current number of mechanics qualified for repairing the fuel systems of LPG vehicles; whether it knows the number of them who are currently engaged in vehicle repair work;

(3) whether it knows the contents of the 19 training courses on motor vehicle repair currently provided by the Vocational Training Council;

10236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

(4) of the current number of mechanics registered under the Voluntary Registration Scheme for Vehicle Mechanics; whether it knows (i) the number of them who are currently engaged in vehicle repair work, and (ii) the percentage of them in the total number of vehicle mechanics;

(5) of the current number of workshops registered under the Voluntary Registration Scheme for Vehicle Maintenance Workshops, and the percentage of them in the total number of vehicle repair workshops in Hong Kong;

(6) whether it has assessed if the implementation progress of the two schemes mentioned in (4) and (5) is satisfactory; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, whether the authorities will strengthen the regulatory measures (such as mandating all mechanics and workshops to be registered); if they will, of the implementation timetable;

(7) whether the Government has regularly organized safety seminars for mechanics in respect of high-risk vehicle repair work; and

(8) of the number of vehicle repair workshops inspected by the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD), and whether EMSD took enforcement actions against contraventions of the Gas Safety Ordinance (Cap. 51), in each of the past three years; if so, of the details?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Environment Bureau, the Government's consolidated reply to various parts of Mr CHAN Hak-kan's question is as follows:

(1) As at end April 2015, there are a total of about 22 000 registered liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) vehicles in Hong Kong, including about 18 000 LPG taxis and about 3 700 LPG light buses.

(2) As pointed out by the Environment Bureau, general maintenance and repair of LPG vehicles may be carried out by general vehicle mechanics. As for any work on or in relation to a gas pipe, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10237

including works on the fuel tank or other associated components, the Gas Safety Ordinance (Cap. 51) stipulates that such work should be carried out by a competent person or under the supervision of a competent person. The Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD) is responsible for the enforcement of the Gas Safety Ordinance, and requires that any replacement of LPG fuel tanks or any maintenance, repair or replacement work for other associated components are required to be carried out by a Competent Person (Class 6) or a person under the supervision of a Competent Person (Class 6). There are currently over 1 100 Competent Persons (Class 6) in Hong Kong. They have completed the LPG Vehicle Servicing Programme provided by the Vocational Training Council and possess practical experience and are qualified for repairing the fuel system of LPG vehicles.

(3) Pro-Act Training and Development Centre (Automobile) of the Vocational Training Council currently offers a total of 19 in-service training courses on vehicle repair for automotive mechanics to enhance their service standards. These 19 courses cover the basic operations, maintenance and inspection, calibration, fault diagnostic and repair skills for vehicle parts and systems of a wide range of vehicles (including LPG vehicles), as well as the spraying techniques for vehicle body, welding, automobile vehicle testing and the use of measuring tools/equipment, and so on.

(4) As at end April 2015, there are about 9 000 vehicle mechanics in Hong Kong, of which 6 380 (that is, about 70%) vehicle mechanics already registered under the Voluntary Registration Scheme for Vehicle Mechanics. The registration and renewal of registration are valid for three years. One of the conditions for renewal of the registration is that an applicant has to be engaged in vehicle repair work in past three years prior to his application. According to the EMSD's understanding, most of the registered mechanics under the Voluntary Registration Scheme are presently engaged in vehicle repair work.

(5) To pave way for the Voluntary Registration Scheme for Vehicle Maintenance Workshops, the EMSD launched the Vehicle Maintenance Workshops Charter Scheme in January 2013. Some 10238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

400 workshops have already subscribed to the Charter Scheme. Although the initial subscription rate is not high, having reviewed the implementation of the Charter Scheme and discussed with the trade, the EMSD decided to roll out the Voluntary Registration Scheme for Vehicle Maintenance Workshops in 2015, publicity activities of which will kick off in mid-2015.

(6) As pointed out in parts (4) and (5) of the reply, about 70% of the total number of vehicle mechanics in Hong Kong already registered under the Voluntary Registration Scheme for Vehicle Mechanics as at end April 2015. The Voluntary Registration Scheme for Vehicle Maintenance Workshops will also be rolled out in mid-2015. The EMSD will consult the trade in due course, and take into account the results of the two voluntary registration schemes, as well as the cost benefit analysis of a mandatory scheme, when considering the introduction of a mandatory registration scheme for vehicle maintenance workshops.

(7) The Labour Department from time to time organizes regular safety talks for vehicle repair and maintenance companies and their employees, related organizations and other members of the industry. The safety talks mainly cover occupational safety and health related legislation and general safety measures relating to vehicle repair and maintenance work. Where necessary, thematic safety seminars (for example, safety seminars on repair and maintenance work of heavy machineries and vehicles of the container handling industry) will also be held to meet the needs of the industry. In addition, the Occupational Safety and Health Council has organized the "Motor Car Repairing Safety Supervisor Training Course" for the car repairing industry.

(8) According to the Environment Bureau, the EMSD currently has 39 Gas Safety Inspectors. In the past three years, the EMSD conducted on average over 1 300 inspections on 571 approved LPG "notifiable gas installations" under the Gas Safety Ordinance (Cap. 51) every year. These inspections included inspections at least once a year of the 29 vehicle maintenance workshops with storage of more than one LPG fuel tanks (that is, storage of more LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10239 than 130 litres of LPG), as well as random surprise inspections. The existing 29 vehicle maintenance workshops that are LPG "notifiable gas installations" approved by the EMSD may store more than one LPG fuel tank (that is, LPG storage with more than 130 litres), and may carry out replacement work on the fuel tank or other associated components of more than one LPG vehicle in parallel by Competent Persons (Class 6) or by persons under the supervision of Competent Persons (Class 6). Vehicle maintenance workshops that are LPG "notifiable gas installations" are required to comply with the EMSD's safety requirements in respect of the design, construction and location, including good ventilation, excluded from locations for occupation, and the installation of gas detection system, mechanical ventilation systems and fire prevention systems, and so on.

Since the explosion and fire incident at the end of April this year, the EMSD has conducted 350 additional inspections to vehicle maintenance workshops (including all vehicle maintenance workshops in Wong Tai Sin District) to ensure that the vehicle maintenance workshops have not contravened the requirements under the Ordinance. The inspections ensured that the vehicle maintenance shops have not stored more than 130 litres of LPG without approval, and replacement of the fuel tank or other associated components is carried out by a competent person or under the supervision of a competent person. During the inspection period, the EMSD found that two vehicle repair workshops have over-storage of LPG and is now conducting investigation. The EMSD is also planning to inspect all 2 700 vehicle maintenance workshops in Hong Kong in the next few weeks.

In the past three years, the EMSD has prosecuted one unqualified person for conducting repair work on the fuel system of LPG vehicles. The EMSD has also prosecuted the owner of a container for using that container as LPG container on a taxi without approval. In addition, the EMSD is conducting investigation on two cases involving vehicle maintenance workshops with over-storage of LPG.

10240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Prosecutions in Relation to Public Processions and Assemblies

5. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that there have been recent prosecution cases involving public assemblies which were withdrawn by prosecutors right before trial. Some members of the public suspect that this situation was caused by the Police instituting prosecutions without prior consultation with the Department of Justice on whether the relevant evidence was sufficient to justify a reasonable prospect of conviction. Besides, when recently trying a case involving a public assembly, a magistrate criticized a police officer for testifying dishonestly and advised the authorities to refer the matter to the Complaints Against Police Office for follow up. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the Police seek, as a general practice, the advice of the Department of Justice before deciding if prosecution is to be instituted against persons involved in public processions and assemblies; if they do, of the details of the relevant guidelines and procedures; of the number of such cases in which the Police sought the advice of the Department of Justice beforehand and the number of persons involved in such cases between September last year and April this year; whether the Police is obliged to follow the advice of the Department of Justice if the advice is against the institution of prosecution;

(2) of the following information on the prosecution cases involving public processions and assemblies each month from September last year to April this year: (i) the number of persons arrested, (ii) the number of persons prosecuted, (iii) the number of persons who were prosecuted but then the prosecutions were unconditionally withdrawn by prosecutors, (iv) the number of persons who were prosecuted but then allowed to enter into the "offering no evidence" bind-over arrangement instead of being prosecuted, (v) the number of persons involved in cases that are under trial or listed for trial, (vi) the number of persons convicted, and (vii) the number of persons acquitted;

Year Month (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) September October 2014 November December LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10241

Year Month (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) January February 2015 March April

(3) regarding the prosecution cases mentioned in (2), of the number of cases in which the Police did not seek the advice of the Department of Justice before prosecutions were instituted and the relevant reasons for that; and

(4) of the measures in place for the Department of Justice and the Police to ensure that police officers testify honestly and accurately; the consequences to be faced by a police officer when he/she is alleged of testifying dishonestly by the judge during the trial, and how the Department of Justice and the Police follow up such cases; the number of such cases investigated by the authorities in the past five years, and among such cases, the respective numbers of cases in which police officers were disciplined, prosecuted and convicted?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, under the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents enjoy the rights and freedoms of speech, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration. However, such rights and freedoms are not absolute. The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) that are applicable to Hong Kong, including Article 19 on the right to freedom of expression and Article 21 on the right of peaceful assembly, have been incorporated into the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383). According to the ICCPR and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions. In exercising the right to freedom of expression or the right of peaceful assembly, a person should respect the rights of others and should not compromise public order and public safety. The Police do not tolerate any illegal acts and will definitely take resolute enforcement actions.

The Government's reply to Mr Kenneth LEUNG's question is as follows:

10242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

(1) to (3)

As a professional law-enforcement agency, the Police have the responsibility to uphold law and order, conduct investigations, collect evidence, and arrest suspected offenders.

During the illegal "Occupy Movement" between September and December 2014, a total of 955 persons were arrested by the Police for various alleged offences, and another 48 persons were arrested by the Police afterwards. Some of them have already been convicted of criminal offences such as indecent assault, common assault, possession of offensive weapons, theft, criminal damage, criminal intimidation, possession of Part I poisons or careless driving, and so on, by the Court. Given that just less than half a year has elapsed since the end of the illegal occupation, a considerable number of cases are still either in the judicial process or awaiting legal advice. The HKSAR Government will continue to follow up these cases for pursuit of offenders' legal responsibility during the illegal "Occupy Movement".

In addition, 112 persons and 60 persons were arrested and prosecuted respectively in relation to public order events held between January and April 2015. The Police do not keep the number of convictions in these cases.

Under the criminal justice system in Hong Kong, there is a difference between the test adopted by the Police when effecting arrest, the approach adopted by the Department of Justice (DoJ) to decide whether prosecution should be made, and the test adopted by the Court when deciding whether to convict a defendant after trial. Police officers are entitled to effect an arrest provided that they have a reasonable suspicion that the person in question has committed a relevant offence. They are not required to consider matters, such as public interest, which would have to be considered by the DoJ. Due to such differences, the mere fact that an arrested person is not subsequently charged with any criminal offence does not necessarily mean that the Police have made a wrongful arrest; nor does it necessarily follow that the prosecutors have failed in their duty to commence prosecution.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10243

In handling prosecution work, prosecutors of the DoJ must in accordance with the Prosecution Code first consider whether there is sufficient evidence when considering whether to prosecute. If so satisfied, prosecutors should next consider and balance all issues of public interest before deciding whether prosecution should be pursued. A prosecution shall not be commenced or continued unless there is a reasonable prospect of conviction. All prosecution decisions are made in accordance with the law, the Prosecution Code and the evidence, totally free from any political, media or public pressure. Prosecutors have always acted in strict compliance with the Prosecution Code in handling prosecutions and incidental works to ensure that an effective and fair criminal justice system is maintained.

Judges, on the other hand, will only deliver a guilty verdict if the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, which is a threshold higher than that adopted by the DoJ when deciding whether prosecution should be made. Accordingly, the mere acquittal of a defendant does not necessarily mean that the defendant should not have been arrested or charged in the first place.

According to Police's internal guidelines, generally speaking, the Police will seek legal advice from the DoJ before making prosecutions against persons arrested in relation to public order events. The Police will also follow up on DoJ's advice. Such guidelines are internal documents of the Police and cover how the Police investigate and handle cases and hence it is inappropriate to disclose the guidelines.

The Police do not keep any statistical breakdowns by public order events whereby DoJ's legal advice had been sought prior to prosecution.

(4) As law-enforcement officer, a police officer shall give evidence which he is satisfied to be true and accurate in court.

If the Court recommends that a case be referred to the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) for follow-up action, the CAPO shall handle it in a fair and impartial manner according to established procedures, and shall then 10244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

report to the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) or submit an investigation report to the IPCC in accordance with the Independent Police Complaints Council Ordinance (Cap. 604). The HKPF shall seriously handle any case in which police officers' non-compliance in this regard has been proved by evidence. The CAPO does not have any statistical figures of investigation cases by "dishonest testimony".

On the other hand, the DoJ will request relevant law-enforcement agencies to conduct investigations and take follow-up actions if it considers that a witness has given false testimony in a certain case.

Regulation of Gas Safety and Vehicle Repair Workshops

6. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, last month, an explosion and fire accident occurred in a vehicle repair workshop located on the ground floor of a residential building, resulting in a number of casualties. As a liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) taxi under repair was found at the scene, the authorities are investigating if the accident was caused by LPG leakage from the taxi. Some members of the public are concerned whether there are loopholes in the mechanisms for regulating vehicle repair workshops and gas safety, and whether the authorities have strictly enforced the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance (Cap. 572) and the Gas Safety Ordinance (Cap. 51). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the current number of gas safety inspectors in Hong Kong; in the past three years, the number of vehicle repair workshops inspected by them and the number of improvement notices issued by them;

(2) in the past three years, of the number of vehicle repair workshops inspected by the Fire Services Department and the number of fire safety directions issued to those workshops which had contravened the requirements;

(3) whether the authorities will step up inspections on high-risk spots, such as vehicle repair workshops, so as to ensure that gases and inflammable substances are properly disposed of; whether they will conduct a comprehensive review on whether there are loopholes in the existing regulatory systems for gases and dangerous goods;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10245

(4) whether it has assessed if the existing 29 workshops approved for repairing the fuel systems of LPG vehicles in Hong Kong can meet the demand of about 20 000 LPG taxis for repair services;

(5) given that some members of the public have pointed out that some taxi drivers, for the sake of convenience, have their LPG taxis repaired by vehicle repair workshops nearby, without regard to whether these workshops are approved for repairing the fuel systems of LPG vehicles, what measures the authorities have in place to eradicate these practices; and

(6) of the current number of vehicle repair workshops located on the ground floor of residential buildings; given that some members of the public have pointed out that a large number of inflammable substances are generally stored in these workshops, in case of explosion, the residential areas in the vicinity may be affected, what measures the authorities have in place to make these workshops move out of residential areas; whether they will consider introducing a licensing regime for vehicle repair workshops in order to regulate them?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Administration would like to explain the regime of the Gas Safety Ordinance as it is applicable to the control of storage and use of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

The Gas Safety Ordinance regulates gas safety matters, with a view to ensuring the safety of importation, manufacture, storage, transport, supply and use of town gas, LPG and natural gas. In respect of LPG storage and installation, any containers with the aggregated nominal water capacity of more than 130 litres of LPG are "notifiable gas installations". The construction and use of "notifiable gas installations" requires the approval of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (EMSD). At present, there are 571 approved LPG "notifiable gas installations" including 29 vehicle maintenance workshops that have been approved for storing LPG fuel tanks of more than 130 litres. In considering whether approval should be granted to vehicle maintenance workshops for storing LPG fuel tanks of more than 130 litres, the EMSD will consider if the vehicle maintenance workshops comply with the safety 10246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 requirements in respect of the design, construction and location, including good ventilation, restricted from locations for occupation, and the installation of gas detection system, mechanical ventilation systems and fire prevention systems, and so on.

For the purpose of enforcing the Gas Safety Ordinance, the Gas Safety Inspectors of EMSD conducted in each of the past three years over 1 300 inspections to the approved LPG "notifiable gas installations". These inspections included inspections at least once a year of the 29 vehicle maintenance workshops that have been approved for storing LPG fuel tanks of more than 130 litres, as well as random surprise inspections.

For maintenance and repair of LPG vehicles not involving LPG fuel systems, the work may be carried out in general vehicle maintenance workshops. As for any work on or in relation to a gas pipe, including work on the fuel tank or other associated components, the Gas Safety Ordinance stipulates that such work should be carried out by a competent person or under the supervision of a person who is competent. Any replacement of LPG fuel tanks or any maintenance, repair or replacement work for other associated components are required to be carried out by a Competent Person (Class 6) or a person under the supervision of a Competent Person (Class 6). Competent Persons (Class 6) approved by EMSD are required to complete the LPG Vehicle Servicing Programme provided by the Vocational Training Council and possess practical experience. At present, there are over 1 100 Competent Persons (Class 6) in Hong Kong, and they may replace LPG fuel tanks or carry out any maintenance, repair or replacement work for other associated components in any vehicle maintenance workshops.

(1) The 39 EMSD Gas Safety Inspectors have conducted an average of over 1 300 inspections each year to the 571 LPG "notifiable gas installations" in the past three years. These inspections included inspections at least once a year of the 29 vehicle maintenance workshops that have been approved for storing LPG fuel tanks of more than 130 litres, as well as random surprise inspections.

In the past three years, the EMSD has prosecuted one unqualified person for conducting repair work on the fuel system of LPG vehicles. The EMSD has also prosecuted the owner of a container LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10247

for using that container as LPG container on a taxi without approval. In addition, the EMSD is conducting investigation on two cases involving vehicle maintenance workshops with over-storage of LPG.

(2) The Fire Services Department (FSD) did not keep separate statistics of the inspections made to or the number of fire safety directions issued to vehicle maintenance workshops in the past.

(3) Since the explosion and fire incident in late April this year, the EMSD has conducted 350 additional inspections to vehicle maintenance workshops (including all vehicle maintenance workshops in Wong Tai Sin District) to ensure that the vehicle maintenance workshops have not contravened the requirements under the Ordinance. This involved ensuring that the vehicle maintenance shops have not stored more than 130 litres of LPG without approval, and that replacement of the fuel tank or other associated components is carried out by a Competent Person (Class 6) or under the supervision of a Competent Person (Class 6). During the inspections, the EMSD identified two cases involving vehicle maintenance workshops with over-storage of LPG and investigation is in progress. The EMSD is also planning to inspect all 2 700 vehicle maintenance workshops in Hong Kong in the next few weeks.

In addition, following the explosion and fire on 26 April, the FSD immediately conducted inspections of all vehicle maintenance workshops in the Wong Tai Sin District. The FSD has commenced a territory-wide inspection on 29 April, and expects to complete the territory-wide inspection of around 2 700 vehicle maintenance workshops in Hong Kong by the end of July.

As at 7 May, the FSD has inspected 558 vehicle maintenance workshops. During the inspections, four cases of over-storage of dangerous goods in breach of the Dangerous Goods Ordinance (Cap. 295) (DGO) have been identified. The FSD has taken enforcement action against the relevant responsible persons.

As regards the regulatory control on dangerous goods, pursuant to section 6(1) of the DGO, except under and in accordance with a licence granted under the DGO, no person shall manufacture, store, 10248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

convey or use any dangerous goods. For storage of dangerous goods in excess of the exempted volumes, a Dangerous Goods Licence should be obtained from the FSD. According to section 6(2) of the DGO, any dangerous goods which are LPG within the meaning of the Gas Safety Ordinance (Cap. 51) falls outside the remit of the DGO and should be regulated under the jurisdiction of EMSD. The FSD will continue to enforce the DGO with a view to ensuring a proper and appropriate regulation over dangerous goods.

In response to the explosion incident in Tsz Wan Shan, relevant departments will review the existing policy and consider appropriate follow-up action.

(4) and (5)

For maintenance and repair of LPG vehicles not involving LPG fuel systems, the work may be carried out in general vehicle maintenance workshops. As for work on or in relation to a gas pipe, including works on the fuel tank or other associated components, the Gas Safety Ordinance requires such work to be carried out by a competent person or under the supervision of a competent person. Any replacement of LPG fuel tanks or any maintenance, repair or replacement work for other associated components are required to be carried out by a Competent Person (Class 6) or a person under the supervision of a Competent Person (Class 6). Competent Persons (Class 6) approved by EMSD are required to complete the LPG Vehicle Servicing Programme provided by the Vocational Training Council and possess practical experience. At present, there are more than 1 100 Competent Persons (Class 6) in Hong Kong, and they may replace LPG fuel tanks or carry out any maintenance, repair or replacement work for other associated components in any vehicle maintenance workshops.

The Transport Department has all along reminded the taxi trade that any repair work of LPG fuel system should be carried out under the supervision of a competent person approved by EMSD.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10249

(6) According to the site visit conducted by EMSD in 2014, there are 2 700 vehicle maintenance workshops in Hong Kong, among which 1 300 are located on the ground floor of residential buildings.

None of the 29 vehicle maintenance workshops that have been approved by EMSD are located on the ground floor of residential buildings.

As regards the regulatory control on dangerous goods, pursuant to section 6(1) of the DGO, except under and in accordance with a licence granted under the DGO, no person shall manufacture, store, convey or use any dangerous goods. For storage of dangerous goods in excess of the exempted volumes, a Dangerous Goods Licence should be obtained from the FSD. The FSD will continue to enforce the DGO with a view to ensuring a proper and appropriate regulation over dangerous goods.

In response to the explosion incident in Tsz Wan Shan, relevant departments will review the existing policy and consider appropriate follow-up action.

Blood Inventories of Hong Kong Red Cross

7. DR LEUNG KA-LAU (in Chinese): President, on 9 January this year, the Hong Kong Red Cross (Red Cross) Blood Transfusion Service indicated on its web page that its blood inventories were persistently on the low side, standing at only 50% of its normal blood stock, and the average daily quantity of blood collected fell short of the average daily quantity of blood demanded by hospitals, which may affect blood supply and clinical transfusion treatment of patients. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows the monthly number of blood donors in various districts in the past three years, with a breakdown by age group and gender;

(2) whether it knows the breakdown of the number of blood donors in the past three years by (i) blood donation venue/occasion (i.e. donor centres, blood donation centres of tertiary institutions, mobile 10250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

donation vehicles and mobile donation activities) and (ii) number of previous donations (once, twice, thrice, four times, five times or above);

(3) whether it knows the average daily quantity of blood used by the specialties of various public and private hospitals in the past three years; and

(4) whether it has estimated the average daily quantity of blood demanded by the specialties of various public and private hospitals in the next three years; whether any long-term measures are in place to ensure that Red Cross has sufficient blood inventories in stock; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Red Cross Blood Transfusion Service (BTS) has eight donor centres, four mobile teams and one mobile vehicle for collecting the blood donated by voluntary non-remunerated donors over the territory. The eight donor centres are distributed over various districts in Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories, including Causeway Bay, Central District, Mong Kok, Kwun Tong, King's Park (headquarters), Tsuen Wan, Sha Tin and Yuen Long. The mobile teams provide services for secondary schools, tertiary institutions, industrial and commercial organizations, government departments and community groups. The mobile vehicle is converted from a 40-foot container truck and is parked outside Tai Po Civic Centre on On Pong Road or at Fanling MTR Station.

My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) and (2)

In the past three years, the overall number of blood donations has been increasing. The total number of blood donations are 244 594 (2012), 247 041 (2013) and 254 053 (2014). The monthly statistics of blood donations by venue, age group and gender are listed in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Annex 4 sets out the number of donations that donors make in a year over the past three years.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10251

(3) After BTS distribute the blood to hospitals, it will be stored at the blood banks for distribution to wards, operating theatres or ambulatory care centres according to the transfusion needs of patients based on clinical assessment. The BTS does not have the average number of the daily quantity of blood used by the specialties of various public and private hospitals. For reference, the use of red blood cells by major specialties of the hospitals under Hospital Authority (HA) in the past three years is set out at Annex 5.

(4) The demand for blood supply is expected to be on a continuous rise as a result of an ageing population. The BTS is in urgent need of more dedicated citizens to donate blood to help maintain a stable and sufficient blood supply.

The BTS has embarked on various initiatives to secure more supply of blood. These include the enhancement of publicity to educate the public to save lives by donating blood, the establishment of campus blood donor centres in collaboration with the University of Hong Kong and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and the setting up of new blood collection venues. The BTS expects that the new West Kowloon Donor Centre can commence operation at the end of this year.

Moreover, large-scale blood donation activities are held by the BTS in collaboration with various institutions and organizations, such as HA, various disciplined services, uniform groups and community organizations, with a view to encouraging people to save lives by giving blood. The BTS also invites regular and deferred blood donors to donate blood again.

Annex 1

Number of blood donations at the BTS (by venue)

2012 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Causeway Bay Donor 3 097 2 194 1 934 2 088 2 064 2 249 554 2 544 2 185 1 919 1 599 2 067 24 494 Centre 10252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

2012 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Central District 1 342 948 923 816 888 988 1 471 1 078 227 1 220 865 922 11 688 Donor Centre Headquarters Donor 675 518 555 495 572 612 608 599 564 568 556 615 6 937 Centre Kwun Tong Donor 2 782 1 980 1 757 2 055 1 984 2 005 2 567 2 257 1 930 1 883 1 600 2 142 24 942 Centre Mongkok Donor 5 532 4 613 4 381 4 366 4 547 4 514 4 684 4 572 3 905 4 365 3 364 4 258 53 101 Centre Shatin Donor 2 292 1 468 1 401 1 770 1 647 1 893 1 858 1 631 1 498 1 497 1 253 1 645 19 853 Centre Tsuen Wan Donor 2 014 2 364 2 312 2 259 2 278 2 295 2 521 2 427 2 142 2 119 1 794 2 362 26 887 Centre Yuen Long Donor 1 898 1 354 1 287 1 382 1 349 1 463 1 581 1 551 1 250 1 326 1 058 1 486 16 985 Centre Mobile Donor 4 687 6 318 5 219 3 703 4 379 3 800 4 596 4 534 5 141 5 608 6 310 4 670 58 965 Service Teams Mobile Donor 0 0 0 0 317 0 90 0 335 0 0 0 742 Vehicle Total 24 319 21 757 19 769 18 934 20 025 19 819 20 530 21 193 19 177 20 505 18 399 20 167 244 594 2013 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Causeway Bay Donor 2 919 2 280 2 189 1 897 2 114 2 375 2 082 2 184 1 902 1 831 2 004 2 334 26 111 Centre Central District 1 513 1 042 989 795 933 1 054 972 1 015 867 868 1 086 1 087 12 221 Donor Centre Headquarters Donor 780 560 602 607 662 726 725 759 669 700 721 696 8 207 Centre LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10253

2013 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Kwun Tong Donor 2 986 2 045 2 151 1 793 2 098 2 552 2 137 2 344 1 938 1 907 2 062 2 338 26 351 Centre Mongkok Donor 5 153 4 224 4 455 3 921 4 217 4 631 4 387 4 235 3 731 3 841 4 058 4 167 51 020 Centre Shatin Donor 2 422 1 796 1 825 1 502 1 559 1 845 1 702 1 736 1 387 1 454 1 529 1 714 20 471 Centre Tsuen Wan Donor 3 148 2 468 2 464 2 166 2 191 2 606 2 270 2 246 2 097 2 045 2 288 2 288 28 277 Centre Yuen Long Donor 2 158 1 422 1 491 1 232 1 433 1 648 1 441 1 353 1 233 1 279 1 281 1 331 17 302 Centre Mobile Donor 5 991 4 323 4 862 3 521 4 225 3 468 4 726 4 421 4 468 5 771 5 732 4 823 56 331 Service Teams Mobile Donor 0 0 0 267 0 0 137 346 0 0 0 0 750 Vehicle Total 27 070 20 160 21 028 17 701 19 432 20 905 20 579 20 639 18 292 19 696 20 761 20 778 247 041 2014 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Causeway Bay Donor 2 220 2 201 2 837 2 052 2 152 2 293 2 314 2 368 1 843 2 108 2 013 2 325 26 726 Centre Central District 1 090 942 1 425 801 973 1 086 987 1 002 874 1 012 907 1 147 12 246 Donor Centre Headquarters Donor 695 722 819 670 751 756 766 784 704 759 683 748 8 857 Centre Kwun Tong Donor 2 254 2 193 2 890 2 159 2 287 2 508 2 498 2 528 2 063 2 417 2 249 2 443 28 489 Centre Mongkok Donor 4 254 4 112 5 360 4 170 4 252 4 483 4 271 4 414 3 672 3 768 3 844 4 277 50 877 Centre Shatin Donor 1 702 1 775 2 331 1 601 1 908 2 199 1 897 1 947 1 459 1 702 1 625 1 758 21 904 Centre 10254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

2014 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Tsuen Wan Donor 2 319 2 258 2 983 2 335 2 318 2 528 2 275 2 315 2 086 2 443 2 228 2 352 28 440 Centre Yuen Long Donor 1 393 1 269 1 939 1 413 1 441 1 488 1 329 1 513 1 315 1 379 1 343 1 342 17 164 Centre Mobile Donor 5 061 4 449 5 066 4 562 4 064 4 139 4 799 4 783 5 226 5 918 5 318 4 730 58 115 Service Teams Mobile Donor 0 0 0 397 0 0 419 214 205 0 0 0 1 235 Vehicle Total 20 988 19 921 25 650 20 160 20 146 21 480 21 555 21 868 19 447 21 506 20 210 21 122 254 053

Annex 2

Number of blood donations at the BTS (by age)

2012 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Aged 4 789 6 361 3 209 2 522 3 925 2 161 2 026 2 216 4 225 5 815 6 582 4 794 48 625 16-20 Aged 7 691 5 939 6 715 6 039 5 713 6 314 6 499 6 885 5 782 5 367 4 260 5 083 72 287 21-30 Aged 5 580 4 091 4 392 4 741 4 668 5 061 5 446 5 457 4 172 3 992 3 264 4 515 55 379 31-40 Aged 4 054 3 390 3 412 3 570 3 660 3 992 4 184 4 141 3 137 3 359 2 665 3 503 43 067 41-50 Aged 2 021 1 790 1 826 1 885 1 882 2 081 2 186 2 277 1 686 1 767 1 441 2 060 22 902 51-60 Aged 184 185 215 177 177 210 189 217 175 205 187 212 2 333 61-70 Aged 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 >70 Total 24 319 21 757 19 769 18 934 20 025 19 819 20 530 21 193 19 177 20 505 18 399 20 167 244 594 2013 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Aged 7 710 3 811 3 745 2 257 3 066 2 002 1 986 1 949 3 237 5 586 6 016 4 589 45 954 16-20 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10255

2013 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Aged 7 754 5 673 6 519 5 588 5 509 6 631 6 424 6 223 5 362 5 162 5 072 5 152 71 069 21-30 Aged 5 313 4 524 4 841 4 275 4 720 5 443 5 353 5 389 4 051 3 712 4 082 4 673 56 376 31-40 Aged 3 895 3 747 3 702 3 384 3 824 4 272 4 134 4 325 3 344 3 114 3 388 3 813 44 942 41-50 Aged 2 168 2 210 2 013 1 952 2 097 2 347 2 456 2 488 2 069 1 905 1 981 2 279 25 965 51-60 Aged 230 195 208 245 216 210 226 265 229 217 222 272 2 735 61-70 Aged 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 >70 Total 27 070 20 160 21 028 17 701 19 432 20 905 20 579 20 639 18 292 19 696 20 761 20 778 247 041 2014 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Aged 5 360 3 921 3 617 2 545 3 397 1 759 1 871 1 726 3 438 5 227 5 293 4 219 42 373 16-20 Aged 5 380 5 130 7 724 6 570 5 637 6 404 6 427 7 076 5 523 6 149 4 673 5 209 71 902 21-30 Aged 4 407 4 582 6 212 4 697 4 743 5 581 5 485 5 809 4 414 4 206 3 951 4 698 58 785 31-40 Aged 3 530 3 810 4 932 3 725 3 892 4 638 4 503 4 423 3 616 3 545 3 537 4 100 48 251 41-50 Aged 2 077 2 226 2 863 2 358 2 212 2 806 2 963 2 549 2 185 2 088 2 454 2 607 29 388 51-60 Aged 234 252 302 264 265 292 306 285 271 291 301 289 3 852 61-70 Aged 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 >70 Total 20 988 19 921 25 650 20 160 20 146 21 480 21 555 21 868 19 447 21 506 20 210 21 122 254 053

Annex 3

Number of blood donations at the BTS (by gender)

2012 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Female 11 814 10 672 9 081 8 938 9 527 9 500 9 737 10 020 8 980 9 764 8 402 9 191 115 626 Male 12 505 11 085 10 688 9 996 10 498 10 319 10 793 11 173 10 197 10 741 9 997 10 976 128 968 Total 24 319 21 757 19 769 18 934 20 025 19 819 20 530 21 193 19 177 20 505 18 399 20 167 244 594 10256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

2013 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Female 13 419 9 792 9 750 8 221 9 204 10 114 9 387 9 797 8 123 10 224 9 713 9 483 117 227 Male 13 651 10 368 11 278 9 480 10 228 10 791 11 192 10 842 10 169 9 472 11 048 11 295 129 814 Total 27 070 20 160 21 028 17 701 19 432 20 905 20 579 20 639 18 292 19 696 20 761 20 778 247 041 2014 Month Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Female 9 669 9 618 12 172 9 646 9 233 10 169 10 235 10 043 9 112 10 511 9 302 9 635 119 345 Male 11 319 10 303 13 478 10 514 10 913 11 311 11 320 11 825 10 335 10 995 10 908 11 487 134 708 Total 20 988 19 921 25 650 20 160 20 146 21 480 21 555 21 868 19 447 21 506 20 210 21 122 254 053

Annex 4

Number of blood donations that donors make in a year at the BTS

Number of Blood Donations* 2012 2013 2014 Once 116 828 115 523 114 459 Twice 32 417 30 962 31 447 Thrice 13 107 13 114 13 550 Four times 4 445 5 363 5 789 Five times or more 560 1 063 1 808

Note:

* Some donors (especially those who donated blood five times or more in a year) made both whole blood donations and apheresis donations, hence their number of donations in a year may exceed the maximum number of whole blood donations one can make in a year (five times for male and four times for female).

Annex 5

Use of red blood cells by major specialties in the HA (units)

Major Specialties 2012 2013 2014 Medicine 95 631 100 876 106 264 Surgery 37 346 37 274 38 478 Orthopaedics and Traumatology 17 490 17 380 17 418 Obstetrics and Gynecology 11 303 11 322 11 778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10257

Major Specialties 2012 2013 2014 Clinical Oncology 8 572 8 140 8 722 Critical Care Medicine 7 179 7 464 8 257 Paediatrics 11 593 8 315 7 283 Cardiothoracic Surgery 5 894 5 676 6 144 Others 11 362 11 250 12 905 Total 206 370 207 697 217 249

Provision of Food for Persons Detained in Courts

8. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Chinese): President, quite a number of persons who were detained in the cell holding units in the Magistrates' Courts and the High Court awaiting transfers to correctional facilities (detainees) have complained to me that the food provided there is small in portion and limited in choice. Also, such food does not cater for their cultural backgrounds, religions and health problems. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the criteria adopted by the authorities for selecting suppliers to provide food to detainees (suppliers);

(2) of the types of food and the average weight of each set of food provided to detainees by the authorities in the past five years;

(3) of the list of suppliers designated by the authorities in the past five years, the relevant contract periods and the contract price of each set of food (set out the information by the Magistrates' Courts and the High Court);

(4) whether the authorities provide detainees with appropriate food having regard to their cultural backgrounds, religions and health problems; if they do, of the average weight and price of each set of food provided by the authorities in the past five years to detainees (i) of different cultural backgrounds (such as Oriental, Western, Indian and Pakistani culture), (ii) of different religions (such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam) and (iii) with different health problems (such as diabetes and high blood pressure), as well 10258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

as the respective numbers of detainees involved; if not, the reasons for that, and whether the authorities will consider providing detainees with appropriate food with regard to their special needs;

(5) whether the relatives and friends of detainees are allowed to arrange on their own food for detainees, such as buying food from designated suppliers; if so, of the relevant procedures; if not, how the authorities determine whether the food so provided caters for the special needs of detainees;

(6) whether detainees are presently allowed to order food from designated suppliers by themselves; if so, of the list of suppliers, the relevant contract periods and the contract price of each set of food; and

(7) whether the authorities regularly review the mechanism for providing food to detainees so as to ensure that the food cater for their special needs, and the interests of the detainees are protected; if the authorities do not, of the reasons for that; if they do, the frequency of such reviews, the government departments participating in such reviews as well as the dates and details of the last and the next review; whether the authorities will disclose the review information?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, the Government respects the right of detainees. Departments concerned have put in place procedures and guidelines to ensure that due care is given to detainees' meal arrangement during court detention.

My reply to various parts of Mr LEUNG's question is as follows.

(1) to (4)

The Government has not designated food caterer for detainees. Meals for detainees in cell holding units in Magistrates' Courts are mainly provided by canteens of nearby police stations, and the operators of such canteens are commissioned by the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) through open tender in general. On another LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10259

front, meals for persons in custody in cell holding units in the High Court and the District Court are arranged by the Correctional Services Department (CSD). These persons, same as other persons in custody who are serving their sentences in correctional institutions, are provided with meals by kitchens of the correctional institutions. The meals are set by qualified dietitians, with dietary scales approved by the Department of Health and in compliance with relevant international health guidelines.

Generally speaking, detainees are only remanded in cell holding units in Magistrates' Courts for a short span of time (usually no more than one working day). The HKPF provides to such detainees three meals, that is, breakfast, lunch and dinner, which are supplied by canteen operators of police stations in accordance with the HKPF's guidelines. Corresponding arrangements shall be made by the HKPF as appropriate if detainees cannot consume certain kinds of food for such reasons as race, religion or dietary requirements (for example, health needs).

Having regard to the health, dietary and religious needs of persons in custody, the CSD currently provides four main dietary scales, namely dietary scale 1 with rice as staple food; dietary scale 2 with curry and chapatti as staple food; dietary scale 3 with potatoes and bread as staple food; and dietary scale 4 comprising vegan meal. Moreover, appropriate food is given to individual persons in custody for medical considerations on Medical Officers' advice.

Detailed information such as the types of food and average quantity of food by weight provided to detainees or remand persons in custody in cell holding units in the courts, the number of persons with special dietary requests, and the types or quantity of food for special diet that was provided to such persons, and so on, in the past five years are not kept by the HKPF or the CSD.

(5) and (6)

Detainees or remand persons in custody in cell holding units in courts may, with the consent of departments concerned, request that meals be supplied to them by outside food premises and the expenses 10260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

involved shall be covered by their relatives or friends. Such meals shall undergo security check by relevant departments before being delivered to the detainees or remand persons in custody for consumption.

(7) To take heed of the health, nutritional and religious needs of detainees and remand persons in custody, departments concerned review from time to time their detention management policy and meal system to the effect that their duty of care to such persons is properly fulfilled and that the rights of such persons are properly safeguarded.

Problems of Young People Abusing Drugs and Committing Drug Offences

9. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): President, regarding the problems of young people abusing drugs and committing drug offences, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of young people arrested for alleged drug abuse or drug offences in each year since 2013, with a breakdown in the table below;

Number of arrested persons 2013 2014 2015 Alleged drug abuse/offences Below 18 to Below 18 to Below 18 to committed 18 35 18 35 18 35 Abuse of soft drugs Trafficking of soft drugs Abuse of non-soft drugs Trafficking of non-soft drugs Total

(2) whether the authorities analyzed in the past three years the data concerning drug abuse and drug offences committed by young people; if they did, of the details, whether the number of such persons shows an upward trend and whether the ages of such persons show a downward trend; if they did not conduct the analysis, the reasons for that; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10261

(3) whether the authorities have plans to implement new policies to curb young people abusing drugs and committing drug offences; if they do, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, our replies to the questions raised by Mr TAM Yiu-chung are as follows:

(1) In the past three years, the arrest figures for drug-related offences are as follows:

2015 2013 2014 (1st Quarter)(1) Aged Aged 21 Aged Aged 21 Aged Aged 21 under or under or under or 21 above 21 above 21 above Serious drug 640 2 574 479 2 198 119 587 offences(2) Minor drug 323 2 489 153 2 087 38 443 offences(3) Total 963 5 063 632 4 285 157 1 030

Notes:

(1) Only provisional figures for the 1st Quarter of 2015 are available now.

(2) "Serious drug offences" include manufacturing of dangerous drugs and trafficking in dangerous drugs, and so on.

(3) "Minor drug offences" include possession of small amounts of dangerous drugs for self-consumption, and so on.

The Government does not have other breakdown figures as listed in the table in part (1) of the question.

(2) and (3)

As noted from the above figures, the number of persons aged below 21 arrested for drug-related offences had been dropping in the past few years. The decline in the number of arrests of drug abusers 10262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

mirrors the decline in the number of youth drug abuses recorded in the Central Registry of Drug Abuse. This testifies to the effectiveness of the Government's anti-drug strategies as well as the concerted efforts of the Government and the community in fighting drugs. To sustain the momentum and to ride the challenges resulting from the drug problem, including to combat the worsening situation of hidden drug abuse, we will continue our anti-drug efforts along the five-pronged strategy, comprising preventive education and publicity (PE&P), treatment and rehabilitation, legislation and law enforcement, external co-operation and research.

A downward trend in the youth drug abuse situation provides a suitable setting against which to focus PE&P work and prevent the resurgence of the drug pandemic. We will continue to promote public awareness of the drug problem, facilitate early identification of drug abusers, and further encourage people with drug problems to seek help, for instances, to seek help from social workers through the 24-hour telephone helpline "186 186", and the newly-launched instant messaging service "98 186 186". On the publicity front, apart from placing advertisements, we will explore further partnering opportunities with the printed and electronic media. Taking note of the growing popularity of the new media, we will implement suitable initiatives through popular websites, discussion fora and mobile apps. In addition, we will continue to arrange suitable anti-drug training for teachers and students, and implement on trial preventive interactive anti-drug drama training for students. As a school-based PE&P initiative, efforts to progressively roll out the Healthy School Programme with a Drug Testing Component to more secondary schools will continue. We are also planning to conduct an independent evaluation research in the 2015-2016 school year to assess the overall effectiveness of the programme and identify areas for improvement.

As to the problem of drug trafficking by young people, we note that many young people involved in these cases have the misguided belief that they are less criminally culpable than adults when involved in drug trafficking activities, and hence were used by drug traffickers. In this connection, we will step up efforts on the PE&P front to dispel the misconception about the legal liability of young people involved in drug trafficking. To deter drug traffickers from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10263

exploiting young people for drug trafficking, the Police, Customs and Excise Department and the Department of Justice will also try to invoke section 56A of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 134) as far as possible. Under this section, if there is evidence to prove that an adult convicted of a drug-related offence has exploited young people in such activities, the Court may step up the sentence against this adult. In addition, the Police Juvenile Protection Service (JPS) has also increased the number and frequency of home visits to juvenile offenders who are administered a caution for drug offences under the Police Superintendent's Discretion Scheme. To reduce recidivism, the JPS will strengthen their preventive education efforts, with an aim to, amongst others, correcting the misguided belief that juveniles could be relieved from criminal liabilities when involved in drug-related offences.

Revision to Curriculum of Junior Secondary Subject of Chinese History

10. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Chinese): President, in December 2013, the Curriculum Development Council set up an Ad Hoc Committee to conduct a full review of the curriculum of the junior secondary subject of Chinese History (Chinese History). On 17 April this year, the Education Bureau put forward a short-term recommendation on the basis of the review and commenced consultation with the education sector. It is proposed that under the short-term recommendation, only minor revision will be made, on the premise of not inducing any change to the curriculum content and textbooks, to the Chinese History curriculum along the line of "in-depth teaching of modern history and cursory teaching of ancient history", so as to enhance the teaching of modern history and to adjust the current proportion of modern history in the curriculum from one-third to one-half. Some Chinese History teachers have relayed to me that the authorities have all along not consulted the education sector extensively prior to introducing the short-term recommendation, and the consultation period of the short-term recommendation lasts merely one month. Such practices have deviated from those in the past. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as there are views that the current practice of teaching Chinese History, with two years and one year respectively allocated to the teaching of ancient history which straddles over several thousand years and to the teaching of modern history which involves only a 10264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

hundred years or so, is already working along the line of "in-depth teaching of modern history and cursory teaching of ancient history", whether the authorities have assessed if the further increase in the proportion of modern history in the curriculum will weaken students' overall understanding of Chinese history;

(2) as the short-term recommendation does not involve any textbook revision, whether there are support measures and plans in place for the authorities to help teachers adapt to the new curriculum; if there are, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) as there are views that modern history involves quite a number of controversial incidents, with some of them still at a developing stage, the history records concerned are thus not comprehensive, how the authorities will ensure that the content of the new curriculum will take into account various historical perspectives, the teaching materials will not be biased, and the subject of Chinese History will not be reduced to a tool for instilling political orientations;

(4) of the factors that the authorities will consider when deciding whether the syllabus, teaching materials and textbooks of a particular subject are to be reviewed; and

(5) of the established procedures adopted by the authorities respectively for reviewing the syllabuses, teaching materials and textbooks of various subjects at senior secondary and junior secondary levels?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Ad Hoc Committee under the Curriculum Development Council put forward a short-term recommendation on the junior secondary Chinese History curriculum. It is proposed that schools make adjustment in time allocation to the teaching of ancient history and modern history so as to ensure that students can have a holistic understanding of the development of the country from past to present. It does not induce any changes to the curriculum content, and existing textbooks can still be used. In spite of this minor revision, the Education Bureau has followed the same arrangements for curriculum revision to consult the education sector, which include holding a consultation forum to brief teachers of the recommendation and conducting a questionnaire survey to collect views from schools and teachers in a one-month consultation period.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10265

Our reply to the five parts of Mr IP Kin-yuen's question is as follows:

(1) The Chinese History curriculum aims at providing junior secondary students with a holistic Chinese history education. In the curriculum guide Learning to learn: Life-long Learning and Whole-person Development promulgated in 2001, it is stipulated that all junior secondary students in Hong Kong will study Chinese history and culture, which are essential learning contents, and the required learning hours are also specified. Regardless of which curriculum mode(s) schools adopt, their curriculum should cover all teaching topics of Chinese history. In the current curriculum, topics for Secondary Three should cover around 300 years of modern history starting from the founding of the Qing Dynasty by the Manzu to the domestic politics and diplomacy of the People's Republic of China. More teaching time is required for modern history as it involves a lot of events and people and there are numerous and diversified learning materials. Currently the implementation of the curriculum in some secondary schools is not satisfactory. Some of these have adopted a cursory teaching approach whereas others have even skipped modern history, with the result that their students have insufficient knowledge and understanding of the development of modern Chinese history and related important events. This issue should be addressed properly. In addition, the recommendation of "attaching equal weight to past and present" in the history curricula has been a result of the professional discussion in the Ad Hoc Committee and its working group after making reference to the curricula of other regions and countries. Moreover, students taking senior secondary Chinese History, because of their inadequate knowledge of modern history, find it difficult to study this subject in which ancient history and modern history share equal proportion of content.

In view of this, the Curriculum Development Council proposed a short-term recommendation which involves adjusting the time allocation of the teaching of ancient history and modern history, according to the principle of "attaching equal weight to both past and present". It is recommended that Secondary Three students will start by studying the revolutionary movement by the end of the Qing Dynasty. In this way, two academic years and one academic year 10266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

will be allocated respectively to the teaching of ancient history, which covers several thousand years and to the teaching of modern history, which involves a hundred years. In addition, the adoption of more interactive pedagogies is recommended to motivate students to further their study in Chinese history after they have received a holistic Chinese history education at junior secondary level. In sum, the short-term recommendation aims at catering for, as soon as possible, the learning needs of junior secondary students in the forthcoming academic year and helping them to develop an overall understanding of Chinese history.

(2) Although the short-term recommendation does not induce any change to the current curriculum content so that existing textbooks and relevant teaching materials can still be used, the Education Bureau is going to strengthen support measures at three levels, namely teachers, subject panel and students, in order to facilitate the implementation of the fine-tuned curriculum which is based on the principle of "attaching equal weight to both past and present" and to provide students with a quality Chinese history education. For example:

(i) veteran teachers will be invited to share their experiences and good practices in topic arrangement as well as the use of different learning and teaching strategies; teachers will be supported to form learning communities in which they can learn from one another; different schools' exemplars of topic arrangement will be made available for teachers' reference;

(ii) school-based support will be arranged according to the needs of individual schools;

(iii) a variety of learning activities will be organized and information on other resources (for example, Quality Education Fund) will be made available to teachers and schools.

Apart from making reference to the two exemplars provided in the consultation session and the experience of those schools which have already made the adjustment, teachers can use their professional LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10267

judgment in planning the curriculum and formulating the scheme of work according to their school contexts and students' interests and needs. In order to encourage enlivening of the Chinese history classrooms, the Education Bureau is organizing teachers' training programmes on using museum exhibitions to promote the learning of Chinese history, with the aim of enhancing teachers' skills in planning visits to museum exhibitions and thereby arousing students' interest in studying history. Besides, the Education Bureau is also providing resources to encourage students to visit museums; for example, funds were granted in the first half of this year to sponsor student visits to special sessions of the "Dunhuang-Untold Tales, Untold Riches exhibition" at the Heritage Museum. Starting from June, 2015 the Education Bureau will also sponsor special student visit sessions for the exhibition on the "Rise of the Celestial Empire: Consolidation and Cultural Exchange during the Han Dynasty" in the Hong Kong History Museum and the "Western Scientific Instruments of the Qing Court" Exhibition in the Hong Kong Science Museum respectively.

(3) As the short-term recommendation has not changed the curriculum content, existing textbooks can still be used. The current junior secondary Chinese History textbooks have undergone stringent textbook review processes and they are in a good position to support the implementation of the short-term recommendation. Schools can select textbooks according to their school contexts and students' abilities. The Education Bureau will also upload supplementary teaching materials for teachers' reference.

It is explicitly stipulated in the current Syllabuses For Secondary Schools ― Chinese History Secondary I-III, 1997 《( 中國歷史科課 程綱要(中一至中三)(1997)》) that "training of thinking skills" and "construction of historical knowledge" are the main concerns of this subject. Apart from facilitating students' learning of significant historical events and cultural knowledge of the Chinese dynasties, teachers also put emphasis on developing students' higher order thinking abilities such as understanding, inductive reasoning, synthesis, analysis and evaluation. By studying the causes and effects and impacts of historical events based on facts, students can gradually reach an integrated understanding of the historical events. 10268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

It is the responsibility of every Chinese History teacher to promote the learning of history through different perspectives and based on historical facts. The Education Bureau believes that with their professionalism, all Chinese History teachers can teach modern Chinese history with an objective, neutral and impartial attitude so as to develop students' understanding and their abilities to synthesize, analyse and evaluate historical events.

(4) and (5)

The Curriculum Development Council discusses and reviews the content and effectiveness of all implemented curricula on a regular basis to ensure that they respond to the changing needs of the society, the development of different subjects or Key Learning Areas (KLAs) and students' needs so that students can receive the best quality education. Such practices have been in place for long and are considered effective. When there is a need to review the curriculum of a particular subject, the relevant KLA committee will set up an ad hoc committee comprised of representatives from different sectors including teachers and experts with professional knowledge and experience in subject content, learning and teaching as well as assessment. After in-depth discussions, members will draft a recommendation and collect views from school principals and teachers through various channels of consultation such as seminars and questionnaire surveys. If the subject curriculum under review is not related to the public examination, at least one consultation session will be conducted to collect views from schools and other stakeholders. If it is related to the public examination, at least two consultation sessions will be conducted. The length of the consultation period varies with different subjects and it usually lasts one month. The final recommendation will be made after all the collected views have been analysed by the Ad Hoc Committee. The recommendation will then be vetted and endorsed by the committee of the relevant KLA before releasing it to the public.

In producing curriculum resources such as teaching materials and textbooks, publishers need to refer to the subject or KLA curriculum guides, and make revisions by making reference to the changing society and the updating of disciplinary knowledge. The Education LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10269

Bureau will vet textbooks according to established procedures and criteria for quality textbooks focusing on contents, learning and teaching, structure and organization, language and textbook layout. The same criteria will be adopted for vetting junior secondary and senior secondary textbooks.

Mortgage Loans Taken out for HOS Flats with Unpaid Premium

11. MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Chinese): President, currently, owners of flats under the Home Ownership Scheme and the Private Sector Participation Scheme (HOS/PSPS) must not sell, let, mortgage or remortgage, or in any way alienate or part with possession of their flats before paying a premium or obtaining approval from the Director of Housing, or else they contravene section 27A of the Housing Ordinance (Cap. 283) (section 27A). On the other hand, it was reported last month that as the land title records of thousands of HOS/PSPS flats with unpaid premium contained entries of encumbrances in loan agreements with finance companies, the relevant owners were alleged to have illegally remortgaged their flats. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of applications received by the Housing Department from owners of HOS/PSPS flats with unpaid premium for remortgaging their flats and, among them, the number of approved cases, in each of the past five years;

(2) of the respective numbers of cases involving alleged contraventions of section 27A into which investigations were conducted and in which prosecutions were instituted by the authorities, as well as the number of convictions, in the past five years;

(3) whether, in the light of the aforesaid report, the authorities will take the initiative to conduct investigations; if they will, of the details and the timetable; if not, of the reasons for that;

(4) given that in recent years, some HOS/PSPS flat owners have pointed out that quite a number of finance companies have launched loan schemes exclusively for HOS/PSPS flats with unpaid premium, thus misleading them into believing that remortgaging their flats is not 10270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

illegal, how the authorities will step up publicity and law enforcement efforts to remind HOS/PSPS flat owners of the risks involved; and

(5) whether the authorities and the relevant financial regulators have monitored the risks posed by mortgages of subsidized flats with unpaid premium, as well as the liabilities of the owners concerned, and assessed the impacts of the relevant situation on the overall property market; if not, whether the authorities will formulate measures to monitor and assess the relevant situation?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, with inputs from the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, my consolidated reply to the questions raised by Mr WONG Kwok-kin is as follows:

Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) is subsidized housing offered by the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) to eligible applicants at selling prices below market value. To ensure the proper use of public resources, the HA imposes alienation restriction on subsidized sale flats (including HOS flats). As stipulated in the Schedule to the Housing Ordinance (the Ordinance), HOS flats are subject to alienation restriction; and unless owners have met the specific requirement (such as payment of premium or obtaining the approval of the Director of Housing, and so on), they are prohibited from selling, letting, mortgaging or in any way alienating or parting with possession of their flats.

Currently, if subsidized sale flat owners want to refinance their flats without paying the premium, prior approval must be obtained from the Director of Housing who may, in giving his approval, impose such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. The terms and conditions must be complied with when the flat is refinanced. Refinancing will only be allowed in cases of financial hardship in which an immediate sum of money is needed to meet any personal or family expenses arising out of unforeseen circumstances. Possible grounds for approval include medical expenses, education expenses for family members, funeral expenses, a lump sum payment or payment of maintenance to one's spouse as a result of divorce or separation, and in cases of financial hardship arising from business activities. Refinancing applications on other grounds (such as personal financial problems) will be considered on a case-by-case basis. The maximum amount of refinancing loan permissible will be limited to the difference between 80% of the sale price assessed by the Director of Housing as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10271 at the date of the application for refinancing and the amount of any outstanding mortgage loan. In the past five years (that is, 2010-2011 to 2014-2015), there were a total of 1 771 refinancing cases approved by the Director of Housing for flats with premium not yet paid (including HOS and Tenants Purchase Scheme, and so on).

The Housing Department (HD) reviews the approval procedures for refinancing applications from time to time to streamline procedures and to facilitate applicants. For instance, subsequent to an earlier review, for applications received on or after 1 September 2014, as long as the applicant's solicitor has ensured that the legal charge will contain the terms and provisions as required by the HD in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the consent letter when preparing the legal charge, it is not necessary for applicants to submit the draft legal charge to the Legal Service Sub-division of the HD for approval. This new arrangement helps shorten the time required for processing the refinancing applications and save the approval charges. The HD will continue to review the approval procedures for refinancing applications when appropriate with the objective to further shorten and streamline procedures to address the emergency needs of the applicants. Information on refinancing of HOS flats and the application procedures are available to the public on the HD's website. For enquiries on such matters, HOS flat owners can also contact the respective Estate Management Offices.

Section 17B of the Ordinance on "void alienations" stipulates that under certain circumstances, "the purported mortgage, other charge, assignment or other alienation, together with any agreement so to mortgage, charge, assign or otherwise alienate, shall be void". Section 27A of the Ordinance further stipulates that where a person, whether as lender, borrower or otherwise purports to alienate land or enter into relevant agreement which is void under section 17B, the person commits an offence and is liable to the maximum fine of $500,000 and to imprisonment for one year. For loan agreement, not every loan agreement involving subsidized sale flats of the HA will invoke the alienation restriction stipulated under sections 17B and 27A of the Ordinance. In general, only loan agreements which involve using the HOS flats with premium not yet paid as securities will invoke section 17B and contravene section 27A. Therefore, there is no hard and fast rule in determining whether a loan agreement signed between the owner of an HOS flat with premium not yet paid and finance company has contravened the Ordinance. It is necessary to look into the actual circumstances of individual cases.

10272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

According to the HD's past experience in scrutinizing the loan agreements concerned, only in relation to some of them did the HD consider that there was evidence to prove the same might have constituted a contravention of the Ordinance. For those loan agreements which the HD considered might have constituted a contravention of the Ordinance, the Court might consider otherwise afterwards. Under the prevailing mechanism, in addition to applications for refinancing, the HD will examine the relevant land search records when processing applications for premium assessment and transfer of ownership. In the past five years (that is, 2010-2011 to 2014-2015), the HD has checked more than 4 500 land search records on average each year. Should it be found in the search records that a loan or mortgage record has been registered in connection with a flat with unpaid premium, and that the loan or mortgage may involve mortgaging an HOS flat without the approval of the Director of Housing, the HD will consider whether to institute prosecution. When considering these cases, the HD will look into the actual circumstances of each case, in particular, whether the loan document contains any contractual terms or wording that may constitute a contravention of the Ordinance. Upon obtaining sufficient evidence, the HD will institute prosecution against the suspected person under section 27A of the Ordinance.

The HD, from time to time, finds that owners of HOS flats with unpaid premium have entered into loan agreements with finance companies in the form of personal loans and there is insufficient evidence in the agreement provisions to prove that the loans are secured by the HOS flats and thus constitute a contravention of section 27A of the Ordinance. When necessary, the HD will seek advice from the Department of Justice on whether all elements of the offence are available and whether there is sufficient evidence for instituting prosecution in individual cases. In the past five years (that is, 2010-2011 to 2014-2015), a total of 27 persons, who were suspected of creating mortgages on subsidized flats with unpaid premium without the prior approval of the Director of Housing, were prosecuted for violation of section 27A of the Ordinance. Amongst these cases, 11 persons were convicted, three persons were acquitted, and the charges against two persons were withdrawn. The remaining 11 cases are still being processed.

On the other hand, under section 30(1) of the Money Lenders Ordinance, a person (including finance companies) shall not, by any false, misleading or deceptive statement, representation or promise, or by any dishonest concealment of material facts, fraudulently induce or attempt to induce any person to borrow money from a money lender. Offenders are liable to a fine of $10,000 and six months' imprisonment. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10273

In addition, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), as a banking regulator, is also aware that some finance companies provide personal loans to owners of HOS flats with unpaid premium. The HKMA requires banks engaging in mortgage lending to review borrowers' financial conditions from time to time. If banks find that a borrower's financial conditions have changed, including obtaining further mortgage financing from other financial institutions, they should review the borrower's repayment ability and take suitable measures to manage the increased risks. In cases where the borrower has encountered financial difficulties, banks should take the initiative to communicate with the borrowers, with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable repayment arrangement.

Meanwhile, as an organization dedicated to improving financial knowledge and capability of the public in Hong Kong, the Investor Education Centre (IEC) has well noted the financial and debt management issues faced by the public as well as their knowledge and capability gaps. The topic of debt management and borrowing has been one of the IEC's core education focuses. In view of recent reports on borrowers' using property as collaterals to apply for loans, the IEC will enhance education initiatives on borrowing and debt management in the coming months, including media columns, website, e-newsletter, education campaign on IEC Calculators and outreach seminars, and so on.

The Government will continue to monitor the latest development of the property market and the evolving external environment. The Government will not hesitate to introduce measures when necessary, in order to maintain the healthy and stable development of the property market.

Residential Units Produced by Private Sector

12. MR ABRAHAM SHEK: President, will the Government inform this Council, in tabulated form, of the respective numbers of residential units produced from projects undertaken by the private sector in each of the years from 2012 to 2014 on sites involving applications for (i) lease modification, (ii) land exchange and (iii) private treaty grant?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING: President, in response to Mr Abraham SHEK's question, we have consolidated the required information, as tabulated below, based on the data and statistics provided by the Lands Department, the Buildings Department, and the Rating and Valuation Department. 10274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Approximate number of private residential units developed on Year the sites concerned Land Exchange Lease Modification Private Treaty Grant Total 2012 1 600 400 3 200 5 200 2013 6 900 200 - 7 100 2014 5 000 500 5 900 11 400

Note:

The figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred.

Proposed Enhancements to Licensing Regime for Guesthouses

13. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Chinese): President, in March this year, the authorities informed the Panel on Home Affairs of this Council of the outcome of the public consultation on the review of the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance (Cap. 349) (the Ordinance) and proposed that the Ordinance be amended to enhance the licensing regime for guesthouses and facilitate law enforcement actions against unlicensed guesthouses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as the authorities have estimated that around 280 licensed guesthouses are currently located in buildings whose Deeds of Mutual Covenant (DMCs) contain explicit provisions prohibiting the premises concerned to be used as a hotel or guesthouse, of the name, address, number of rooms, and the remaining term of the guesthouse licence granted, in respect of each of such guesthouses;

(2) as the authorities have proposed to amend the Ordinance to empower the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Authority (the Authority) to refuse to issue or renew a licence if the DMC of the building concerned contains any explicit provision prohibiting the premises concerned to be used as a hotel or guesthouse, or for commercial purpose, whether the authorities will, apart from giving the affected guesthouse licence holders a grace period of one year, support and assist such guesthouses, which are able to obtain licences under the original less-stringent policy, in relocating elsewhere to continue to operate; if they will, of the details; if not, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10275

the reasons for that; whether they have assessed the situation, after the enactment of the amendments to the Ordinance, of such guesthouses closing down because they cannot be relocated elsewhere for continuous operation; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) given that the authorities proposed in the relevant consultation paper three possible options regarding the local consultation on guesthouse licence applications, which included (i) conducting local consultation through District Officers and (ii) setting up an administrative independent panel, comprising non-official members, to make recommendations to the Authority after considering local views, and these two options received a similar level of support from respondents, whether the authorities have decided on the option to adopt; if they have, of the decision and the reasons for that; if not, the criteria based on which the authorities will decide on the option to adopt?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, in response to public concerns over nuisance and inconvenience caused by guesthouses to building residents in recent years, the Home Affairs Department (HAD) completed a review on the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance (Cap. 349) (the Ordinance) in July 2014. A consultation paper was published to gauge public views extensively on a series of proposals with a view to enhancing the licensing regime for guesthouses and to stepping up the enforcement actions against unlicensed guesthouses.

Upon expiry of the public consultation period in late August 2014, the HAD had received about 1 100 written submissions. After careful collation and analysis of the submissions, we briefed the Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs on the outcome of the consultation on 24 March 2015. In view of the wide community support, we will amend the Ordinance to implement various proposals recommended in the consultation paper to enhance the licensing regime for guesthouses and facilitate enforcement actions against unlicensed guesthouses. We are now drafting the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Amendment) Bill (the Bill) and will introduce it to the Legislative Council for scrutiny as soon as possible.

10276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

My reply to Mr KWOK Wai-keung's question is as follows:

(1) Under the current licensing regime, the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Authority (the Authority) may only refuse to issue a licence on such grounds as the premises intended to be used as a hotel or guesthouse fail to comply with the requirements relating to building structure and fire safety, health and hygiene, and supervision as provided for in the Ordinance. As the Deed of Mutual Covenant (DMC) is not a ground for refusal to licence issuance under the Ordinance, we do not have copies of DMCs of the buildings where the licensed guesthouses are located in. Having examined public records kept by the Land Registry, we estimate that DMCs of buildings accommodating about 280 licensed guesthouses may contain explicit restrictive provisions against the operation of guesthouses. However, this is for general reference only because whether or not these DMCs contain such explicit restrictive provisions has to be ascertained by legal professionals.

The Office of the Licensing Authority (the OLA) under the HAD will issue written notification to the guesthouse licensees who may be affected, in order to remind and advise them to seek legal advice and make appropriate arrangements promptly. The OLA will also set up a dedicated hotline to answer the enquiries from the industry.

(2) While the DMC is not one of the licensing considerations under the current licensing regime, the OLA has clearly reminded applicants and licensees via licence application forms and relevant guidelines, notification letters for issuance of licence and other relevant documents that a guesthouse licence does not act as a waiver of their responsibilities to comply with DMC provisions. They must ensure that guesthouses to be operated or operated at the premises concerned are in compliance with DMC provisions, or else they have to bear legal liabilities and other consequences on their own.

We understand that some guesthouse operators will be affected by the new licensing requirement of taking into account DMC provisions. To allow sufficient time for current operators to adapt LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10277

to the new licensing regime and make necessary arrangements (such as relocation), we propose to renew their licences once in accordance with the existing licensing requirements for a period of 12 months upon commencement of the Bill. In other words, current operators will be subject to the new licensing requirements for licence renewal one year after the Bill has come into effect. Apart from reminding affected operators through written notification to take heed of the new licensing requirements, the OLA will accord priority to processing licence applications due to relocation, and deploy dedicated case officers to render assistance for such applicants.

Given that affected guesthouses may move to locations in compliance with licensing requirements for continuous operation, we believe that the new licensing requirements will have limited impact on the industry. Whether he would relocate his guesthouses, change his operation model (such as renting out rooms on a monthly basis) or make other arrangements is solely a business decision of individual licensee.

(3) As indicated in the written responses received regarding the three options for local consultation, 42% and 43% of the respondents supported Option I and Option II respectively. As for the consultation with the 18 District Councils (DCs), majority of DC members are in favour of Option II. As pointed out by the respondents, Option II is more likely to strike a proper balance between efficiency and impartiality as compared with the two alternatives. Option II is considered better than Option I because the applicants will be given an opportunity to respond to objectors' concerns in front of an independent panel which will then make recommendations on licence issuance in a fair and objective manner. As such, we have proposed in the paper submitted to the Legislative Council Panel on Home Affairs to adopt Option II, under which the Authority will be empowered, in processing new or renewal licence applications, to take into account recommendations made by the independent panel after considering views submitted by residents living in the same building and the applicant's responses.

10278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Implementation and Promotion of Basic Law

14. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Chinese): President, this year marks the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law. In connection with the implementation and promotion of the Basic Law, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has assessed if the Central People's Government (CPG) is satisfied with the implementation of the Basic Law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR); if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) given that Article 23 of the Basic Law stipulates that SAR shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, etc., of the reasons why the SAR Government still has no specific timetable for enacting laws to implement this provision so far; whether it has assessed the risks to national security of not having such laws enacted yet; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) whether it has assessed if any foreign forces have attempted to sabotage the effective implementation of the Basic Law since the reunification and hence have affected its efforts to promote constitutional reform and implement universal suffrage for the selection of the Chief Executive (CE), etc.; if it has made such an assessment, of the details; if it has not, the reasons for that;

(4) given that a member of Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress has earlier proposed that attending national studies courses on the Mainland should be made an entry requirement for prospective teachers, whether the authorities will adopt such a proposal or require teachers to pass a special pre-employment examination on the Basic Law; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) whether, prior to CE nominating and reporting to CPG for appointment of principal officials under the accountability system, the authorities will assess such persons' understanding of the Basic Law, establish a regular mechanism to conduct the relevant assessments or evaluations on them after their assumption of office, and provide them with systematic training in this respect; and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10279

(6) given that some District Council members, Legislative Council Members and Executive Council Members are often alleged to have different understanding of certain provisions of the Basic Law, whether the Government will provide training for them to ensure that they have a consistent understanding of the provisions of the Basic Law; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Education Bureau and the Security Bureau, our consolidated reply to the questions raised by Dr LAM is as follows:

The Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (the Basic Law) is the constitutional document for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), enshrining in legal form the basic policies of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy and prescribing the systems practised in the SAR. Since the establishment of the SAR, the Central Government has been acting in strict accordance with the fundamental principles and policies of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy, as well as the provisions of the Basic Law, to support the Chief Executive and the SAR Government in administering Hong Kong in accordance with law. Similarly, the SAR Government has also been administering the affairs of Hong Kong in strict accordance with the "one country, two systems" principle and the Basic Law.

As regards the enactment of Article 23 of the Basic Law (BL23), the SAR is constitutionally obliged under BL23 to enact laws for national security. The SAR Government administers in accordance with the Basic Law. However, we do not have any plan to enact laws in respect of BL23 for the time being.

Constitutional development of Hong Kong is an internal matter for the SAR and an internal affair for China, in which foreign governments should not interfere. We hope foreign governments will respect our position. Regarding the question on external forces, the Chief Executive has already responded in various occasions. The SAR Government has nothing further to supplement.

The Education Bureau plays an active role in promoting Basic Law education and continues to organize professional development programmes for primary and secondary school teachers in order to enhance teachers' 10280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 understanding of the concepts and essence of the Basic Law. These courses cover curriculum planning, learning and teaching, use of learning and teaching resources, and knowledge enrichment, and aim to facilitate the implementation of Basic Law education in schools and enhance curriculum leadership and teaching effectiveness. The Education Bureau always respects academic freedom in the aspect of initial teacher training. Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs) design initial teacher training courses in line with the needs of the society, students and the profession. The Education Bureau also communicates with TEIs on matters related to teacher professional development and training, through meetings to ensure their course planning aligned with the needs of policy development. Pre-service teachers may also acquire knowledge of current affairs and development of the country through joining various exchange programmes and activities. In addition, the Education Bureau also produces different learning packages, online assessment banks and online resources to support student learning of the Basic Law.

The Basic Law Promotion Steering Committee (BLPSC) established by the SAR Government in January 1998 provides the steer on the overall programme and strategy for promoting the Basic Law, and co-ordinates the efforts of government departments and various sectors in the community in taking forward the Basic Law promotion activities. The BLPSC and its five working groups also organize various promotion activities and invite people from all walks of life to attend these events, in order to enable more in-depth understanding of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law by different strata and sectors in the society.

Mass Transit Railway By-laws and Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw

15. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, the former Secretary for Transport and Housing indicated in 2007 that the newly established MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) would conduct a comprehensive review of the Mass Transit Railway By-laws (Cap. 556 sub. leg. B) and the Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw (Cap. 556 sub. leg. H) (collectively referred to as "the two sets of bylaws") within 12 months after the merger of the MTR Corporation Limited and the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation. In June 2010, the Government submitted to the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways of this Council the proposed amendments to the two sets of bylaws put LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10281 forward by MTRCL, but has given no account of the progress afterwards. Regarding the implementation of and amendments to the two sets of bylaws, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the Government has already ceased its work on amending the two sets of bylaws; if it has, whether it is because the Government sees no need for making such amendments or the Government has ceased the relevant work upon the request of MTRCL, and whether the Government will restart the relevant amendment procedures; if it will, of the details; if it will not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it knows the respective total current numbers and contents of the notices and indicators within the railway premises under section 21 of the Mass Transit Railway By-laws and section 18 of the Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw; and

(3) of the respective numbers of prosecutions instituted under the two sets of bylaws in each of the past three years, with a breakdown by unlawful act?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of Mr WU Chi-wai's question is as follows.

The primary objective of both the Mass Transit Railway By-laws and the Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw is to ensure safe, reliable and efficient railway services. The Mass Transit Railway By-laws stipulate that every person while on the railway premises (excluding the North-west Railway) shall comply with those by-laws and with all notices, indicators and all reasonable directions and requests of any official (that is, any person duly authorized to act on behalf of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL)). The Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw originates from the Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation's era before the rail merger (in 2007), and it becomes a by-law under the MTRCL after the rail merger. According to this Bylaw, every person while on a bus (that is, MTR feeder bus) or vehicle (that is, Light Rail Vehicle) of the North-west Railway or on any part of its railway premises shall comply with all notices, indicators and all reasonable directions and requests of officials.

10282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

The notices and indicators issued in accordance with the two sets of by-laws cover the following major areas:

(1) Conduct of passengers: prohibition of, for example, smoking, consumption of food or beverage, hawking, causing a nuisance, carriage of dangerous goods;

(2) Fares and tickets: for example, passengers shall pay fares specified by the MTRCL, and those without a ticket or those who fail to pay fares are prohibited from entry into paid areas or travel on trains/Light Rail Vehicles/MTR feeder buses, and so on;

(3) Hawking, loitering and posting of bills: prohibition of, for example, hawking, bill posting, unauthorized display of materials for the purpose of advertisement, and so on; and

(4) Trespass and damage to railway premises: for example, no person shall be allowed to construct or erect any kind of building without the approval of the MTRCL, and to improperly touch or use any machine or equipment within railway premises.

According to the MTRCL, there are currently a total of more than 46 000 notices and indicators as referred to in the Mass Transit Railway By-laws at various locations within railway premises (including heavy rail stations, trains, depots and operations facilities); and there are currently a total of more than 24 000 notices and indicators as referred to in the Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw at various locations within the North-west railway premises (including Light Rail stops, vehicles, depots and operations facilities).

In 2012, 2013 and 2014, the MTRCL instituted 2 182, 1 350 and 936 prosecutions respectively in accordance with the Mass Transit Railway By-laws; and 88, 126 and 94 prosecutions respectively in accordance with the Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw. Details are listed in the following tables:

Prosecutions in accordance with the Mass Transit Railway By-laws:

Contraventions 2012 2013 2014 Contraventions related to conduct of passengers 903 517 408 Contraventions related to fares and tickets 845 567 363 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10283

Contraventions 2012 2013 2014 Contraventions related to hawking, loitering and 37 6 14 bill posting Contraventions related to trespass and damage to 120 75 36 railway premises Others 277 185 115 Total 2 182 1 350 936

Prosecutions in accordance with the Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw:

Contraventions 2012 2013 2014 Contraventions related to conduct of passengers 2 5 4 Contraventions related to fares and tickets 74 85 73 Contraventions related to hawking, loitering and 1 14 1 bill posting Contraventions related to trespass and damage to 2 3 1 railway premises Others 9 19 15 Total 88 126 94

At the early stage after the rail merger, the review on the Mass Transit Railway By-laws and the Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw was discussed at the meetings of the Legislative Council Panel on Transport Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways in January 2009 and June 2010. After several rounds of discussion at the time, no clear direction was formed on how the two sets of by-laws should be amended. The MTRCL has subsequently reviewed the matter and considers that the two sets of by-laws by and large adequately facilitate safe, reliable and efficient railway services. As such, it is not necessary to amend the two sets of by-laws. As mentioned above, the two sets of by-laws are similar. However, as they are applicable to two different systems (the heavy rail is a closed system and carries more passengers; whilst the Light Rail and MTR feeder buses are open systems and carry less passengers), each of which has its own uniqueness from the operations point of view, hence there are differences in individual clauses. For example, the Mass Transit Railway By-laws have more detailed and concrete restrictions with regard to carriage of luggage, whilst the Mass Transit Railway (North-West Railway) Bylaw has more detailed restrictions on dangerous driving. The MTRCL has 10284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 considered whether it is necessary to integrate the two sets of by-laws. In view of the overall operations experiences since the rail merger in 2007, the Corporation is of the view that railway services will not be adversely affected while keeping the two sets of by-laws.

Safety of Electricity Supply System and Related Parts in TPS Estates

16. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Chinese): President, quite a number of owners of the Tenants Purchase Scheme (TPS) flats have relayed to me that wiring faults and short circuits often occurred in their flats. However, when they had repair works carried out at their own expenses, they found that the wires and fuses in the meter rooms on their floors for supplying electricity to rental and sold units were of different specifications. They are worried that such situation will increase the risk of short circuits. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of units sold under TPS so far since its launch;

(2) whether, in the past five years, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) examined the risk of the wires and fuses in the meter rooms in housing blocks of TPS estates having different specifications causing short circuits, and whether HA received reports or complaints about related incidents; if so, how HA handled such cases;

(3) given that HA provides a seven-year Structural Safety Guarantee for newly sold TPS units, whether the guarantee covers inspection and early replacement of power supply systems and related components; if not, how HA differentiates whether itself or the owners concerned should be held responsible for the repair works in the event of failures of the power supply systems for such units; whether TPS flat owners who purchased the flats at different time receive differential treatment in respect of the repair and maintenance of such systems; if so, of the details;

(4) of the list of TPS estates for which HA carried out, in the past three years, large-scale inspections and repairs of the power supply systems, as well as the number of housing blocks involved, the scope of the repair works and the amount of expenditure incurred; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10285

whether, under the existing policy, HA is responsible for carrying out such repair works for TPS estates with rental units; if so, of HA's maximum level of commitment for the costs of the works; and

(5) whether HA has regularly provided owners' corporations of TPS estates and owners of the sold TPS flats with a procurement list of spare parts for power supply systems to ensure that wires and fuses used in the same housing block are of the same specifications; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) introduced the Tenants Purchase Scheme (TPS) in 1998, with a total of 39 estates included in the scheme in phases. Currently all the 39 TPS estates (Phase 1 to Phase 6B) have formed Incorporated Owners (IOs) and have employed property management companies to carry out the management and maintenance works of the estates. In this respect, TPS estates and private developments are of no difference. IOs and the property management companies of TPS estates are responsible for the daily management and maintenance works of the estates in accordance with the Building Management Ordinance, the Government leases and the Deeds of Mutual Covenant.

My replies to the various parts of the question by Mr TANG Ka-piu are as follows:

(1) As at 30 April 2015, about 130 000 TPS flats have been sold by the HA.

(2) In accordance with the Electricity Ordinance and its subsidiary regulations, the repair and maintenance of electrical installations to prevent electrical accidents is the responsibility of the owners of electrical installations. IOs or the property management companies appointed by the IOs are therefore responsible for the management, repair and maintenance of the communal electrical installations in TPS estates. The HA has no right to inspect the electrical installations and the condition in the meter rooms of TPS estates.

In the past five years, the HA has not received reports or complaints about electrical cables and fuses in the meter rooms in TPS estates having different specifications. However, should the HA receive 10286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

such reports or complaints, it would relay them to the property management company of the TPS estate concerned and request it to investigate and follow up on such reports or complaints.

(3) The HA has provided a seven-year Structural Safety Guarantee for TPS estates. During the guarantee period, the HA is responsible for all structural repair and maintenance works relating to structural components such as columns, beams, walls and floor slabs, including repair works for spalling and cracking, in order to ensure the overall structural safety of the buildings. Besides, the HA has also made a one-off injection equivalent to $14,000 per residential unit to the Maintenance Fund for each TPS estate to meet the expenses of post-sale maintenance works. Moreover, the HA has carried out comprehensive investigation and completed all necessary maintenance and repair works prior to the sale of individual TPS estates. Also, if a tenant reports that any installation in his/her flat is defective before purchasing the flat, the HA will carry out the final one-off repair for that flat. All flats under the TPS are therefore sold in good condition.

As mentioned above, in accordance with the Electricity Ordinance and its subsidiary regulations, the repair and maintenance of electrical installations is the responsibility of the owners of electrical installations. For sold flats, flat owners shall therefore be responsible for the installations in their flats and their electrical installations in the meter rooms. The HA, as the owner of unsold flats, is responsible for the maintenance and repair of electrical installations provided in these flats. The maintenance and repair works of the communal electrical installations in TPS estates shall be done by the IOs or the property management companies concerned.

All the electrical installations provided by the HA in TPS estates are in compliance with the then prevailing safety standards and specifications during the time of construction. Since the completion dates of estates were different, the specifications of installations for these estates might also be different. However, in respect of the repair and maintenance arrangements of electrical installations, the treatment for TPS flat owners who purchased the flats at different times is the same.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10287

(4) As mentioned above, as IOs or the property management companies concerned are responsible for all the maintenance and repair works of the communal electrical installations in TPS estates, the HA does not carry out the said maintenance and repair works for TPS estates.

The HA, as the owner of the unsold flats in TPS estates, will carry out regular sampling inspections on the electrical installations, and implement the "Rewiring inside Domestic Flats" programme to enhance the standard of fixed electrical installations inside these flats at an appropriate time. This is in line with the arrangements of other public rental housing estates under the HA's management.

(5) In accordance with the Electricity Ordinance and its subsidiary regulations, the owners of electrical installations shall employ Registered Electrical Contractors to carry out the maintenance and repair works of the electrical installations. The repair, addition or alteration of electrical installations shall comply with the safety specifications stipulated in the Electricity Ordinance and its subsidiary regulations. The HA has neither compiled nor provided any particular procurement list of spare parts for electrical installations for IOs or flat owners of TPS estates. However, the HA has provided the IO of every TPS estate with "Guidelines for Property Management and Maintenance" which include practical suggestions on the maintenance of electrical installations for their reference.

BILLS

First Reading of Bills

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: First Reading.

BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015

CLERK (in Cantonese): Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2015.

Bill read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

10288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Second Reading of Bills

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Second Reading.

BANKRUPTCY (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2015 (the Bill).

The Bill introduces new arrangements under the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6) to encourage the bankrupt to fulfil his obligations in respect of the administration of the bankrupt's estate by the trustee and to better protect the interests of creditors. The new arrangements will replace the existing mechanism under the Bankruptcy Ordinance for automatically suspending the period counting towards the bankrupt's discharge from bankruptcy under specified circumstances when the bankrupt has left Hong Kong.

Under the existing Bankruptcy Ordinance, a first-time bankrupt is to be automatically discharged from bankruptcy upon the expiry of a period of four years, or a repeat bankrupt a period of five years, following his bankruptcy. The Court may consider making an order to extend such a period to eight years at most in the event of an objection to the automatic discharge of the bankrupt from bankruptcy filed by the trustee or creditors.

In addition, in order to prevent a bankrupt from leaving Hong Kong by taking advantage of the arrangement for the automatic discharge from bankruptcy, thus circumventing the fulfillment of his obligations and seriously impairing the rights and interests of creditors, the Bankruptcy Ordinance also stipulates that if the bankrupt leaves Hong Kong under certain specified circumstances, such as failing to notify the trustee in advance of his itinerary and means of contact or failing to return to Hong Kong as required by the trustee, the period counting towards his automatic discharge from bankruptcy will be automatically suspended from running until the bankrupt has returned to Hong Kong and notified the trustee of his return. This arrangement is commonly referred to as the abscondee regime. The mechanism for the automatic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10289 discharge from bankruptcy and the abscondee regime were both introduced in response to the advice of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong, and have been in force since 1998.

In an earlier court case, the Court of Final Appeal ruled that the restraint imposed by the existing abscondee regime on the bankrupt's right to travel was more than necessary for the protection of the rights of creditors, in particular that it did not take into account whether the bankrupt's absence from Hong Kong caused prejudice to the administration of the bankrupt's estate, and that the Court did not have discretion in the matter.

Against the aforesaid background, the Government conducted a review on the abscondee regime, and it consulted the Panel on Financial Affairs of the Legislative Council about the review outcome in May 2014. Having considered the views of the Panel and stakeholders on the possible options, we have proposed the new arrangements as set out in the Bill.

Under the new arrangements, the trustee may apply to the Court for a "non-commencement order" if the bankrupt has failed to complete the initial interview with the trustee such that the administration of the bankrupt's estate was prejudiced. The bankrupt has failed to complete the initial interview if he has:

(1) failed to attend the initial interview with the trustee; or

(2) attended the initial interview but failed to provide at that interview all the information concerning his affairs, dealings and property as reasonably required by the trustee.

The new arrangements place emphasis on encouraging the bankrupt to complete the initial interview with the trustee and provide the required information, so as to assist the trustee in activating the administration of the bankrupt's estate. The Court may exercise discretionary power conferred on it to determine whether the period counting towards the bankrupt's discharge from bankruptcy should be treated as having not commenced running until the bankrupt meets the relevant terms specified by the Court when making such determination.

10290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

If the Court agrees to make an order, the period counting towards the bankrupt's automatic discharge from bankruptcy will be treated as having not commenced running. In other words, the period counting towards the bankrupt's automatic discharge from bankruptcy will be prolonged. Under the Bill, the Court will be entrusted with discretionary power to take into account all relevant factors in individual cases and any representations by the bankrupt before making a determination.

The Court will specify certain terms in the "non-commencement order". The trustee must file a notice with the Court within 14 days after the bankrupt has complied with such terms, and the period counting towards the bankrupt's automatic discharge from bankruptcy is treated as having commenced running on the date when the relevant terms have been complied with.

Compared with the existing abscondee regime, the new arrangements will primarily bring about improvement in two areas. First, our proposal mainly considers whether the acts of the bankrupt prejudice the administration of the estate, rather than simply considering whether the bankrupt stays in Hong Kong. According to the experience of the Official Receiver's Office, the initial interview is of vital importance to the trustee's administration work in bankruptcy cases. If the bankrupt fails to complete the initial interview, the trustee will not have sufficient information and documents at the outset to perform his duties properly and the administration of the bankrupt's estate will likely be prejudiced. Even if the bankrupt has not left Hong Kong, his failure to complete the initial interview will still likely prejudice the administration of the bankrupt's estate. This problem will be addressed under the new arrangements.

On the other hand, under the new arrangements the Court will be entrusted with discretionary power to determine whether a "non-commencement order" should be made in place of the arrangement for the automatic suspension of the period counting towards the discharge from bankruptcy under the existing abscondee regime. As such, the problem of constitutionality as referred to by the Court of Final Appeal in its earlier judgments will be resolved under the new arrangements.

If the Bill is passed by the Legislative Council, we propose to implement the new arrangements from 1 November 2016, and such arrangements will only be applicable to debtors who have been declared bankrupt from the implementation date.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10291

With these remarks, President, I hope Members will support the aforesaid proposals, so as to maintain the integrity of the bankruptcy system of Hong Kong.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Bankruptcy (Amendment) Bill 2015 be read the Second time.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.

Council went into Committee.

Committee Stage

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council is now in Committee. Committee will continue to deal with the Schedule of the Appropriation Bill 2015. The fifth debate will continue.

APPROPRIATION BILL 2015

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

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, there are a total of 125 amendments concerning the subject of this debate. Five of the 52 amendments that I proposed are related to abolishing several posts in the Civil Aviation Department (CAD), including the Director-General, the Deputy Director-General and the Assistant Director-General. There are full justifications to abolish these posts. We have discussed the problems of the CAD time and again in this Council and such problems are closely related to the five posts in question.

When I first raised the problem on air traffic and navigation, the Audit Commission had yet to complete its report and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had not held hearings. After the hearings of the PAC and the release of its report, members of the public have a clear picture about the problem relating to the Air Traffic Control (ATC) system of the CAD. However, the Director of Audit's report has not clearly revealed the details. 10292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

The abnormal practices involved in the problem are extremely complex and sensitive. I would like to take this opportunity to explain the main reasons for abolishing these five posts. I may have to elaborate the historical reasons in greater detail, as well as the responsibilities of different posts. I have to point out that the CAD has now become a hotbed of evil practices, as well as a coterie engaging in mutual harbouring and transfer of interests. It is difficult for us to trust this coterie comprising the Director-General, the Deputy Director-General and some senior officers.

Chairman, the navigation system still cannot be put into operation, $400 million to $500 million may have been wasted or poured into the sea, so to speak. This not only wastes public money but also affects the safety control of air traffic. As I have mentioned on different occasions, I worry that the faults in the navigation system may cause the worst-ever disaster in Hong Kong. We should not treat this matter lightly.

Chairman, why do I target the navigation system? On the one hand, despite many years of testing, there is still no confirmation that the system can be used. On the other hand, when the Government purchased this system, all airports in the world have not yet used the relevant system. There are considerable doubts about why this system is purchased. Problems have subsequently been found with the navigation system, but the officers concerned were not held responsible. More ridiculous still, after the Director of Audit had identified the issue and ascertained the dereliction of duty on the part of the officers concerned; all these officers had been promoted while the hearings of the PAC were going on. I have never seen such a ridiculous situation.

Chairman, when the Audit Commission identified the problem in the course of investigation, it had informed the CAD and the Civil Service Bureau, the Bureau was thus well aware of the severity of the problems. While some officers were found to be derelict of their duties and had made mistakes, they had all been promoted at a time when the PAC was conducting hearings. In fact, these officers are not only derelict of their duties, but may also be involved in corruption. Chairman, the fact that all members of the coterie get promoted proved that the Director-General was obviously harbouring them. The intricate relationships between these people, including the Deputy Director-General and the Assistant Director-General, have caused speculations.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10293

The Director-General's extravagance and waste of public money has been confirmed time and again. For instance, he purchased very luxurious equipment and converted a part of the office into a dance room. When the dance room was being questioned, the room was converted into a place for singing Chinese opera. His office is beautifully furnished and there is even a bathroom inside.

All these have proved how the Director-General used public money. He has put personal interests or preferences before the monitoring of public money or procedural justice. Evidently, people can hardly entrust the CAD, and particularly its senior officers, with important tasks owing to the problems. Yet, the officers concerned had been promoted, which is absolutely unacceptable. Therefore, I have to express my anger through reducing the relevant expenditures, and I request to put on record that the Legislative Council expressed strong distrust of the senior officers of this department.

Chairman, I propose that head 28 be reduced by $2,139,600 in respect of subhead 000, which is equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the annual emolument for the Deputy Director-General of Civil Aviation. As I just mentioned, the Assistant Director-General had recently been promoted as the Deputy Director-General. Chairman, the Assistant Director-General is responsible for air traffic engineering and standards. Though being responsible for the procurement of the ATC system, he did not need to be held responsible for the mistakes made in the procurement and was promoted instead. This is really ridiculous. The public speeches he made in connection with the ATC system, including his speeches in the Legislative Council and the evidences he gave were untruthful. A more serious issue is that he lied to the Legislative Council. He learned about "hypocritical rhetoric" from LEUNG Chun-ying and deliberately concealed the issue.

Chairman, Simon LI was the Assistant Director-General in 2013. When he was interviewed by the media about the feasibility of the ATC system and whether there were defects, he assured that the system could be commissioned in 2014. But the facts proved that what he was untrustworthy. Also, when he was questioned in 2013, there were data indicating the numerous issues with the system, yet he concealed the problems and deceived the public.

Whether the system can be commissioned in 2016 is still doubtful. According to the latest estimates of the CAD, the system may be commissioned in the first half of 2016 but I do not believe that. Even if the system can be 10294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 commissioned, it may be very different from the then tender requirements. We originally tendered for an orange but we eventually got an apple. The expenses and the public funds wasted during the delay well proved that the tendering exercise was a mistake.

It is abnormal for those officers concerned to be promoted. As I mentioned just now, the Director of Audit's report released in October last year censured the CAD for 10 serious mistakes. Chairman, on the promotion of the officials concerned, according to Albert LAM, former Director-General of Civil Aviation, for senior officers such as Deputy Director-General or Assistant Director-General, they have to act up in a higher position for a period of time. Nonetheless, the officer promoted as the Deputy Director-General has never acted up. Albert LAM also considered that this is a rare arrangement. He also pointed out jokingly that this would only happened if the officer concerned has exceptionally outstanding performance. Nevertheless, facts have proven that the officer concerned made a mistake in the procurement of the ATC system and he could hardly be considered as having outstanding performance.

Of course, there may be some special or secret reasons why the Director-General considered the Assistant Director-General exceptionally outstanding such that he could be promoted within a short time. This demonstrated that the Civil Service Bureau and the Transport and Housing Bureau have not duly performed their duties in regulating and handling personnel matters. The Director-General can do whatever he likes and controls everything, and the authorities concerned have failed to properly regulate or monitor staff promotion and personnel management.

The ATC system involves intricate and complicated personnel relations, and the officials involved include the Director-General and the Deputy Director-General. This group of people, who had been responsible for the ATC system since 2010, had all been promoted; for example, the engineer was promoted as senior engineer. All officials involved in the tendering exercise, as well as officers promoted in the recent few years, belonged to this group of people. However, the senior officers responsible for other duties had not been promoted. How come all officials responsible for the ATC system had been promoted? As I just said, they were promoted not because they had outstanding performance but because someone made the wrong decision. Officials who had LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10295 made mistakes and wasted public money had been promoted; apparently, someone was harbouring them and there were some special factors that could not be exposed.

I would like to provide some information for Members' reference. At that time, an officer involved in the entire tendering process reached the retirement age but he remained in employment on contract basis. He was responsible for the tendering exercise and he also joined the assessment panel in 2009, responsible for tender assessment. Chairman, this person, who reached the retirement age but continued to be employed on contract basis, was responsible for vetting tenders. He awarded the tender to Raytheon Company, and later he became an employee of Raytheon. Are there any deferred interests or any special reasons?

Chairman, this is simply out of the question. It is hard to believe that no corruption is involved in the entire process. First, as I said earlier, no airports had used this system, but Hong Kong was so brave as to become a guinea pig and paid a very high price of it. There are complex interpersonal relations. An officer working in the CAD was in charge of the tendering exercise, and after he awarded the tender to a company, he became its employee. All officers who involved in making that decision had been promoted; this is a wrong decision indeed.

The Transport and Housing Bureau allows senior officers to turn the department into an independent kingdom; they acted arbitrarily and wasted public money, ignoring the safety of Hong Kong people. This is a very serious case. Of course, this situation is no longer uncommon for the Government. LEUNG Chun-ying received $50 million before taking office; and Secretary for Development Paul CHAN engaged in land hoarding. Initially he might earn several ten million dollars, but after a change in land use ― it has recently been reported in the newspapers that he might have earned up to several hundred million or even several billion dollars. The interests received by CAD officials pale in comparison with those received by Paul CHAN and LEUNG Chun-ying, right?

There is corruption in the whole department … from the cases of Donald TSANG and Rafael HUI, we can see that the whole Government has become corrupt. CAD officials may think that this is just a trivial matter; as compared 10296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 with Mainland officials, Rafael HUI's acts of corruption (The buzzer sounded) … are rather trivial. I hope that Honourable colleagues would be concerned about these issues and support the relevant amendments.

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

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will speak on Amendment Nos 518, 519, 525, 526, 527 and 543. I oppose these several amendments which seek to reduce the estimated full-year subvention to the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB), the Mainland-related subvention to the HKTB, and the estimated expenditure on the Consultancy on the Phase 2 development of the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort.

I do not understand why the Members who propose these amendments have to resist the global trend and repeatedly question the development prospects of Hong Kong's tourism industry, disregarding the importance of tourism development to Hong Kong's economy. Hong Kong has been a very popular tourist destination, with its receiving capacity ranked among the best in the world. According to the latest Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report published by the World Economic Forum, Hong Kong ranks 13th, up two places from its last published ranking. In particular, Hong Kong ranks first in ground and port infrastructure among 141 countries and regions, which shows that Hong Kong is fully equipped for further developing its tourism industry.

In addition, Hong Kong's tourism industry has developed rapidly and made remarkable achievements over the past decade. From 2002 to 2012, the average rate of growth in the tourism industry was 10.2%. Its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rose from 2.9% to last year's 5%, representing a rate of increase obviously higher than those seen in other industries. The number of people directly employed in the tourism industry has reached 270 000; if other indirectly benefited industries are also included, the relevant employment figure is estimated to be over 600 000. One third of Hong Kong's retail sales are generated by inbound visitors. Not only does the tourism industry give impetus to the business of caterers, hotels, retailers, tourist spots, transport, entertainment, and so on, but other industries such as the logistics, import and export trading, advertising, real estate and financial industries are also affected by the rise and fall of the tourism industry, which has a very extensive cross-sectoral impact. I hope that those Honourable colleagues who keep criticizing the Individual Visit LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10297

Scheme can take an objective view of the problems and recognize the contribution made by the tourism industry to Hong Kong's economy. They should not forget that hundreds of thousands of people in the labour force are relying on the tourism industry to support their families, and they should stop rubbing salt into the wounds of the tourism industry, which has started to fall into the doldrums.

Developing the tourism industry brings with it many advantages, including little pollution and fostering the employment of low-skilled workers. Hence, both developing countries and advanced countries regard the tourism industry as a sunrise industry. A study report on industry trends by Oxford Economics forecasts that over the next decade, the tourism industry will grow at a rate of 5.4% per annum, which is much higher than the anticipated global GDP growth rate of 2%. Given the limitless potential of China's outbound tourism market, all countries will, while developing tourism, devote more resources to seizing the Chinese tourist market. Even the United States and Japan, which in the past considered China an unfriendly nation, have relaxed entry restrictions. To increase their appeal to Chinese tourists, many countries are improving their Chinese guiding signs, hiring Chinese-speaking shopping guides and increasing their investments in promotional activities targeting China, with a view to seizing the world's largest tourism market. For instance, Macao's estimated spending on tourism promotion for 2014 amounted to nearly $1.4 billion, almost double the $700 million expenditure of the HKTB.

In contrast, since the end of the year before last, Hong Kong has seen the continued occurrence of the "anti-locust campaign" which targets and harasses Mainland visitors. Last year, in the midst of Occupy Central, hundreds of protesters staged "shopping tour" protests which dealt a direct blow to shops in tourist areas. What happened in the run-up to the Chinese New Year this year was even worse, with protesters besieging innocent tourists and members of the public in the name of protesting against parallel traders. Some protesters hurled insults at a mother and her daughter who came to Hong Kong to buy books, and some even kicked the suitcases of elderly people. These scenes have been broadcast extensively on the news, media and television in various places, as well as on the Internet, and have been deeply imprinted on people's minds. The image of Hong Kong as a chaotic and uncivilized city has directly affected Hong Kong's tourism reputation. Recently, Yahoo Travel conducted a survey on "the unfriendliest city in the world", in which Hong Kong was ranked fourth in the world and first in Asia. Hong Kong's image as a hospitable city, which we had 10298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 taken great pains to build up over the years, was completely damaged within a short space of time. This has very negative and far-reaching implications for the development of Hong Kong.

At present, apart from solving the problem of nuisances caused to certain districts by an excessive number of parallel traders, the most important task of the Government is to rebuild Hong Kong's hospitable image worldwide. The additional allocation of $80 million to the HKTB in this year's Budget is exactly aimed at restoring visitors' confidence in Hong Kong through promoting its positive image. In the face of a confidence crisis, the amendments proposed by Mr Albert CHAN and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, however, seek to reduce all the expenses of the HKTB; these amendments are unrealistic. If the HKTB has no funding, how can it carry out the most basic activities such as advertising and external promotions? This would, in effect, mean that we do not want tourists to come to Hong Kong and that we give up tourism, in which case not only tourism investors will be affected, but workers in related trades and their families will be more seriously affected. These amendments, which totally disregard the overall economic interests of Hong Kong, are unscientific, unreasonable and reckless.

As for the amendments proposed by Members including Ms Claudia MO, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr Gary FAN which seek to reduce Mainland marketing expenses, I do not think that they are justified. Last year, the market share of Mainland tourists was as high as 78%. As over-reliance on a single market is not healthy, I agree that a balanced approach should be adopted in allocating resources for marketing. In fact, taking account of the situation, the HKTB has decided to devote 76% of advertising resources to overseas markets, while the remaining resources will be mainly invested in the non-Guangdong market of the Mainland. This is a more reasonable estimate.

Nonetheless, we must face reality. Let us look back on the situation last year. Of all the 60.8 million visitor arrivals last year, 27 million were overnight tourists, and among them, 19 million were Mainland tourists. If calculated on the basis that each overnight tourist spent as much as $8,000 on average, the total spending of these tourists would exceed $150 billion, which directly benefited various consumer industries. Moreover, as the average spending of Mainland overnight tourists is higher than that of overseas tourists, we should not completely ignore the Mainland market, which makes direct contributions to Hong Kong's economy, while stepping up our promotional efforts overseas. It is indeed unconscionable to reduce all promotional expenses.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10299

As there have been too many unfriendly actions targeting Mainland tourists recently, Mainland tourists (particularly business and middle-class visitors who are comparatively high-end and high-spending) have started to have a negative perception of Hong Kong, and their desire to visit Hong Kong has been reduced. I hope that Members from the opposition camp will stop adding fuel to the fire and refrain from blindly targeting Mainland tourists. These tourists from the Mainland, whom we do not cherish at the moment, constitute a visitor source market that the rest of the world is eyeing covetously. If we do not make any promotional efforts on the Mainland, we are virtually giving this market away to our competitors.

I concur with the proposal made by Mr James TIEN last week. The bulk of the additional advertising funding of $80 million allocated this year should be used on the Mainland, particularly the non-Guangdong market, with a focus on restoring Mainland tourists' confidence in Hong Kong. Apart from introducing Hong Kong as a place that offers great food, great fun and different concessions, our promotional activities should also focus more on the hospitality, civilization and courtesy of Hong Kong people. In addition to enhancing our image, this can help remind tourists to follow our local customs and behave in an orderly manner, so that the misunderstanding between tourists and local people can be gradually eliminated.

This apart, I oppose Dr Fernando CHEUNG's amendment which seeks to reduce the expenditure on the Consultancy on the Phase 2 development of Hong Kong Disneyland, as I think that his amendment is clearly divorced from reality. As we all know, the site of the Phase 2 works was reserved for the development of Hong Kong Disneyland long ago. It is already late to kick off the consultancy study now. The site, if not developed, will only remain exposed to the sun for no purpose, so development should be kicked off as early as possible. The receiving capacity of the two existing major tourist attractions in Hong Kong, namely Hong Kong Disneyland and Ocean Park, is close to saturation. In the face of future challenges, Hong Kong needs to establish new tourist attractions or expand the existing ones. Given the current surplus of Hong Kong Disneyland, it is now the right time to expeditiously press ahead with the Phase 2 works, so as to expand the receiving capacity of Hong Kong Disneyland.

As everyone knows, Shanghai Disneyland is scheduled to open next year; they have recently started to hold some events, and its area is much larger than that of Hong Kong Disneyland. To maintain a stable source of visitors from southern China and Southeast Asia, Hong Kong Disneyland must expand, or else 10300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 it will only fall farther and farther behind its Shanghai counterpart and lose its competitive edge. While working towards commencing the Phase 2 works as soon as possible, the Hong Kong Government must insist on requiring the Disney Headquarters to establish and launch unique local attractions and products in its Hong Kong theme park. Only through this can the Disney theme parks in Hong Kong and Shanghai complement each other and avoid homogeneity competition, which would lead to a lose-lose situation. I hope that the Government can speed up the implementation of the relevant arrangements.

I note that some Members, in their speeches delivered last week, requested the Government to levy a land departure tax on Mainland tourists. I adamantly object to that. Recently, to solve the problems posed by parallel traders, the Mainland authorities have replaced multiple-entry endorsements with "one trip per week" endorsements for permanent residents of Shenzhen at the request of the Hong Kong Government. The problems posed by Mainland parallel traders are set to be gradually alleviated. Furthermore, if such a tax is introduced in Hong Kong, it is highly likely that the Mainland Government will levy a similar tax on Hong Kong tourists in order to be accountable to the Mainland public. Each year, there are about 60 million entries of Hong Kong people into the Mainland through land boundary control points. If the Mainland authorities impose a land departure tax, the cost incurred by those Hong Kong people who frequently travel to and from the Mainland will increase. In addition, the introduction of a land departure tax in both places would only create more troubles for the boundary control points which are already very busy. It can be said that we would lose more than we would gain.

Chairman, I hope that Members from the opposition camp can be realistic in proposing amendments, and that they will stop making groundless criticisms and stop opposing for the sake of opposition. The filibustering Members should immediately cease filibustering, so that we can devote more energy to dealing with motions on developing the economy and resolving livelihood issues.

Chairman, I so submit.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I strongly support and agree with Mr YIU Si-wing's speech. I speak in support of the Budget and oppose Amendment Nos 525, 526 and 527 proposed by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr Gary FAN. The three amendments seek to deduct the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10301 annual estimated expenditure on Mainland promotion activities of the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB). Such amendments offer no new ideas; they just play the same old tune, claiming that there are too many Mainland visitors or Hong Kong can no longer cope with them, and so on. These Members simply cannot wait to turn away all Mainland visitors. I think these amendments are not only groundless and worthless, but also unreasonable.

Tourism, one of our four pillar industries, accounts for 4.7% of Hong Kong's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). It creates numerous employment opportunities for low-skilled and unskilled workers, and also drives the development of a number of industries, such as retail and hotel accommodation. Inbound Mainland visitors are the lifeblood of our tourism industry, with the annual spending of Individual Visit Scheme visitors alone accounting for 1.3% of Hong Kong's GDP. In the first half of last year, the average daily spending of Mainland visitors is $2,675, which has risen by 1.4% year on year, and is much higher than non-Mainland visitors at $1,917.

The above figures show that attracting Mainland visitors is all the more important for the development of Hong Kong tourism. In the event of a drop in the number of Mainland visitors, our tourism industry will definitely be affected while the retail and hotel business as well as the employment market will invariably suffer. The consequences would be dreadful. Hence, the HKTB's effort to promote Hong Kong tourism on the Mainland, with a view to attracting more inbound visitors, is certainly conducive to the development of our tourism industry. The Members' request for deducting the annual estimated expenditure on the HKTB's Mainland marketing activities is utterly nonsense, and is tantamount to suppressing the development of the Hong Kong tourism industry.

Without doubt, the upsurge in the number of inbound Mainland visitors in recent years has revealed the inadequate receiving capacity of our tourism industry. In this connection, the proper way to solve the problem is to expand expeditiously ancillary tourism facilities. Limiting the number of visitors or denying the entry of Mainland visitors is merely a measure to "trim the toes to fit the shoes", which can hardly solve the problem, and abandoning the Mainland market is ignorant and short-sighted.

The several Members proposing the amendments always talk about international standards, but their amendments are inconsistent with international standards. As we all know, in view of the astonishing spending power of 10302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Mainland visitors, even the western countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States have been stepping up their publicity campaigns targeting the Mainland market, relaxing their visa requirements for Mainland visitors and actively opening new routes in recent years. These countries have adopted various means to attract Mainland visitors to their places. Obviously, competing for Mainland visitors has become an "international standard" in the global tourism market. Nonetheless, the three Members who proposed the amendments have disregarded this "international standard" and conversely requested a deduction of the annual estimated expenditure of the HKTB's Mainland promotions. This proves that these Members have run counter to the world trend and adopt a double standard over the international standard emphasized by them all along.

Chairman, people with some common knowledge will know that the main function of the HKTB, as a statutory body, is to promote Hong Kong globally as a leading international city in Asia and a world class tourist destination. According to a report published by the World Tourism Organization of the United Nations, China has become the world's largest outbound tourist market for three years in a row since 2012. The three Members proposing the amendments even go so far as to request a slash of the publicity expenditure on the Mainland, and this is no different from giving up the largest market in the world. As Legislative Council Members of a tourist city, their request is totally unrealistic and grossly ridiculous.

Chairman, the three Members proposing the amendments have raised no objection to launching publicity campaigns elsewhere but they only selectively opposed the HKTB's publicity campaigns on the Mainland. This reflects that they regard "Mainland" an eyesore. Their concern about the inadequate receiving capacity of the Hong Kong tourism industry is merely a pretext, the real fact is that they are antagonistic towards the Mainland and they want to drive Mainland visitors away. Worse still, they have policitized tourism, which is an economic issue, and even advocated "Hong Kong independence", which is actually the real motive behind.

Chairman, in this year's Budget, a number of …

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10303

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please hold on. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG is speculating about the motives of other Members … When he spoke just now, he was speculating about the motives of the three Members concerned, saying that they advocate "Hong Kong independence". Do you need to make a ruling on this?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please sit down, let me listen carefully to what Mr Christopher CHEUNG has said first. Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please continue with your speech.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, can I continue with my speech?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech, but according to the Rules of Procedure, a Member shall not impute improper motives to another Member, please take note of that.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this year's Budget, a number of relief measures are proposed, such as increasing the child allowances from $70,000 to $100,000, which are well received by the public. For this reason, I hope that the pan-democratic Members will not oppose for the sake of opposition, criticize for the sake of criticism and filibuster for the sake of filibustering. They should, on the contrary, scrutinize the Budget and engage in discussion objectively and seriously with the attitude that a Member should have. This is something that a Member should do.

I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, that is what our debate should really be. That is why I welcome Mr Christopher CHEUNG's move of expressing his views courageously although his speculation about our motive is 10304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 wrong. We should not speculate about other people's motive, and I seldom mention that other Members should not make speculations because I do so myself. But his saying that filibustering Members (including pan-democratic Members) advocate "Hong Kong independence" is not true.

I held a press conference to state my three demands clearly. I suggest that Mr Christopher CHEUNG should read newspapers more often because even LEUNG Chun-ying said that he "can't help but laugh" when noting the demands. Were you there on that day? My three demands are, namely, genuine universal suffrage for Hong Kong people, standard working hours for workers and universal retirement protection for the elderly. The demands are crystal clear, and nothing has been mentioned about "Hong Kong independence". Of course, whether I personally support "Hong Kong's independence" or not is another matter. The present filibustering has nothing to do with "Hong Kong independence".

What a fine speech Mr Christopher CHEUNG has made! He said that some Members proposed amendments to reduce the expenditure of the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) on marketing activities in the Mainland. Such amendments are target-specific. They are of course target-specific because no visitors from any place in the world would flock to Hong Kong as a mobile population, not even people from Macao. Although Macao residents are allowed visa-free entry to Hong Kong, they would not flock to the territory in the form of a mobile population, as in the case of Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration. Or is Mr CHEUNG suggesting that the Central Authorities of the Communist China has made a wrong decision to replace the "multiple-entry" endorsements for Shenzhen residents by "one trip per week" endorsements? That is because the political decision is made exactly for the purpose of targeting the wrong notion of turning visitors into a mobile population.

This problem has always been wrongly interpreted in this Chamber. Members of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) or deputies of the National People's Congress (NPC) who visit the Mainland frequently should step forward and give a clear explanation because the concept of mobile population also exists in the Mainland. Although I am often regarded as not loving the country, I pay much attention to affairs in the Mainland. The Mainland used to implement a household registration system. For example, if a person from another province lives in another city, he would immediately have a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10305 lower status when compared to the local residents. But now the policy has changed as the Mainland Government also recognizes that it is not a crime to live in another city, and the persons concerned should not be penalized.

The crux of our present problem is that a mobile population is wrongly perceived as visitors. Chairman, let me give a simple example which is factually based. Honestly, I need not make any preparation for speaking in the Council because I can always correct the mistakes made by other Members in their speeches. According to some press reports, we are the culprits of the weak retail sales over the recent 1 May Labour Day holiday. Nonetheless, as shown by relevant statistics, the number of inbound tourists over the 1 May Labour Day holiday had indeed increased despite the Mainland's decision to abolish the 1 May Golden Week holiday. What has it got to do with others if sales have dropped despite the increasing number of visitors?

Chairman, we should not indulge in our ignorance. I have a humble question for Mr Christopher CHEUNG. If a large group of mobile population has flocked to Hong Kong over the 1 May Labour Day holiday, and they are not visitors, they would of course make no contribution to the tourism industry. Isn't that right? The logic is so simple. These people do not stay overnight; they come and leave early, and they do not even have meals in Hong Kong.

Chairman, this Council is actually incompetent and ignorant. Mr Christopher CHEUNG holds an official post in the Mainland. He should have the courage to say clearly that the question under debate or the question of parallel traders is about mobile population. If the problem of mobile population is to be resolved, the persons concerned must never be regarded as visitors. As an ancient Chinese saying goes, "If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success."1 Yet the Member still accused others wrongly.

In fact, the situation is more or less saturated regarding the so-called Mainland visitors visiting Hong Kong because with the gradual opening of other provinces and cities, their local residents have also visited Hong Kong. But the crux of the problem is that due to corruption in the Mainland or other political motives, a huge mobile population has been created through the perfunctory

1 10306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 multiple-entry endorsements arrangement. Chief Secretary Carrie LAM must take the blame for not addressing this problem. Of course, I do not intend to take her to task today but she is in charge of the population policy. What is meant by a mobile population? Do they need to look it up in dictionaries? Do they have to make reference to the stipulations of the People's Republic of China? They have indulged in their ignorance, yet they put the blame on others.

Chairman, I reckon you have also watched a revolutionary model opera called Sha Jia Bang (《沙家浜》). The main character, A Qing's wife, runs a teahouse. When an enemy of the Kuomintang asked her, "Do you like me?" She sang ― don't worry; as I am a lousy singer, I will just read out the lyrics ― A Qing's wife said (and I quote), "The stove is set, and water is put to boil. A table is now placed to entertain friends near and far. All who come are my guests, I'll treat them all the same." We are running a business, right? Having said that, the tourism industry only contributes 6% of the Gross Domestic Product, and most of the profits or marginal profits have been pocketed by the wealthy people.

Chairman, you have been visiting various districts and expressing your political views frequently. Honestly, you should not have done so, but I will just let it pass this time. As you see, in various districts from Western District to North Point, from Shau Kei Wan to Tin Shui Wai, residential buildings have been converted to hotels. Sites which can be used for resolving the housing problem have been used for other purposes. Most of the profits generated from the tourism industry have gone into the pockets of the rich. While the tourism industry may indeed create jobs for members of the general public, those are only jobs such as street cleaners which offer an hourly wage of $32.

Chairman, originally I do not intend to speak about this issue, but Mr Christopher CHEUNG has been grasping for breath …

(Mr Christopher CHEUNG stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, what is your point?

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has misunderstood what I meant …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10307

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, it is not your speaking time now. Members can speak more than once in this debate. You can request to speak after Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has finished, and I will let you speak again in reply.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, just take your time. We enjoy the freedom of speech here, unlike some countries such as North Korea. Have you heard about the news? Don't fall asleep. In North Korea, an official who fell asleep while the President of North Korea was speaking had been executed with an anti-aircraft gun. That person died. It was so reported …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please do not digress from the question.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, Chairman. Perhaps you have also heard of the joke about a Member who mistakenly read out the cue "drink some water first" from a prepared speech. I suggest that the assistants of royalist Members should not be frightened to let their Members read from prepared speeches just because of this episode, and they must remind the Members to "drink some water first" after speaking for seven minutes or so. Otherwise, I also worry about Mr Christopher CHEUNG's health …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please do not waste our time.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I got it. Back to A Qing's wife, the two men in the opera then said, "A Qing's wife is exceptional" because she has responded well. We are also doing business, and we would of course welcome all visitors. The problem is that a mobile population has been created arbitrarily to pose as "visitors". The problem has become so serious that it even caught the Central Authorities' attention. The Central Authorities can change its 10308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 policy, why we can't, what is the rationale for this? Are Members now attending the meetings of the NPC and CPPCC, or the meeting of the Hong Kong Legislative Council?

I have my reasons for this view. In fact, many infrastructural facilities have been provided for Hong Kong's tourism industry in order to facilitate the arrival of inbound tourists. That is why 24-hour clearance is provided at some border control points. But the incurred expenditure has been squandered as the relevant policy is such a total failure that the Central Authorities have also put it to a halt due to its unsustainability. In that case, I cannot help but ask what about the ongoing construction projects of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and Liantang Boundary Control Point? What about the development of bridgehead economy? Do they know that tourist destinations must compete for business? How can we rely on one place for the supply of visitors? Are they idiots? Can you imagine France asking Italy to supply visitors? Will Guangzhou encourage its residents to visit Hong Kong and help Hong Kong people? Sorry, it is not possible. They have placed Hong Kong people at the total mercy of others. As such, how can we develop or revitalize the tourism industry?

If we want to have a diverse tourism industry, we must cater for the needs of visitors in general, rather than visitors of a particular place. Secondly, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mainlanders stop visiting Hong Kong because of a weak Japanese yen. Please think carefully, do you want Hong Kong dollar to depreciate? If that happens, Mainland visitors would come to Hong Kong more often. At present, most Mainland and Hong Kong compatriots visit Japan, not because they are patriotic or want to help Japan, but because they opt for the best choice as a tourist. Chairman, have you visited Japan lately? You must have because the value of Japanese yen has depreciated substantially, and you are such a smart person. Can't they see the relationship? Are they idiots? If the currency of a place depreciates, its tourism industry as well as export trade will naturally flourish. But export trade is insignificant for Hong Kong's economy. That is how other places compete for tourists. Do they want us to do the same?

Let us picture this. Given the close proximity of Japan to China, where else would Mainlanders of Eastern China go if not Japan? Why would they travel a long distance to Hong Kong to buy high-end goods? Japan and Hong Kong are tourist destinations of the same nature because most of the goods we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10309 sell are genuine products. Hence, even electric rice cookers become a hot item on the shopping list of Mainland visitors. Can we say that the Mainland compatriots are unpatriotic? Chairman, we must have common sense. Some Members in this Council have neither knowledge nor common sense. What can we do about it? They even go round criticizing others. What I said a moment ago is not my theory, but that of the Mainland media. Do they really think that I do not browse China's websites or the website of the State Council? I can also surf the Internet and look up information of the China National Tourism Administration under the State Council of China, right?

Chairman, we have been insulted and berated, yet you do nothing to ensure fairness. Well, just forget it! They said that we filibuster for the sake of promoting "Hong Kong independence". What are they talking about? He should fire his assistant for his assistant did not even read newspapers. As I have said before, any Member who just reads out a prepared speech is doomed. Mr CHAN Kin-por is also a victim because his speech is the same as an article in Wen Wei Po. We are now in a debate, aren't we?

Chairman, I consider it justified to reduce the HKTB's expenditure on marketing activities in the Mainland. The estimated expenditure is excessive indeed. What more selling points do we have? By their suggestion, some tourist attractions have become artificial artefacts so hideous that I can barely lay my eyes on them. For instance, the Lam Tsuen Wishing Trees have become neither fish nor fowl, and the natural ambience has been lost. Do they know anything about the tourism industry? Some outstanding local artefacts, that is, those which Hong Kong people would also like to see when travelling overseas, have now become cheap products from the Dream Factory, as if in Hollywood. This will only create an adverse impact on Hong Kong's tourism industry, and it is tantamount to killing the goose that lays the golden egg as the only activity left for visitors is shopping for gold jewellery, and so on. Hong Kong has effectively become a paradise for parallel traders.

Chairman, we must learn our lesson well. Nowadays, even the Mainland authorities are vowing to save the artefacts and preserve them for the appreciation of visitors. Putting the proposals to reduce the relevant expenditure aside, what has been done by the HKTB to increase Hong Kong's appeal? Nothing. Instead, Hong Kong has gradually converged with the Mainland under total "mainlandization".

10310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Chairman, if this trend continues, the tourism industry will die eventually. Hong Kong's tourism industry has become so uniform that it does not even cater for the locals. Hong Kong itself is a market with 7 million people. If a place can attract 7 million people, it will also attract 70 million people. The HKTB has not taken into account the need of Hong Kong people. Isn't local tourism also part of the tourism industry? Chairman, if I drive to Sai Kung for a seafood meal, does it also count as a tourist activity? We must think rationally, right? What is the purpose for them to criticize us continuously? I think they should do something constructive to help promote Hong Kong's tourism industry.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, there are only 10 Members in the Chamber now. I request a headcount under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up and spoke loudly)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please sit down and keep quiet.

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10311

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, the debate themes of this session mainly concern economic development, commerce and industry, financial affairs, information technology (IT), maritime and aviation, and so on. These are about enhancing Hong Kong's economic vitality, improving the livelihood of the community, and maintaining the effective operation of relevant government departments. Regarding the 125 amendments proposed by some pan-democratic Members in this session, as I find that many of their contents are senseless and unreasonable, I feel compelled to speak out.

Chairman, the question that lies at the heart of enhancing economic vitality is how to promote the development of industries. At the Legislative Council meeting on 19 March this year, I moved a motion urging the SAR Government to expeditiously formulate a long-term, comprehensive and balanced industrial policy, establish clear policy visions and targets, and put into practice the public finance principle of allocating resources where they are required. Through fiscal measures and resource allocation, and by means of land supply, tax concessions, special subsidies, personnel training, and collaboration among the Government, industry, academia and research sectors, it should provide comprehensive ancillary measures to strategically stimulate the growth of different industries and attract foreign investments, so as to fortify the pillar industries, promote emerging industries and revitalize traditional industries, thereby enabling Hong Kong's economy to develop in the direction of diversification and high value-addedness. The fact that the aforesaid motion was passed in this Council shows that most Members recognize the importance of promoting the development of industries in Hong Kong.

Compared to last year, this year's Budget has placed more emphasis on this area. Apart from proposing measures to strengthen traditional industries, the Government has made a commitment to develop new industries. For instance, to promote the innovation and technology industries, the Government has proposed injecting $5 billion into the Innovation and Technology Fund and subsuming the Research and Development Cash Rebate Scheme under the Fund, so as to provide a more stable source of funding, and at the same time setting up an Enterprise Support Scheme to enhance the funding support for research and development projects of the private sector. The industries are heartened by this. Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation will also earmark $50 million to set up a corporate venture fund for co-investment, on a matching basis with private funds, in eligible start-ups. Chairman, I hereby declare that I am a director of the Corporation, but I have no pecuniary interest in it.

10312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

On the other hand, although the technology, industrial and commercial sectors have advocated the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau for many years, the funding application for this Bureau could not be passed before the deadline of 14 February due to filibustering by some Members. As a result, the entire legislative procedure has to start afresh, much to the regret of the sectors. The sectors and I do hope that this Council can support and pass the legislative amendments and funding application to be re-submitted by the Government later in relation to the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, lest Hong Kong should waste time and miss another opportunity for development.

Undoubtedly, even before the formal establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, Hong Kong should by no means cease promoting the development of the innovation and technology industries. For this reason, members of the technology sector and I find it very astonishing that Mr Albert CHAN has proposed several amendments to reduce the annual estimated expenditure on the general departmental expenses, personal emoluments of staff, as well as operational expenses for Programme (1) Broadcasting and Creative Industries, under "Head 55 ― Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Communications and Technology Branch)". Meanwhile, in respect of "Head 155 ― Government Secretariat: Innovation and Technology Commission", Mr Albert CHAN has proposed another amendment to reduce the annual estimated expenditure on the Commission's operational expenses for Programme (4) Planning for Innovation and Technology Development. The related amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen even seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure on the general departmental expenses of the Commission.

As we know, under the current administrative framework of the Government, these two departments are most closely related to promoting the innovation and technology industries and the creative industries. For instance, the scope of work of the Innovation and Technology Commission is very broad in that it covers implementing various funding schemes which support research and development, encouraging university-industry collaboration, promoting various technology-based entrepreneurial and creative activities, planning for innovation and technology development, fostering the development of Hong Kong's testing and certification industry, and so on. The achievements of the Commission have been recognized by the industries. Now, some pan-democratic Members have not only attempted to thwart the establishment of the Innovation and Technology LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10313

Bureau, but even tried to interfere with the operation of the departments currently responsible for the relevant practical matters. The severity of the consequences is not hard to imagine. If the aforesaid senseless and unreasonable amendments are passed, all efforts made to promote innovation and technology development in Hong Kong may be rendered unsustainable. Given the increasingly fierce global competition, this would, without doubt, make us unable to do anything but await our doom. Is this what some pan-democratic Members want to see? How can they possibly turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the strong demands and worries expressed repeatedly and openly by the technology sector?

In addition, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has proposed a few amendments concerning "Head 47 ― Government Secretariat: Office of the Government Chief Information Officer" to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on this department's general departmental expenses, personal emoluments, as well as hire of services and professional fees. While the general public may be less familiar with the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO), if we have a better understanding of the main role and duties of this government department, it is not difficult for us to realize that if the aforesaid amendments are passed, not only will this government department be cut, but the effective operation of other government departments will also be very seriously affected.

This department is responsible for three major programmes. The aim of Programme (1) is to ensure that the Government makes good use of information and communications technology (ICT) internally, so as to provide services for the public in a prompt, convenient and sustainable manner. The aim of Programme (2) is to aid the development of community-wide IT infrastructure and setting of technical and professional standards, including drawing up proposals in respect of the development of the recognition system for the local ICT profession, and launching the Enriched IT Programme in Secondary Schools to cultivate young IT talents. The aim of Programme (3) is to promote the use of IT in the community, including facilitating the setting up of high-tier data centres in Hong Kong, implementing the small and medium enterprise (SME) cloud promotion campaign, organizing the International IT Fest to strengthen Hong Kong's image as a leading ICT hub, launching the one-stop iStartup@HK portal to provide comprehensive information for technology start-ups, and so on.

It is clear that the tasks of the OGCIO are to improve the overall level of government services and enhance the efficiency of various trades and industries, through promoting the wider adoption of IT so as to strengthen Hong Kong's 10314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 position as a world digital city. With this in mind, people would naturally query whether the Members proposing the aforesaid amendments are trying to interfere with the normal operation of government departments and various trades and industries in the digital era.

Incidentally, the amendment proposed by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure for the current year on item 894 (Enriched IT Programme in Secondary Schools) under the general non-recurrent expenditure of the OGCIO. This also baffles me and members of the sector, because it is generally understood that this item is not controversial. The Government Chief Information Officer will, in collaboration with the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development and the Secretary for Education, implement on a pilot basis the two-pronged Enriched IT Programme in Secondary Schools for eight school years from 2015 to 2023. This programme, to be jointly implemented by relevant secondary schools, tertiary institutions and the industry, comprises two elements: first, a scheme on enriched IT classes to provide intensive IT training to students who are interested and talented in IT; and second, a scheme on enriched IT activities to foster a pro-IT atmosphere in the school community. All these aimed at grooming IT talents at the early stage of secondary education, and can help reverse the past abnormal development of "only focusing on financial techniques without attaching importance to technology" in Hong Kong society. This is conducive to nurturing more innovators to create miracles. There may be room for improvement in this programme, but it does not deserve to be throttled, does it?

Chairman, I would like to share with Honourable colleagues what I saw at the opening ceremony of the International IT Fest 2015 on 9 April. On that day, one activity was "Cyberport Youth Coding Jam 1000", during which 1 000 primary and secondary school students in Hong Kong gathered at the Central Harbourfront Event Space to collectively build a dream Hong Kong on a Smart City map through coding, and successfully set a world record. It was an unprecedented and moving spectacle. The activity helped stimulate interest in IT among students and encourage more young people to join the innovation and technology industries. We are supposed to encourage the Government to deploy more resources to keep fostering a social atmosphere conducive to the long-term development of the innovation and technology industries in Hong Kong, but then some pan-democratic Members are acting in a diametrically opposite way, which is indeed regrettable and lamentable.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10315

Chairman, when it comes to promoting the development of industries and our economy, apart from developing emerging industries, we also need to fortify the pillar industries, one of which is the tourism industry. In 2014, for example, the tourism industry accounted for 5% of our Gross Domestic Product, driving the development of many industries including the retail, catering and hotel industries, and having a bearing on the prospects of many SMEs as it employed 270 000 people serving 60-odd million inbound visitors whose total spending exceeded $350 billion. However, the turn of events during the past few months has cast a shadow over the development of the tourism industry. When announcing the Budget in February this year, the Financial Secretary proposed to launch certain short-term measures to support the sectors affected by the Occupy movement, including waiving the licence fees for 1 800 travel agents and 2 000 hotels and guesthouses for six months. Furthermore, he proposed to allocate an additional $80 million for the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) to step up its promotion efforts in the coming year, including running overseas promotions, organizing shopping festivals and offering merchandise concessions and electronic discount coupons in collaboration with the retail industry, expanding the scale of overseas promotion fairs this year and waiving local traders' participation fees, and so on.

Some developments in Hong Kong society testify to the necessity for the Government to implement these measures. A small number of Hong Kong people have, on the pretext of protesting against parallel traders, wantonly disturbed Mainland tourists and shops in public places in a violent manner and committed all sorts of uncivilized acts tantamount to "driving tourists away". In mid-April, the Central Government announced that the issuance of multiple-entry endorsements for Shenzhen residents to visit Hong Kong would be stopped and superseded by the issuance of "one trip per week" endorsements. During the Labour Day holiday which has just passed, despite an increase in the number of inbound visitors, many of them were cross-boundary passengers and there was an obvious drop in their consumption sentiment; the number of tour groups received by travel agents even fell drastically. The authorities have earlier joined hands with the industry to motivate 20 000 business operators across the territory to participate in the HAPPY@hongkong Super JETSO 2015 tourism campaign, but unfortunately there is still a downward trend of business in the retail industry. The sector is worried that the reduction in visitor flow will set off a chain reaction which may even trigger waves of business closures and layoffs.

Given the predicament of the tourism industry, supposedly we should support the Government in allocating resources for taking corresponding actions with the HKTB to rebuild international and Mainland visitors' confidence in 10316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Hong Kong. On the one hand, we should strengthen our promotional activities in the Mainland market and proactively negotiate with the relevant Mainland departments for enhancing the existing policy on the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS), striving to expand it to cover cities relatively far away from Hong Kong in addition to the existing 49 IVS cities, so as to increase the proportion of overnight Mainland visitors. On the other hand, we should step up our promotional efforts overseas to draw high-spending visitors from other countries, and reinforce Hong Kong's image as a premier tourist destination with a balanced portfolio of visitors. Yet some pan-democratic Members are actually going in the opposite direction. For instance, Mr Albert CHAN has proposed an amendment in respect of head 152 to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch) on the subvention to the HKTB, whereas Ms Claudia MO and Mr Gary FAN have proposed to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the HKTB's Mainland marketing activities. All these show that some Members have completely ignored people's hardships and disregarded the plight and worries of the relevant trades. This is lamentable.

I would like to thank Mr CHAN Chi-chuen for requesting that the bell be rung to summon Members back to the Chamber just now. He must have known that I would give some substantive and focused opinions on the amendments in my speech. It seemed that he was happy to listen with patience, and he called on other Members to return to the Chamber to listen to my speech. I thank him for that. Still, we hope that the bell will no longer be rung for so many times. It would be better if we could spend more time debating.

With these remarks, Chairman, I support the Appropriation Bill 2015 and oppose all the amendments.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will speak on Amendment Nos 118 to 120 and discuss about the deduction of the estimated expenditure for the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO).

Just now Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok have also talked about the OGCIO and expressed his great support to its work, I would also like to discuss the mega event "IT Fest 2015". Ir Dr LO said he attended the event "Cyberport Youth LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10317

Coding Jam 1 000" some time ago. In this event, as suggested by the word "coding", more than 1 000 students took part in the coding works to "build a futuristic digital Hong Kong on a Smart City map" as stated by the Government. Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok was moved in watching the event; I am also moved, but I am moved to tears … some people are deeply moved when they watch the raising of the national flag. Such kind of activity is just putting up a show, with the purpose of setting a world record. Every day, there are people setting all sorts of world records using different gimmicks, I really fail to understand how these activities will be conducive to the development of Hong Kong's digital technology, or why they can be justified for Members' objection to slashing the expenditure for the OGCIO. In attending the meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting, the OGCIO will surely commend these activities, telling Members what records have been made and how many students have participated in the event. But can such window-dressing work suffice to prove that public money is well-spent?

I have to thank Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok for mentioning the three major programmes of the OGCIO: Firstly, the Use of Information Technology (IT) in Government; secondly, IT Infrastructure and Standards; and thirdly, IT in the Community. Despite these programmes, it does not mean that the OGCIO has done real work. It is precisely because the programmes are so clearly written but the OGCIO has failed to implement the work, or the work done is not good enough or has failed to get a passing mark that we find it necessary to raise criticism at the Budget debate and deduct its estimated expenditure. I hope that Members in support of the Government will really review these major programmes and give a score to indicate how well the work of such programmes has been done.

I have earlier talked about how the development of the Government mobile applications has wasted public money as the usage rates are very low. This is actually concerned with Programme (3) IT in the Community. Although it would serve a demonstration effect for the Government to take the lead in developing Apps, I believe the downloading rate of Apps written by students will surely be higher than those written by the Government. People describe the Apps developed by the Government as "big wasters". Since Secretary TSANG Tak-sing is present today, I have specifically found out some typical "big waster" Apps which are developed by departments under his Bureau. Chairman, below are some classic examples. The Leisure and Cultural Services Department 10318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

(LCSD) has developed two Apps, amongst others, the app "Puzzle@ King Yin Lei" has recorded 175 downloads so far and the other called "Restore King Yin Lei" has only recorded 137 downloads.

Last year, I said with a sneer that the number of staff in a department should be more than the number of persons who have downloaded the Apps. It is really a waste of money to develop such Apps as they have only been downloaded around 100 times. Government officials should feel ashamed when they see the students. Just ask the students to undertake the programming work, and then fire all officials concerned. There is another App developed by the LCSD called "A Glimpse of Old Hong Kong" which has been downloaded by only 228 people. The person who creates this App should have resigned for his blunder.

Chairman, in one aspect alone, we can already see clearly how incompetent, irresponsible and perfunctory the OGCIO is. It has squandered public money. Even if it pay to buy "Likes", it should be able to get a greater number of "Likes" but some Apps have only been downloaded around 100 times which would really be ridiculed. I have previously mentioned the "WSD Mobile App" which is developed by the Water Supplies Department at the cost of $1.5 million. With the number of downloads standing at around 7 800, the average cost of each download is $200. Even if the Government pays old ladies to download the App, it needs not pay $200 each; someone will be willing to download the App if he is paid $100, $50 and even $20.

According to an interview conducted by a magazine with some IT personnel, it would only cost $150,000 for non-government organizations to develop this App on Android or iOS platform, but the Government has spent a total of $1.5 million. As that App is really too simple, a 20% discount will be offered for the Android version. They even said that the cost of developing similar Apps (both Android and iOS versions) will be no more than $300,000, and the total cost should be about $300,000 after including an annual expenditure of 15% on maintenance. However, the development cost now is $1.56 million, why is their estimated cost being some 80% lower than the cost paid by the Government?

The reason is attributed to the Government's subcontracting practice for writing Apps. The main contractor being awarded the project will contract out the design, programming, location-based games and various parts of the project to sub-contractors. The main contractor would to charge a higher project cost at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10319 the time of submitting the tender, so as to get a profit. Members of the industry have pointed out that tenderers are required to have undertaken government projects previously and as a result, newcomers or students will not be successful in their bids. Besides, the person-in-charge should possess 10 years of experience in the IT field, yet the boss of many Apps companies are actually fresh graduates ― they are those students who have impressed the Members, as mentioned previously ― these graduates working in the IT industry have the necessary talent and creativity, what they lack is eight to 10 years of experience as required by the Government and hence, they can hardly compete in the market. In some cases, companies which meet the requirement may not be specialized in developing Apps, and despite their innovative proposals, they may not be awarded the contract. Regrettably, the successful tenderer will sub-contract different parts of the project, and after several rounds of sub-contracting, the project will eventually be taken up by a group of youngsters with insufficient experience. With different levels of "price difference", the Government ends up paying a high price for such projects. This has illustrated the rigid systems of the Government.

In response to our criticisms and censure, the OGCIO said that the downloading rate was by no means the single criterion for assessment, and owing to this remark, I have no other choice but to follow up. It is true that the downloading rate is not the sole criterion as the usage rate and the feedback rating also matter, but the Government has never provided us with the information on usage rate and feedback rating. I can tell you, the feedback rating of all such Apps is zero. Some Apps have been deleted in less than three hours after they have been downloaded. Looking at those crap Government Apps, the Government can go so far as to say that the downloading rate is not the only assessment criterion, but so far, only the information on the downloading rate can be provided. If the Government allows all the Heads of departments to spend several hundred thousand dollars or even over one million dollars to develop these mobile applications while the number of downloads is only several thousand, or even only a hundred for the Secretary's masterpiece then …

(A Member talked in the Chamber)

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Yes, you were not here just now … the App has only been downloaded some 130 times. Will members of the public think that we should play a good gatekeeping role and deduct the department's … estimated expenditure 10320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, a point of order.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I would like to seek clarification from Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. I think the number of downloads should be some 1.3 million, it cannot be so few. Has he read the information carefully?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, this is not a point of order. Please sit down.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please continue with your speech.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): According to Reply Serial No. CEDB(CT)130 submitted for the special meetings of the Finance Committee, in page 8 of Annex A … which page is it? Not every page in this paper comes with the page number but never mind, it is clearly written on one page that the total numbers of downloads for "Puzzle@King Yin Lei" and "Restore King Yin Lei" are 175 and 137 respectively. He has not listened carefully to my speech, such information is all from the government paper.

The more I speak, the more furious I become. How can the general public not query the cost-effectiveness? Should the authorities provide clearer guidelines when departments request for development of applications in the future? If it is estimated that the number of downloads of a new application is about a hundred or even a thousand, or the average cost of each download is $200, the departments concerned should give second thought. If they cannot guarantee that the number of downloads will exceed 10 000, they should be held responsible, they should get fired or pay for the sum of money. I have been talking much about Apps and I just do not want to continue with this issue for the Government should feel ashamed. Next, I would like to talk about the issue of Facebook.

There are more than 20 Facebook pages managed by the Government, each of which has only attracted a few thousand "Likes". Chairman, the Facebook page of "Long Hair" should definitely attract more "Likes" and hence, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10321

Government Facebook pages should be managed by us instead. Currently, there are some 10 government departments which have set up their Facebook pages. Other than the one set up by the Radio Television Hong Kong, the Facebook pages of all other departments can only attract a few hundred or a few thousand "Likes", and the cost-effectiveness is thus in doubt. I would like to hold the Government up to ridicule. The number of staff in any department should be more than that figure, and these staff also have relatives and friends. Do not tell me that people who work in the Government have no friends and relatives. Since the Government has given money to the pro-government camp, the largest party in this Council, they have to help the Government by giving "Likes" in those Facebook pages.

Let me give an example. The Facebook page "Youth.gov.hk" dedicated to young people has only accumulated some 9 000 "Likes" since its launch more than two years ago, not even reaching 10 000. This Facebook page dedicated to the youth can only accumulate about 9 000 "Likes", while some other Facebook pages can accumulate 9 000 "Likes" in a single night. How can the objective be achieved? What is more, the posts have simply gone out of touch with the times, as they talk about the origin of Winter Solstice or the fortune bag distribution event, giving people the impression that such Facebook pages are set up for the elderly but not the youth, as suggested by its name "Youth.gov.hk".

Some Internet surfers have noticed that the Government will also boost the number of "Likes" in the Facebook. What is meant by boosting the number of "Likes"? That is paying to get promotion. A case in point is the Facebook page of "Big Waster" which appears in the form of a sponsor. As the Government has set up such an inferior Facebook page, nobody will give their "Likes", making it necessary to spend a sum of money to buy more "Likes". Has the OGCIO provided any advice so far? These mobile applications are no longer any technological advancements, they are merely basic tools commonly used in our daily lives. What is the response of the OGCIO? They said that the expenses for setting up and managing Facebook pages have been included in the recurrent expenditure of the relevant government departments, and hence they have no idea how much money individual departments have spent on buying more "Likes" for their Facebook pages. The Government pays for the advertisements such that its Facebook pages will frequently pop up, but even so, people may not give "Likes" to it. I think the Government will not be so shameless as to pay 50 cents to buy a "Like", but it does pays for the advertisements for the pop-ups.

10322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

The "Big Waster" page only has 5 700 "Likes" earlier, why was the number suddenly surged to more than 10 000 later? Thanks to TVB for publishing a promotional picture showing an artist throwing a cake a month ago, the "Big Waster" page immediately took advantage of the situation by posting messages to satirize the behaviour. After that, the number of accumulated "Likes" has increased to 12 000. This is good as the Government can launch its publicity campaign based on current affairs, instead of spending money on buying "Likes". However, apart from the staff of the Environmental Protection Department, the management of the Facebook page has also been contracted out to Adbrownies Advertising Ltd, which has produced the television announcements in the public interests on "Our Home Our Country". The amount of management fee involved is unknown.

There are a number of unknown government pages. The "Hong Kong ― Asia's Creative Capital" page set up by the Create Hong Kong office, for example, is managed by a Trade Officer II and the number of "Likes" accumulated over the past three years barely reach 1 000. The messages posted in that page are like press releases which nobody will give their "Likes" nor leave any messages. I really do not understand how such a page can promote creativity as it is not creative in any sense, which is contrary to its original intention.

As regards the "Basic Law Genie", an App which I have once criticized, it also has its Facebook page but the contents are nothing related to the Basic Law. Sometimes it talks about photography and sometimes dancing, but at the end of the post, one will be able to see this: "Download Basic Law Genie now. Play the game to redeem premiums". However, still nobody has downloaded this App.

Chairman, in fact what is the biggest problem? The biggest problem is that government officials have the mentality that they must not lag behind others in respect of this new social media ― I do not think it is a new media as it has actually been used for quite some time ― and they keep comparing with other departments. If a department has developed an interesting App, the other departments simply want to keep up with the Joneses and develop an APP as well. They have not considered seriously whether the development of an App would achieve the optimum effect, whether it would be interactive or even be counter-productive. It would be suffice to browse the webpage if the App is not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10323 interactive, what is the point of developing mobile applications? Do you think I will definitely use the Apps developed by those departments? If I want to know something about a particular department, I can find the answers from the website.

One of the examples is "Tell me@1823" which is a system for lodging complaints against government departments. In designing the system, the Government had considered allowing the public to opt for sharing their complaint cases with other users to enhance public interaction. But later, it worried that this might even give rise to more complaints among the general public upon learning about such cases, that would be tantamount to encouraging more complaints and thus the Government had eventually given up the idea.

It is imperative for the Government to make reference to the experience of overseas governments in the development of mobile applications. For instance, Taipei Mayor KO Wen-je had launched an App called "fixTPE" for Taipei citizens during the election whereby citizens could report all sorts of happenings in various districts ranging from the rubbish issue, hawker problem to street obstruction. The United Kingdom Government has also launched the "e-petition" whereby any issue in question can be brought up to the Parliament for debate if a total of 100 000 people have signed a joint petition on the Internet. The United States Government also has the "Challenge.gov" whereby different government departments will ask citizens to suggest solutions for various difficulties, which is well received among the people. In terms of developing software, what matters most is not the hardware but "heartware", that is your heart. If the Government is not doing the task whole-heartedly and it simply wants to make up for the number or keep up with the Joneses, this is highly undesirable.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I speak on Amendment No 482, which proposes to deduct $1.79 million, roughly equivalent to the estimated expenditure for six months' salary of the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury.

Our Government has now failed to abide by the rules. The Executive Council has endorsed the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA) to retain the payment of annual dividends from surplus, issue bonds and levy a departure tax to carry out, by bypassing the Legislative Council, the three-runway system project, a "white elephant" project costing $141.5 billion but not supported by members of the public. It is indeed outrageous for the Government to take the 10324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 lead to avoid monitoring by the public. Chairman, of course, this is nothing new as there were cases where the spending of public money has led to serious outcome. When the Government put forward the proposed construction of the Disneyland Resort Line in 2002, it had also bypassed the Legislative Council by waiving the claims for $800 million of dividends otherwise payable by the MTRCL to the Government. At that time, not only Members from the pan-democratic camp strongly opposed the proposal, so did Members from the pro-establishment camp (including the then representative of the engineering sector Mr Raymond HO and incumbent Under Secretary LAU Kong-wah). While Mr Raymond HO said that "the power of the Legislative Council in monitoring public expenditure would be seriously undermined", Mr LAU Kong-wah was not convinced by the Administration's explanation. Such an outrageous act involved only $800 million back then, but the amount has escalated to $141.5 billion in the present case. This Government is so bad that it has forced through such a costly project at $141.5 billion.

When we asked the Secretary for the Financial Service and the Treasury the reason for issuing bonds, he replied that this has nothing to do with him as the bonds would be issued by the AA. How ridiculous this Secretary is! The issuance of bonds is a financial affair, but he, being the "financial controller" of the Government, said that the issuance of bonds has nothing to do with him. He is so shameless that he is unworthy of being named an academic. We wish to have a responsible government. It is perfect if a project of such gigantic scale can obtain public support as well as go through the questioning of the Legislative Council and the monitoring of the public. But why would the Government adopt such an evasive approach and take the initiative to exploit the people via the AA by cutting corners?

As we all know, AA's Chief Executive Officer Fred LAM is new to his post and does not know much about the airport or runway. He has reluctantly accepted the offer just to get a salary reaching almost $10 million. He told us that it was worthy to build the runway, but when being pressed for the reasons, he failed to explain. Again, in response to a question on how the "air wall" issue could be addressed, he simply replied that the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) told him there is no problem. We all know what kind of government department the CAD is; it is a government department that shocked the community. The Director-General has not only reserved an area of several thousand sq m to build a dance room, but has also provided himself with a private rest room and a huge office. The air traffic control system that he acquired without testing before LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10325 signing the contract cannot be used readily upon delivery. Although not many places in the world have purchased this control system, the Director was determined to buy it. The Independent Commission Against Corruption should look into the matter to see if there is any transfer of benefits. According to the Director-General, there is no problem with the "air wall" or airspace issue, and so the Government bet its reputation on it. What kind of Government is this? Is the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau not duty-bound to properly oversee financial affairs and well manage people's money?

Given that the project involves $141.5 billion, the AA declared it would cease payment of dividends. Some people may think that the cessation of payment is no big deal as the dividends are bonus income, but this is not true. The rose garden project back then cost $160 billion and the investment of fixed capital was estimated to be $52 billion. The then Government converted over $35.5 billion into equity, in which every single cent belonged to Hong Kong taxpayers. For example, the $5-odd billion of dividends payable this year is actually not dividends, but hard-earned profit from people's money invested in the AA. This sum of money could have been used to help the needy people or improve various services, but the Government forfeited it and then told us with full justification that it had no money to increase the number of residential care places for the elderly, to build residential care homes for the elderly, to buy cancer drugs or to provide psychiatric treatment service. It has simply written off tens of billions of dollars. What kind of Secretary and Government are they?

When this Council requested the Secretary to submit a paper to explain how the $141.5 billion would be spent, he refused. Do Members still remember what he said at the last meeting of the Panel on Economic Development? He said a verbal commitment was made, but verbal promises may not materialize. When asked if the project cost would overrun, he said he did not think so. I wonder how much tears have been shed for believing in him. The then Secretary Eva CHENG had also highlighted in this Council the need to spend over $60 billion to build the Express Rail Link (ERL), with a view to converging with the Mainland. However, it turned out that the ERL in the Mainland had kept a large number of corrupt officials wealthy. Many of them have been removed from office, including the Minister of Railways and other people concerned. All of them were involved in shoddy construction.

The train crash in Shanghai had awakened the Central Government, thereby calling a halt to a number of ERL projects. However, Hong Kong is still not awake. It is very likely that the estimated project cost will overrun from 10326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 some $60 billion to $90 billion, and is impossible to "make it happen" in 2017 because it is believed that the project will not be completed in 2017. Like the constitutional reform in 2017, the ERL project is also a scam. The Secretary urged us to believe him, believe the Director-General of Civil Aviation, believe the AA's Chief Executive Officer, who knows very little, as well as believe the $141.5 billion airspace agreement. Prof K C CHAN, who is sly but looks dumb, has bypassed the Legislative Council in an unprecedented way. The previous waiver of $800 million of dividends in relation to the Disneyland Resort Line dwarfed in comparison with the amount involved this time, which is really astronomical. The Government is justified to spend millions of dollars to employ him because he has found a way to let a project costing some $100 billion bypass the monitoring of the Legislative Council and members of the public.

People having a clear mind may ask, if the bonds to be issued by the AA are actually commercial paper, the issuance of which must be subject to business appraisal, with specified investment amount, rate of return and generated benefits. People will not buy the bonds without such information. Yet, none of the information has been disclosed. The Secretary claimed that the AA would well handle the matter, and the latter has also given its strong assurance. When Fred LAM was asked for the first time whether the Government has to "underwrite the costs", he replied in the negative and said the AA would bear all the costs. But when he was asked the same question on the following day, he changed his remark which he knew was wrong, and said that was unlikely. If the AA does bear all the costs, it will be a repeat of the ERL incident. What will happen to the AA if the costs turn out to exceed $141.5 billion and reach as high as $280 billion? What if the planes are not allowed to head north on completion of the runway due to airspace constraints? If all the estimates turn out to be wrong, how can the AA make repayment?

With only $52 billion in its pocket, the AA secured a loan of $141.5 billion, which is incredible. How can a person repay a debt of some $140 when he has only $50-odd in his pocket? This is downright impossible. If the AA defaults on repayment, the Government will "underwrite the loans". This is a fact known to all, what is the point of lying to the public? Why are banks so stupid to offer loans to the AA if it is likely to default on repayment? Firstly, banks are not stupid at all. Knowing that the Government will definitely "underwrite the loans", banks are ready to lend. Secondly, banks are actually exploiting the situation to their greatest advantage. Why do I say so? There is the so-called "floating interest rate" ― Chairman, I have looked up the relevant LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10327 information because I am not well-versed in financial affairs ― which varies in direct proportion to the risk incurred in business operation. In other words, banks can charge a higher interest rate if the Government fails to complete the project or defaults on repayment. The Government, which is obliged to "underwrite the loans", can afford to repay $1,400 billion, let alone $141.5 billion, exhausting the so-called "Cleopatra's dowry".

All deeds of this Government have outraged the people. Just take a look at two ridiculous initiatives of this year. After we told the Government that dental services for the elderly are seriously inadequate and the Community Care Fund is deficient, it has granted condescending mercy by expanding the coverage of the Fund to include elderly people aged over 80. Chairman, the average life expectancy of man in Hong Kong is less than 82 whereas that of woman is less than 87. Thus, in order to get the Elderly Dental Assistance provided under the Fund, elderly people must live beyond 80. What kind of Government is this? How can it be so shameless? Despite our requests to increase the number of drugs in the Drug Formulary and to provide more dental services and subsidized care and attention services as 5 000 people died every year while waiting for the services, the Government continues to turn a blind eye. The additional 1 000 places of care-and-attention homes for the elderly to be provided this year only accounts for one fifth of the number of people who died while waiting. Worse still, these places are not readily available but still at the planning stage.

Those "white elephant" or "spoils-sharing" projects of the Government … Interested parties including the contractors, sub-contractors and the Metallurgical Corp of China Ltd are waiting to share the benefits. It was reported that the Government would also spend $60 billion to purchase marine sand from the Pearl River Delta region. Be it $60 billion or $100 billion, the Government has implemented the project without hesitation before conducting a feasibility study. I recalled that after the Lehman Brothers incident, I asked Secretary Dr CHAN about the issuance of toxic bonds which had cheated people's money. In the incident, he had done nothing to help members of the public. But now, he intends to issue bonds to write off people's hard-earned money and expected us to make up for the shortfall.

(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

10328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Deputy Chairman, this Government is pretty smart. The Future Fund to be set up is made up of HK$220 billion from the Land Fund and one-quarter to one third of the annual surplus. I supposed the Future Fund is set up for making forward planning, for example, to address healthcare problems of the elderly, but the Government was silent on this. As a matter of fact, the Future Fund is mainly set up for future infrastructure. So, let me suggest a better name for this fund, called "Repayment Fund". How many outstanding loans are there for repayment? Apart from the loans incurred for the ERL project, the Government may have to repay the loan incurred for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, as well as the huge loan incurred for the airport project. Also, there are a few more to come as the Government has proposed to undertake reclamation in the central waters and develop the Liantang Boundary Control Point. Money in this "Repayment Fund" could have been used more wisely to implement long-awaited policies in Hong Kong, especially the universal retirement protection, but he refused and used the money to repay the loans instead. Prof K C CHAN is really smart. How can he convince us that he is worth the salary?

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I would speak on "Head 152 ─ Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch)" and "Head 155 ─ Government Secretariat: Innovation and Technology Commission" and the amendments to these heads of expenditure. The Budget for the coming year, which proposes to introduce one-off relief measures amounting to more than $20 billion, is most generous in terms of the "candies" to be handed out and the extensive scope covered in recent years. These measures will benefit both the grassroots and the middle-class.

In addition, the Government's recurrent expenditure on basic public facilities in the next financial year will be more than $440 billion. This is a huge amount representing an increase of 6% as compared with last year. With population ageing, expenditures on healthcare and social welfare will also increase at alarming rates in the future.

Although the public coffers have been flooded with cash for years and the Government is well capable to meet those expenditures, we should bear in mind that the current flooding is resulted mainly from a surge in revenue from land sales, profits tax and Double Stamp Duty obtained in a buoyant property market LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10329 instead of any robust growth in our local economy. According to the latest information provided by the Inland Revenue Department, tax revenue in 2014-2015 was $301.9 billion, representing an increase of 24%. Of the total tax revenue, profits tax and stamp duty contributed $137.8 billion and $74.8 billion respectively, taking up as high as 70% of the total revenue. Uncertainties abound over the Government's revenue in the future. Besides, the Financial Secretary had already warned us that Hong Kong might have a structural deficit in the next 10 years. Therefore, the Government should all the more well utilize its current wealth to lay a solid foundation for Hong Kong's future, it should spend wisely to promote our economic development through public expenditure, so as to benefit all Hong Kong people and alleviate the structural problem of unfair distribution of economic dividends.

Deputy Chairman, the existing four pillar industries accounted for about 60% of all industries in Hong Kong, whereas the innovation and technology industries accounted for only 0.7%. These figures show that there is definitely room for increasing the variety of industries and attaining a greater degree of economic diversification in Hong Kong. As I have suggested to the Government time and again, only by effectively promoting economic diversification and maintaining steady economic growth can we lay a solid foundation for the long-term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, as well as create a more favourable environment for development of the next generation.

Fairly speaking, this Budget has shown some improvement in terms of planning for Hong Kong's long-term economic development. The fact that "Augmenting Competitiveness" and "Diversified Development" are adopted as the theme of the Budget shows that the Financial Secretary is concerned about economic diversification, and has enhanced the investment in the future. He has allocated resources in the financial sector, in manpower training in the insurance and the asset and wealth management sectors, and has injected a few billion dollars to set up various funds for the innovation and technology industries and other emerging industries. These initiatives show that the Financial Secretary has somewhat responded to the requests of the industrial and business sectors over the years.

Unfortunately, in respect of attaining the objective of economic diversification, these support measures are superficial in nature, more of a gesture than having practical purpose. Besides, the Government is not proactive and resolute enough. In fact, the Government will not succeed in promoting economic diversification in Hong Kong merely by injecting a huge sum of 10330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 money, it has to formulate a clear blueprint of industrial development and implement the policies with determination and resolution, so as to ensure that the resources are used in the right place. Regrettably, the prerequisites in various areas are lacking in this year's Budget.

Deputy Chairman, the innovation and technology industries not only can become a new bright spot in the economy of Hong Kong, but can also assist other industries to develop high value-added goods and services. In this year's Budget, 10 paragraphs are devoted to innovation and technology industries. They describe initiatives on improving the ecosystem for local start-ups and technological enterprises and injecting $5 billion to the Innovation and Technology Fund, which is obviously a greater amount than before. It can be said that these initiatives have dovetailed the policy initiatives of the Policy Address and responded slightly to the demands of global competition in innovation and technology. However, no information has been given on the deployment strategy of the additional $5 billion to be injected into the Innovation and Technology Fund. Will the Government allocate the resources evenly among the five research and development centres under the Innovation and Technology Commission? No answer is given in the Budget. It is also most disappointing to note from the Appendix of the Budget that the Government has estimated the non-recurrent expenditure of the Innovation and Technology Fund to be increased at an annual rate of 3%, resulting in an amount of only several ten million dollars. This shows that the Government is still stuck in its old mindset. By contrast, our neighbouring regions have realized the importance of the innovation and technology industries in increasing their overall competitiveness and have thus generously injected hundreds of millions of dollars into those industries. I think our Government really has to consider increasing the expenditure in this respect.

In addition, the Budget proposed to earmark $50 million to set up a corporate venture fund for co-investment, on a matching basis with private funds, in start-ups which are located in the Science Park or have participated in its incubation programmes. I think the scope of investment is too narrow. Given that Hong Kong has advantages as a leading global hub for start-ups, how will a small sum of $50 million be sufficient in supporting the development of these industries?

I hope the Government will step up its efforts by allocating more resources to promote sustainable and competitive projects and joining hands with the technological and research sectors and the international world. The Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10331 can also draw reference from the practices of China and other places. Apart from providing subsidies and loans to enterprises, the Government can also introduce tax concessions to encourage enterprises to invest in research and development. Unfortunately, the Budget has not mentioned any of these initiatives.

Furthermore, the Budget offers no plans to inject resources in nurturing quality innovation and technology personnel, in upgrading industries and developing Internet-based economy by using innovative and technological means, as well as in developing electronic trading and ancillary services. Deputy Chairman, the Budget has failed to address whether there is sufficient manpower to engage in technological research and development, whether there are adequate platforms for innovation and technology applications and how much resources should be allocated for education and training. Does the Government think it can successfully promote innovation and technology industries without addressing these questions? Does the Government think that it can promote innovation and technology with a piecemeal approach? If the Hong Kong Government remains so short-sighted and fails to formulate any plan to add value to the industries and expand their manpower, our next generation will have to pay the cost of the short-sightedness of this Government.

Recently, the World Competiveness Yearbook published by the International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne, Switzerland and the Blue Book on Urban Competitiveness published by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences incidentally made the same comment about Hong Kong. They said that Hong Kong relied too much on finance and property in its economic structure and invested too little in technological research and development, and the lack of innovation caused a continuous slip in its competitiveness. In fact, Hong Kong has long been criticized for its slow development in scientific research and the lack of research and development funding. Although there are occasional news of outstanding results in research and development achieved by the academia and enterprises of Hong Kong, it is difficult for them to give full play to their talents without the support of the Government, lest to compete with their stronger counterparts in the world. If the Financial Secretary cannot draw a lesson from our bitter experience and increase funding to support these organizations, the innovation and technology industries of Hong Kong will not only fail to develop healthily, but will also be marginalized, thereby affecting the long-term competitiveness of our traditional and emerging industries.

10332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Deputy Chairman, development of the scientific research industry is a long-term investment which will not produce quick results; a foundation has to be laid and the development process is long. Without government funding, it will be difficult to achieve any significant development in this industry with only the resources put in by the academia and the enterprises.

Deputy Chairman, diversification of industries requires a diversified pool of talent. Unfortunately, the Budget shows little commitment in resolving the problem of having a narrow range of talent in Hong Kong. Since Hong Kong has all along focused on the finance industry, and perhaps because the Financial Secretary has shown special preference to this industry, many people have chosen to work in the finance industry, resulting in a shortage of manpower to facilitate the development of other industries. Owing to the uncertain rate of success and the long payback period of the innovation and technology industries, it will be difficult to attract young new entrants without adequate support from the Government. If the problem of having a narrow range of talent persists, it will restrict the long-term development of Hong Kong and hinder the development of our young people. I think the Government should devote more resources to assist enterprises in adjusting their human resources strategies and opening more channels for nurturing elite talent. The Government should also help enterprises to enhance their career and study pathways so as to diversify our range of talent and promote a balanced development of society.

Apart from the availability of talent, the supply of land is another crucial factor in developing a diversified economy. In fact, while many promising industries in Hong Kong have produced marketable products which are in demand, their development has been impeded owing to restriction in respect of the supply of land and manpower. The situation is similar to the analogy given earlier by the Financial Secretary that a fencing athlete might not be able to give full play to his abilities due to physical constraints. Although the Financial Secretary has mentioned different ways of providing and releasing commercial land in the Budget, they are far from adequate to meet current and potential demands. Meeting these needs is certainly no easy task, but in order to promote sustainable economic development, I hope the Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Development can step up their planning efforts in providing sufficient industrial and commercial sites, so that different industries can develop and prosper.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10333

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Mr Martin LIAO's words are like the evening drum and morning bell, awakening us to the answer to the puzzle, that is, what the Government is doing now are "grand, big and empty". He has set a good example by giving his comments and not reviling us. Do you really think filibustering can drag Hong Kong down?

I want to make some comments after listening to him. First, concerning the problems he just mentioned, the first is the tourism industry. The income generated by the tourism industry makes up about 5% to 6% of our GDP, which is quite even. This 5% to 6% of the GDP has all gone into the pocket of the operators of hotels and the high-end retail industry, and they have enjoyed such benefits at our expenses. For example, many land sites have been used for the construction of hotels. As stated by Mr LIAO, no land is now available. To accommodate the tourists, we have constructed a large number of hotels, ranging from three stars to five stars, and even residential buildings are turned into guest houses. They have taken up our precious resources. If Mr Martin LIAO is right, we are now wandering in the dead end of this low value-added industry. As the saying goes, "People like picking their noses even to the extent of making their noses bleed." As regards the Government spending $151.4 billion to expand the airport, Mr NG Leung-sing criticized me of not knowing the economics yesterday. Does an innovative and technology-based economy need an airport? Dr Kenneth CHAN, do San Francisco and Los Angeles build airports at all costs for the development of the Silicon Valley? The success of the Silicon Valley is due to the two cities not spending money on building airports. For the sake of the debate, let us think about the remarks made by Mr Martin LIAO. Now we are going to spend $151.4 billion to build the third runway. While the capacity of the two existing runways has not yet been exhausted and the future effect of the third runway is doubtful, we are going to spend $151.4 billion on the construction of a third runway. Is there anyone willing to listen to Mr Martin LIAO? My questions are directed to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and Secretary Prof K C CHAN, one concerning the financing issue and the other the cost-effectiveness.

Deputy Chairman, our politicians and our royalist Members support various government policies. But the Government is disorganized and its policies are in a state of confusion. The establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau and the construction of the third runway are two distinct concepts. The latter belongs to an old economic mode, that is, to create demand by promoting the construction of infrastructures through printing money. That 10334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 is a policy based on monetarism. This policy aims to boost the GDP by creating demand through printing more money and building more "white elephants" projects. In this process, if we are lucky enough to have a booming economy, things will be fine. Otherwise, Deputy Chairman, honestly, the number of inbound Mainland tourists coming by plane will continue to dwindle. At present, tourists from Eastern China will most likely fly to Japan, as the Japanese yen has depreciated.

Due to its lack of foresight, the Government thinks that there are or may be good prospects of gain and thus spends $150 billion in pursuit of a dream that may not come true. Will the aviation industry surely succeed? Deputy Chairman, you are a businessman and you must know that Cathay Pacific suffered a great loss 10 years ago and it had to lay off pilots and sell off aircrafts. Cathay Pacific, being Hong Kong-based and a commander of the Hong Kong Airport, had suffered a failure in its operation. Without proofs, what can we talk about economics? Does anyone still remember that Cathay Pacific was in such a poor financial state that it had to lay off large numbers of pilots which led to a strike?

Deputy Chairman, the Director-General of Civil Aviation is also one of a kind. He is very good at taking care of his own pleasures, pole dancing, private deluxe bathroom, an office as grand as a clubhouse, and so on. For the aircraft navigation system that he procured, he did not even lay an eye on it before making the purchase. This system has been procured for several years but it is inoperable and has to be shelved forever. What can we do? We can only write it off. Now, the incumbent Director-General of Civil Aviation talks about what the former Directors-General of Civil Aviation had done. Buddy, will an investment bank allow you to do whatever you like? When you apply for a loan and if you cannot explain certain conditions clearly, will the bank approve your application? Mr NG Leung-sing even lectured me and questioned if I was so ignorant, and he even said that the Airport Authority could issue bonds to resolve the problem. Buddy, what bank does Mr NG work for? Can a bank issue bonds without grounds? Isn't there the Airport Authority Ordinance? Hasn't the Financial Secretary the supervisory authority over important strategic infrastructures that affect the public interest in Hong Kong? How can the Airport Authority be allowed to issue bonds without grounds? What if the Government's optimistic calculations are wrong?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10335

In respect of this issue, our Government's left brain and right brain, as well as its left hand and right hands, are not functioning properly. The Government said that Hong Kong would get into a dead end if the Innovation and Technology Bureau was not established. Many ass-kissing Members kissed the wrong ass. They talked about the Innovative Technology Bureau but the proper name should be Innovation and Technology Bureau. I will leave innovation aside for the time being and talk about technology first. How can technology attract talented people? We need a warship, such as an aircraft carrier, to carry the talented people. If this work is not done by the Government, who should be responsible? If the Government establishes a Policy Bureau to take charge of that, there must be a policy. What is the policy?

Deputy Chairman, I now ask the royalist Members in public here. Donald TSANG talked about developing Hong Kong into a certification hub but what had he done? Deputy Chairman, you are a businessman. Can you tell me in what aspect has the Government made a step forward? I have a personal experience. A Hong Kong citizen invested in a batch of vaccines but was unable to vaccinate the people with his vaccines. He lobbied Members and proposed to vaccinate people for free because only when he had vaccinated a sufficient number of people could he submit the vaccines for testing. Do we not have a business? Thanks to Mrs Margaret CHAN, we bought the wrong vaccine. Let us not talk about her. I will not deduct her salary as she is now working for WHO. Deputy Chairman, why can't Hong Kong invest in the vaccine manufacturing business? How are vaccines produced? Many eggs are needed to produce vaccines but we have exterminated our poultry farming industry. Why can India succeed? Of course, India is very famous for its state-of-the-art technologies. Do not think that India is a backward country. It has many talented people engaging in state-of-the-art technologies and it has done a great job in manpower training.

Whether Hong Kong invests in the vaccine manufacturing business or engages in certification, it has to invest or develop these businesses. But Hong Kong has now destroyed the agricultural industry and killed all chickens. Without chickens, where do we get eggs? Without eggs, we will have to import them to manufacture vaccines and will that increase the costs? Will the supply be unstable at times? It takes tens of millions of eggs to manufacture vaccines. The Government is invincible in it talks. It boasts about developing new and high technologies but where are the six major industries now?

10336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

LEUNG Chun-ying has served as the Convenor of the Executive Council for three terms of Chief Executives. He is well versed in the process of the development of new technologies, state-of-the-art technologies, as well as innovative technology. He is talking nonsense today again. What is the connection between the Innovation and Technology Bureau and the old economic mode of spending $151.4 billion to expand the airport? Deputy Chairman, do you know that the Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport is an international laughing stock for being so dilapidated. Of course, it was considered rather advanced when it was built during the 1960s and 1970s. Nowadays Taiwan supplies computer hardware components to half of the world. When Taiwan was struck by a major earthquake some years back, its market was shaken. Did it use airplanes to carry more people to Taiwan to save its economy? Yes, it needed parallel traders. I wonder if you have engaged in parallel trading before. Taiwan imposed import restrictions at that time, banning the import of Mainland ginseng and levying a high tax on expensive watches. So we became parallel traders and that was a "parallel trading economy". We brought commodities to sell in Taiwan and after having fun there, we bought merchandise back to Hong Kong to sell.

Deputy Chairman, honestly speaking, when a government has thought wrongly, what can we do? After listening to Mr Martin LIAO, I share his views. He was fair and just. He did not criticize us for filibustering but asked us to do something. Therefore, regarding this point, all the comments that I made earlier pointed out that the entire strategy of the Government was wrong. Even if the tourism industry is not a sunset industry, it can hardly make any further development in the original form. When an industry shrinks, the assets invested in it may lose its value. Such a wave is coming this way. The Government is still talking about more construction works and some people are talking about developing a bridgehead economy. Are they idiots? What happens if no one comes? Do tourists have to come to Hong Kong? Will the Japanese yen not depreciate further? Will the Renminbi not appreciate again?

Deputy Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying is blindly leading us. Sometimes I wonder if he is at odds with John TSANG as their remarks are completely different. Deputy Chairman, as regards this issue, first, I wish to point out that Prof K C CHAN and John TSANG cannot shirk their responsibilities. They allow the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA) to jump the gun to rip us off. Under subhead 60 of head 7 of this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary has already provided the fiscal provision of a few billion dollars for the forgone revenues on the assumption that the AA would not declare cash dividends. This LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10337 is already done in the Budget and Members are still in the dark. How can I allow the Budget to be passed? Has he asked for my permission? The Financial Secretary openly stole $800 million in 2002, and sneakily stole $5-odd billion in the Budget again in one go in 2013 and 2015. When he sees this can be done so easily, he will continue to steal from us year after year. Honestly, Deputy Chairman, for Heaven's sake, if we do not take him to task this time, once a precedent is set and it becomes a convention, he will keep on stealing. This is the first point.

Second, I shudder to hear Members like Mr NG Leung-sing who suggested that the AA could issue bonds without making reference to the Airport Authority Ordinance. Actually (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up. Please sit down.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Till next time. Pardon me.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, coincidentally, I am also going to raise a series of questions relating to the airport in this session. My speech will focus on Amendment Nos 66, 67 and 68 proposed by three colleagues, which resolved that head 28 be reduced by $2,644,200 in respect of subhead 000, which is roughly equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments for the Director-General of Civil Aviation (the Director-General).

Concerning the performance of the Director-General, I think many people have learnt from the news of recent months how he regarded the new headquarter as his private playground. He has not only provided himself with a personal rest room, but has also installed recreational facilities. I trust that Members were infuriated about how the Director-General spent public money, and queried why he could behave and decide on important civil aviation policies in such flippant way. After Members putting questions to him in the manner of "squeezing toothpaste out of a tube", he admitted fault in the end and apologized to the public. In this session, I will certainly not repeat the criticisms hurled earlier by colleagues at the Director-General's policy blunders. I would rather escalate the focus to the Third Runway Project (the Project) and highlight the important 10338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 decisions that the Director-General should have been made under the existing policy and legislation but had not done so. These decisions are absolutely related to the very controversial issue of the Project in the community today.

To start with, someone may ask, should the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA) be held responsible for the mistakes in the cost estimate of the Project costing $141.5 billion? Do members of the AA need to bear legal liability? I wish to draw people's attention to section 45 of the Airport Authority Ordinance (Cap. 483) (the Ordinance). Under the heading "Immunity", the provision stipulates that "No personal liability shall be incurred by a member of the Authority in respect of anything done, or omitted to be done, by him in good faith in relation to the performance or purported performance of any function under this Ordinance." They need not bear any responsibility. Who should be held responsible and accountable in case a problem arises? Of all AA board members, the Director-General is one of the public officers. Also, among the management of the AA are Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, Secretary Prof K C CHAN and Secretary Gregory SO, who also serve as board members in their official capacity. They made decisions with other board members, especially important ones such as the Project. Nonetheless, the fact is that they are not responsible for any problem arises. Nor would they incur any personal liability, so long as they claim that the decision is made "in good faith in relation to the performance … of any function under this Ordinance." Therefore, we need to determine the responsibility before commencing the Project and proceeding with the construction and reclamation works. Or else, taxpayers will have to foot the bill in the end. No one else except the Government is going to shoulder the responsibility. So long as the person concerned declares that the decision is made according to the Ordinance and he has performed his function in good faith with the greatest seriousness, he can simply walk away even if any problem arises. Public officers are definitely one of them.

Deputy Chairman, you may have been to the airport many times and I think you have also used the passenger Terminal 2 building. So have I. But do Members know what it is? Is it a genuine passenger terminal? The answer is crystal clear. It claims to be a passenger terminal, but is not one in practice. The decision to build this passenger terminal was made by the AA and was, of course, supported by the Government. But why is this building costing $2.8 billion not a passenger terminal? The AA originally planned to build a shopping mall …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10339

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Kenneth CHAN, you have spoken for a while, but the AA and the Project which you have mentioned time and again do not fall within the scope of our debate on the relevant amendments. You may refer to the amendments concerning the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) or the Director-General, but your speech has all along digressed from the subject. Please speak on the debate theme.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): The passenger Terminal 2 building at a construction cost of $2.8 billion has to be demolished for redevelopment, and another $8-odd billion would have to be spent for remedial purpose. That leads to the question of whether the Director-General, as a public officer in the AA Board, has performed his basic function in accordance with the Ordinance. Under the Ordinance, there is a provision on "Public Interest" ― since a fellow party member of the Deputy Chairman is also a board member of the AA, he may seek his advice on the relevance ― it is section 14, which clearly states that public officers include the Director-General …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Kenneth CHAN, this is not a debate on the Ordinance but on the amendments to the relevant heads under the Appropriation Bill. Please speak on the debate theme.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Under section 14 of the Ordinance concerning "Public Interest", the Director-General as a public officer is absolutely obliged to give advice in this regard and protect public interest. Has he done so? Has he assumed any responsibility for the blunders on major decisions like the abovementioned example of Terminal 2? These are serious problems, but we cannot stop what has happened. What is more, it involves public interest. Also, the Budget has exempted the AA from paying dividends to the Treasury, so why is this irrelevant to the debate? This is certainly relevant. If a public officer has not performed his sacred duty to protect public interest under the Ordinance, should we accuse him of default and breach of duty? Should we deduct his salary amounting to $2,644,200 for the coming year through this Budget debate to rectify his mistakes? I think we should. In my opinion, the public should have greater access to information in this area before deciding whether or not to support the Project, and whether the public officers have performed their basic function as a gate-keeper.

10340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

What makes the authorities more shameful and disappointing is that although the overall operation of the airport, be it the Terminal 2 as mentioned above, the Project and the airspace issues, involves public interest, has the Government carried out any large-scale consultation? This is absolutely viable under the Ordinance, because section 20 provides that the AA is obliged to conduct formal consultation with written directions from the Chief Executive in Council. But has it done so? As we are aware, there are only piecemeal consultations. Apart from the earlier environmental impact assessment, the recent public consultation on reclamation works is conducted pursuant to the Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance and was gazetted two months ago. In addition, the Town Planning Board (TPB) has launched a two-month consultation exercise on the planning intention for the land reclaimed. These consultation exercises …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Kenneth CHAN, let me remind you again that your speech has digressed from the debate theme. Please speak on the relevant amendments.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I hope you will allow me to use my remaining speaking time to finish with my inference. This takes time and I am aware that you are anxious …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This debate is on the amendments to the relevant heads under the Appropriation Bill, and is not on the policy. I think you should know that since you have joined the legislature for a couple of years, so please speak on the relevant amendments.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I have been speaking on the Budget, that is, the proposal to deduct the estimated expenditure on the emoluments for the Director-General for the coming year. What are the duties of the Director-General? I bet the Deputy Chairman should know. As an ex officio member of the AA, is his work related to the AA? What is the major task of the AA recently? It is the development of the Project, which is closely related to the work of the Director-General. So why can't I bring it up for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10341 discussion? I beg for your tolerance and give me a few minutes to finish off what I have to say. As an elected Member, I think I am duty-bound to continue with this discussion.

As a matter of fact, the consultations concerning planning or reclamation are fake. The Director-General should have launched comprehensive and serious consultation exercises for these important projects from the outset. This is because with regard to the consultation on reclamation, section 6 of the Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance provides that only people who consider that their interest, right or easement has been affected can object to the proposed reclamation. But unless someone goes camping there, otherwise who would claim that they have the right or easement over the sea? What kind of consultation is that?

As for the consultation on the planning intention, it only states that the land reclaimed will integrate with the airport. How can members of the public present their opposition views on various issues to the TPB such that they can be accepted? The relevant consultation only emphasizes on the planning intention, that is, the reclaimed land will integrate with the airport, and it merely serves window-dressing purpose. What is the responsibility of the Director-General?

Last week, I highlighted the problems encountered by the CAD, airports in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region and the Civil Aviation Administration of China during their discussion or negotiation on the airspace and air wall issues. We have yet to get a good grasp of the Airport Expansion Project embraced by Members present and the Deputy Chairman, and there is insufficient justification to address the airspace and air wall issues.

The document in hand is absolutely related to my speech, but I guess the Deputy Chairman will not bother to read it. This is the annual report of the CAD, and the information that I referred to in my speech is extracted from this report. How can it be irrelevant to the CAD? On 22 October 2013, the Director-General had a meeting on PRD airspace issues with the Guangzhou Air Command of the People's Liberation Army. This is a fact. After the meeting, what had he done to convince the public that the Project, upon completion, would not become useless?

On 7 November of the same year, the Director-General attended another meeting. The Directors General of the Air Traffic Management Bureau of the Civil Aviation Administration of China, Central and Southern Regional 10342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Administration of the Civil Aviation Administration of China, Middle and South Regional Air Traffic Management Bureau, the Guangzhou Air Command of the People's Liberation Army and the CAD met again in Guangzhou to review the PRD airspace enhancement plan. This is also a statement of fact. The Director-General attended the meeting as well.

We pay the Director-General more than $2 million each year to do these jobs, but apart from providing himself a private rest room and dance room as well as making the new headquarter more cozy to him by all means, has he given any account to the public of the crucial tasks? Should we deduct his salary? Since he has not given any account but merely used empty words to lobby our support for the Project, and coupled with the past experiences concerning the failure of Terminal 2 and numerous problems relating to the fake consultation exercises on the Project and reclamation works, I fail to see why these matters cannot be brought up for concrete discussion? The Ordinance itself has shielded the AA and the public officers concerned (The buzzer sounded) … which is an independent realm.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHAN, your speaking time is up. Please be seated.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I am very grateful to Members who have expressed their concerns about the duties of the Director-General of Civil Aviation and made criticisms accordingly. The reason is that I have proposed five amendments to reduce the estimated annual expenditure for five posts, including the Director-General of Civil Aviation, Deputy Director-General of Civil Aviation and Assistant Director-General of Civil Aviation.

In my last speech, I spoke about the new Air Traffic Control System (ATC) contracts which concerned the problem of a small syndicate. I will now provide some supplementary information to show Members the seriousness of the problem. Apart from the propriety of the tendering process, questions regarding tender prices and additional expenditures incurred after the tendering exercise are also important. As Members would know, a government department which has administrative control can decide on the specifications of the tender and the scope LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10343 of the tendering exercise. That is very important because after the successful tenderer has obtained the operating right, the costs demanded for supplementary items may even be higher than the original tender price.

Let me give a simple example. Some property management companies are well aware that they may incur a loss or only make a small profit in managing certain residential estates, but they will still obtain the operating right. After that, they can undertake jobs such as garbage disposal and renovation works. The profits they get from garbage disposal, security management and renovation works may sometimes exceed the value of the management contract by 10 or even a hundred times. Members would know that a company in control of the management of the property can engage in bid-rigging with contractors. Since the total value of a contract may easily exceed a hundred million dollars nowadays, huge profits are involved and that is why the tendering exercise is important.

Why do I talk about the tendering exercises of the ATC in particular? The estimated value for the contract commencing on 2 February 2011 was $486 million. This contract was varied twice subsequently. On the first occasion, an addition of $42.4 million was required and on the second, $46.8 million was required. A number of other contracts were later awarded by the Civil Aviation Department (CAD). The contract of Air Traffic Services Data Management System awarded on 16 September 2011 cost $135 million; the contract of Aeronautical Information Management System awarded in December of the same year cost $55 million; the contract of Aeronautical Messaging System awarded in 2012 cost $23 million; the contract of Communications and Recording System awarded on 18 February 2011 cost $126 million; the contract of Relocation and Expansion of Air Traffic Services Message Handling System awarded cost $23 million, and the contract of Ancillary and Technical Support Systems awarded on 31 October 2011 cost $65 million.

This series of contracts were awarded after the implementation of the ATC and as Members would be aware, many problems and variations have arisen from the tendering exercise, but all the officials involved have been promoted and do not have to bear any responsibility. Perhaps there is a tendency in this Government that an official who has made the most mistakes will be promoted to the highest rank. The reason is that the more mistakes an official makes, the stronger the indication that he is incompetent; the more incompetent he is, the 10344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 more competent LEUNG Chun-ying is by comparison. After a number of corrupt grafters have been hand-picked to work in the Government, people would not consider the $50 million greedily taken by LEUNG Chun-ying a big sum. Therefore, the way the whole Government is now operating falls far short of our expectation.

Deputy Chairman, the tendering exercise of the ATC is ridiculous and I suspect that corruption is involved. Certainly, I understand that the Independent Commission Against Corruption has inquired into the matter, but apparently the evidence is not sufficient to institute prosecution. Very often, incidents of corruption, such as the problems with "Greedy TSANG", are unearthed only after a long time. This has to do with personal and political factors, various interests and other problems. Anyway, I hope that staff members who have access to secret information on the problems of the tendering exercise, or incumbent staff members of the CAD who are ashamed of or resented the performance of some officials in the department will report the matter. They can report the matter anonymously. I had received anonymous reports before and I made complaints to the authorities. As there was sufficient evidence, investigations were conducted and some high-ranking officials were subsequently prosecuted. I had handled some of these cases. Therefore, it is useful to make anonymous reports and it is most important to provide information. I appeal not only to staff members of the CAD, but also to anyone who has information about senior officials or staff members in the Government such as "Land-hoarding Paul" to provide us with information. We will handle the matter in strict confidence.

Deputy Chairman, there is dereliction of duty on the part of the CAD not only because of the ATC tendering exercise, but also because of the noise pollution problem. In fact, since the commissioning of the airport in 1988, I have repeatedly complained about the noise pollution problem and have asked a question on the worsening of the problem every year in the Legislative Council. Referring to the data of the noise monitoring terminal at Park Island alone, the noise level recorded during sleep time from 11 pm to 7 am was over 70dB. Many people do not know the noise level of 70dB. In fact, when we switch on the air-conditioner or the fan at home, the noise level will be 50dB to 60dB on average. Some people cannot fall asleep at a noise level of 70dB, and for some others who are more sensitive to noise, they will be woken from their sleep at this level.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10345

How frequent has noise pollution been created by aircrafts flying over Park Island? It has been created 10 000 times each year from 11 pm to 7 am, that is, 28.5 times per day on average. In other words, during the sleep time of eight hours at night, four or five aircrafts will fly over Park Island every hour. The frequency of the flights differs at different times of the night. Sometimes, there are only one or two flights in an hour, sometimes four or five, sometimes five or six. Therefore, if one is more sensitive to noise, one will not be able to sleep all through the night. At Hong Kong Garden in Tsing Lung Tau, 4 246 times of noise pollution have been recorded in one year and the figure shows the extent of the problem. The respective number of times in the other years is similar, though there may be small variations from year to year.

For many years, I have been persistently asking the question on the 25 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contour. In fact, in the 1990s, when the Government asked the Advisory Council on the Environment to endorse its proposal, it adopted 25 NEF as the standard in its planning. However, if Members are familiar with the technology, they would clearly understand that there was a large discrepancy between the assessment results in the consultancy report back then and the reality. After the commissioning of the airport, the actual pollution problem caused by aircrafts was much more serious than estimated. Therefore, the assessment was wrong to a certain extent and there is a total dereliction of duty on the part of CAD in managing and alleviating the noise pollution problem.

I remember that when the noise pollution problem first occurred years back, we asked the Government to change the flight paths and the ways of operating aircrafts. The CAD immediately responded that the suggestions would affect the operation and interests of the airlines. The CAD's concern was not the impact of air pollution on the people, but the impact on the airlines. Besides, the authorities would not impose penalties on the airlines creating noise pollution like what is done in San Francisco. The level of noise created by passing aircrafts is affected by various factors, including the type of aircraft, the operation mode adopted by the pilot, acceleration and the height at which the aircraft is flying. If the Government does not legislate to regulate these factors and allow pilots to operate freely, the general public will be trampled upon at will and noise pollution can hardly be regulated. The problem of noise pollution has existed for more than 17 years now, but the CAD has still not put in place any punitive regulations, particularly administrative and legislative regulations. Therefore, I think the CAD has over-protected the interests of the airlines and ignored the sufferings of the people. 10346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Deputy Chairman, I have to point out another sin of the CAD. Why do I have to reduce the expenditures for the five posts? To a certain extent, the CAD is responsible for negotiating with the Mainland authorities on the right of airspace management, but I think the CAD has engaged in black-box operation. If people including experts had not given their comments, many problems would not have been unearthed, particularly the problem that our right of airspace management has been given up treacherously and the related risks. In this connection, the CAD has basically engaged in black-box operation. It controls everything in complete disregard of the interests of the public.

I personally wrote to the CAD earlier to enquire about the progress of the negotiation regarding airspace management. However, the authorities refused to provide any information on the pretext that a judicial review of the matter is now in progress. The legislature should monitor the executive; how can the CAD refuse to disclose information on airspace management on the pretext that a judicial review of the matter is in progress? The CAD has betrayed us, hasn't it? If the Government has to engage in an important negotiation or handle an important matter in the future, it can find any person, say Mr CHAN Fuk Shui, to assist it in cheating, can't it? Mr CHAN Fuk Shui can submit a poorly drafted writ to apply for a judicial review in which his chance of losing his case is 99%. During the process of litigation, the Government can engage in a negotiation and give up all our interests treacherously. After the negotiation on the right of airspace management is completed, it can put an end to the judicial review. Hong Kong people will be betrayed and our current and future interests will be given up without our knowledge. How can the authorities refuse to disclose any information on the basis that a judicial review is in progress? The reason is only acceptable if the information requested is of a legal nature. When we were deliberating on the proposal of building an incinerator at Shek Kwu Chau, a judicial review was in progress, but the Government answered many of our questions on the proposal at the meeting of the Finance Committee. From this example, we can see that the two Policy Bureaux/government departments have different approaches.

Certainly, since the Environment Bureau was seeking approval of a funding proposal, it had to answer questions at meetings of the Finance Committee. Nonetheless, how can the CAD refuse to answer all of my questions (including questions on the consultancy report and questions which are not necessarily related to the judicial review or legal arguments) on the pretext that a judicial review is in progress? Therefore, there are reasons why I have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10347 proposed to reduce the funding for the five senior posts. The officials of the CAD consider that the CAD is their independent kingdom. Many Members have pointed out how the officials have wasted public money in turning their office into a palace. Mistakes in the ATC tendering exercise may involve problems such as corruption. Yet, all senior officials who made mistakes in the ATC tendering exercise, that is, members of the coterie have been promoted.

Since the royalist Members will defend the Government, I believe it is difficult to reduce the funding concerned. The situation is similar to what happened when the royalist Members (particularly Members of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB)) supported the listing of The Link and the construction of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link back then. The royalist Members were not the ones who paid the money, members of the public were the ones who suffered and public money had been wasted. Yet, the royalist Members got Grand Bauhinia Medals and other Bauhinia Medals, didn't they? In the last term of Government, many Members and District Council Members of the DAB were also appointed to important positions. Therefore, there was transfer of benefits. Those who support the Government will be appointed to important positions such as Members of the Executive Council or Chairman of boards and committees and they will enjoy more benefits. Having established the connections and after obtaining certain information, these people can engage in activities such as property speculation and make more money, just like "Land-hoarding Paul". Members of the elite coterie support each other politically and transfer benefits among themselves.

I hope that all pan-democratic Members can at least vote together for the amendment of reducing the estimated annual expenditure for the five posts of the CAD, including the Director-General, Deputy Director-General and Assistant Director-General.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I originally intended to speak on the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) in detail, but since two Members have successively spoken on the CAD just now, I would like to change the theme of my speech, such that Members can listen to something new. I will talk about the proposed deduction items under "Head 180 ― Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration" in my following speech. Amendment No 602 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seeks to reduce the 10348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 operating expenditure for the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration to $1,000. In fact, what is the work of the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration (the Office)? We will have an idea if we take a look at the programme as set out under the relevant head. The programme is "Film Classification, Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles and Newspaper Registration", but the programme is under the purview of two policy areas, one being Information Technology and Broadcasting (Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development) and the other being Recreation, Culture, Amenities and Entertainment Licensing that falls within the ambit of Secretary TSANG Tak-sing.

The Office is responsible for "taking appropriate enforcement and prosecution action against violations of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance"  which reveals that it is an enforcement division  and "gauging the prevailing moral standards of the community periodically". In Matters Requiring Special Attention in 2015-2016, the Office has set the following objects: "continue its enforcement of the Film Censorship Ordinance and the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance"; "continue to assist the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in mapping out the way forward on the review of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance". In fact, it has taken us a lot of time to review and amend the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance, but no tangible result has been achieved. Deputy Chairman, in my following speech, I will criticize the enforcement of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance by the Office.

In fact, the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance and the censorship system have aroused numerous controversies over the years, affecting artistic and creative freedom, and reflecting extremely conservative ethics and morals. In 1994, the ruling of the Obscene Articles Tribunal (the Tribunal) that a photo showing the statue of David was indecent became the laughing stock of the world. In 2007, the erotic/sexuality page of the Chinese University Student Press was ruled as a Class II (Indecent) article, and Ming Pao that republished what was carried in the former was also ruled as a Class II (Indecent) article. The ruling of the Tribunal lacked any concrete rationale and reasoning, and thus triggered an outcry. After lodging its strong protest, the Chinese University Student Press ultimately won a judicial review case and the ruling was overturned. I give a brief account of some past events for Members' information.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10349

An important object of the Office in the coming year is to review the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance. Two and half years following the completion of its review of the Ordinance, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has finally announced some proposed amendments earlier, which include abolishing the administrative classification function of the Tribunal and merely retaining its judicial determination function regarding articles referred to it by the Court, as well as abolishing any separate body responsible for administrative classification. According to the authorities, the number of articles referred to the Tribunal for prior censorship fell drastically from around 3 000 in 2002 to around 300 in 2013, and they hold the view that there has been a decrease in the relevant demand, but they will continue to maintain a repository open for public inspection, so as to enable publishers to keep themselves abreast of the prevailing standards of convicted cases under the existing legislation for indecent articles. I have earlier raised questions at the special meetings of the Finance Committee, as I am very much concerned about the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance and the work of the Office. According to papers titled Reply Serial No. JA001, the number of usage of the depository in the entire year of 2013 was only 52, or about one per week, and the number of usage in 2014 was only four, or one every three months. The number of usage is so pathetically low that it is a severe waste of public money.

Meanwhile, the relevant amendments propose increasing the total number of adjudicators from 500 to 1 500, increasing the minimum number of adjudicators at each hearing, and increasing the maximum penalty and imprisonment term. There is a big problem with the selection of adjudicators, who are selected by the Government randomly from self-nominated candidates before being appointed by the Chief Justice. I think there is a problem with such a mechanism. What kinds of people are to act as adjudicators and aspire to be selected and appointed upon self-nomination? One kind of people is those with high moral principles who believe in the prevalence of immorality nowadays and aspire to act as adjudicators to play a gate-keeping role. The other kind is those who take pleasure in viewing articles that have not yet been censored. Unlike the random selection of people as jurors by the Court, this selection mechanism has long attracted criticism. That said, the Government still advises the retention of such a mechanism, under which adjudicators are selected randomly from self-nominated candidates. The only improvement is increasing the minimum number of adjudicators at each hearing from two to four. As a matter of fact, we believe that the increased number is still too small.

10350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

As I have said just now, the problem lies in the polarization of the background of adjudicators and their lack of representativeness, with one group being extreme conservative and the other group fighting for equal rights for sexual minorities and considering that no great restraint should be imposed. These two kinds of people can hardly reflect the views of the general public. We have talked about this problem and raised our criticisms on various occasions. It is a matter of luck as regards which kind of people will dominate in a pool of adjudicators selected, and the objective and resultant consequence is that vastly different classification results will arise when one single article is sent twice to the Tribunal for classification. Whether the article will be classified as indecent or obscene is a matter of luck. In addition, the Government often refers to the importance of balanced participation, but the selection of adjudicators hinges on the application by people on their own initiative, and there is no mechanism that can balance the participation of various social strata, easily leading to the partiality and fluctuation of classification standards.

Furthermore, many people are not aware of this mechanism of selecting and appointing adjudicators upon self-nomination. For those who are now observing the proceedings of this meeting, how many of you have filed an application and nominated yourself to be an adjudicator? I believe few people have ever done so. The adjudicators thus fail to widely accommodate the views of the general public. The problem is very obvious. Some organizations have even ridiculed that believing the classification of the Tribunal can truly represent the moral standard of the general public is tantamount to believing the "pocket-it-first" proposal is a genuine universal suffrage proposal. We have not much to say if Hong Kong people are not enthusiastic about acting as adjudicators. If the 5 million eligible voters of Hong Kong are willing to be adjudicators, it will be fair if they can all participate in the selection. But now the number of adjudicators stands at 500 only, and broad representativeness can hardly be achieved even if the number will be increased to 1 500 in the future.

The problem with the adjudication system is that a handful of adjudicators can dominate an excessively large number of rulings. Though two adjudicators are drawn from a pool of 500 in each case, those selected are often not available for the hearing, and so several rounds of selections have been conducted, resulting in those who have plenty of leisure time and who are available at any time will end up at the hearing. According to a report issued by the Audit Commission, 21 adjudicators had surprisingly dealt with 60% of the cases of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10351

Tribunal. The problem is not that the same person was selected every time, but as the person selected was not available for the adjudication, another round of selection must be conducted. Since those 21 persons were always available after being selected, 60% of the cases of the entire year were handled by them. The same 21 persons, selected from a pool of 500 adjudicators, have dealt with 60% of the cases. I think Members would sense that something has gone wrong. Such an unequal division of work proves that the classification of the Tribunal cannot truly represent the moral standard of the general public, and it merely judges publications with its own standards.

In addition, there are no evaluation criteria. The extremely vague definitions of "indecent" and "obscene" in the relevant legislation are obviously not adequate for explaining the classification criteria to the general public. Given that there are no clear definitions in the law, and the past classification results, which were not based on common law, cannot become the criteria to be adopted by the authorities, the adjudication mechanism is thus chaotic. The fact that the existing legislation does not require the Tribunal to give an account of the rationale for the adjudication results further reveals the sloppiness of the entire censorship system.

In fact, several Members and I have received some cases in the Complaints Division, where some small comic publishers indicated that they were confused. In some cases a comic strip with the bloody dismemberment of its characters can obtain approval, while in some other cases a comic strip depicting the cutting off of an arm is classified as indecent and fails to obtain approval. What should the publishers do? Should they send the comic strips for censorship or simply wait for punishment? Some claim that since several editions have already been published, the publishers should have grasped the bottom line or simply reserved some money for fine payments. However, that should not be the norm. They honestly aspire to know the Tribunal's criteria, which they have no intention to challenge. We paid a joint visit to the Tribunal, with the intention of observing how the Tribunal would brief adjudicators. We noted that the Tribunal merely provided the adjudicators with a briefing note that anyone can read online. Since the Tribunal has no definite criteria, the definitions of "indecent" and "obscene" may be very different for different people. My definitions of "indecent" and "obscene" may be vastly different from those of other Members; and male Members' definitions of "indecent" and "obscene" may be utterly different from those of female Members.

10352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Nowadays, the system regarding the censorship of indecent and obscene articles in the publishing sector has even impeded business operators of the sector. As I have said just now, the system has particularly narrowed the room of survival of small publishers. Classification charges can amount to $2,100, which may easily be higher than the total amount of revenue from a publishing deal. While a publisher merely publishes several dozens of books and earns several dollars from each book, it will probably run the risk of breaking the law. Even if the publisher is able to afford the censorship charges, it is difficult to estimate the time taken by the Tribunal. A case in point is that a comic strip only received its classification outcome three months after it was sent for censorship. Such bureaucratic operation that is procrastination in nature fully impedes cultural and publishing undertakings.

As indicated above, this mechanism expends public expenditure every year, the relevant structure is disorderly and duplicated, the depository has a very low usage rate, the system of appointing adjudicators upon self-nomination lacks broad representativeness and thus unable to bring about balanced participation, and the bureaucratic adjudication system impairs the freedom of speech and freedom to publish and dampens the business operation of the publishing sector. For this reason, I hope that Members will support Amendment No 602 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, which seeks to reduce the expenditures for the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration to $1,000. The Office has failed to fulfil its set objects of "assisting the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in mapping out the way forward on the review of the Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles Ordinance" and "gauging the prevailing moral standards of the community periodically". I do not think the Office has any accomplishment in this regard.

I so submit.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, my current speech intend to explain in detail the rationale for my Amendment No 538. This amendment seeks to deduct the estimated public expenditure in the amount of $1,790,000 on six months' emoluments of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Gregory SO, under subhead 000 of "Head 152 ― Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch)".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10353

Deputy Chairman, following the signing of the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement between the governments of the two places in 2003, Hong Kong has been increasingly reliant on the Mainland economically, and many industries have tilted excessively towards the Mainland. As the official in charge of the economic development policies of Hong Kong, Secretary Gregory SO has even surrendered our economic lifelines to the discretion of the relevant authorities on the Mainland. In the event of any economic slowdown on the Mainland, or the need to tighten the policies towards Hong Kong owing to the circumstances on the Mainland, the economy of Hong Kong will inevitably be affected and dampened.

Deputy Chairman, the economic policies of the SAR Government in recent years have moved towards regional integration with the Mainland, particularly with Shenzhen that borders Hong Kong, in an attempt to integrate Shenzhen and Hong Kong. As early as August 2007, the Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre, established by Norman CHAN, the incumbent Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, already published a research report titled "Building a Hong Kong-Shenzhen Metropolis", which clearly pointed out that "the establishment of a Hong Kong-Shenzhen Metropolis with global competitiveness is both necessary and feasible, and is gradually becoming a consensus among the government, enterprises and society of the two cities" and "although the concept of the joint establishment of an international metropolis between Hong Kong and Shenzhen has not been mentioned in any official document of the Hong Kong government, there is increasing understanding among the governments and the people of the two cities". Deputy Chairman, it is thus clear that the integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong has long been a low-profile initiative adopted jointly by the SAR Government and the Central Government.

Later in 2009, Norman CHAN, who was then still the Director of the Chief Executive's Office, further proposed in an exclusive interview with Wen Wei Po the five major plans for a Shenzhen-Hong Kong metropolis. Most of his plans are closely related to policies implemented by the incumbent SAR Government, and even policies that Secretary Gregory SO is in charge of. Among the five major plans proposed by Norman CHAN, the first one is to make it convenient for Shenzhen permanent residents to travel to and from Hong Kong, and this plan has already been implemented in Hong Kong through the policy on multiple-entry endorsements that Gregory SO is in charge of. The second plan also falls within the ambit of Gregory SO, and that is the consolidation of 10354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 telecommunications services of the two cities. During his term of office Gregory SO re-assigned the remaining one-third of 3G spectrum through auction in the name of market liberalization for introducing competition, ostentatiously allowing Chinese-funded organizations to enter the telecommunications services market of Hong Kong.

Deputy Chairman, the first two plans among the five major plans proposed by the SAR Government for the integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong have already been implemented, thanks to the efforts made by Secretary Gregory SO. The remaining three plans, including the application of Hong Kong octopus cards in Shenzhen, the mutual purchase by Shenzhen and Hong Kong residents of each other's financial products (that is, Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect as referred to by the SAR Government nowadays), and the articulation of primary education of the two cities, will, I believe, be actualized in the near future. However, though Hong Kong people have never fostered any consensus, nor have they been consulted or engaged in any discussion, such plans have become the policy objectives of the SAR Government.

Deputy Chairman, Secretary Gregory SO has blindly adopted a laissez-faire attitude in allowing a large number of Mainland tourists under the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) to travel to Hong Kong, such that Hong Kong's tourism industry and even catering and hotel industries are all severely tilting towards the Mainland market. As for the impacts caused, I have already given a detailed explanation in my last speech on the Hong Kong Tourism Board. The outcry triggered by the laissez-faire attitude in allowing Mainland tourists to travel to Hong Kong actually proves that the strategy of blind regional integration or Mainland-Hong Kong integration is not popular among Hong Kong people. Representatives of the tourism industry are myopic, being not able to see the forest for the trees. Their only concern is tourism development or the increase of the number of tourists on certain important dates; yet they fail to see the whole picture. The Neo Democrats have since 2012 paid attention to the impacts caused on Hong Kong people by the excessive number of Mainland tourists, and it was the first party to request at the Legislative Council the SAR Government to impose restraints on the IVS and abolish the policy on multiple-entry endorsements, so as to restore the original living space for Hong Kong people.

The SAR Government was at first indifferent and it later changed its stance early last year. While Secretary Gregory SO completed the Assessment Report on Hong Kong's Capacity to Receive Tourists, the report merely focused on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10355 hardware facilities, such as the addition of an Iron Man theme park in the Hong Kong Disneyland, rather than truly taking account of the capacity of Hong Kong society to receive tourists. As a result, the Beijing Government interfered by announcing the re-assessment of Hong Kong's capacity to receive IVS tourists. Secretary Gregory SO has failed to fulfil the duty of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, and instead invited the interference of the Beijing Government, dwarfing the power of the SAR Government. Secretary Gregory SO thus does not deserve to receive the huge amounts of emoluments of a Director of Bureau.

This year (2015) Gregory SO has even been treading the opposite path by constantly spreading the news of expanding the IVS and allowing the residents of more Mainland cities to travel to Hong Kong under the IVS. More ridiculously, Gregory SO surprisingly invited the Beijing Government again to meddle in the duties of the SAR Government. In reply to a question in the Legislative Council on 11 February this year, Gregory SO indicated that the IVS policy ultimately fell within the ambit of the Beijing Government, and the SAR Government could only reflect to Beijing its views on any policies that adjusted the growth in visitor arrivals and their composition, but could not make the related decisions on its own.

Deputy Chairman, under "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law, the SAR Government has the right to impose immigration controls. The Immigration Department and the Customs and Excise Department have the right to reject any visitor's entry into the territory or impose any restraints on the number of visitors in accordance with Hong Kong laws. That said, Secretary Gregory SO has surprisingly surrendered the vetting and approval rights of the SAR Government regarding the number of IVS visitors to the Mainland Government. We can thus see that Gregory SO only attends to the Beijing Government and even the interests and feelings of Mainland residents, while constantly barters away the immediate interests of Hong Kong people.

Deputy Chairman, the State Council announced earlier that it will lower the import tariffs on certain foreign daily necessities, and it intends to lower the consumption taxes on apparel and cosmetic products, so as to bring consumption back home. It is thus clear that policies of the Beijing Government will be adjusted in line with the needs of the country. However, Secretary Gregory SO disregards the Hong Kong people-first policies by reducing IVS tourists and abolishing multiple-entry endorsements; instead he allows Hong Kong's tourism 10356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 industry and related industries to blindly rely on the Mainland market, places emphasis on quantity rather than quality, and makes the Hong Kong economy pay a price.

The approach adopted by Gregory SO to deal with problems related to multiple-entry endorsements also reflects how he cares about the general situation of the Mainland rather than the overall interests of Hong Kong, and how he blindly promotes Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration at the cost of compromising the interests of Hong Kong people. This year the Beijing Government announced the revision of the policy on multiple-entry endorsements, restricting it to "one trip per week" (that is, 52 trips per endorsements a year). Since 13 April, the additional restraint of only one trip to Hong Kong per week has been imposed on multiple-entry endorsements granted to Shenzhen residents. The revision mainly targets at the problem of a large number of parallel traders attributable to multiple-entry endorsements, but the social problems that have arisen from multiple-entry endorsements are not only restricted to the nuisance caused by parallel traders.

The biggest problem with multiple-entry endorsements is the forceful inclusion of Hong Kong into Shenzhen residents' "one-hour living circle", such that Shenzhen residents would regard Hong Kong as an extension of their daily lives. They can travel to Hong Kong to purchase daily necessities and food ingredients every week, and even enjoy community facilities of Hong Kong people, such as swimming pools and leisure facilities. This is vastly different from the behaviour of ordinary tourists, and Shenzhen residents thus become the mobile population of Hong Kong. However, Gregory SO and the SAR Government at large have been misleading Hong Kong people and treated the problems from the perspective of general tourism policies for the purpose of ― as I have pointed out on many occasions and Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying dares not admit ― concealing the SAR Government's conspiracy of integrating Shenzhen and Hong Kong.

Deputy Chairman, according to the report of the Shenzhen News Net in 2009, when announcing the policy on multiple-entry endorsements, the Shenzhen Public Security Bureau clearly indicated that the implementation of multiple-entry endorsements "signifies a concrete step toward the integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong". This explains why Gregory SO has been refusing to abolish multiple-entry endorsements. The reason is that he supports the blind regional integration strategy of the Beijing Government. He is willing to be a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10357 puppet Secretary, and he fails to defend Hong Kong people's interests when facing the Beijing Government. For this reason, I think he is unworthy of receiving the emoluments of a Director of Bureau paid by public money.

In addition, Secretary Gregory SO was obviously in dereliction of duty when dealing with the issue regarding the free television market this year. As an Official Member of the Executive Council representing the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, Secretary Gregory SO engaged in black-box operation and vetoed the free television license application made by Hong Kong Television Network Limited in October 2013; and yesterday, he administratively assigned to Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) the broadcasting spectrum it currently holds up to 2027, leading to the monopoly of one single television station in the free television market.

When the Communications Authority announced yesterday in its press release the concrete arrangements, it stated that a market-based approach would be used in spectrum management when there was a likelihood of such competing demands. However, after considering the views of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the Communications Authority decided to administratively assign the existing frequency spectrum to TVB without any competition. This move of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau will undoubtedly lead to a situation where during the period from 1 April 2016 when Asia Television Limited (ATV) ceases its free television services to 2020 when analogue broadcasting is formally terminated, up to 20% or about 480 000 of Hong Kong's households that have not installed set-top boxes or replaced their television sets with digital ones will have no choice but to watch the two analogue television channels of TVB. This move is not only detrimental to public interests, but also unfair to other investors with the intention of entering the free television market.

Deputy Chairman, as early as November last year the Communications Authority already advised against the renewal of ATV's licence, but Gregory SO, being the Secretary in charge, has not formulated any contingency plan after rejecting the licence renewal of ATV, he would rather blindly request Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) to take over ATV's frequency spectrum for analogue broadcasting and request RTHK to undertake an almost impossible mission than issue a new licence, thus depriving Hong Kong's television audience of any choices. Secretary Gregory SO is one of the culprits causing the monopoly of one single television station.

10358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

In April this year, the Communications Authority approved LI Ruigang to become an investor of TVB. LI Ruigang, a former Deputy Secretary-General of the Shanghai Committee of the Communist Party of China and dubbed as "China's Rupert MURDOCH", has thus become the first major mainland Chinese shareholder of TVB since its establishment in the 1960s. LI Ruigang is at the same time the founder and chairman of the Mainland's China Media Capital, a fund with investors including the State Council-controlled China Development Bank and China Merchants China Direct Investments Limited. Since this fund truly represents genuine red capital, people are thus doubtful as to whether the acceptance of red capital by TVB enables it to be favoured by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in terms of policy making.

Deputy Chairman, Gregory SO blindly promotes the integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong, fails to properly tackle problems arising from multiple-entry endorsements, and surrenders the SAR Government's rights in policy making to the Mainland. For this reason, the Neo Democrats opines that six months' emoluments of Gregory SO should be deducted as a punishment for his dereliction of duty during his term of office.

Deputy Chairman, I so submit.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will now speak on amendment No 166 about Subhead 700 of "Head 55 ― Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Communications and Technology Branch). The general non-recurrent commitment of $40 million under item 480 is for funding injection into the Film Development Fund.

The non-recurrent commitment under this item is $40 million this year and the total commitments within five years amounted to $200 million, used for injecting funds into the Film Development Fund for local film production. Although I propose this amendment, I absolutely support this financial provision. Apart from expressing my views on the financial provision, I would also like to give my regards to those who have made great efforts for the local film industry.

Mr Gary FAN mentioned just now that many industries have overwhelmingly sought China-Hong Kong co-operation and even China-Hong Kong integration, especially in respect of film production. To comply with the Mainland's censorship of scripts, Hong Kong filmmakers have sacrificed and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10359 lowered creative freedom, and many large organizations jumped on the bandwagon of China-Hong Kong co-production. Indeed, the proceeds in the Mainland market with 1.4 billion viewers must be more than those in the Hong Kong market. If we give up the freedom of film production for the sake of proceeds, and even give up our efforts for the local culture, that will be a great pity and in the long run, the gains cannot make up for the losses.

In fact, the plots of many films reflect the particulars of daily life. Some films are shot on the streets of Hong Kong while the irony, humour or sadness depicted in some movies can only be understood by Hong Kong people. These films reflect the cultural identity of Hong Kong. The shooting of such films slowly build up and confirm this identity. When large organizations move towards China-Hong Kong co-production, the themes are mainly about life on the Mainland. The Film Development Fund in Hong Kong provides funding support to production with a small capital, so that new local filmmakers can produce films based on local culture, and we welcome this.

The blockbuster film The Way We Dance with $2.11 million funding from the Film Development Fund has $13 million box office revenues. This film is a successful example of a new generation of Hong Kong production. Though this film does not convey deep meanings nor starred by superstars, it is particularly welcomed by young people despite the box office revenue is not guaranteed. This film is about the life of the younger generation in Hong Kong. Being shot at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University with the life of students as the background, the film can arouse the response of the new generation. I hope the next film to be shot by the production team of The Way We Dance would also give a pleasant surprise to Hong Kong people.

Johnnie TO is a forerunner of local filmmakers. He has produced a number of films including Running Out of Time ― I think the Secretary for Security should have seen it ― and many of his films are about the Police and criminals. In some films such as Cold War, the Secretary for Security is one of the characters. These films are not directed by Mr Johnnie TO, nor starred by the Secretary. Some scenes in Cold War depicted the interaction between the ICAC and the Police Force. Hong Kong people are very familiar with these themes. It does not matter how many of such films are based on facts, the essence and stories of these films reflect the life of Hong Kong people which should be recorded.

10360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Moreover, the location shooting on streets in some films can serve as urban planning record. For example, the scenes of people chasing one another on the escalators in the Central and Western District have appeared in many films. In the film Running Out of Time 2, Ekin CHENG rides a bicycle in the Central and Western District on a rainy night, and the rhythm is lively. These scenes enable Hong Kong people to better understand their community, thereby fostering a greater sense of belonging and love for Hong Kong. Therefore, the Film Development Fund helps the new generation filmmakers in film production; and we welcome that.

The financial provision comprises four parts, and of them is financing. The film The Way We Dance, mentioned by me just now, also benefited from the financing scheme. The authorities will also directly sponsor filmmaking. The ceiling of a new round of sponsorship has increased. I strongly support the authorities' proposal because the production costs will certainly increase when prices have gone up. We also hope that the local film production crews would have reasonable salaries.

Another local film that is highly acclaimed and makes a big box-office hit is Little Big Master shown earlier. This film is about a village school in Tuen Mun and based on real-life events. Although this local film is shown in a market with only 7.3 million people, much smaller than a huge market with 1.4 billion people, a seriously produced film can also gain applause and have high box office revenues.

As I just mentioned, the film The Way We Dance has $13 million box office revenues and the film Little Big Master already has $45.73 million box office revenues since its first run, and its box office revenues ranked 12th among all Chinese language films over the years. In this connection, I would like to tell local film production crews that a small-budget film will also have a favourable market if it is seriously produced. Is it not desirable to target the Mainland market? In terms of business, a big market will definitely offer better development, but I hope filmmakers will not give up the strong potentials of the Hong Kong market. For example, Avatar is a box office hit film in Hong Kong and the Mainland. In Hong Kong, with a box office of $128 million, Avatar is the third highest grossing film over the years. In the Hong Kong market with only 7.3 million people, its box office revenues amounted to $178 million. Avatar is the third highest grossing film in China, with a revenue of $1.382 billion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10361

Our population is only 0.5% of the Mainland's but the local box office revenues of the same film amounted to $178 million. The earnings of the film in the huge Mainland market are only $1.38 billion, eight times of those in Hong Kong. I hope filmmakers would not think that the local market does not have potential. Hong Kong has a small population but the local market has great potential; we have not yet calculated the box office in other non-Chinese speaking regions. I really hope that Hong Kong filmmakers will also focus on local film production and I do not want to see the only new producers will be struggling to survive with the support of the Film Development Fund.

Deputy Chairman, the Film Development Fund will also finance the first feature film for the Government has accepted my proposal, which is rare indeed. When I discussed with the Home Affairs Bureau and the Panel on Economic Development about the Film Development Fund, I have cited the example of Director Ang LEE time and again. For a fairly long period of time, Ang LEE's development in the film industry had been in a standstill. He later joined a filmmaking competition and won, and he received some funds for film production. He shot the first film and thus became a very famous director in the international market.

After I have repeatedly cited this example, the Government finally accepted my proposal and launched the "First Feature Film Initiative", and it also held the Higher Education Institution Group competition on screenplay and production proposals. The winning teams will be awarded $2 million to $5.5 million to make their first feature films. The winning teams have been awarded with the money, and the award-winning films are expected to be released in late 2015 and early 2016. I have high expectation of them but I do not want to put too much pressure on the winners. Perhaps these feature films may be highly acclaimed but with low box office revenues; yet, films produced with sincerity are the cornerstones of the development of the film industry in Hong Kong. The development of the whole industry also relies on the support of numerous failures and few successes.

In the heyday, 200 films were produced in Hong Kong each year, but a number of them were shoddily produced. Even though many job opportunities were thus created, we might not be proud of such numbers. Later, the number of films produced dropped to only 10 each year, and industry players were struggling for survival. The number of films produced has now risen to 50 each year, and a number of films are produced by a new generation of filmmakers, 10362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 which is heartening. Although the box office revenues of films only accounted for 0.1% of the GDP, I must tell the Government that cultural values cannot be measured by the proportion of only 0.1% of the GDP.

In addition, the film industry can drive the development of other industries such as the tourism industry. For example, Ang LEE shot some scenes of the film Life of Pi in Taiwan, depicting the main character drifting in the ocean; and the studio has now become a tourist attraction. This approach is even more popular in Korea and many tourist attractions are the shooting scenes of local television dramas and films. The well-known hobbit village in New Zealand is also a very popular tourist attraction. The snow mountain area in North Island, New Zealand, which is the shooting location of the Middle Earth in The Lord of the Rings, has also promoted the development of the tourism industry in New Zealand.

I hope the film industry will conduct more location shooting in Hong Kong and the Government should also consider how to promote the synergy, as well as how to follow the example of Disney in producing film-related gifts, merchandize or toys, and even game software. This will enable people to identify with the film culture and promote the consumption of other products.

Finally, Deputy Chairman, I would like to talk about other film-related projects under the Film Development Fund. The authorities has sponsored the Hong Kong Film Awards eight times under the Film Development Fund, but this year, the masters of ceremonies of the Hong Kong Film Awards showed no respect for the local film industry and they made some improper and inappropriate jokes. I really hope that the authorities would discuss with the organizer of the Hong Kong Film Awards before using the funds for other film-related projects under the Film Development Fund. The sponsored organizer should at least respect local films and be well-prepared, and it is extremely inappropriate for the organizer to debase local films.

Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I would like to supplement the views I expressed a moment ago about the tourism industry with some statistics, so that I would not be accused of talking nonsense.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10363

Of course, the move to enhance the flow of people will not only benefit the tourism industry, but also the logistics industry. What measures have been taken by the Government to enhance the flow of people to Hong Kong, or the mobile population as I call it?

Why do I call these visitors "mobile population"? According to the analysis set out in the Assessment Report on Hong Kong's Capacity to Receive Tourists published by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in December 2013, among the arrivals under the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS), 48.8% (or close to half of them) were from the most hard-hit city of Shenzhen, 16.3% from Guangzhou and 4.7% from Dongguan. These three cities alone accounted for some 60% to 70% of IVS visitors. In fact, of the 10 major IVS visitor source cities, only Shanghai and Beijing are not within the Guangdong Province. As we all know, a large number of Shenzhen residents have applied for multiple-entry endorsements which effectively give them visa-free entry to Hong Kong. Instead of blaming us for deterring Mainlanders from visiting Hong Kong, the problem is primarily caused by the Government's policy blunder which allows Mainlanders to become Hong Kong's mobile population and enter the territory freely by just paying a minimal fee.

Notwithstanding this trend, the obtuse Government was still wary about the lack of people flow and took further measures in this regard. First thing first, the construction projects I am going to talk about are also related to the logistics industry. Hence the amount of expenditure proposed to be deducted can be adjusted slightly. The first one is the construction of the Liantang Boundary Control Point (BCP). Although Hong Kong already has a number of BCPs, the Government still proposed the construction of the Liantang BCP at an estimated cost of $24.8 billion. With the project running over-budget by $8.2 billion, the final construction cost will be as high as $30-odd billion. Regarding the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge which has already become a trite topic, according to current estimation, the final construction cost would be about $65 billion. The world's most expensive high-speed rail project, the Express Rail Link, is running over-budget by $15 billion, with the final construction cost in the range of $80-odd billion. Of course, when preparing project estimates, the Government has invariably failed to factor in the amounts of cost overrun and extra works, such that the final construction costs of these three projects may … There should be four major works projects in total. The last one being the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal (Terminal), and I do not know who proposed it in the first place.

10364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

If we drive eastward along the Island Eastern Corridor, we can see a mammoth structure across the harbour, which is the Terminal. That said, one can hardly tell it is a cruise terminal because no vessel is berthing there. A friend asked me if I knew what the structure was, say, whether it was a stadium or not? I said I did not know. Eventually I find out that it is the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal.

Deputy Chairman, Hong Kong is second to none when it comes to making the same mistake over again. After its commissioning, the Terminal has an extremely low usage rate, while disembarked passengers also have difficulties commuting to the downtown areas. Most taxi drivers do not want to enter the Terminal because there is no passenger. Even if passengers want to go to the Terminal by taxi, taxi drivers are unwilling to make the trip because there is unlikely any passenger for their return trips.

The Terminal is also one of the measures suggested by those Members who clamour about boosting the tourism industry today. According to them, demand is driven by supply, that is, the broken-window theory, and the project can help snatch the business of other places. How much does it cost to construct the Terminal? Even if I act generously and overlook the cost issue, it is a proven fact that the Terminal is a piece of useless infrastructure. I reckon that the construction fee of the Terminal would at least amount to several billion dollars.

Worse still, in order to cover up its planning blunders, the Government even proposes the construction of a feeder transport system to enhance the external connections of the extremely under-utilized Terminal. For the transport system to be iconic, the Government will not consider the provision of a low-cost tram system. As members of the public can travel to faraway places on trams just for a fare of $2-odd, the construction cost of this transport system must be relatively low. To attract tourists going to the downtown areas and facilitate commuting by local residents, the Government now proposes to spend some $7 billion to construct an elevated monorail system spanning the entire Kowloon East. That is a blatant lie. If the Government really wants to benefit the local residents, the transport system would have been built long ago. The proposal is made only because the Terminal is not doing well now, right? But no matter what measures are taken by the Government to boast its usage, they will be in vain.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10365

Deputy Chairman, according to the Government's explanation, the proposal is made for the sake of tourism and transportation because elevated monorail systems in many tourist destinations around the world are well-received as the travellers can have a bird-eye's view of the entire city. However, Deputy Chairman, what is the true picture? Except for a few success cases, most elevated monorail systems have been demolished due to huge operating losses, including those in Sydney, Thailand and the United Kingdom. Buddy, how much money do we have for them to squander away? An infrastructure originally planned to snatch the business of other places through the scale effect and under the broken window theory has turned out to be a deplorable and pathetic structure. I can hardly imagine what the situation would be like should the elevated monorail system be built. What a massive planning blunder! If the objective is to promote tourism and economic development, the Government has really miscalculated because the project is extremely not cost-effective.

Separately, many Members suggest that although tourism only accounts for a very small percentage in our GDP, it has a significant contribution in terms of employment. While it is true, the number of employees in the financial services industry is comparable to the tourism industry, at around 230 000. Yet the financial services industry accounts for 16% of the GDP. What does it mean? It means that employees in the tourism industry have been exploited seriously, right? Most of the profits have gone into the pockets of the bigwigs, including a Mr CHENG who is the son of a property tycoon, an operator of hotel businesses, a Senate member of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, a supporter of LEUNG Chun-ying as well as the owner of the Ramada hotel chain, isn't that right? LI Ka-shing also owns many hotels. Let me give an example well borne out by facts. Before its restructuring, Hutchison Whampoa posted a hefty profit of $31.1 billion in 2013, an increase of 20% from 2012. What was the biggest contributor of profits? It was the property and hotels division in Hong Kong, with profits increasing substantially by 30% to $13.6 billion.

The question is simple. Who do we want to benefit? By allocating so many resources to construct these "white elephant" projects, the Government intends to achieve the trickling-down effect. Yet the theory has failed in one aspect. If we make a bigger pie, wealth created at the top level is supposed to trickle down to the lower level. But this does not happen in Hong Kong. The Government's measures have the opposite effect as hard-earned money of Hong 10366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Kong workers is trickled to hotel operators. Is that not a great shame? If I do not set out my argument like this, Members may find it hard to understand what I am talking about.

I will quote some other data, and I hope LEUNG Chun-ying can also listen to them because he always says it is difficult to identify land sites, and being impatient can't help at all. But I am telling Members that the increase in hotel rooms is 10 times of that in residential units. In other words, among the increased living space, hotel usage is 10 times of the living space for the general public. What has happened to this city? The Chief Executive always talks about how difficult it is to identify sites for housing development, and as a result, the Government must squeeze-in for housing development. When the Hong Kong Baptist University intended to develop a Chinese medicine teaching hospital on a piece of land it claimed to have ownership, the Government rejected the proposal and intended to use the site for residential development. Of course, the flats to be built are in the medium to upper price range. Has the Government gone nuts? Even the availability of land for office uses has been adversely impacted by the development of the hotel industry. If other industries are to develop in Hong Kong, they should at least have some places to set up offices. But at present, the availability of land for offices has been impacted adversely. What can we do if the Government is so hell-bent on developing such a low value-added and extremely exploitative industry that requires Government subsidies?

Another blunder of the Government is the airport. The authorities now plan to construct the third runway. Deputy Chairman, I have already spoken about the most important issue surrounding this project, namely, subhead 60 under head 7 in the draft revenue estimates. Don't worry, Deputy Chairman, for I am not going to discuss this point; it is just an introduction. I wonder if the Financial Secretary is drinking tea and chatting with someone outside. If he can hear my speech, will he please give a reply. Under the said subhead, he stated that the Government had set aside $5-odd billion, that is, the Government should have received $9-odd billion, but it would only receive $4-odd billion now. The Government has set aside $5-odd billion because of the assumption that the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA) would not declare cash dividends this year. Deputy Chairman, the Government has already deceived the public, right? The Government did the same thing in 2008. At that time, we had strongly criticized the Government. Yet it still repeats the same mistake now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10367

Under the usual practice of the Legislative Council, in case the Government waives the payment of dividends in respect of bridges and tunnels due to their financial problems, it would immediately attract severe criticisms from Members. Back then, the Government had been censured so badly that the Legislative Council was allowed to scrutinize the proposal. According to the Government's explanation to the Legislative Council, the five tunnels and one bridge could hardly maintain operation without this measure. Convinced by the Government's argument and not wanting to create disruption, the Legislative Council endorsed the Government's proposal. It is clear that certain procedures are involved in scrutinizing such matters. How can the Government make this decision now without undergoing any procedure? Back then, the revenue foregone was $800 million, and the Government was criticized by LAU Kong-wah as well as by others. That was why the Government had accepted the good advice readily. But this is not what happens now.

Deputy Chairman, I will now explain in details why John TSANG has neglected his duty. Under the Airport Authority Ordinance, the Financial Secretary or Secretary Prof K C CHAN is responsible for ensuring that the AA conducts its business according to prudent commercial principles in order to safeguard this massive, pivotal and strategic enterprise built by Hong Kong people's money. At present, the financial accounts of the AA are in a mess. Deputy Chairman, you are a member of the Economic Development Commission. Has any account been given by the authorities on this matter? How long will the dividend waiver arrangement last? Nobody knows. How much is the amount involved? Nobody knows. The only thing we know is that the Government will not receive the cash dividends in full this year. Regarding the proposal to levy an airport fee of $180, will the airport's original business be impacted? Nobody knows. With such a levy, overseas visitors may choose not to come to Hong Kong, and it may create impact on other aspects, right? Nobody knows. The authorities have not made any projections, yet they say the project must proceed.

Notwithstanding income from these two sources, the construction cost still has a shortfall of $60 billion. If there is a cost overrun, the construction cost may rise to $80 billion. How can the AA raise this amount of funding? Nobody knows. As a matter of fact, the AA has consulted the Hong Kong Banking Corporation (HSBC) over the financing arrangement. In its report, HSBC pointed out that on the basis of the authorities' plan, only $20 billion could 10368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 be raised at most, or else, there might be a risk of default in repayment. We have been kept in the dark all along. What can be done? Due to time constraint, I will take him to task when I speak again.

Deputy Chairman, there are just a few Members in the Chamber, and the air-conditioning is too cold. Please do a headcount under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure to warm things up.

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please speak.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have spoken twice this morning to criticize the wrong-doings of the high echelon of the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) and many Members have also said the problem will have to be dealt with according to the situation. I believe that the public already have a good grasp of the present problems of the CAD. I hope that the Transport and Housing Bureau will draw a lesson from this bitter experience and consider how to properly address the problems. I also hope that the Civil Service Bureau will not wink at the incident and continue to refuse to deal with the rampant misconduct and even some ulterior problems of senior civil servants.

Chairman, what I am going to talk about next will go from the sky to the sea. The Transport and Housing Bureau can be described as the disaster of governance. When the Secretary for Transport and Housing assumed office, I already said he knew nothing about transport and it would be a disaster to let him take charge of the Transport and Housing Bureau. Some problems had already existed before he took office. Among the various government departments, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10369

Marine Department (MD) can be considered as the department with the longest history and its poor performance is also the most deep-rooted. It needs an overhaul.

The Lamma Island marine disaster shocked the officials. Every time when there are tragedies resulting in casualties, the Government is alarmed and only then will it do something. The MD's ossified bureaucratic system and its slothful attitude affect Hong Kong in many ways. The Lamma Island disaster is one and the environmental issue is another. Some policies are handled by the Food and Health Bureau while some others by the Environment Bureau. The policies relating to maritime matters, for example vessel emissions and marine littering, fall within the ambit of the MD.

Recently, I have participated in the scrutiny of amendments to several ordinances and during the process, I have asked the MD questions about various aspects. In fact academics in Hong Kong have conducted some studies on air pollution emitted from vessels. In Hong Kong, environmental problems and policy blunders have already taken a toll on the public. Academics in Hong Kong rarely conduct in-depth studies in this area. Hence, I have to praise the University of Hong Kong for paying paid close attention to this subject and conducted relevant studies. In 2008, it completed the assessment of vessel emissions on public health in the Pearl River Delta area, which estimated that in that year, as many as 1 002 persons suffered early death caused by vessel emissions. This recent study has pointed out the problem.

Air pollution in Hong Kong has long been a great public concern. The Government is also very much concerned about car emissions as they are very close to the people. However, as regards other areas of pollution, I think many people know that large quantities of air pollutants are constantly blown to Hong Kong from the Mainland in the north. Besides, the problem concerning pollution by airplanes, which I have mentioned time and again, falls within the ambit of another government department. However, vessel emissions are also an important contributing factor because the density and toxicity of vessel emissions are higher than those from airplanes and cars. Hence they are more harmful to people's health.

The Hong Kong Government is also greatly concerned about the power plants as they emit pollutants day and night, seriously contaminating the air. The Mainland people regard vessels as moving coal-fired power plants because 10370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 the exhaust emitted from vessel is a steady source of energy for the generation of electric power to keep the vessels going. I once worked on board a ship for eight months when I was young. The pollutions caused by old ships made during the 1950s and 1960s were extremely bad. Some ships used diesel as fuel but some older ships even used coal. Therefore, the pollutions caused by ships cannot be overlooked.

Chairman, another study conducted by Civic Exchange in 2012 found that the throughput of Hong Kong container terminals represented less than 50% of the total throughput in the entire Pearl River Delta area but Hong Kong people had to suffer the impact of the pollutions caused by 74% of the vessels because most of the vessels going to Zhuhai, Macao or the Yantian Port in Shenzhen had to pass through Hong Kong. The Yantian Port handles a tremendous throughput volume and the Port is very close to Hong Kong, separated by a bay only. Many vessels heading for the Yantian Port have to pass the north-eastern part of Hong Kong. Some ships come from the north-eastern side of Hong Kong and then head south. When the vessels -easterly winds prevail, ships from the Yantian Port will have to pass by Hong Kong on their way to other places, in particular, all ships heading for Asia and Europe have to pass by Hong Kong in the south …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, although I am also interested in what you are talking about, your speech has strayed from the subject of this debate.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): I see. This relates to the duty of the MD. Chairman, I am speaking on Amendment No 274, which seeks to deduct from head 100 an amount of $553,006,000, which is equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the emoluments of the MD staff. The aforementioned problems indicate the MD's lack of supervision of the vessels and also its indifference to the seriousness of this problem. Air pollution jeopardizes people's health and can even cause death. That is why I have quoted from the findings of the studies by the University of Hong Kong and the Civic Exchange.

Of course, there are ordinances regulating various aspects. As I said earlier, the Legislative Council has proposed many amendments to the relevant ordinances to strengthen the control and management of pollutants. Why do I make this comment? Chairman, ordinances and charters have been formulated, I will not go into details lest the Chairman will accuse me of being too LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10371 meticulous, but even if the amended ordinances will give the MD substantial powers, they are not sufficient. Last week when I requested the MD to explain in writing how it could effectively enforce the ordinances, I stated that the ordinances were practically powerless if the MD was unable to enforce the law, has no will to enforce them or did not know how to enforce them.

Apart from regulating the fuel used by vessels, the MD also has the duty to tackle the problem of littering from vessels. When I asked this question last week, the MD official replied with authority that littering from vessels did not fall within their ambit as littering from vessels is an offence under the Summary Offences Ordinance which should be handled by another department. He said so with such authority. For matters not under their charge, they responded very quickly, declaring that those were not their responsibility. Littering from vessels violates the Summary Offences Ordinance. For rubbish dumped into the sea, even if all rubbish of the vessel was dumped into the sea, if the rubbish was washed up the shore, it would not be under their charge. How arrogant!

Chairman, I am grateful to many environmental protection groups for cleaning up our stone and sand beaches regularly. More than a week ago, some environmental protection groups went to clean the "rubbish bay" in Shek O. They have raised that this problem for 20 years. In the past two or three years, I often went with these groups to pick up rubbish in southern Lantau. The situation there is not as bad as the "rubbish bay" but the place is also littered with soft drink cans, water bottles, package bags of instant noodles, slippers and daily necessities, which are obviously dumped from vessels. Another kind of objects that we find infuriating and greatly worrisome are syringes, which are obviously thrown overboard by people on vessels. We know that many people working on vessels take drugs. I once went to Chi Ma Wan two or three times a year and every time I went there, I found new syringes on the beach. I cleared them and when went back three or five months later, I found new syringes again.

This kind of rubbish is obviously thrown overboard. The Government says that 80% of the rubbish on those beaches comes from land, not from the sea. I think the situation differs from different locations. Perhaps in some places, most rubbish is from land but for the rubbish in southern Lantau, most of them should be littered from vessels because few people live in that area. Of course, sea current also has a role to play but by looking at the nature of the rubbish, we know that they are thrown overboard.

10372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

From that we can see the MD is incompetent in tackling this problem. We have asked the MD how many prosecution has been instituted, and what forces … Very simple, as the sea is pitch dark during the night, how can the MD monitor littering from vessels? Since so many vessels criss-cross in the Hong Kong waters every day but the MD has so few ships, what is the approach of the MD in tackling this problem? As the department responsible for this problem, how can the MD effectively ensure that ships in the Hong Kong waters would not litter. The MD could not answer any of the questions. It only said it carried out routine regulatory work and occasionally it had also instituted charges against some ships. As for how it could effectively monitor the situation, it had not answered.

I asked whether the MD would pick up rubbish from the sea and carry out random check; for example, if it saw large quantity of rubbish after a vessel passed by, would it immediately pick up the rubbish and board the vessel for investigation, or would it carry out surprise inspections to see if the law breakers would be charged. If there is no effective system to conduct random checks or carry out regular monitoring work, the ordinances are practically useless. Such a situation cannot be condoned. Therefore, I wish to tackle this problem by deducting the emoluments of the MD staff.

Moreover, we have just talked about vessels using illegal fuel. Basically, prosecution has rarely been instituted for using illegal fuel, few vessels have been punished and the fines have no deterrent effect. Because of all these problems, the people of Hong Kong are constantly under the effect of vessel emissions and the rubbish dumped from ships has turned Hong Kong's beautiful beaches into "rubbish bays". This is truly sad.

Hong Kong has very beautiful coasts. Sometimes when I pass by the coasts on a boat or when I go hiking, I greatly appreciate the beautiful natural environment in Hong Kong. It is a shame that I very often see large amounts of rubbish on the coast and on the beaches. I am very much saddened. A few months ago when I passed by Tai Long Wan on the north of Lantau Island, I saw half of the beautiful beach was covered with rubbish. That bay is almost at the western tip of Hong Kong, which is close to Tai O. These problems should not be tolerated.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10373

MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, during the fifth debate session, many pan-democratic Members have criticized the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau repeatedly. Members do not only criticize Secretary Gregory SO and his team, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau also cannot be spared. Those Members have proposed more than 100 amendments which seek to slash the annual expenditure of the Government. This group of opposition Members have, in Amendments Nos 532 to 534, requested a deduction of the Secretary's emoluments. Nonetheless, people with sharp eyes could instantly see that all such amendments are actually meant to filibuster for the sake of filibustering. We will certainly oppose such kind of disputes caused by personal feelings.

I would like to respond to Members' speeches from several perspectives. In delivering his speech on 8 May, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung indicated his support for slashing the emoluments of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, yet his justifications were extremely weird. He said, "The Secretary knows so well that the Innovation and Technology Bureau is meant to fool people, but he did not come forth to tell the truth", and because of this, LEUNG requested to slash the Secretary's emoluments. Mr LEUNG pointed out that the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau was meant to fool people and the reasons were very simple. He said that the Bureau in question would lead to a downturn of the certification industry. I believe people who have some knowledge would never subscribe to his views and what he said was totally outrageous.

First of all, the Innovation and Technology Bureau is certainly not a bureau to fool people. Various sectors in the community, in particular the industry concerned has been calling for the establishment of this bureau over the years. Ever since the reconstitution of the Commerce, Industry and Technology Bureau into the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in 2007, various sectors have been asking the Government to establish a bureau dedicated to the development of technology. These include a great number of Members from the pro-democracy camp, especially Mr Charles Peter MOK who is going to speak afterwards. I believe he has made great efforts in lobbying the Government to establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau. What Mr LEUNG said is really an insult to our industry or to those who have strived hard to fight for the establishment of the bureau.

10374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

The purpose of establishing the Innovation and Technology Bureau is known to all. Nowadays, places all over the world are trying hard to develop the innovation and technology industry. Though the Government has stated for years to develop this industry, the result is far from satisfactory. Quite a number of people said that this was the result of insufficient land and talent in Hong Kong, but in my view, the key lies in the absence of a dedicated Policy Bureau to guide our industry in formulating objectives and policies, co-ordinate the Government, industry, academia and research sectors, as well as provide land and nurture manpower.

Everyone says that the industrial development of Hong Kong is imbalanced as our society places too much reliance the real estate and financial industries, resulting in a lack of prospects for young people. In fact, the development of the innovation and technology industry is precisely a solution to such problems. Our younger generation is innovative and eager to make new attempts, the innovation and technology industry will provide them with more prospects, such that they can bring their abilities into play. We can see that the business of a number of big enterprises with market values of more than a hundred billion dollars was initially started up by young people working in the garage or at home before their turning into international giant conglomerates. For this reason, Hong Kong only needs to provide young people with more opportunities and I believe they will definitely succeed in the end. The establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau is to focus the resources on promoting the development of the industry, so as to enable the Hong Kong economy to scale new heights. Members who take part in the filibuster are so selfish to hinder the establishment of this Bureau, which in turn will have an adverse effect on the interests of the Hong Kong people and the younger generation.

In giving his speech on 8 May, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung also mentioned that the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau would lead to a downturn of the certification industry, which I find to be totally nonsense. Testing and certification as well as innovation and technology are closely related to one another. The Innovation and Technology Commission under the newly established Bureau will mainly work on promoting the development of the testing and certification industry, hence the Bureau will only bring about prosperity instead of a downturn to the industry. If Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung really cares about the development of the testing and certification industry, he should refrain from filibustering and imposing barriers to prevent the setting up of the Bureau.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10375

In fact, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is simply indifferent to either the testing and certification industry or the innovation and technology industry, otherwise he would not say on 8 May that we should not support any innovation initiatives since the InnoCentre at Kowloon Tong was incurring losses. Chairman, what is the function of the InnoCentre? The InnoCentre is established to nurture more design start-ups to spur the development of creative industries for the long-term benefits of the society. We shall never close it down simply because it has incurred losses for a short period of time. In fact, the rationale behind is very simple. Since schools in Hong Kong are all incurring losses, will we stop operating them because they will not generate any income?

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung gave the above remarks as justification for slashing the Secretary's emoluments, which I consider far-fetched. I understand that Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has to do something to please his radical supporters, but even if he filibusters for the sake of filibustering, such a slapdash attitude is really a laughing stock.

On the other hand, I also wish to respond to the expenditure of the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) on promoting Hong Kong tourism on the Mainland. Some Members have vigorously attacked the tourism industry in Hong Kong for paying too much attention to attracting Mainland visitors, and hence they want to slash the annual expenditure of $40 million-plus of the Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch on Mainland promotion. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) wishes to emphasize that owing to the surge in the number of Mainland visitors in recent years, the Government has, in light of the market conditions, reduced its marketing budget for the Mainland by 30% in 2012 while stepping up its publicity in new markets, such as Russia, India, Vietnam and Holland. Until this year, the HKTB's marketing budget for the Mainland has been further reduced to less than a quarter of the original expenditure, of which 95% has been spent on non-Guangdong regions with the aim to attract overnight visitors and stimulate visitor spending. As a matter of fact, the HKTB's marketing budget for overseas markets has been on the rise in recent years with its expenditure on this front increased from 70% in 2012 to 76% this year. Unfortunately, in the wake of the global economic downturn, not only Europe and the United States are experiencing recession, the Russian economy has also become volatile. Coupled with the substantial depreciation of Euro and Japanese yen, all of these have contributed to the unsatisfactory result of the publicity work.

10376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Some Members have criticized the "HAPPY@hongkong Super JETSO" campaign recently launched by the Government and asked why it has allocated resources on launching shopping promotions. In fact, all Hong Kong people are aware of those hostile actions aiming at driving away customers staged by members of the opposition camp or their supporters. These people go to tourist spots every week to humiliate visitors or kick their luggage, which have already tarnished Hong Kong's image as a hospitable city. Visitors come to Hong Kong for leisure and enjoyment but are humiliated instead, how will they come to Hong Kong again? Now the Government is just taking remedial measures through offering concessions with public resources in the hope of attracting visitors back to Hong Kong again.

The DAB also wants to point out in particular that Ms Claudia MO has once said that according to international standards, visitors who do not stay overnight cannot be regarded as tourists. This is terrible as visitors who do not stay overnight are innocently described as parallel traders, which we find it totally unacceptable. As a matter of fact, all of us should refrain from discrediting these visitors. We must stress that visitors who not stay overnight do not necessarily mean that they are parallel traders. Many Hong Kong people also travel to Taiwan, Japan, Shanghai and the like and return to Hong Kong on the same day, will you call them parallel traders? Since the 1990s, many Hong Kong people have been travelling to Japan and Korea to purchase apparel, trendy items or mobile phones and resell them in Hong Kong, are they parallel traders then? Why should we label Mainland visitors, most of whom being non-parallel traders, as parallel traders? In an international metropolitan like Hong Kong, should we have a wider vision? As the saying goes, "One can be great when he is tolerant and forgiving", we should never stir up sentiments of localism simply because Hong Kong is a small city. This will not be conducive to Hong Kong's development.

Chairman, the large number of inbound Mainland visitors is not a phenomenon unique to Hong Kong. As a matter of fact, nowadays Mainland visitors have drawn the attention of places around the world, including Europe and the United States. With the rise of the middle class Mainlanders with stronger purchasing power and a passion for travelling, even Japan, which has been in dispute with China over the years, welcomes visitors coming from the Mainland. Many countries have also relaxed their visa restrictions to attract Mainland visitors. In a number of tourist districts in Korea, there are Putonghua-speaking salespersons and I also notice Chinese signage in their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10377 subway stations. These kinds of services are necessary indeed. We can never refuse the entry of Mainland visitors simply because our retail and service industry has overly concentrated in serving them.

The DAB urges the Government to enhance all kinds of ancillary facilities and ensure that the Hong Kong tourism industry has sufficient receiving capacity. At the same time, Hong Kong should learn from the example of Taiwan their cultural and conservation policies, strengthen our cultural education across the community and work better for cultural inheritance, so that the Hong Kong tourism industry will maintain our edge as a city where the East meets the West. Thank you, Chairman.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this part of the debate, I will speak in response to the proposals of some Members to reduce the estimated expenditures of certain Policy Bureaux/departments, including the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO). I would like to express some views for reference by Members who support or oppose these proposals.

I heard the reasons put forward by some Members, including Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, for reducing the expenditures of the OGCIO. I will first respond to the reasons raised by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen who mainly talked about mobile applications. Since last year, Mr CHAN and I have incidentally been raising questions on the Budget with regard to the number of people downloading these applications. I will not repeat the examples given by Mr CHAN earlier. In gist, the applications were poorly designed and very few people had downloaded them.

Actually, did the OGCIO have any control over the problem? The authorities have spent a lot of money, even a few hundred thousand dollars, to produce an application which has only been downloaded by a few hundred people, but was the decision made by the OGCIO? No. Was the money paid out of the estimated expenditure of the OGCIO? No. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen asked whether the OGCIO has given its advice to the Government. I do not know the answer, but I want to ask this question: have other government departments listened to the advice of the OGCIO? Whenever Members ask questions, the OGCIO is responsible to answer them. The OGCIO conducted a survey by sending a questionnaire to all government departments, but they responded by reprimanding the OGCIO.

10378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

The OGCIO should be reprimanded because the Government has produced these applications. However, if we consider the matter more thoroughly, we should ask why the applications are so poorly designed. I asked a written question at the meeting of the Legislative Council on 14 May about the Information Technology Management Units (ITMUs) established under some Policy Bureaux and departments. I do not know if Members are aware of it. In my written question, I asked how many ITMUs have been set up and the respective number of staff members in them. Actually, there are a total of 61 ITMUs under various Policy Bureaux and departments. There are more staff members in some of these units than the others. Some units are headed by high-ranking government officials while others are headed by low-ranking government officials.

In fact, after Members have read the information, they will realize that more importance is attached to some ITMUs, for example, the ITMU under the Education Bureau. Since the workload of that ITMU is heavy, there are 63 civil servants and three non-civil service contract staff. There are relatively few information technology (IT) professionals in the unit, but there are still 18 of them, and the ITMU is headed by a Chief Systems Manager. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said earlier that the applications produced by some Policy Bureaux/departments, such as the Home Affairs Bureau, were very poor. I would like to tell Members where the problem lies. Among the 61 ITMUs, one has been set up under the Home Affairs Bureau, but there are only two staff members and one of them is a Systems Manager whose ranking is much lower than a Chief Systems Manager. The situation is better in the Home Affairs Department. There are 13 staff members in the ITMU, eight of them are civil servants and the other five are non-civil service contract staff. Among them, five are IT professionals and the head of the unit is a Chief Executive Officer.

After considering the above information, Members will understand that the problem has arisen because some Policy Bureaux/departments have not attached importance to their ITMUs. The Hong Kong Observatory has produced very good applications. How many staff members are there in its ITMU? There are 12 and the unit is headed by a Senior Scientific Officer. Among the 12 staff members, 11 are IT professionals. That will do, am I right? I have given the above examples to show Members that we often put the blame on the OGCIO, but we have to affirm what is right and condemn what is wrong on this issue even though the OGCIO has to make improvement in many areas.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10379

Let us consider the situation of the ITMU under the Labour and Welfare Bureau. There are only four staff members, three of them are civil servants, and three of the four staff members are IT professionals, which is a high ratio. But there are only four staff members and the ITMU is headed only by a Systems Manager. I remember that earlier, the Finance Committee has approved funding amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars for the Bureau to set up a large system, but it turns out that only four staff members in the ITMU are responsible for the system. Now we understand why there is often uncompleted work in some government departments. The Social Welfare Department, for example, is one which has many uncompleted IT projects. The ITMU under the Social Welfare Department has 22 civil servants and two non-civil service contract staff, but there are only three IT professionals.

In fact, the situation can easily be explained by considering the information. Members have commended the Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) for doing a good job. Who is the head of the ITMU under the RTHK? A Government Chief Information Officer, who is very knowledgeable, heads the ITMU. Sometimes we tend to put the blame on the government department which is responsible for answering questions, yet it turns out that the department is only kind enough to help in answering questions and it is not actually the department responsible for the work concerned. Where does the problem lie? I believe the OGCIO knows the answer very well, but it cannot do anything because that is beyond its control.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen raised another point in his first speech and that is, the practice of subcontracting has increased the costs. As a member of the IT industry, I would like to offer some explanations. While Mr CHAN is correct in saying that there is a practice of subcontracting, but will this consequently increase the costs? Actually, the situation is just the opposite. The Government often adopts the practice of subcontracting, that is, people work under the employment of a contractor. Many employees are now working under what is commonly called "T-contracts" and they are compelled to accept salaries which are lower and lower. While the Government claims that it supports the development of innovation and technology, it has taken the lead to exploit the employees. If you ask me what is the most difficult problem encountered by the IT industry, I would say it is the inability to recruit enough talent, and that is because the Government has taken the lead to adopt bad practices.

10380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

On this issue, I have asked a question at a Legislative Council meeting and raised a question on the Budget. In these few years, there have been changes in the number of civil servants and the number of T-contract staff employed in the ITMUs under various government departments. As at 31 December 2012 (figures are compiled till the end of the year), the number of IT staff directly recruited by the Government as civil servants from the end of 2012 to the end of 2014 is very similar to the numbers in 2005, 1982 and 1988. The number has not increased, but decreased slightly. However, the number of T-contract staff, that is, the non-civil service contract staff employed by the contractors, has increased. In the years from 2012 to 2014, the number has increased from 2 074 to 2 165, and then to 2 406. In other words, from the end of 2013 to the end of 2014, the rate of increase in the number of such contract staff in the entire Government IT establishment is 11%. Among the 2 000-plus contract staff, only 1 900-plus are civil servants. This kind of misplaced emphasis is actually the biggest problem.

Furthermore, in reply to my question, the Government said that T-contract staff were employees of the contractors. The remuneration provided by the contractors would depend on the demand and supply of the market and the terms and conditions of employment agreed between the contractor and individual employees. In other words, this issue has nothing to do with the Government. As the terms and conditions of employment as well as the salaries offered are matters of internal affairs and business operation of the contractors, the Government has no relevant information. How responsible the Government is! According to the Government, this arrangement would enable flexible deployment of IT staff, but in fact, it has ignored the needs of the staff. As a result, cases of "different pay for the same job" occurred. Besides, there are succession gaps in the establishment and the Government will suffer in the end. Succession gaps are also undesirable for both the organization and staff. Chairman, I am not sure if you know that we had assisted the employees over a long period of time to strive for payment on days when typhoon signal No. 8 was hoisted and when black rainstorm warning was in force. It was only two or three years ago that the employers acceded to our demands. I think these employees are even more pathetic than some labourers, but whom do they work for and where do they work? They work in government offices.

In fact, the OGCIO has taken up a lot of subsidiary business. Although other government departments sometimes do not listen to its advice, they would ask the OGCIO to take up responsibilities when the need arises. Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che has expressed his views on the Enriched IT Programme in Secondary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10381

Schools and he supported this programme, as declared in his speech. Certainly, Mr CHEUNG was dissatisfied that the Government had withdrawn this item from the agenda of the Finance Committee meeting in order to discuss the proposal to establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau first. I can understand why he was dissatisfied with the procedures. But, I would like to know why the OGCIO should be held responsible for this matter and not the Education Bureau?

Chairman, I know that we are not discussing education in this session, but what I am going to say is also relevant, so please bear with me. The Government said that it has to promote the development of innovation and technology, but the biggest problem is, as pointed out by Members, the supply of talent. In this connection, the curricula of IT education programmes are lagging behind and contents produced 10 to 20 years ago are still being taught. Besides, not much development has been made in respect of the electronic teaching materials. The Education Bureau has not done anything, and the OGCIO has reluctantly taken up the work. One other example is the Enriched IT Programme in Secondary Schools. In recent years, the Financial Secretary indicated in his Budget the initiative to introduce programme writing as a compulsory subject in secondary and primary schools. Unfortunately, the Education Bureau refused to take up the work and shifted the work to the OGCIO. Therefore, I think we have to affirm what is right and condemn what is wrong.

I am certainly very dissatisfied about the outsourcing policy adopted by the OGCIO, but I suspect that the OGCIO does not have any control over the matter. Would the OGCIO not want to recruit more civil servants to avoid a succession gap and give its staff more promotion opportunities? However, the Government has stopped recruiting Analyst Programmers for more than 10 years and it only started the recruitment again a few years ago. Do Members think that the OGCIO is happy with this practice? Do Members think that the OGCIO welcomes succession gaps and management problems? I believe it does not.

Certainly, I have to commend the OGCIO for its good work. For example, it makes open data available. Incidentally, this is also the subject of the first question raised by me at the Legislative Council meeting today. In this regard, the OGCIO has done a lot of useful work. For example, it has provided 4 000 data sets which release public sector information in digital formats. Such work is very important because Hong Kong has not introduced legislation on access to information. I hope that after I have made this speech, the other government departments will not stop the OGCIO from doing the work. In this 10382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 regard, the OGCIO promulgated the Interoperability Framework for e-government in 2002 to provide guidance on the standards and formats of data for integration and sharing within the Government. I think that is commendable. In the recent two years, the budgets have adopted open data. Ten years ago, the information accessible from the Internet was in Acrobat format, but Chairman, the Financial Secretary is so smart that he started to provide information in Excel format last year. As a result, programmers do not have to input all the information again or write a programme to extract the data; they can compute the figures directly. This year, the Government has provided information in CSV format which is a further improvement, but I think people in the industry will still ask the Government to make further improvement.

Due to time constraints, I will only say one more point in this session. The OGCIO has done a lot of work and some of them are conducive to the industry such as certification of professional qualifications. As I do not have enough time, I should not talk about its work in detail on this occasion. I hope Members will not forget that had the pro-establishment Members not vetoed the proposal of certification of professional qualifications in the Panel a few years ago, such work would have already commenced in the industry.

Chairman, I wish to speak again in the next session and continue to discuss other problems of the OGCIO and the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. Thank you, Chairman.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, "Tree Kun" has just criticized "Long Hair" about the issues concerning the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and the Innovation and Technology Bureau. "Tree Kun" has really not read the documents carefully, and this is his sickness.

I have proposed the largest number of amendments to reduce the estimated funding provision for the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. I have proposed more than 10 amendments and I have also proposed Amendment No 545 to reduce the estimated funding provision for the Innovation and Technology Commission. However, he has mentioned nothing about me as if I were invisible. I am not sure if he likes "Long Hair" more because he is more masculine and has a lot of hair; he discriminates against people like me who does not have hair …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10383

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, I heard very clearly that Mr Christopher CHUNG responded to the remarks made by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung just now.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I understand that he raised criticisms on some comments made by "Long Hair", but he seems to support the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, and he has discussed the performance of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development. I have not yet spoken on this part. I welcome Mr CHUNG's response about the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. He can explain the advantages, especially why he strongly defends and protects the former DAB Vice-chairman ― "Secretary Name-card" ― and why he believes that "Secretary Name-card" …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have spoken for the fifth time in this debate, please speak on the subject.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have been speaking on the subject, and I am about to discuss the relevant amendments. I have already mentioned Amendment No 545, which concerns the deduction of the estimated expenditure of $39,100,000 for the Innovation and Technology Commission (under head 155).

Chairman, as a matter of fact, this issue is not discussed in this Chamber for the first time today and it is not raised only for the sake of filibustering as some Members have said. I believe Chairman will recall that we have criticized the Innovation and Technology Commission (ITC) time and again. The ITC had spent hundreds of millions of dollars on scientific research, but how are such expenditures or researches conducive to the overall economic development, economic structure and employment situation in Hong Kong?

All expenditures must be reasonable. Of course, spending money to commission a research will definitely create job opportunities. But if the Government claims that the employment would stimulate job opportunities and stimulate the economy, it is simply talking nonsense. In many cases, the provision of Government funding or direct investments by the Government can 10384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 drive the development of the economy and some industries, as well as facilitate their flourishing development. This is a general concept. When Fanny LAW lobbied us to support the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, she said that researches would stimulate the economy and she also mentioned the number of people employed by the Science Park and the number of companies that have moved into the Science Park. All her remarks were nonsense.

The Government funded the construction of the Science Park and in order to attract the rental of companies, the rent was charged at $7 per sq ft. At that time, Philips paid $40 per sq ft for its offices in Wan Chai, Central or Admiralty. When the Government offered lower rents to attract its moving into the Science Park, it certainly accepted the offer as the per-square-foot rental was $20 to $30 lower. The problem is whether Philips's moving into the Science Park would be conducive to the overall economic development. This is the crux of the whole problem. To assess whether the funding of a certain project is appropriate and commensurate with the investment return, we must also consider the overall policy and planning.

The ITC is responsible for implementing policies, and one of its duties is to examine and approve funding for projects launched by the Government. Since the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Innovation and Technology (Advisory Committee) by LEUNG Chun-ying, the ITC has provided secretarial support for the Advisory Committee. I really feel sad for the staff of the ITC, and I believe that many civil servants are extremely reluctant to provide support services to the Advisory Committee. It is because LEUNG Chun-ying has placed his fans in this Advisory Committee. "If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things". In terms of public mandate, actual operation or policy implementation, the comments on the Advisory Committee have been negative. LEUNG Chun-ying made the political appointments and civil servants are required to implement. As civil servants are political neutral, they must perform the duties designated by the Chief Executive. Nonetheless, I believe some conscience-minded and capable senior civil servants would certainly be aggrieved.

It can be said that the Advisory Committee has an exaggerated reputation with regard to its composition and overall operation. Its main purpose is political placement rather than the development of innovation and technology in Hong Kong. At its first meeting on 15 April, the Advisory Committee discussed the mode of operation as well as the major task of promoting the development of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10385 innovation and technology in Hong Kong. The Advisory Committee also plans to meet regularly to discuss strategic issues, which includes strategic social and economic objectives, co-ordination and collaboration among stakeholders, co-operation with the Mainland and other economies in terms of innovation and technology, as well as how to attract investment in the innovation and technology industries in Hong Kong, and nurture talent. While the Advisory Committee provides a platform for the industry, it certainly cannot assist the Government in formulating the relevant policies and enhancing our high value-added industries.

What are the reasons? When the authorities initially proposed to set up the Innovation and Technology Bureau, we had raised various questions. When Fanny LAW lobbied us, we raised a condition for the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, and that is, the Government ought to integrate research and production. I have repeatedly made this point and I do not intend to repeat the justifications today. If researches are conducted in Hong Kong but the research results cannot be used in local production, this will be a waste of talent and resources, as well as an insult to researchers. Recently, the patents of some researches of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University have been purchased by foreign countries at extremely low prices. This is because the research results in Hong Kong cannot be used in local production, which fully reflects that the Government has high aim but is incompetent in execution, and it thinks in a grandiose but empty way.

Mr Christopher CHUNG and his like have completely ignored the importance of this issue and he has even disappeared now. Chairman, I request a headcount, to summon "Tree Kun", Mr Christopher CHUNG, back to the Chamber.

CHAIRMAN (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)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue with your speech.

10386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): I just mentioned that the ITC provides secretarial services for the Advisory Committee, and I think this arrangement is inappropriate and wastes money. Therefore, I propose to reduce the emoluments of the Secretary to express my dissatisfaction with this arrangement.

Chairman, I would like to share some information and views on the proposal to reduce the emoluments of the Secretary. Amendment No 533 reduces the estimated expenditure under head 152 by $3.58 million, an amount equivalent to the expenditure on the annual emoluments of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development. Mr Christopher CHUNG is worried and he also considers our proposal unreasonable. I am going to give three major reasons; I will not go into the details about "Secretary Name-card" and I will give two reasons first. If time allows later on, I will give the third reason about the serious problems of the Hongkong Post and the mistakes of the Secretary.

I think people are most dissatisfied with "Secretary Name-card" because he refused to issue a licence to the Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). A lot of people think that this is the problem concerning "one single man", which has nothing to do with the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. However, as the Secretary, he should reasonably exercise his powers, perform his duties and make certain decisions. When someone overrides his decision and rejects the relevant licensing application, the Secretary should act like a man with dignity and professionalism, and thus he should resign in protest. As far as policy implementation is concerned, this is a great insult to the Secretary. As an accountability official, the Secretary has made the best efforts in accordance with the established policies and procedures but his decision was unreasonably rejected. He should bear the responsibility. Yet, in order to secure his position as the Secretary, he has shamelessly disregarded procedural justice and the dignity of a Director of Bureau.

The licensing issue fully displayed dereliction of duty on the part of "Secretary Name-card". To a certain extent, it may be said that he lacks willpower; he will go in whatever direction "689" tells him to go. What if someone asks him to eat shit, will he eat it? For example, the constitutional reform package is a shit proposal, forcing Hong Kong people to eat shit, but we will certainly not eat it. Regarding the licensing application by HKTVN, the Court's judgment fully revealed that the Secretary was incompetent and he lacked the dignity of a man to a certain extent.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10387

In addition, he blindly promotes the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, allowing LEUNG Chun-ying to place his men in key positions, which indicates that he is derelict of his duties. One of the duties of the Secretary will be replaced. Originally, he was responsible for matters concerning information technology and later, he was responsible for innovation and technology. He simply allowed himself to be ordered about. It can be said that this Bureau lacks dignity and respect; the Secretary should really resign.

Chairman, concerning the impact on Hong Kong, the proportion of the industrial sector in the GDP is now getting lower and lower, and this is also related to the performance of the Bureau. The Secretary has made mistakes in policy implementation, causing a total imbalance in industrial development and the integration of industries and technologies in Hong Kong. In the areas of science and technology, our status in the international arena, especially in Southeast Asia, is getting lower and lower. This is the shame of Hong Kong, and this is mainly attributed to the poor performance of the Secretary, leading to social degradation. For this reason, I have proposed Amendment No 533 to reduce the annual emolument of the Secretary. Why is the problem of the Hongkong Post also a major reason? I will explain that in detail in the next session.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I thank Mr Charles Peter MOK for giving an in-depth response to my Amendment Nos 118 to 120 about the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO). Mr MOK has not refuted my views that the Government has wasted a lot of public funds to produce some useless and stupid Apps. He said that we cannot put all the blame on the OGCIO, and he has explained in detail what the OGCIO can or cannot do, and that it does not have great influence. The Government incorporates the provision for the development and management of these Apps into the recurrent expenditures of the department, but it may not know the exact amounts involved, and can hardly control the expenditures. I would like to praise Mr Charles Peter MOK as his response is more explicit than the explanation given by the Government Chief Information Officer at the special Finance Committee meeting. As I said before, some Members can sit on the side of government officials of the Chamber. Owing to his explicit explanation, I jokingly said that Mr Charles Peter MOK could be the Under Secretary for Innovation and Technology. However, Mr Albert CHAN disagreed because a Member would be downgraded if he served as the Under Secretary; only Members who lost the 10388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 election would become the Under Secretary while elected Members such as Paul CHAN would be the Secretary. I think Mr Charles Peter MOK is competent enough to be the Secretary.

In the last debate session, I said that the Apps of various government departments or their performance on Facebook are not up to standard, and I believe the OGCIO has unshirkable responsibilities. According to Mr MOK, the OGCIO has given up because the authorities may not listen to its views. I have proposed that certain criteria should be set, such as the downloading and utilization rates, user evaluation and some other standards, so as to assist the Government in performing its gatekeeping function.

If a department suddenly wants to develop information technology but does not how to start the work or cannot recruit suitable personnel, someone must take up the role as a gatekeeper. The OGCIO must fulfil such responsibility; otherwise, we might as well dissolve the department and allocate its funding to various departments that will handle the matter on their own. The Government will only complete the most basic task; we can have in-depth discussion on this topic later.

I would like to focus on discussing the emoluments of officers of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. Starting from Amendment No 158, the amendments propose to reduce the emoluments of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, the Under Secretary and the Political Assistant. Let me first discuss the controversies in the past year or so over the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, and I would explain why such controversies justify the reduction of the emoluments of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development. My Amendment No 534 proposes to reduce an amount equivalent to the annual emoluments of the Secretary. Other Members have also proposed amendments; for instance, Mr Gary FAN has proposed Amendment No 538 to reduce an amount which is equivalent to six months' emoluments of Gregory SO.

Just now, Mr Gary FAN focused on discussing tourism; I would like to talk about the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. If the Innovation and Technology Bureau eventually failed to be established, the Secretary should be held accountable. If the Innovation and Technology Bureau can be set up, we should support Mr FAN's Amendment No 538 to reduce an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10389 amount which is equivalent to six months' emoluments of the Secretary. As his workload would be reduced, it is reasonable to reduce a certain percentage of his emoluments.

Chairman, for more than a year, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory SO has been vigorously lobbying the Legislative Council's support for the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. Although he seems to be working very hard in public, I think he does not want to get the work done in private. I cannot figure out what Gregory SO is thinking: does he think his power will be slashed or will he be happy to receive the same emolument for reduced workload? I really do not know what he is thinking. He said at the meeting that upon the establishment of the Bureau, it can lead the innovation and technology development of Hong Kong at a higher level and in a more professional manner. This has been the demand of the industry for years, and this direction is agreed upon by the business community and the public. This is a slogan-style promotion.

Owing to our opposition and continuous questioning at the Finance Committee meetings, the proposed establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau had not yet been realized, and the Finance Committee had not voted on the issue. To shirk responsibilities, Gregory SO said repeatedly that Members should not raise opposition for the sake of opposition when they were holding discussions at the Legislative Council; and that "filibustering" is neither meaningful nor constructive. He also reiterated that the industry and the business community have reached a consensus on the expeditious establishment of the Bureau. People Power clearly and firmly opposes the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. I reiterate once again that this does not mean we oppose the development of innovation and technology in Hong Kong. We support the development of creative industries in Hong Kong and we also support the development of innovation and technology.

As I have said many times, the establishment of a new bureau will not automatically be conducive to the development of innovation and technology in Hong Kong. Similarly, after a house is built, we cannot just hang up a signboard, recruit some staff and then expect that success will come. As Hong Kong people and smart consumers, we certainly do not believe that a shop can attain success after a signboard is hung.

10390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

When we examined whether the Innovation and Technology Bureau should be set up, we also had the opportunity to review what contributions Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory SO has made in respect of innovation and technology during his term of office. The most fundamental question that I would like to ask Gregory SO is that what innovation and technology policies had he proposed in the past few years? Are they up to standard? If not, where does the problem lie? Is it because Gregory SO's workload is too heavy? His policy areas include tourism, commerce and trade, telecommunications, television and technology; is this because of the heavy workload that he fails to give consideration to this policy area? This is a structural problem.

However, does the same situation also apply to other Policy Bureau? The Transport and Housing Bureau deals with transportation and housing; the Food and Health Bureau deals with healthcare and food safety; the Labour and Welfare Bureau deals with labour and welfare and the Development Bureau is responsible for planning, land and public works. Except for some Policy Bureaux which are only responsible for one policy area, such as the Environment Bureau and the Security Bureau, each bureau is responsible for two to three policy areas. Are there problems in designing the work of various Policy Bureaux or does the problem lie with Secretary Gregory SO? Given the Secretary's competency and efficiency, he may not be able to cope with the heavy workload, and he may even lack the expertise in this area such that he cannot cope with the work.

I often say that Secretary Gregory SO should not be the one to attend meetings to promote the Innovation and Technology Bureau to Members. Conversely, his superiors such as the Financial Secretary should promote the Innovation and Technology Bureau. I can then ask the Financial Secretary if Gregory SO is not competent enough or if his workload is too heavy. Secretary Gregory SO cannot possibly answer this question and we will not accept his answer. However, he has not directly answered this question. If he cannot answer this question, I propose replacing the Secretary or trying to find another person to serve as the Secretary. Why the rush to set up a new Policy Bureau and carry out a recruitment exercise? The Government has not yet answered this question. The successful establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau implies that the emoluments of Secretary Gregory SO must be reduced. However, we have not proposed reducing three to six months' emoluments of the Secretary because the Chairman may consider such reductions too trivial. In that case, I think there is justification for reducing three to six months' emoluments of Secretary Gregory SO because his workload will be reduced.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10391

I would like to cite a real example to illustrate that the Government does not attach importance to innovation and technology; it just pretends to show concern. Many problems will arise in the actual implementation process. If an official has to be directly accountable, Secretary Gregory SO should be the one to take blame. Not long ago, 18 invention items from Hong Kong won awards in the International Exhibition of Inventions of Geneva. When LEUNG Chun-ying attended the celebration reception at the Central Government Offices, he said that the results demonstrated the capabilities and potentials of Hong Kong in innovation and technology, and he urged Legislative Council Members to approve the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau as soon as possible. If the authorities considered that outstanding achievements had already been made prior to the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, why then do we still need to set up the Bureau?

Conversely, the following example is a slap in the face to the Government. One of the award-winning companies … whenever I talk about establishing the Innovation and Technology Bureau, I will mention the example of several young people using a few small fishes to detect heavy metals. When the fishes pass some objects, they will become fluorescent, and we will know whether these objects contain heavy metals. As in the case of using silver chopsticks for testing toxic in the past, only a few small fishes are needed for the detection of heavy metals. While the research and development costs are high, the operating costs are minimal as only a few small fishes are required. Quite a number of international cosmetics companies approached this company to buy the technology. Yet, the company revealed after winning the award that, in 2013, the Centre for Food Safety refused to buy its technology and co-operate with it. The Centre did not adopt the award-winning technology; if it did, food safety problems caused by plasticizers might have been detected earlier.

From this incident, we can see that although the Government offers help in the development of certain technologies at the Science Park, it has not well utilized such technologies. Although the Government does not cherish the values of such technologies, some people do. Some foreign cosmetic companies appreciate and adopt the technology to test the mercury content of cosmetics from other companies by using a few small fishes. This company is having a good business but it wants to contribute to our society. Members of this company thus approached the Centre for Food Safety and asked if it would adopt the technology, but they were being cold-shouldered by the Government which did not appreciate innovation and technological achievements. Can the 10392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau change this situation? Will the negative example drive Secretary SO to think that he has not performed his duty well?

In fact, the Innovation and Technology Commission under him knows that the technology is good. I remember that I previously asked Commissioner Janet WONG. She said that the Government has a set of procurement principles, and they cannot casually procure some technologies. Does it mean that government departments cannot procure things that are better and cheaper, and they can only procure things that are expensive and irksome? We mentioned in the last session the production of mobile phone applications. Young people can produce better and cheaper design, but they will not be awarded with the tender; on the other hand, experienced people who produce expensive and irksome design will be the successful bidder.

In addition, in our view, the document previously submitted by the Government to the Legislative Council is devoid of content, reflecting the perfunctory attitude of Secretary SO in promoting the Innovation and Technology Bureau. He has turned a deaf ear to public opposition. The document fails to explain the problems and has not proposed solutions. Concerning vision, the Government only knows that the development of innovation and technology can enhance productivity, stimulate the economy and improve the quality of life; even secondary school students can give such reasons. Nevertheless, the Government has not identified the reasons for the stagnant development of the technology industry in the past. The so-called innovation and technology policy of the Government only attaches importance to capital, thinking that money can create technologies. This shows that the Government or the Policy Bureau or Commission under the leadership of Secretary SO understands little about the features of the innovation and technology industry. The predicament of innovation and technology in Hong Kong is not only related to the lack of funds and talent, but also the lack of fair competition. All aspects of daily life of the public are monopolized by consortia or franchise corporations and they do not see the need to expand the market; as a result, results in scientific research may not be put to good use.

There is insufficient time in this session to discuss why the Innovation and Technology Bureau has a duplication of roles, and why the emolument of Secretary SO should be reduced. I will discuss these issues in detail in the next LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10393 session. Apart from the Communications and Technology Branch, I will also start to discuss about the Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch in the next session. (The buzzer sounded)

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this session I will continue to talk about the problem concerning the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO) and my opinion about it. Just now, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen suggested dissolving the OGCIO since it had achieved nothing. I must, however, point out one factor that leads to the total failure of the OGCIO. If a Head of Department (HoD) is asked to draw up some performance indicators acceptable to his subordinates, he must have the authority to make decisions and that has nothing to do with his ranking. Do you know that currently no one is in charge of the OGCIO? There is a Government Chief Information Officer (Acting) at present and he has been acting in this post since January. We often tease him for playing two roles. He was the Assistant Government Chief Information Officer and he is now acting as the Government Chief Information Officer. He gets one person's salary but takes up two roles.

Regarding this problem about the civil service establishment, Chairman, I raised a written question at the Legislative Council meeting on 22 April on one-rank grades in the establishment. I asked about the number of HoD posts in one-rank grades. What are the posts in one-rank grades? They are posts without related grades from which eligible candidates can be drawn to fill the vacancies concerned. It is rather odd. There are 16 HoD posts in one-rank grades, including of course the Government Chief Information Officer that I am talking about.

Among those 16 posts, including the Commissioner for Innovation and Technology, the Director of Civil Engineering and Development, the Director of Drainage Services, the Director of Highways and the Director of Lands, many of which are filled by civil servants, but the Government Chief Information Officer and the Director-General of Investment Promotion are filled by people recruited outside the Government. The Government may have reasons to recruit the latter from outside as this post needs to be taken up by a person who is very familiar with the business environment in the outside world and has international connections.

10394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Before the establishment of the OGCIO in 2004, it used to be called the Information Technology Services Department and the post of the Director of Information Technology Services had always been filled by civil servants through internal promotion. But in 2005, the Government adopted a new approach and recruited a Canadian named Howard DICKSON to fill this post. In 2008, the Government recruited another person, Jeremy GODFREY, a foreigner who had lived in Hong Kong for many years, to fill this post. Members may not be familiar with his English name but if I tell you his Chinese name, that may ring a bell. Do Members still remember the incident concerning the Internet Learning Support Programme which attracted quite a lot of attention some years ago? Jeremy GODFREY was involved in the incident. It was another example of the Government seeking the assistance from a non-civil servant. In 2012, Mr Daniel LAI was appointed as the Government Chief Information Officer, but he resigned earlier this year. With this post being filled by a new person every three or four years, how can there be a continuation of policy?

Concerning the succession gap that we have just talked about, it is caused by the failure to recruit new entrants. Some staff employed on T-contract terms may stay longer on their jobs and some may leave after working for a short period of time. There is no continuation of service whatsoever. Moreover, there are more contract staff than civil servants, but contract staff cannot be promoted to the post of Government Chief Information Officer. Against this background, how can the OGCIO's policies be implemented continuously without a succession gap? Very often, a staff recruited from outside has his own thinking. That does not mean he has bad ideas but his focus of work, interest or thinking may not be the same as other colleagues in the department. Besides, none of the Government Chief Information Officer has served a second term. One can imagine the morale of the whole department. None of us may be aware of that and I only learned about this serious problem faced by the OGCIO after I have asked that question.

I will stop talking about the OGCIO for now and respond to the matter concerning the Innovation and Technology Commission mentioned by Mr Albert CHAN and other colleagues just now. The whole IT sector knows that the Commission is responsible for providing capital and setting up funds in support of research and development (R&D). Many Members always complain about the scarcity of the capital provided for R&D, which only accounts for 0.75% of our Gross Domestic Product. However, without the Innovation and Technology Fund provided by the Commission, in which we injected funds again a few LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10395 months ago, the situation will be even direr. Many university graduates have engaged in engineering and scientific researches. Without the programmes supported by this Fund, such as the Science Park … I once took a stroll with some university professors during lunch in the Science Park and all the people we met on the way were their students. They told me that if their students did not get other jobs after graduation but continued to engage in fields such as electronic engineering, most of them would be working in the Science Park. I do not know if this is good or bad. The positive side is that they can find a job in the Science Park but the negative side is that they can hardly find a job outside the Science Park.

In the last few days, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has repeatedly questioned the views of my colleague, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, who might have mentioned his belief in the supply-side economics at another meeting a few days ago. In this respect, I tend to agree with Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and disagree with Mr Kenneth LEUNG. I do not believe we can rely solely on the supply side. In the past, the Government took innovation and technology forward by relying only on the supply side; that was not a bad idea. But where there is supply, there should also be demand. But the Government fails to create demand. What is the supply? The Government kept setting up funds to support R&D, which I think is necessary, but at the same time, we must not forget that though the R&D capital only takes up 0.75% of Hong Kong's GDP, which is very low compared with other countries, 90% of the capital is provided by the Government. Such a trend is unhealthy. In the more successful countries, the money spent on R&D amounts to 3% or 4% of their GDP, but 90% of the money does not come from the Government. We have to ask why the local industrialists or the commercial sector do not support our R&D.

The IT sector always asks the Government to provide tax concession but the Government always refuses. We also urge the Government to take the lead to procure products developed locally but again the Government indicates that it cannot ― Members have just heard the story of "little fish" told by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen ― because there are rules to follow. We fail to understand why Singapore and Thailand can do so, but not Hong Kong. The Government does not create such demands but keeps setting up one fund after another and continues to provide more R&D capital. Such an approach is just like relying on one leg to walk, which will not solve the problem.

10396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Moreover, the Science Park is under the Innovation and Technology Commission. The site originally reserved for Phase IV development is now used for building private flats. This is another government policy. We would not complain too much if the site is used for building public housing, but instead it is used for building low-density private luxury housing. We wonder how such a development project will help those people who aspire to buy their own home. If the site is used for building several 30-storey public housing blocks and produce several ten thousand flats, the IT sector would have no complaints as we also want to meet people's urgent need for home ownership, but the Government uses the site to build luxury housing. We have lodged a protest with the Town Planning Board but to no avail because the Board is also controlled by the Government.

I share with Mr Albert CHAN's view that the development of innovative technology has to be complemented by the manufacturing industry. I totally agree. As a matter of fact, it is also the global trend to integrate technology with manufacturing. Do not think that the Silicon Valley only produces computer software. Let me tell you, the most beautiful cars in the United States are now produced in the Silicon Valley. The manufacturing industry exists in the Silicon Valley. However, when the Secretary came to the Legislative Council to lobby our support for the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, I was very disappointed to hear him state that the Government did not have land to develop the manufacturing industry. I was totally baffled. I remember when Mr Albert HO asked me if the Government really had no land, I told him that the Government was looking for land. At one point it stated that there was land in Northeast New Territories and planning had been made. Even if the development of Northeast New Territories is delayed, there is still land. How could he say there was no land? That is the Government's attitude. When a pan-democratic Member asks the Secretary a question, the Secretary just gives a shoddy answer so as not to waste his time. How can officials with such an attitude look squarely at Hong Kong's problems and how can they solve the problems? Can Members recall which Member got agitated at that Finance Committee meeting and reviled the Secretary? It was Dr LAM Tai-fai. He said, "I am an industrialist. How can you make such a remark?"

In fact, many companies engaged in small and medium-scale manufacturing are eager to move back to Hong Kong. I have seen many such companies in the Science Park. According to them, the Government needs not build beautiful factories like a glass house; and given their small scale, they do LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10397 not need big factory buildings like those in the industrial estate. All they need is a place of a few thousand sq ft to 10 000 sq ft where they can engage in small state-of-the-art technological productions. They do not want to manufacture such products in the Mainland for fear that their design ideas would be copied. They wish to move back to Hong Kong but the Government cannot help them.

Chairman, these policies are interlinked. On manpower, the Government takes the lead in out-sourcing its work; on the market, the Government takes the lead in not procuring locally manufactured products; on capital, the officials in charge of financial affairs refuse to help in introducing more venture capital funds, and refuse to relax the restrictions imposed by the legislation, such as the ban on crowdfunding, thereby companies cannot raise funds. We can see that the Government is actually part of the problem or even one of the problems. We complain about many problems but the Government is actually part of the problem. That is where the problem lies.

I think we cannot merely focus on the supply side. We must set efficiency indicators and formulate a strategy, and then work accordingly in a serious manner. Regrettably, the Government did not put forward any of such ideas when it proposed the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau to the Legislative Council, which was very disappointing. I will continue to support the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, but I hope that the Government will get the basic work done properly to gain the support of Members and the public.

However, the past practices of the Government have shaken the confidence of the public. The collusion between business and the Government is rampant in Hong Kong. We hope that the Government will do what should be done, but not turn Hong Kong into the Mainland. For example, the Government attaches importance to relationships and arranges the business sector to meet with government officials in the Mainland, so as to comply with their policies. If Hong Kong follows this path, it will definitely fail. IT people do not want such practice. We want to choose our own path and develop products we think suitable. We do not care if people call us "home-bound men" or "home-bound women". We just want to do our own work seriously. If we are forced by the Government's policies to work with those having relationship, or to establish relationship with some people, I believe this is the last thing most IT people wish to see.

10398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

The Government always says that its role is a go-between. Even if I wish to do business in the Mainland, I will not ask the Government to be a go-between. Since we will not need a go-between in the United States, why is it different when we go to China? I believe that many IT people hope that Hong Kong would continue to develop innovation and technology with great efforts, but that does not mean we have to change our core values to pander to the practice in the Mainland; neither do we hope such situation will arise after the establishment of the Bureau. I have been in the IT sector for years, what I dislike most is building up relationships and that is something we should not do. Chairman, this is all I want to say in this session. I wish to concentrate on discussing the problems relating to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in the next session. Thank you, Chairman.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I feel distressed after listening to Mr Charles Peter MOK's speech. Why? His speech reminds me of a simple truth which I often mention and that is, "It's not what you know, but who you know". In other words, the knowledge you have acquired is not important, but matters most is who you know. This truth surely turns the best dream into a nightmare. That is the crux and the nub of the problem. Let me give you a simple example. The construction of the third runway costs $151.4 billion, and problems concerning the flow of people and goods, as well as other logistics issues, are involved. I do not know the efficacy of such an expensive project, and I will leave this point for the moment. Many people say that since we have to promote the development of innovation and technology, it will be a sin to delay the third runway project, but that is a very big mistake indeed.

Chairman, despite the poor performance of the Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport, Taiwan produces half of the computer hardware in the world, so what is the correlation between the two? I remember how Frank HSIEH, a Taiwanese politician, explained his view on economics. As the mayor of Kaohsiung City, he was reprimanded for the reduced throughput of the port of Kaohsiung, but in fact, the throughput had no direct relationship with economic development, with the exception of the shipping industry. The reason was that Kaohsiung used to export pineapples and bananas, but it was exporting chips now. Do Members know the price difference between a pound of chips and a pound of bananas? We have to understand economics from this perspective.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10399

Frankly speaking, Chairman, I believe you have read the book The Third Wave, but that economic mindset is now outdated. Yet, some Members still adhere to that kind of mindset, thinking that building more infrastructures will surely make them rich. What Mr Albert CHAN said earlier is the multiplication effect or the broken windows theory. If a window is broken, we need people to pick up the debris and fix the windows, and that would create economic activities, wouldn't it? But the question is, if the window is broken all the time, who is going to foot the bill? That describes the situation of Hong Kong, it practices cronyism. I repeat, "It's not what you know, but who you know". In relation to the Innovation and Traumatology Bureau … the Innovation and Technology Bureau, this problem is very obvious.

Chairman, sometimes I cannot help laughing when I notice the embarrassing state of LEUNG Chun-ying. He has been driven into a corner and so he boasted that he would set up the Innovation and Technology Bureau. Even though he jumped the queue and employed foul play, he could not persuade the society in general to think that we must establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau. On the contrary …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, which amendment are you speaking on?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am talking about Gregory SO, K C CHAN and his supervisor, that is, John TSANG who is not present. I am now talking about these three guys, they are not the "constitutional reform trio", but the "cronyism trio". Chairman, these three guys are closely related. One is responsible for managing the accounts, one for formulating policies on how to spend money and one for helping Hong Kong make money. The one who is responsible for commerce and economic development, and is now currently taking up the responsibility of promoting the Innovation and Technology Bureau, can be regarded as the champion.

While I am talking about this problem, Mr Charles Peter MOK is stepping out of the Chamber. Frankly speaking, I found the whole thing very ironic. If we just listen to Member's speech, we would think that science is the backbone of Hong Kong; the Cyberport supports the listing in the Growth Enterprise Market, and technology stocks make huge money …

10400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I do not think that the policies you are now mentioning are related to the amendment.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Why not? They are closely related.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please state clearly which amendment you are now speaking on.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Just a moment, I have to seek assistance from my secretary. Secretary, which amendment is it? Chairman, please wait a moment. Perhaps you can also ask your Clerk to check it up and help me. I am talking about Secretary Gregory SO.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary Gregory SO is not an amendment.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I mean the amendment to reduce his salary. Secretary Gregory SO is certainly not an amendment and I do not need your advice on this point.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please state clearly which amendment you are now speaking on.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Just a moment. I have written down and you need not look it up. I just haven't found it yet.

Chairman, I formally report to you that I am speaking on Amendment Nos 533, 535, 536, 540 and 542 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN, the Member who is sitting in front of me. Chairman, let me mention in passing that I demand to reduce the salaries of the other officials concerned not because of any personal reasons, because I have not even met them …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10401

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please speak on the relevant amendments.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No, I have to explain because some people say I am devious. I have not met the officials concerned, and I do not even know their names. Last time, thanks to you, Chairman, their identities were finally revealed. Therefore, no personal motives are involved at all. Buddy, nobody knows about these officials, they are like stealth aircraft, products of high technology. How ingenious!

Chairman, Cyberport, Science Park, how glamorous they sound; people think that science is the backbone of Hong Kong. My friend said that Hong Kong is remarkable because you have the Cyberport and Science Park. I told him that regrettably, those were only places with low rent. The Government begs people to move into the first three phases of the Science Park. Similarly, for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge now under construction, the Government is begging others to come to Hong Kong through Liantang …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, how is your speech related to the amendments that you have just read out?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It is certainly related because the policies on technology have been wrong all along, but Secretary Gregory SO dared not give any advice. Buddy, he is like a courtier, or a Cabinet minister. In ancient times, a courtier who did not give proper advice to the emperor would be killed. Therefore, we have to deduct his salary. Chairman, he should not only do practical work, but also do his job well. The reason is that he is a Director of Bureau and he has to assist the Secretary of Department, that is, Financial Secretary John TSANG who is his supervisor, in formulating policies. John TSANG's economic theories are very outdated. They belong to "the Second Wave", even more outdated than those of "the Third Wave". You will understand after hearing what I am going to say. He told us to save and prepare for a rainy day. Gregory SO should give him some advice, but Gregory SO does not give him any advice even though he is not on good terms with the Chief Executive.

10402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Chairman, when you interrupt my speech, I often cannot say what I want to day and the audience will be puzzled. The Cyberport and the Science Park were actually pretexts to snatch land under the excuse that science and technology was the driving force of our economic growth. The Government not only gave huge benefits to the entrepreneurs who had good connections with it, but also enabled property developers to reap enormous profits from the projects, claiming that it had to co-operate with them to raise funds. Mr James TIEN, if you engage in this business, you will surely become super-rich. Who do you know? Do you know TUNG Chee-hwa? Do you know LEUNG Chun-ying? You know this guy, you have criticized him and asked him to stop being the Chief Executive and because of that, you will be down on your luck. Therefore, buddy, you will not be able to set up a company in the Science Park.

Chairman, is there any other thing that is so unreasonable in the world? I know that the houses in Silicon Valley are meant to provide accommodation for people working there and not for people not working there. Considering the practices of Hong Kong, how can it attract a pool of science and technology experts? Buddy, the residential units in the Cyberport and the Science Park are meant to provide accommodation for employees of the tenant companies so that they can meet and chat, and come up with new ideas. As Members would know, the ideas of many products of high technology that we are using nowadays, such as iCloud and various platforms, are produced during casual conversations. Have the authorities adopted an approach similar to that of Silicon Valley? The authorities have only copied some superficial features to exploit us.

Chairman, you would understand if you continue to listen. Therefore, when LEUNG Chun-ying who has a lower intelligence and a more disreputable personality than TUNG Chee-hwa put forward a proposal, I have to speak out. In fact, the Cyberport and the Science Park are the "legacy" of TUNG Chee-hwa because he started these developments. Recently, the guy who wanted to kick the butt of Mr TUNG after serving him for 10 years came forward and said something even more ridiculous and uncertain than his predecessor, how could I trust him? Therefore, when LEUNG Chun-ying put forward the proposal, people asked him to produce the programmes because …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I think what you are saying now is still not relevant to the amendments you mentioned earlier.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10403

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Why not? Gregory SO is an extremely lucky guy. He undertook a job which was not his original profession; he became the Under Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development because of the connections of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. After Gregory SO assumed the position of the Under Secretary, he created a problem by distributing his name cards and became famous. It so happened that the then Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Mrs Rita LAU, fell ill and so he became the Secretary. He was shameless enough to take up the position of the Secretary and after that … initially, he could not have taken up this post. Chairman, I am now criticizing Gregory SO for being ignorant and incompetent, and you try to stop me, how then can I speak about reducing his salary? He can respond later on, why are you so anxious? He does not attend this meeting to avoid being confronted by me as I will hold him accountable; why are you still defending him? If an administrator is good to the people, no one can rise against him.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, if you continue to digress from the subject, I will stop you.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): In what way have I digressed? To be fair, let us play back the video-recording. When other Members criticized the Directors of Bureaux, you did not say they had digressed, but you did when I criticized the Secretary just now. In fact, you have digressed. I was criticizing this Director of Bureau for being ignorant and incompetent.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I have warned you. Please do not digress anymore.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, have I been digressed when I talk about Gregory SO? As I think he has committed policy blunders and he lacks ability, I have to reduce his salary. Certainly, you can say that the salary of the one who appointed him should be reduced even more, but I am not holding that person accountable now, am I? I only want to prove that Gregory 10404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

SO is incompetent and incapable for the work. I am not saying that he lacks virtues and I am not suspicious of his motives, what more do you want? All of a sudden, LEUNG Chun-ying told Gregory SO to promote innovation and technology, but he did not know what to do because that was beyond his professional knowledge. He is a lawyer, buddy. He can only consider whether the policies are compliant with the laws and seek advice from the Department of Justice with his professional knowledge. Now that Gregory SO cannot market the proposed Innovation and Technology Bureau, Fanny LAW and Nicholas YANG have come forward to sell it. What is Gregory SO doing? I repeat, "It's not what you know, but who you know", is that right? Fanny LAW did a job which was relevant to her studies. When she was working as the Secretary for Education, she pursued a master degree in education. I congratulated her and thanked her for being so studious. Now, she turned around and said that she had worked in the Science Park and was familiar with technology. What kind of people are they? Is the Hong Kong Government a place where officials can take their time to learn as apprentices? Gregory SO has been curtailed of his power. Although he was fully aware of the incompetence of the two persons mentioned above, he did nothing about it. He continued to play the role of an onlooker, that is, he sat on problems and let them run their natural course. What can we do? How can I not reduce his salary? Chairman, I have reasons to do so. If your secretary told you that he spoke Spanish during the recruitment interview, but when a Spaniard came to have an interview with you, your secretary spoke with him in English, would you not dismiss him?

Therefore, Chairman, do not be angry. I think what happened to Gregory SO might be wonderful for him, but it was a nightmare for Hong Kong people and it represents a loophole in the establishment of public officials. Chairman, you do not have to stop me from speaking because everything I say is very reasonable. I have installed Whatsapp in my mobile phone and there are signals of incoming messages now. Many people praised me for what I have said in this speech. Do you want me to read out the messages? (The buzzer sounded) Never mind, I will not read them out because I have to stop now.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This debate will be extended to around 8 pm tonight and I will then suspend the meeting until 2.30 pm tomorrow, when the debate will continue until around 4.30 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10405

Since this debate covers amendments proposed by a total of 11 Members, I wish to invite Members who have proposed amendments to make their closing remarks at about 7 pm tonight. So, Members who wish to speak in this debate but have not spoken will please expeditiously press the "Request to speak" button.

The next Member to speak is Mr Albert CHAN.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, just now, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has made conceptual comments about the wrongdoings of "Secretary Name-card" in the light of Amendment No 533. I am going to provide more evidence and examples to justify my amendments. In my earlier speech, I have pointed out his two sins of blindly following the instruction of "LEUNG Ying" to refuse granting a licence to Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN) and blindly assisting the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau. Chairman, his third sin may be more serious in an administrative sense, and that is, conniving at the refusal of the Hongkong Post (HKP) to give an account of its consultancy report and failing to monitor adequately the operation of the HKP.

Chairman, under Programme (4) Post, Competition Policy and Consumer Protection, the major task of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch) in 2015-2016 is to, inter alia, "continue to ensure the smooth operation of the Post Office Trading Fund and take measures to impose customer service and productivity where appropriate." From this, we can see that one of the major duties of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development is to oversee the work of the HKP. In case there are problems with the HKP, though some have already existed before "Secretary Name-card" took office, he cannot ignore them or even mislead the public and cover up the information. His sin is therefore very serious in this sense.

Chairman, concerning the lack of competitiveness of the HKP, there have been newspaper reports in recent days about various problems, such as staff working overtime, service shortcomings, unlawful opening of postal packets and accountability issue. These internal problems showed that the HKP is plagued by numerous problems. Regarding the development of the HKP, the Government was aware in 2000 of the need to reform the postal services amid the changes in the demand for postal services and people's lifestyle, so it spent $4.12 million in 2008 to commission a consultancy firm to examine the way forward of postal services. The international consultancy firm commissioned at 10406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 that time was Hans Kok Business Consult BV. The word "Kok" looks like a Chinese surname, but it is not. It is actually a reputed Netherland consultancy firm in Europe with excellent experience and competence. The study aimed to explore the latest development of local and international postal and courier services, recommend proposals to cater for local demand for postal services and fulfil the Government's international obligation in postal services. The scope of study was very specific.

Chairman, how did the issue come to my attention? To start with, I was invited by the local newspaper, South China Morning Post, to write a comment on one of its article and this has aroused my concern about the relevant consultancy report. From the reply subsequently given by the Government, I noticed that there are many problems and the Secretary must assume political responsibility for this. I wish to draw the attention of the public, Members and the media to this issue because so far only one Chinese and one English newspaper have expressed their concern. Other newspapers are unaware of the issue, which is indeed an extremely serious one.

Chairman, the Government submitted consultancy reports from time to time, but it is rare that that the consultancy firm failed to complete a report. When the media questioned why the consultancy commissioned in 2008 had not been completed ― reporters would only embark on investigation after they have obtained sufficient information ― how did the Government reply? I wrote to the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development on 8 April to enquire why the HKP had not released the consultancy report. In response to the media, the HKP said that the consultancy report was not finished and accused the consultancy firm of failing to complete the study and recommend proposals as scheduled in the contract. Thus, the HKP terminated the contract in May 2009. But when the HKP was asked if the consultancy firm was paid after the contract was terminated, the HKP replied that the matter was settled through arbitration after the contract was terminated, and the outcome of arbitration could not be disclosed due to confidentiality clauses. The HKP added that it has not commissioned any consultancy firm to conduct similar study since 2009, which is utterly unusual. If one consultancy firm was unable to complete a study on HKP's way forward and operation, it is a normal practice to commission another consultancy firm to conduct the study again within a short period of time, so as to identify the way forward for the HKP. However, after the contract was terminated in 2009, the issue died down until the media dug up the consultancy contract concerned and conducted an investigation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10407

I wrote to the Government on 8 April, but the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau only replied three weeks later on 30 April, stating that the research data collected by the consultancy firm did not meet the required standards and the deficient data was not rectified within reasonable time. Worse still, policy recommendations were made before the research data was improved. As a result, the HKP terminated the consultancy contract in May 2009.

Chairman, I find the Bureau's reply neither full nor frank, and it is, to a certain extent, a slanderous accusation against the consultancy firm. The Bureau has made one-sided criticisms about an incident that happened six years ago, saying that the consultancy firm was not only unprofessional and unable to complete the consultancy report, but had also provided insufficient data and failed to meet the requirement. It is therefore very important to ascertain the facts. Chairman, I doubt whether that is actually the case. Although there may be prima facie, it does not represent the whole truth or real reason.

Chairman, apart from the Hong Kong Government, the consultancy firm has also conducted consultancy studies for many international organizations and completed the reports commissioned by other places, governments and organizations. All these reports were highly regarded. Therefore, I must first do justice to this consultancy firm because no other countries have criticized the consultancy reports prepared by this firm like the Hong Kong Government. Hence, the accusations of the Government are not convincing. Furthermore, the allegation that the consultancy report was unfinished might be misleading or false. This is nothing but a replica of LEUNG Chun-ying's lies. Chairman, I hope that Members will pay attention to the facts. As far as I understand, the report was not unfinished. All the three parts of the report, comprising a total of nearly 500 pages, had been completed and the data analysis was not only comprehensive, but also pretty convincing. The conclusion, which was probably the crux of the issue, highlighted that the HKP lacked competitiveness and the staff were overpaid but with low productivity. It had therefore recommended the HKP to streamline its structure and provide diversified services, as well as increase the service charges to enhance the operational competitiveness.

Chairman, I think the truth is, the then Policy Bureau and the HKP found the recommendations unacceptable. Being an independent company, the consultancy firm had made independent judgment and analysis and then drawn up conclusions on the basis of expert advice and its understanding of the 10408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 development, market and the HKP. The authorities' refusal to accept unfavourable conclusions is tantamount to the Government's intention to hire private contractors to construct the Hong Kong-Macao-Zhuhai Bridge by adopting the "Build-Operate-Transfer" model. At that time, I had pointed out that the proposal was not viable given the low traffic flow, and no one would submit tender. And yet, it was unanimously endorsed by Members. I voiced my opposing views but the Government did not listen. In the end, no one submitted tender. Likewise, I criticized the Express Rail Link five years ago and doubted the adequacies of the investigation report submitted by Eva CHENG. Also, the design was drawn up too hastily, which warranted future refinements and thus pushed up the construction cost. Nonetheless, Eva CHENG denied such possibility and insisted to build as designed. The problem of the HKP is similar, but perhaps more serious. The HKP had not only refused to accept the recommendations made in the report, but also smeared the consultancy firm, cheated Members, this Council and the media, and passed all the bucks to the consultancy firm.

Chairman, I eagerly hope that the Government can make public all the relevant information and I believe the consultancy firm will be more than willing to do so as well. It is absolutely unacceptable for the Government to adopt such concealing attitude, which should be condemned. I wish to do justice to the consultancy firm by deducting the expenditure of the Secretary, and highlighting the Government's attempts to ignore procedural justice and the importance of true facts, which is absolutely intolerable and unacceptable.

Through this debate, I wish to give a clear picture of the matter and do justice to the consultancy firm in the Official Record of Proceedings of this Council, which at least is not one-sided smear or misrepresentation made by the Government in front of the media. Therefore, considering the previously mentioned two sins, namely, blindly assisting the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau and refusing to grant licence to the HKTVN, coupled with the abovementioned postal considerations, these three sins should justify the deduction of the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, since there are only six Members present, please do a headcount according to Rule 17(3).

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10409

CHAIRMAN (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)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please speak.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will continue to speak on the amendment to deduct the estimated expenditure of the political team of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, which includes the Secretary, Under Secretary and Political Assistant. Among the various amendments, I wish to highlight two of them, namely Amendment No 534, which proposes to deduct the estimated expenditure on the annual emolument of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, amounting to $3.58 million, and Amendment No 358 proposed by Mr Gary FAN to deduct the estimated expenditure on six months' emoluments of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development. Members may cast their vote according to their degree of satisfaction with the performance of Gregory SO.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung just now also spoke on these amendments, but his presentation was rather disorganized. I wonder why the Chairman said angrily that he has digressed from the subject; I nonetheless do not think so. Anyway, since not much time is left for the debate, all I have to say about Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Gregory SO ends in this session. I have to speak on the amendments concerning the Civil Aviation Department and the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Prof K C CHAN. If it turns out that only four but not 11 Members named by the Chairman will give their closing speeches by the end of this session at 7 pm, I hope that the Chairman will exercise his discretion to allow Members to speak again.

Coming back to the amendments, why is there a proposal to deduct the estimated expenditure on either six months' or 12 months' emoluments of Secretary Gregory SO? The argument that I put forward earlier is related to the disputes over the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, and one of his sins is presenting a restructuring proposal to the Legislative Council which we consider overlapping. Why do I say the proposal is overlapping and is 10410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 not conducive to the development of innovation and technology? As I have said, the development of innovation and technology requires commitment and efforts, thus minor modification does not entail success. Members may express different views on this.

(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

As I always say, a Policy Bureau is like a house and Secretary Gregory SO is the "butler". Under Gregory SO, the "butler" of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, there are two Permanent Secretaries, and let us assume the two of them to be servants who take care of two kids, namely the Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch and the Communications and Technology Branch. According to the overlapping proposal presented to the Legislative Council, another house, bearing the name "Innovation and Technology" but not "Commerce and Economic Development" will be purchased, and a new butler (the Secretary) and a new servant (the Permanent Secretary for Innovation and Technology) will be recruited. However, there are still two kids, namely the Communications and Technology Branch and the Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch. The proposal has only removed the "Technology" part from the Communications and Technology Branch and placed it in the new house to be served by a new butler and a new servant. This is indeed the most overlapping proposal. Given that there are still two kids, why don't we improve the structure by re-deployment?

I have previously put forward a proposal, but the Government has never given any in-depth response. I proposed to recruit a new servant (a new Permanent Secretary), whose post title can be Permanent Secretary for Technology and is also supervised by the "butler" Gregory SO. Is that viable? Or, we may take one step back. Given that Gregory SO is not well-versed in technology, we may employ a new butler to replace him and remove the serving servant, Permanent Secretary (Communications and Technology) Susie HO. With the new butler overseeing the entire house, the structure will no longer be overlapping and the recruitment of a new butler and a new servant is unnecessary in the absence of new tasks. The work schedule has remained unchanged.

Members subsequently learnt that the proposal to establish the Innovation and Technology Bureau was urgently pushed forward because it is a political reward to be given out by LEUNG Chun-ying. This is a case of cronyism and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10411 underhand advantage. Earlier, LEUNG Chun-ying announced that Nicholas YANG, who is rumoured to be the Secretary for Innovation and Technology ― he will definitely assume the post as Secretary for Innovation and Technology if the Innovation and Technology Bureau is established ― will take up three public offices at one time. Apart from the tailored-made post of Advisor to the Chief Executive on Innovation and Technology, he will also serve as a member of the Executive Council. Also, the Steering Committee on Innovation and Technology chaired by the Financial Secretary will be reorganized into the Advisory Committee on Innovation and Technology under the chairmanship of Nicholas YANG. This is extremely unusual.

The granting of free TV licence is another important task of Secretary Gregory SO. Disrupting the normal practice time and again, the Government's ulterior motive is clear to all. If the Innovation and Technology Bureau is really established to provide the Government with greater power, will this result in more transfer of benefits? Regarding the granting of TV licence, it is reported today that the Government tended to appeal. If this is the case, I will have to put another sin on Secretary Gregory SO. As the person overseeing broadcasting affairs in the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, Secretary Gregory SO should advise the Government not to appeal. This is because if the appeal is allowed, it is LEUNG Chun-ying who wins. Will members of the public win as well? If the Government does not appeal and grant another free TV licence, we do not think Hong Kong people will suffer in any way. Instead, this will introduce competition. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung once said that he would not obstruct the establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau if the Government agreed to grant free TV licence, but we had better ask LEUNG Kwok-hung if he still thinks this way.

If the appeal of the Government is allowed, who is the loser? Hong Kong people are the losers as they will have to bear the litigation costs. If the appeal is not allowed, the loser is still Hong Kong people because they will have to pay a sum of money, but in return there will be a new TV station. Hong Kong will not have a new TV station if the appeal is allowed. Given that the Telecommunications Authority recommended the issuance of three licences, if Gregory SO, who is vested with the power to grant free TV licence under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, fails to uphold impartiality and defends the Bureau by warning LEUNG Chun-ying not to appeal and suggesting him to grant one more licence to address the problem, he can hardly exonerate himself.

10412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Next, I am going to speak on "Head 152 ― Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch), which is also about deducting the emolument of Gregory SO, but from the perspective of commerce, industry and tourism this time. In addition to deducting the emolument of Gregory SO, I wish to highlight Amendment No 526 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN to deduct an amount which is roughly equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of the subvention of the Hong Kong Tourism Board earmarked for promotion in the Mainland under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch).

As we all know, the number of Mainland tourists has surged in recent years and thousands of them have visited Hong Kong under the Individual Visit Scheme or via the "multiple-entry" Individual Visit Endorsements. In 2014, we received 60.84 million visitors in total, in which 47.25 million are Mainland tourists, representing an increase of 16% over the preceding year (that is, 2013). Among them, 33.07 million were same-day in-town visitors, which accounts for 54% of all visitor arrivals to Hong Kong and represents an increase of 15.5% over the previous year. Particularly, the increase of Mainland tourists has reached as high as 19.1%.

Some Members said that while we are against parallel traders, there are Hong Kong people who bought parallel goods from abroad. Is this double standard? Sorry, this is not double standard. Why do we oppose parallel traders and urge the formulation of policy to combat their activities? Because parallel traders have created many social problems in Hong Kong. If people buy Hong Kong products without creating any social problems or pushing up social costs, will we bother to formulate policies against them? I think I do not need to explain further as Members should be well aware of the social problems brought about by parallel traders in Hong Kong in recent years. I shall be brief and avoid repetition. Firstly, the smuggling of daily necessities by parallel traders has not only undermined law and order in society, but has resulted in a serious shortage of these commodities. This is why we supported the restriction on powdered formula, and so did Members from the royalist camp. Secondly, the frantic increase in the number of Mainland visitors has pushed up commodity prices and shop rentals and overloaded public transportation, thereby adversely affecting the daily lives of Hong Kong people. This is supported by data as our capacity in receiving visitors can be measured. Thirdly, the mass influx of visitors has far exceeded the capacity of major tourist spots. This has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10413 undermined Hong Kong's attractiveness and discouraged tourists from the rest of the world from visiting Hong Kong. Why are overseas tourists less interested to visit Hong Kong now? Is it because local people expel them, or they just want to avoid the crowd noting that Mainland visitors or parallel traders have upset the order in Hong Kong's tourist spots and shopping areas? Fourthly, given the cultural differences between Hong Kong people and Mainland visitors, the influx of Mainland visitors has disrupted social order and compressed the living space of local people, thereby intensifying China-Hong Kong conflict.

In mid-April, Beijing adjusted its policy all of a sudden and stopped the issuance of "multiple-entry" Individual Visit Endorsements for permanent residents of Shenzhen. Instead, "one trip per week" Individual Visit Endorsements would be issued to restrict their entry to Hong Kong to once a week. After all, this is merely a minor adjustment and its effectiveness in minimizing the impact of Mainland visitors on Hong Kong people's livelihood is still uncertain. Some Members said that the new policy has achieved significant result since it was introduced a few weeks ago, but this is utterly ridiculous. This is just their impression. Even if there is positive effect, it is not attributable to the "one trip per week" initiative. According to Secretary Gregory SO, the "one trip per week" policy will only achieve significant results one year after its introduction because most of the endorsements of Shenzhen residents have yet to expire and only a few have their endorsements renewed. Why would there be a sudden drop in the number of visitors by a few percentage points?

"Mainland visitors flocking to Hong Kong caused inconvenience to people", "Rampant smuggling damaged international image", "Overloaded tourism facilities undermined Hong Kong's attractiveness". I will only read out the headings but not the contents of the submission of People Power.

Peter LAM's remark is ridiculous, saying that businessmen will not turn their customers away. They will keep taking orders and new plants will be built to cope with the orders. Businessmen can build new plants to cope with their orders, but what about Hong Kong? Are we going to create a replica of Hong Kong to cope with the sudden upsurge in visitors? There is another heading, "Excessive influx of Mainland visitors intensified China-Hong Kong conflicts".

For the rest of the time, I will talk about the land arrival tax. We suggested Secretary Gregory SO to introduce the land arrival tax, but he baffled many Hong Kong people by categorically dismissing the proposal. If we 10414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 introduce the land arrival tax, smugglers making multiple trips to Hong Kong within the same day will have to bear a higher cost. When the cost goes so high that makes their activities unprofitable, they will naturally stop coming. Why would this initiative not achieve any effect? Furthermore, same-day visitors will also come to Hong Kong less often. As regards whether this initiative will expel visitors, people may say so as parallel traders will certainly be expelled, but we can then have more capacity to receive high-end visitors. Since high-end tourists can be tourists from different parts of the world or big spenders from the Mainland, I therefore absolutely disagree with the remarks made by Mr James TIEN last week that we discriminated against rich Mainlanders. The imposition of land arrival tax will not lead to such consequences, but will bring additional revenues instead.

Mr YIU Si-wing just now said that the collection of land arrival tax will make the border control points even busier, but supposedly the imposition of tax will make the border control points less busy. So, what exactly do Members want the border control points to become, busy or not busy? In that case, the Secretary overseeing tourism (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, your speaking time is up, pleased be seated.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will speak on the amendment that I proposed concerning "Head 28 ― Civil Aviation Department (CAD)". It is resolved that head 28 be reduced by $2,644,200 in respect of subhead 000. The amount is approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments of the Director-General of Civil Aviation (Director-General). The amendment certainly concerns the Director-General.

The name of the incumbent Director-General is Norman LO. Recently, he has been very much in the spotlight. He is a civil servant about to retire. As we all know, when a directorate civil servant retires, especially the one on pensionable terms, he will receive one-off pension of over $10 million and then get a monthly payment of over $70,000 until his death. This applies to all directorate civil servants, and I have nothing to say against it since we cannot reduce their emoluments. However, I wish to point out that for a technocrat like Norman LO, who has made such serious mistakes, he can still remain in his post LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10415 before retirement. While the problems that he needs to resolve may not be resolved during his tenure, he is still eligible to receive over $10 million in pension and a monthly payment of over $70,000. This system only gives rewards but imposes no penalties. On the official website of the CAD, it is stated that the CAD is "committed to a safe, efficient and sustainable air transport system". If we examine the pledge that CAD is "committed to a safe, efficient and sustainable air transport system", we can see that the Director-General has completely failed to honour this pledge.

In the Report No. 63 of the Director of Audit (Report No. 63) published in October last year, two chapters were dedicated to the CAD. Even before the publication of Report No. 63, the media had already exposed the scandals involving the CAD, including firstly, the absurdity of the new CAD headquarters; and secondly, the problems concerning the air traffic control (ATC) system. The Audit Commission dedicated one chapter to the new CAD headquarters and the other chapter to the administration of the ATC and related services. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). We had held several hearings regarding the new CAD headquarters and in respect of the issue about the ATC system, we had even held six public hearings. We are now in the stage of writing the report. The chapter on the new CAD headquarters, together with the chapters on other issues on which public hearings had been held, was published in the PAC Report No. 63. The PAC will write another report on the Administration of the ATC and related services. We have made similar arrangements before. For example, we had dedicated an independent report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) and now we are writing a report on the above mentioned subject.

The PAC has spent much time on dealing with that subject. With only seven members, it held six public hearings and numerous closed door meetings to discuss how to write the report and the report has not yet completed. In the first report, Report No 63, we used the word "deplore" when referring to the new CAD headquarters project. The last time we used the word "deplore" was against Timothy TONG, the former Commissioner, ICAC. This is almost the most severe criticism against a directorate grade official that the PAC has ever made in recent years.

Honestly speaking, the Audit Commission only looked at this issue from a value-for-money point of view. After the Government has allocated a sum of money to a department for the construction of its headquarters, the Audit 10416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Commission finds that the department has not followed the value-for-money principle and it thus puts forward recommendations and requests the department to make improvement. Afterwards, the PAC holds meetings and public hearings, invites the officials concerned to give evidence and then writes a report in the hope that the relevant department will make improvement. That is it. We use the word "deplore" in the report for we consider that the expression "strongly reprimand" cannot sufficiently describe our indignation at the conduct of the Director-General. "Brother Sing", who is now present, is also a member of the PAC and he also agrees to use this word. Why is it so?

Norman LO, the Director-General … The entire CAD is like an independent kingdom. Isn't that right? The most outrageous thing about the new CAD headquarters project is that the Architectural Services Department has colluded with the CAD and built some extra facilities for the CAD before obtaining the approval of the Government Property Agency. That is against the rules and the law. The new facilities in the headquarters include a private luxurious bathroom in the office of the Director-General and the public observation gallery has been turned into a yoga/dance room. Another problem is the administration of the ATC and related services as mentioned above. The commissioning of the new ATC system has been repeatedly delayed. Besides, the Director-General also concocted various pretexts to make payments to the Raytheon Company, the successful bidder. At our six public hearings, he gave inconsistent statements. For the same question, his reply for the second time differed from that given the first time; and his answers were extremely confusing. He also refused to submit certain papers and for those papers he submitted, parts of which were blackened. We had an extremely hard time to figure out the whole picture. The Director-General piled lie upon lie in an attempt to cover up his wrong-doings. He especially took advantage of Legislative Council Members' lack of knowledge in the ATC system. Given the professionalism and complexity of the ATC system, how could we ask questions? When replying to our questions, he would beat around the bush and mentioned a number of technical terms, making us unable to hit back. We also had engineers in attendance. But I was not afraid of such a tactic of his. I just used common sense to deal with him and he had to surrender. Common sense tells us that the situation is outrageous, right?

This is the Audit Commission's report on Administration of the ATC and related services. After reading the report, we followed up and we have been provided with large amount of information for our reference. At the hearings LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10417 about the ATC system, I asked Mr LO, the Director-General, why he had to acquire a few hundred positions for ATC staff as there was actually no need for so many. He told me that he had to prepare for the possible construction of the third runway and a few hundred positions of ATC staff would be needed. I asked him why he made reference to the second-rate Delhi Airport in India but not the first-class airport in the world when he procured the ATC system. He said the Hong Kong Airport was very busy and 20-odd ATC staff was sufficient for the task. He made reference to the Delhi Airport because it had sufficient reference value. I had no idea what he was talking about. It a few dozens of ATC staff were sufficient, but why did he acquire a few hundred positions? The position of an ATC staff costs a few hundred thousand dollars and a few hundred staff will cost almost $100 million. On what grounds did he create so many positions?

His attitude toward the PAC made us feel that he was fooling around with us and he was trying to use some technical terms to muddle his way through. Even Mr Abraham SHEK, Chairman of the PAC, was greatly agitated and Members can watch the video to see what happened. By proposing this amendment to deduct his salary, I just wish to use this platform to criticize the CAD and this Director-General. Frankly, there is no way this amendment will be passed. Besides, the Director-General will soon retire and will receive a lump sum of over $10 million as well as a monthly payment of over $70,000. The amendment has no effect on him whatsoever. Hence, I suggest that this case should be referred to the ICAC for investigation. When we have finished writing our report, I hope that the ICAC will follow up the case. I will stop going into specific details here because I have spent eight minutes already. But the facts about the case are absolutely outrageous.

Basically, from the public hearings we can see that this person has neither integrity nor credibility and what he said was inconsistent. It is downright deplorable. For many years, Hong Kong offers competitive salaries to ensure a clean Civil Service. The officials are highly paid, not only for the purpose of maintaining a clean Civil Service but also for attracting elites. As a matter of fact, in many government departments, especially the technical departments, many technocrats and professional officials are serving society with their professional knowledge. The engineers of the CAD are also serving society with their professional expertise and skills, but why do things get into such a plight? Why did the CAD purchase at a high price an ATC system which cannot be used? Not only is it useless, its delivery has also been delayed time 10418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 and again. Deputy Chairman, the ATC system is not delivered yet but someone is talking about building the third runway. While the Raytheon Company has not delivered the ATC system, we still have to pay over $10 million to the Company as maintenance fee every month. Yet the maximum fine imposed on it is only $5 million. Are there any other transactions where the delivery of the product is repeatedly delayed and the purchase contract is changed twice? In other places, he would have lost his job long time ago, but civil servants in Hong Kong will not be fired, right?

In respect of road traffic management, the Government adopts measures to control at source and divert the traffic by levying high vehicle taxes and implementing a high fuel price policy, so as to reduce the number of cars. It will also limit the issuance of taxi licences, rationalize bus routes and encourage the public to use mass public transportation. The public consider the Government's performance in road traffic management acceptable and efficient. However, in respect of ATC, why is it going to spend $140 billion to build the third runway and why did the CAD spend a huge amount of money to procure the useless ATC system? Besides, we cannot hold anyone responsible for this. What can we do about it? All we can do is just to hold public hearings, and write reports to reprimand him or even condemn him. There is nothing more we can do. Our money has already been poured into the sea but we will have to keep paying the successful bidder. We even have to pay for changing the contract. But the successful bidder needs not face any penalties. It was only fined $5 million for late delivery but we have to pay it over $10 million each month. How can it be so?

On the CAD's website, Director-General Norman LO blows his own trumpet about being "committed to a safe, efficient and sustainable air transport system". But it is extremely dangerous without a reliable ATC system. Deputy Chairman, you always travel by plane. Do you know it is extremely dangerous? Many people do not know the new ATC system cannot be used but now the authorities are talking about building the third runway. We have all the reasons to sack him, let alone proposing an amendment to deduct his emoluments. We should just sack him immediately and punish him, but there is no such a system.

The so-called "professional team led by Norman LO" has prepared for the Government a "study report" on the third runway. It is definitely unreliable. Let us just leave aside the absurd things of the new CAD headquarters. He LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10419 should never have a bathroom with showering facilities in his office because it is strictly stipulated that only D8 directorate civil servants and Directors of Bureaux are entitled to have an office provided with showering facilities. At his rank, he is not entitled to have those facilities but he insisted and the Architectural Services Department provided it for him. How can that be? Besides, he is not penalized for that. Hence, I will leave the professional knowledge aside for the time being but just judge him with common sense. Even so, he could not talk his way out of my scrutiny, not to mention the 900-odd television sets he bought. I am totally baffled why he bought so many television sets.

Will you trust the study report on the third runway submitted by such a Director-General who is supposed to be in charge of the administration of ATC? The two former Directors-General both oppose the construction of the third runway but he fervently supports it. I can understand his stance given that he is at present part of the Government and he also works for the CAD. He may express different views after he steps down, but at this moment, he has to stick it out. Having known all his past records, we do not trust his report. According to his report, the construction of the third runway is a must and it will bring many advantages. But when we asked him at the public hearings the technical problems about the number of daily movements of small aircrafts carrying fewer than 50 passengers in the Hong Kong International Airport, and why not encourage airline companies to rationalize their flights numbers, combine the flights of small aircrafts and use bigger ones to carry passengers to Hong Kong, his answers were all confusing. He just threw at us a whole bunch of very professional jargons that we did not understand.

I propose this amendment in the hope of taking this chance to tell everyone that something is very wrong with our ATC and the root cause of the problem is the CAD. The issue concerning the CAD headquarters alone cannot be taken as the norm as it might be deemed as the showcase of the Director-General. However, when he applied to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council for funds to procure the ATC system, he talked Members into buying his idea and approving the funds for the procurement. But now it turns out that the system cannot be put to use and the funds are totally wasted. Not only is this system unable to be put to use but we also have to pay the successful bidder continuously. The penalty imposed on the bidder is only a fine of no more than $5 million but we have paid more than $10 million to it each month as maintenance fee. The Director-General made all kinds of pretexts to benefit the bidder. Why would it be afraid of being fined $5 million? It can continue to 10420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 make money out of us. Why do we not cancel the contract and look for another contractor? He would, of course, have many excuses that this cannot be done because the system has already been procured and only the successful bidder can make it work, so on and so forth. As such, the Government is duped. We are all duped.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in this session I will speak on the amendment proposed by Members for reducing part of the expenditure of the Communications and Technology Branch of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. I will focus on the Government's policy on television (TV).

Deputy Chairman, over the past few years the Government has made one mistake after another as regards its TV policy and it has been totally indifferent to public interest. When the Communications Authority (CA) was set up a few years ago, we all gave it our support, thinking that it would provide a wonderful platform to facilitate the development of the TV and telecommunications market. Little did we know the sudden emergence of "one single man" called LEUNG Chun-ying and the rest is history. We all know what had happened afterwards. First, he refused to grant licence to Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTVN). Although the CA supported the granting of licence to HKTVN, the Executive Council and the "one single man" decided otherwise; the decision of the "one single man" is the decisive factor. Consequently, I proposed in the Legislative Council that the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance should be invoked to investigate this incident, but of course my motion was voted down. Afterwards, the HKTVN filed a judicial review against the decision of the Government. The High Court has handed down its judgment recently, clearly stating that HKTVN wins. Although the Government's policy has been set, the "one single man" and the Executive Council should not overturn the Court's judgment and they did not have the power to do so, which is against the reasonable expectation of the applicant.

Deputy Chairman, you would also agree that one must obey the rules when running a business. If everything is done according to the Government's wishes and desires, will there be a fair business environment for people to compete on an equal footing? However, some Members have just mentioned that the Government may appeal. Of course, LEUNG Chun-ying will not back down. It is uncertain what the result of the appeal will be. Frankly speaking, it also LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10421 depends on whether the authorities can obtain the leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal of the High Count. Since the judgment has clearly stated everything, I really want to see what grounds the authorities have for appeal. But if the case drags on, who will lose out? The loser will of course be the people of Hong Kong as their interest is not protected, and there is no competition in society and people are deprived of a choice.

The licensing of Asia Television Limited (ATV) is another incident that has been procrastinating this year. Over the past few years, when answering Members' questions at Legislative Council meetings, the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development had repeatedly reassured Members that one year before the expiry of ATV's licence, that is, by October or November 2014, a decision would be made. So we let our guard down. But finally, it was only at the end of March or early April 2015 that the Government announced not to renew ATV's licence. The Government had been waiting for ATV to find a new investor. I have never seen such an application process before. The Government should, by the end of last year, have collected all application forms, detailing the applicants' investment plans and their backgrounds. But the Government allowed them to continue changing the details of their applications. Deputy Chairman, I wonder if you have made an application under such circumstances before. Does the Government or other organizations have this kind of practice? It was like a corrupt referee in a football match. He kept delaying blowing the whistle to end the match. Instead, he let the match continue to wait for ATV to score. He would only blow the whistle when ATV had found an investor with sufficient funds. How can it be so? But that is the decision of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau.

The Government said it had to seek legal advice and wait for the final outcome of ATV, which was an excuse to buy ATV more time. Finally, when ATV was beyond rescue, the Government had, without prior consultation, turned all ATV's analogue TV channels to Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK). The Government said that was permitted under the law and the Government could first make this decision. In that case, why not just recover all analogue TV channels and have no more private TV stations from now on? Why not recover all channels, not only analogue TV channels but also digital TV channels, turn them all over to RTHK or China Central Television and let them operate? RTHK was the biggest victim in this incident. The Government thought of it only when it had no one else to turn to. The Government had no planning whatsoever, just trying to delay the end of the match by not blowing the whistle. 10422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Finally, when there are fewer than 10 players, with only three or four players on the pitch, it had no choice but to blow the whistle to end the match. Without any consultation or preparation and with many problems unresolved, it just passed the buck to RTHK and told it to operate all those channels. RTHK, on the other hand, has never heard of such an arrangement. What will happen? What are the arrangements concerning the transmission facilities? What about the relay networks? Has RTHK the necessary manpower, equipment, experience, capability and capital to operate those additional channels? The Government could not care less. According to RTHK, it has to consider and decide what to do in June at the earliest. It will have an idea what to do in June. Time is so pressing that it would not be able to apply to the Finance Committee for funds this year. However, many Members are against RTHK and they may hamper every movement of RTHK. If RTHK applies for funding, there is no guarantee how soon it will get it but ATV may be close for business well before 1 April next year.

As regard the policy, the Government has neither made preparation nor conducted any consultations throughout the whole process, which is unreasonable. The only thing the Government did was to ask Members to trust it. It explained that no one would want the analogue channels because all channels would be recovered by 2020. No one would need those channels any more, and neither would they make such a short-term investment. But what happened? I found out on Sunday that Forever Top (Asia) (Forever Top) had already lodged an application and had also applied for the analogue channels. Operators are interested in them. On the one hand, the Government had not consulted anyone; on the other hand, it was obvious that its expectations were different from the operators' views. The truth is that operators are interested in these channels and they want them. I have no idea what decision the CA would make but the Commerce and Economic Development has made another wrong decision again.

This is an issue related to the analogue channels. The authorities said that they would not recover them in 2020. That means there will be another delay. By 2020, the authorities may say there is interference between the Mainland and Hong Kong channels or they are not yet ready and we will have to wait again. But the authorities may say that the delay would not be very long.

What about the digital channels? The CA has not yet announced how ATV's digital channels are to be distributed. I thought that since the Government had formed a committee to discuss what to do, it might really be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10423 trying to work out a solution. But the market situation has changed. Not only the Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB) and ATV, many other companies also show interest in applying for the digital channels. These companies include Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited, Fantastic Television Limited, Forever Top …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr MOK, may I remind you that we are now debating on the amendments to the heads under the Appropriation Bill. Members should not discuss government policies at great length. Please concentrate on the amendment to the relevant head that you are talking about.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I mention those issues to show that the Government has made wrong decisions time and again. That is definitely related to the Budget. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has completely ignored the changes in the market and still thinks that there are only two TV stations in Hong Kong. The Bureau renewed TVB's licence yesterday, giving it all the channels cherished by Hong Kong people. This is another mistake made by the Bureau, indicating its sheer disregard to people's interest.

Moreover, the additional conditions imposed on TVB can be said to exist in name only. Yesterday when I first learned that conditions were imposed, I wondered what they were. Then I learned that TVB was required to produce four hours' programmes for the digital terrestrial television each day. More is by all means better. But I found out later that it was not four hours a day but four hours a week. It was also required to have independently produced programmes for 20 to 60 hours. I thought that TVB was required to have those programmes for each week but looking more carefully, I found that it was for each year. Deputy Chairman, how many hours are there in a year? The authorities sold out those precious channels of Hong Kong to one single company and allow one TV station to dominate the Hong Kong market.

Deputy Chairman, on the whole, I find that under the leadership of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the broadcasting policy has blundered time and again. We cannot lay all the blame on "one single man", but in my view, Gregory SO should also share the blame in his capacity of the Secretary. When the CA was set up, we had high expectations of it. We were 10424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 also eager to see the expeditious merging of the Broadcasting Ordinance and Telecommunications Ordinance. However, under the leadership of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the relevant bill has not yet been introduced into this Council after such a long time. We have also heard him talk about creating new posts and recruiting staff for two years. To recruit staff, the Bureau has to apply to the Establishment Subcommittee. Honestly, the Subcommittee is quite efficient now and no one can blame the delay on filibustering or any other causes any more. But the Bureau has never submitted any applications. We are also eager to hold meetings to discuss the relevant motions, so as to rationalize the relevant ordinances, thereby allowing Hong Kong's broadcasting and telecommunication services to stride forward.

Deputy Chairman, I will finish my speech soon. To conclude, I completely understand why some Members wish to deduct the various estimated expenditures of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. Even though I do not agree to the tactic of deducting expenditures because it will undermine the Government's operation, I support and understand Members' reasons for doing so. I will make it very clear here that in respect of its TV policy, the Bureau has zero score.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, this time I will speak on Amendment No 74, which seeks to reduce subhead 000 under head 28 by an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on six months' emoluments of the Director-General of Civil Aviation.

Why have I proposed this amendment? It is because of the poor work performance, dereliction of duty, blunders, squandering of public money and suspected abuse of power for personal gains on the part of the Director-General of Civil Aviation, Norman LO. First of all, since Norman LO took office as the Director-General of Civil Aviation in 2004, no progress has been made in the negotiations with the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) and the Civil Aviation Authority of Macao (CAAM) over airspace allocation. This has in effect restricted air traffic movements for the two runways of the Hong Kong International Airport. What is more, the Civil Aviation Department (CAD) was criticized twice by the Audit Commission in November 2014 for carrying out unauthorized addition and alteration works of the new CAD headquarters, and delaying the use of the new air traffic management system installed by the CAD for four years. These are the grounds of my speech.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10425

Deputy Chairman, after Norman LO took over as the Director-General of Civil Aviation in 2004, a tripartite working group was set up with the CAAC and the CAAM to negotiate about airspace allocation, but so far there has been no substantial progress, resulting in a restriction on air traffic movements for the Chek Lap Kok Airport. How are they restricted? When the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA) built the Chek Lap Kok Airport in the 1990s, it was initially calculated that the maximum capacity of the two runways was 86 movements per hour, that is, 43 movements per hour for each runway. This was based on one very important assumption that aircraft could immediately fly northwards after take-off. However, since the opening of the Airport in 1998, due to airspace constraints, such a northward air route has never come into existence, resulting in a serious restriction on air traffic movements. The current capacity of the two-runway system is only 68 movements per hour.

That being the case, in order to solve the problem of airspace constraints, the tripartite working group drew up the Pearl River Delta Region Air Traffic Management Planning and Implementation Plan in 2007 (the 2007 Plan). Norman LO once wrote an article stating that if the 2007 Plan was strictly executed, the three-runway system could have a capacity of 102 movements per hour at most. Even so, it still falls short of the maximum capacity of the three-runway system, that is, 129 movements per hour. Why? Is it because of terrain obstructions? Or, is it because the 2007 Plan cannot completely solve the problem of airspace allocation? The Government has not given any detailed explanation in respect of these questions.

Besides, if the airspace constraints can really be lifted, the capacity of the two runways can already reach 86 movements per hour. In other words, the construction of the third runway can only increase the capacity by 16 movements per hour, but entails the spending of public money to the tune of $141.5 billion. For the public and taxpayers in Hong Kong, the cost is high but the yield is low. It is neither worthwhile nor cost-effective. On the said queries, Norman LO as the Director-General of Civil Aviation is obliged to provide the public with more information for discussion, instead of writing an article which leads the public to support the three-runway option.

Furthermore, as the approval of the People's Liberation Army of China is required for airspace restructuring, it is very controversial as to whether the 2007 Plan can be executed. In April this year, when giving an interview to the media, the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Prof Anthony CHEUNG, made it clear 10426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 that as far as the current progress made by the tripartite working group was concerned, the next step would be just to follow-up the various measures set out in the 2007 Plan. He did not propose any specific solution or arrangement. Yet the AA has actively planned to lavish $140 billion on constructing the third runway. This is putting the cart before the horse. I am also worried that this will be a repeat of what has happened to the co-location arrangement for the Express Rail Link.

As regards the negotiations over airspace allocation, Albert LAM, former Director-General of Civil Aviation, once made an explicit comment on Norman LO's performance. Albert LAM criticized that although tripartite meetings were held in the past decade, only minor amendments or supplements were made to address the airspace problem, and Norman LO, who represented Hong Kong in the negotiations in his capacity as the Director-General of Civil Aviation, made blunders. According to Albert LAM, during the negotiations Norman LO sought to expand the airspace of Hong Kong to such an extent that even military aircraft of the People's Liberation Army would be covered in the area under Hong Kong's management. That was why the negotiations were impeded.

Deputy Chairman, the second point I wish to talk about is that Norman LO was suspected of squandering public money and abusing his power for personal gains through carrying out unauthorized addition and alteration works at the time of construction of the new CAD headquarters. In January 2008, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved funding of $1,997 million for the CAD to construct its new headquarters at the Airport. The new headquarters was commissioned on schedule in December 2012, but a review of the provision of office accommodation and facilities in the new headquarters conducted by the Audit Commission has revealed a number of instances of non-compliance. The severity of such non-compliance has given Hong Kong people the impression that the CAD is an independent kingdom which can act as a law unto itself without restraint.

According to the Accommodation Regulations, schedules of accommodation must be vetted by the Government Property Agency (GPA) and approved by the Property Vetting Committee (PVC) for departmental specialist accommodation. In October 2007, the PVC approved a net operational floor area of 22 775 sq m (including 3 240 sq m reserved for future expansion) for the new CAD headquarters, and the relevant proposal submitted to the Legislative Council for approval back then was also based on the aforesaid floor area. But LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10427 now, the net operational floor area of the new CAD headquarters commissioned is actually 24 275 sq m, exceeding the approved area by as much as 1 500 sq m. The CAD constructed an unauthorized expansion area of 1 500 sq m, but with the exception of the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD), other PVC members (namely the GPA and the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau) had not been informed of the change concerning the expansion, and the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council was not informed specifically of the relevant expansion arrangement either.

What is shocking is that in March 2015, some newspapers revealed that the CAD had converted the largest reserve space of about 3 000 sq ft into a venue for holding Tai Chi classes, where its staff would learn Tai Chi every Wednesday. Deputy Chairman, which administrative departments of the SAR Government are allowed to do this? Is this a common practice? Ms Barbara LEUNG, the wife of Norman LO, the Director-General of Civil Aviation, was also involved. This has made Hong Kong people query whether the unauthorized expansion by the CAD was the result of the abuse of power for personal gains on the part of Norman LO and his subordinates.

Moreover, in April 2007, the CAD proposed the provision of toilet and shower facilities in the Director-General of Civil Aviation's office. However, in August and September 2007, the GPA informed the CAD that it did not approve of and did not support the proposed construction of the shower facility in the Director-General of Civil Aviation's office having regard to the provision for other Heads of Department with similar roles and ranks. As a result, the schedule of accommodation approved by the PVC in April 2007 did not include any toilet or shower facility in the Director-General's office. Nonetheless, the CAD ignored the PVC's decision and proceeded to send to the ArchSD the design drawings for the Director-General's office with toilet and shower facilities, which were included as part of the Employer's Requirements in the tender documents. Eventually, the ArchSD approved these drawings and so the Director-General of Civil Aviation's office was built with the toilet and shower facilities, constituting a privilege exclusively enjoyed by Norman LO, the Director-General of Civil Aviation.

Deputy Chairman, in August 2013, the media raised another query about the mirrors with handrails and timber floor installed in the multi-function room, alleging that such dance facilities were built for Norman LO's wife, who was fond 10428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 of dancing. This multi-function room, measuring as large as 70 sq m, was also not included in the approved schedule of accommodation. This, again, aroused public outcry and suspicion that Norman LO was in the wrong.

This apart, the Audit Commission also slammed the CAD for squandering public money amounting to some $67 million without authorization to purchase security and electronic systems, excessively procuring 93 LCD video display units, and installing a video-wall costing $5 million.

Obviously, the CAD had its own way and bypassed the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau and the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council in carrying out unauthorized alteration and addition works, as well as wasting a huge amount of public money on purchasing unnecessary equipment. Given that Norman LO, the incumbent Director-General of Civil Aviation, took office in 2004, it was his duty during his tenure to implement and monitor the construction of the new headquarters. So, in my view, Norman LO has to be held responsible for dereliction of duty in the monitoring process. In addition, with respect to the unauthorized addition and alteration works, Norman LO is suspected of abusing his power for personal gains.

Lastly, Deputy Chairman, in October 2014, the Audit Commission revealed that the use of the new air traffic management system purchased by the CAD for $1.5 billion had been delayed again and again. According to the information in the Audit Report, the existing air traffic control (ATC) system of the CAD was originally expected to reach the end of its usable life by 2012, and the new ATC system was targeted for commissioning in December 2012 to replace the existing old ATC system. However, as there was a delay in implementing one of the contracts for the new ATC system, it is estimated that the new ATC system will not be fully commissioned until 2016 at the earliest, a good four years behind schedule. In the meantime, the operational capacity of the old ATC system has been gradually exceeded. Since 2011, the number of surveillance data display problems of the old ATC system has been increasing, and a lot of public money has been spent on maintenance each year.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10429

Given all the above, I consider that the Director-General of Civil Aviation, Norman LO, has committed numerous acts of serious dereliction of duty, abusing his power for personal gains and squandering public money. Therefore, I move that an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on six months' emoluments of the Director-General of Civil Aviation be deducted.

Chairman, I so submit.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will speak on "Head 152 ─ Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch)". There are two branches under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. Many Members have spoken on the Communications and Technology Branch, and most of them have talked about the Innovation and Technology Bureau. I would like to focus my discussion on the Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch.

Chairman, I have to talk about the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS). We have discussed relevant subjects in the past time and again. At the Committee stage for the examination of the Budget, Members have proposed a number of amendments and we have to speak on these amendments. I hope Chairman would not think that I am repeating. Many things keep incurring; frankly speaking, life is like that. We argued endlessly about the IVS, but after the major adjustment of the multiple-entry endorsements …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, if your remarks violate the Rules of Procedure, I will certainly point out. Please continue.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have not violated the Rules of Procedure, and I have spoken for less than a minute. However, all of us cannot refute you.

Since the launch of the IVS in 2003, Mainland visitors to Hong Kong have brought about many problems to Hong Kong during the past 10 years or so. This is a well-known fact. Initially, everyone was elated because Hong Kong was hard hit by SARS in 2003 and "Grandpa" took care of Hong Kong people. After SARS, the Central Government decided to allow more Mainlanders to visit 10430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Hong Kong for consumption, and thus stimulate our economy. We should therefore be truly deeply grateful. However, over the years, Mainland visitors who came to Hong Kong under the IVS, including parallel traders, have upset the order of the community, the living environment and facilities, as well as traffic conditions.

On the other hand, Mainland visitors who come to Hong Kong for consumption have driven the retail industry and led to rising rents. Therefore, young people who participated in the liberation protests were besieged in Yuen Long and Tuen Mun by people who had vested interests. For example, some rural tyrants in the New Territories who used to collect a monthly rent of $7,000 for a shop premises can now collect a monthly rent of $70,000. Angered by those young people who caused disturbances, these rural tyrants might pay $70,000 to someone to harass these young people. The monthly rent has increased from $7,000 to $70,000. The cause of the so-called ethnic dissension or struggle is the lack of sufficient communication and co-ordination between the SAR Government and the Central Government to solve the problem.

In 2014, among 60 million visitors to Hong Kong, 47 million are Mainland visitors. The number of visitors, standing at 60 million, was eight to nine times the population of Hong Kong, exerting pressing on the already very crowded environment of Hong Kong. Adverse impacts such as traffic congestion, collapse of public order and soaring rents have resulted. On the problem of traffic congestion, the Secretary asked the public to wait for two more trains. He does not have to wait for two more trains because he can take government cars with licence numbers starting with "AM", and he is just asking the public to wait for two more trains. It is not a problem to wait for two more trains but people's moods are definitely affected during the waiting time, and they will feel depressed or angry.

Buddy, this may lead to mental health problems. Regarding the casual unhygienic behaviours of Mainland visitors ― this is a more subtle way of speaking, I am actually saying that some Mainland visitors are obeying calls of nature in the streets; the Secretary said that being tolerant was the best solution. The economic benefits from the tourism industry are monopolized by a handful of people while the social costs are borne by the general public. When the problem of rogue visitors is rampant, the remarks of the Secretary reflect that he has deviated from public sentiments. Thus, when I speak on head 152, my target is the Secretary.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10431

Another problem is about soaring rents and the uniformity of the retail industry. Since most Mainland visitors come to Hong Kong to buy luxury goods, we can find jewellery shops, designer clothing shops and goldsmith shops everywhere in various districts. What are the characteristics of Hong Kong? For example, we can go to snack stores when we visit Taiwan; there are many traditional good food in Hong Kong but stores selling such food had closed down since the operators could not afford the high rents.

My wife used to operate a shop and she paid a total of $10 million for rent in five years. When I asked if she could earn $10 million in five years, she stared at me, as if she wanted to give me a slap in the face. How could she earn $10 million in five years? But she did pay $10 million for rent in five years. What ratio was that? How could business be done? The situation is even worse today. The current rent of the shop premises is twice the rent we paid. Mannings is now operating at the said location. Chairman, what does Mannings sell? Does it not target the honourable guests from the Mainland?

The same situation happens in Yuen Long. Last time when I participated in the liberation protest, I drove around the Castle Peak Road in Yuen Long. Chairman, do you know how many pharmacies there are near the Castle Peak Road? There are almost 100 pharmacies. Do people living in Yuen Long are particularly in poor health and often fall sick? Their conditions may be really serious. The problems of soaring rents and uniformity of the retail industry are very serious. Is this within the terms of reference of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau? Can the Government help the suffering small operators? In a free economy, the Government cannot help them. This is the law of the jungle; those who can afford the rents can do business and sell luxury goods.

When I was chatting with an operator of a jewellery shop, he pointed his finger at me and said, "You people organized the liberation protests and the anti-parallel tading movement, causing a drop in business turnover." He was simply talking nonsense. People no longer patronize jewellery shops or buy watches costing a few million dollars because of the anti-corruption actions and economic slowdown in the Mainland. Who is willing to buy a watch costing a few million dollars? When a shop can sell a watch for $1 million or a few million dollars, the operator can definitely afford the rent of a few million dollars. A watch sold can bring in a few million dollars of revenue. The rents of shops 10432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 selling luxury products are certainly very high. They are selling watches costing $1 million to a few million dollars. Buddy, business is of course difficult now because "XI Dada" is in power; how can they have good business? They always like to blame young people who participated in the liberation protests for the problems. What about small operators?

On the other hand, visitors to Hong Kong under the multiple-entry endorsements of the IVS have rampantly participated in parallel smuggling activities. It is obvious to all and the Government cannot deny it, right? The problem is that the Government has shifted the focus on young people who took part in anti-parallel trading protests, highlighting the scenes of someone kicking an elderly person's suitcase and a child being scared to cry. The Government has infinitely magnified these two incidents, without mentioning other details. The little girl was scared to cry by her mother, but pro-establishment Members made a fuss about this case. It doesn't matter; there is divine justice after all, buddy.

The Central Government has subsequently changed its policy to "one trip per week". Why the change? Many law-enforcement departments, including the Police and the Immigration Department, understand tacitly; but they can do nothing for the lax Mainland policy has allowed more residents to come to Hong Kong. In that case, the Government should provide more ancillary facilities but it has not yet done so. After the occurrence of several liberation protests, the Government criticized the participants, and even claimed that they advocated "Hong Kong independence". The Communist Party of China (CPC) implemented "one trip per week" after reviewing the relevant arrangements. Why did it do so if there were no problems? The authorities may as well continue to implement multiple-entry endorsements.

According to past data, there are about 14 million visitor arrivals to Hong Kong each year under the multiple-entry endorsements, but 95% of them were not overnight visitors, hotels had thus not been benefited. Buddy, some visitors even brought packed meals and they did not dine at restaurants. Some other visitors just casually ate something and they might not necessarily bring revenues to the catering industry. Among visitors coming to Hong Kong on multiple-entry endorsements, 95% of them were not overnight visitors. The authorities anticipated that after the implementation of "one trip per week", the relevant number would be reduced by about 30%. In other words, the annual visitor arrivals would be reduced by 10 million.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10433

Before the CPC changed the policy, the SAR Government, "689" and the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development were indifferent. LEUNG Chun-ying even said that the policy on multiple-entry endorsements could not be changed easily. However, after the Central Authorities implemented the "one trip per week", he told us that "we had discussions in June last year, but owing to the Occupy movement and protests, our discussions with the Mainland had been impeded". How can LEUNG Chun-ying say such words? He is not only good at telling lies as his face and ears will not turn red, but is also thick-skinned and often distorts the facts, which is scary. Indeed, this really has a bad influence on children. He dares say such words; no wonder he could create the "Make it happen" slogan. Chairman, he must have taken LSD.

In March this year, the total number of visitors and the number of Mainland visitors decreased respectively by 8.7% and 10%. From January to March, Mainland visitors in transit through Hong Kong soared 30%, and the SAR Government immediately injected an additional $80 million to the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) to strengthen publicity and attract visitors to Hong Kong. In addition to the original funding, it has injected a total of $160 million to promote Hong Kong tourism. As the number of Mainland visitors has plummeted, the HKTB produced three videos to publicize Hong Kong as a friendly, hospitable and safe tourism city.

According to Anthony LAU, Executive Director of the HKTB, the injection of $160 million is spent on the publicity and promotion of HAPPY@hongkong super JETSO, Hong Kong Summer Fun, visits by overseas travel trade delegations to Hong Kong and promotion seminars, as well as the Hong Kong WinterFest, mainly targeting 20 markets and attracting overnight visitors. The HKTB will launch Hong Kong Summer Fun in June, which is expected to benefit 2.8 million to 3 million visitors arriving at the airport. After they arrive in Hong Kong, they can participate in a lucky draw and the prizes include commemorative trophies, theme park tickets, and so on. Of course, the HKTB thinks that such initiatives are appropriate for they want visitors to spend money in Hong Kong, and they also want to attract quality visitors who will really spend money in Hong Kong, rather than just relying on Mainland visitors.

Chairman, to be frank, I am overjoyed to see that famous brand shops have poor business. Honestly, can we be benefited by the thriving businesses of famous brand shops? Can ordinary people be benefited? Chairman, the entire 10434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Canton Road is a shopping centre. I am a Member from the Kowloon West constituency, and Chairman, you used to be a Member from the same constituency. I am sure you have once walked along Canton Road. Do you know the rent of a shop inside the shopping mall under the Wharf (Holdings) Limited (Wharf)? Wharf has a handsome income; the Government has also provided very favourable conditions for the lease of the Ocean Terminal. Previously, all shops on the ground floor of the four to seven-storey private buildings on the other side of the road were restaurants. We could eat wonton noodles and Taiwanese beef noodles there. An owner who had operated a restaurant there for many years told me that the monthly rent of his shop was initially $70,000, but the current monthly rent is $1 million. Many shops are now selling cosmetics and jewellery. The shops on Canton Road, the Harbour City and the Ocean Terminal belong to Wharf; and Peter WOO is the Chairman of Wharf. The shops on the ground floor of the private buildings on the other side of the road were originally used for running small businesses; but how can operators afford the high rents now? Who will patronize those shops? Someone initiated a "luggage dragging" movement as people drag luggage along Canton Road.

Currently, the tourism industry puts emphasis on consumption; if visitors to Hong Kong only purchase imported goods, Hong Kong will not be benefited, but the downside is soaring shop rental. The retail industry has recently been thriving again, which is really strange. When the retail industry turned weak not long ago, some people were trying to pass the buck while some others expect that shop rental will drop, which will be conducive to the development of small and medium enterprises.

Chairman, the above is related to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, and the Government must formulate policies to address the relevant issues. The Government is going to make an additional funding injection of $80 million to the HKTB. Can the authorities change the mode of the tourism industry that attaches importance to consumption? The international financial markets generally expect an increase in interest rates in the United States, and the US dollar will enter into an appreciation cycle. After considering the currency values, visitors will certainly travel to other places (The buzzer sounded) …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10435

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, for the avoidance of doubt, I am speaking in the fifth debate about Amendment No 597 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN in relation to "Head 162 ― Rating and Valuation Department (RVD)". The Amendment seeks to resolve that head 162 be reduced by $1.16 million in respect of subhead 000, that is, the estimated expenditure for measures of the RVD.

As the name suggests, the RVD is responsible for valuation. But valuation must be accurate, and assessments must be made in an overall manner, rather than in a piece-meal fashion. Why do I say that the RVD has not done its job properly? Firstly, from the policy perspective …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, do you have a clear idea of the contents of the Amendment?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The Amendment seeks to reduce an amount which is roughly equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of the RVD in relation to the waiver of rates, "isn't that right? (in Putonghua)"

In this year's Budget, it is proposed that rates be waived. Let me talk about the concept first, that is, why do I support that the estimated expenditure of the RVD be reduced? First things first, the department is just unfortunate as far as this amendment is concerned because the culprit is the head of the RVD. Of course, Secretary Prof K C CHAN also has a role to play, and I am chiding him in particular.

As Members would know, I have mentioned repeatedly that among the $30 billion worth of giveaway measures, only $6.6 billion goes to the poor, while the remaining $23.4 billion goes to the rich. Of the giveaway measures which benefit the rich, the beneficiaries of rates waiver are the big shots because rates are taxes charged against the rateable value of properties. In 2014, the top 10 rates payers could receive a refund of rates over a total of 40 000 properties, even though the amount was peanuts for them. If the top 100 rates payers are counted, the number of properties eligible for rates waiver is 79 000. Hence, rates waiver is effectively returning wealth to the wealthy. I made these criticisms against K C CHAN incidentally because it is an undesirable measure. 10436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

All the $30 billion should go to the poor. For those people who are not taxpayers and have already made huge profits as a result of inflated property prices and rental, why do they deserve any tax refund? The only way to deter those people is rates.

Let me go back to the RVD. Its valuations are really sloppy. Chairman, if you are in charge of the RVD, you may dismiss all the staff or shoot them away with an anti-aircraft gun because the valuations made by the department are all wrong.

According to official data of the RVD, as at 2013, the vacancy rate of private residential units was only 4.1%. How did the RVD arrive at this figure? According to the RVD, site inspections would be conducted by investigators in order to compile the vacancy rate. Chairman, please listen carefully, and I quote: "On account of their experience or the characteristics of vacant units, for example, whether there are lights inside the unit at night, whether dust or spider web is found on the main door or iron gate, whether household objects are placed outside the unit, and so on, the investigators could determine if a unit is vacant or not." Buddy, the method is so elementary that any person can get around it. For instance, the owner of a vacant unit can simply remove the spider web periodically. How can a judgment be made merely on the basis of visual inspection? Given the above, the $675,000 earmarked for carrying out the inspections is a total waste and hence, the sum of estimated expenditure should be deducted.

Regarding the number of vacant units, a simple calculation method has been suggested. For example, in 2014, there were about 2.6 million permanent living quarters and about 2.4 million land domestic households in Hong Kong. By comparing these two figures, there should be about 200 000 vacant housing units in Hong Kong. Buddy, the truth is revealed by such a simple calculation. Yet what was LEUNG Chun-ying's response? As we all know, LEUNG is an expert in telling lies and cheating. According to LEUNG, the calculation method was wrong. His response was posted in his blog because nobody could see he and he would not feel shameful and he could delete the post anytime. He said that due consideration has not been given to non-residential quarters with people living therein, households of non-locals and their second homes. Buddy, what was he talking about? It is clear that the RVD should be disbanded.

Next I will talk about Secretary Prof K C CHAN, the Director of Bureau in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10437 charge of the RVD. The relevant Amendments are Nos 475, 476, 482 and 471 in relation to "Head 147 ― Government Secretariat: Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (The Treasury Branch)". All these Amendments are related to him. What has he done wrong?

Chairman, I heard that our Financial Secretary has left his name in history for no other Financial Secretary fared worse in terms of making wrong estimates. Sometimes, the amount of underestimation is quite shocking. Since John TSANG assumed office, the aggregate amount of wrongly estimated or underestimated government revenue …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you kept mentioning this point. But what has it got to do with rates waiver?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Because K C CHAN must report to John TSANG. Buddy, do you think that John TSANG is a superman who notices everything?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You should be speaking on the amendment in relation to the rates waiver measures on the estimated expenditure.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No, you are daydreaming. I have already switched to other amendments. Please listen to the tape recording. The Clerk should have heard it also. I have already read out another head of expenditure which is related to K C CHAN …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please state clearly which Amendment you are talking about.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): "Head 147 ― Government Secretariat: Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (The Treasury Branch)" … please stop the timer … Chairman, you are daydreaming. I have already read it out in full. Please ask the Clerk. I have already read it out.

10438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Buddy, I will not make a fuss about it. Honestly, it is too boring. Over the 18 years since the handover of sovereignty, the Government has underestimated its fiscal surplus by a total of $700 billion, with John TSANG making the largest contribution. John TSANG has erred because of K C CHAN. Why did he not report the wrong estimates to his boss? As a result of the underestimated fiscal surplus year after year, the Government always cites the lack of financial resources to carry out reforms in the budgets. For no reason at all, reforms have been deferred and no giveaway measures has been implemented. Does he not deserve ten thousand deaths?

There is another problem. According to the reply I received from the Chief Executive, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau is responsible for formulating specific policies to achieve the relevant policy objectives. In this regard, one of the responsibilities of "Silly Keung", that is, the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury Prof K C CHAN, is to ensure the efficient functioning of Hong Kong's financial system. Buddy, previously, there was the Lehman Brothers incident, but I will let bygones be bygones. What has he done now? I am pointing out his mistakes now, but when the time comes to hold him accountable for what has happened, Chairman, perhaps we will have to wait until the next term of the Legislative Council, and you may no longer be the President of the Legislative Council.

At present, there is rampant speculation in the Hong Kong stock market, with the price of some stocks surging in morning trading and then plunging in afternoon trading. Such abnormal trading activities are caused by large influx of capital from the Mainland. Taking advantage of the speculative mood in the Hong Kong stock market, investors want to push up the prices of A shares in the Mainland. In this regard, Secretary Prof K C CHAN said, "'Bubble' is a sensitive term with different definitions for different people. I do not want to make any guess."

What is wrong with K C CHAN? Had he ever played with soap bubbles when he was a kid? "Bubbles" are vulnerable. Isn't the current stock market vulnerable? Does he come from Mars or Pluto? Even if he does not want to offend the Mainland, he can at least warn members of the public about the volatility in the stock market. How can he be so irresponsible? Is he prepared LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10439 to bear the loss suffered by members of the public? He went on to say that, "Notwithstanding the fluctuations, the stock market is still under control." Chairman, perhaps you can still recall that in 1973, there was a stock called Hong Kong Antenna and Engineering Company Limited, and its only business was making aerials for television sets. The stock shot up from its initial public offering price of $1 to $30. At that time, people were confident that the stock market would never go down as the Hang Seng Index went up from 170 points to 1 700 points in no time at all. That was the era of the British-Hong Kong administration, and of course nobody would sound any alarm. But now Secretary Prof K C CHAN is an official of the imperial court, he is duty-bound to tell the truth. But he refused to tell the truth and let the public continue with their frenzy. What happens if minority shareholders suffer loss in their investment as a result?

Before the Lehman Brothers incident, somebody had issued a letter of warning about the relevant risks as early as 2003. Legislation should have been enacted in 2002. But it was not until five years later when Secretary Prof K C CHAN told us that he had already noticed the problem when he was in New York, but he just said it too late. He can just drop dead! Why didn't he kill himself? Regarding the Lehman Brothers incident, somebody asked him, "When did you first know about the investment product called mini-bonds?" He replied, "I first heard about them after the Lehman Brothers incident." If he is capable of giving such a reply, how can he fulfil the responsibility of ensuring the stability of Hong Kong's financial system, as stated in the Chief Executive's reply?

Separately, the share price of Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited (HKEx) has been surging in recent years ― I do not know if he owns any HKEx shares ― has he conducted any review on the businesses of HKEx? Let me give an example. A Mainland company planned to list in Hong Kong, and the Securities and Futures Commission and the HKEx sought information from the company about its businesses. Yet the company only replied that it was in the military industry. Notwithstanding further enquiries made by the authorities, no information was forthcoming. Hence the company was not allowed to list in Hong Kong. But when the company lodged an appeal, it won on the grounds that military secrets must not be disclosed. Buddy, how can something like this happen in any other place? With such a practice, how can he maintain the 10440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 stability of Hong Kong's financial system?

Chairman, I can speak again, right? This is just the beginning, and I still have a lot to say. Secretary Prof K C CHAN has also acted irresponsibly as regards the financing of the third runway project at the Hong Kong International Airport. Perhaps he has colluded with the Financial Secretary in underestimating the fiscal surplus year after year. Regarding risks in the market, he would only notice them in hindsight. His admission after the Lehman Brothers incident came to light was nothing but shameless. Chairman, the stock market is now plagued by another problem and perhaps with some serious consequences. But he still says that it is alright, bubble or not, it is just a six-letter word.

There are now diverse views over the financing arrangement of the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA). Mr NG Leung-sing suggested that the AA could issue bonds, which would be sought after by the public. I do not know whether such bonds would be sought after by the public. It may be true because these bonds, like any other bonds, can be resold for profits. Would anyone buy the bonds and then just put them away? Of course not, they would be resold, buddy. That is the Karl MARX's theory of buying for the sake of selling at a profit. Nonetheless, Secretary Prof K C CHAN should remind members of the public that the AA's present proposal is quite scary. First, the Government will not receive cash dividends paid by the AA. But this arrangement cannot always work. The Government may abort the proposal if there is strong disagreement from the Legislative Council. Or perhaps somebody may apply for leave to seek judicial review on the Airport Authority Ordinance? Second, an airport construction tax at $180 will be levied on passengers. Is this proposal definitely sound? Would it create any adverse consequence? Why did he not give us any warning? Third, the biggest lie is that even with funds from the dividend waiver and the airport construction tax, there is still a shortfall of several ten billion dollars. How can the AA obtain additional funding? Nobody in Hong Kong knows the answer. According to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation's assessment, it cannot be done. In that case, what is the story of Secretary Prof K C CHAN?

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, before Members make their closing remarks, I think this is my last chance to speak on those items.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10441

I will mainly discuss two parts and will not repeat my previous remarks. The first part is concerned with the Trade and Industry Department (TID) under Amendment No 603, which proposes to reduce head 181 by $246,979,000, which is roughly equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure of the Personal Emoluments of TID staff.

Chairman, I strongly supported industrial development of Hong Kong back then, but the overall performance of the TID ― I would certainly not blame the civil servants who are merely tasked to implement the policies ― policy failures have made the TID exist in name only. Its contribution in promoting and assisting industrial development is minimal.

Under Programme (3) Support for Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and Industries, there are a number of matters requiring TID's special attention in 2014-2015, including to continue to closely monitor the global and domestic economic environment, to liaise closely with the trade and help them meet the challenges facing them, and to implement the Dedicated Fund and administer various SME Funding Schemes. However, after looking at the relevant data, we are disappointed. Take the funded project SME Loan Guarantee Scheme (SGS) as an example, the number of SME beneficiaries is only 990 in 2015 when it was 1 500 in 2011, which represented a significant reduction. Regarding the SME Development Fund, the number of SME beneficiaries is expected to be 53 with the amount of grant reaching $18 million in 2015. But can it really help SMEs, or assistance is only available to industries that the Government intends to nurture or transfer benefits via the Development Fund? Apart from urging the relevant committees of the Legislative Council or the Audit Commission to keep a close eye on this issue in the future, I will also follow it up by the end of this year or in the following year and conduct an in-depth examination to see if this kind of fund is another form of transfer of benefits.

Chairman, I have seen too many of such examples in, for example, retraining and environmental protection schemes. The Environment and Conservation Fund has very often been reduced to funding the satellite organizations of the bigwigs, raising money in the community to support election campaigns. Political relationship has turned into beneficiaries of government subsidy; this is another form of direct transfer of benefits.

We notice that the number of SME beneficiaries under various schemes only accounts for a small portion of the total number of SMEs. SME 10442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 beneficiaries of various funded projects accounts for less than 2%, which means that 98% of SMEs have not received any support or assistance in this regard. Of course, it is impossible for any scheme to bring benefits to all, but the negligible beneficiaries and the lagging industrial development on the whole is too disheartening.

When I spoke on other topics earlier, I mentioned that industries contribute less than 2% of Gross Domestic Product in Hong Kong, which is far less than the 20% to 30% recorded in the 1970s and 1980s. Considering the relevant data, the various funded projects and Hong Kong's general economic condition, reducing the emoluments of TID staff serves as a warning, alarming them that we will no longer remain silent and tolerate the misbehaviour of the TID, which has brought local industrial development to a standstill and even regression. The situation is utterly worrying and disheartening.

Chairman, next I am going to talk about Amendment No 526, resolving that head 152 be reduced by $40.08 million in respect of subhead 000, which is roughly equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the subvention of the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch) on promotional activities in the Mainland.

Chairman, earlier, a representative of the HKTB had a meeting with me. Unlike those autistic Directors of Bureaux who do not communicate with Members, the HKTB has well performed its duty in arranging annual briefings for us. It is much more energetic and proactive than other Policy Bureaux. However, regardless of how the HKTB explained, its overall performance and the Government's misbehavior in tourism development have completely run counter to public views, so I must put forward this Amendment.

The number of tourists has been increasing in the past years at an alarming speed, to the complete neglect of Hong Kong's capacity in receiving tourists. The Government has, on many occasions, introduced policies for the purpose of development. An example is, when the "good fighter" Secretary was posted to the Development Bureau back then, she had approved a large number of applications for converting industrial buildings into hotels. Owners of industrial buildings were certainly very happy because they might earn greater profits and could directly benefit from an increase in land value brought about by changes in zoning. Nonetheless, the development of tourism is absolutely not the wish of Hong Kong people. Worse still, the Government has been too focused on taking care of tourists at the expense of pushing local industries to a dead end. I have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10443 already criticized the TID just now.

The total floor area of industrial buildings in Hong Kong has decreased at an alarming rate to such an extent that makes local industrial development virtually impossible. Some people pointed out earlier that owing to wage increase and policy changes in the Mainland, many industries which had been relocated to the north in the 1980s and 1990s intend to return to Hong Kong. Yet, development upon their return would not be possible without land, given that it is very difficult to be admitted to the Industrial Estates. Small-scale factories are not permissible in Industrial Estates. Therefore, the conversion of industrial buildings into hotels has significantly reduced the area of industrial buildings, thereby stifling the re-development of industries in Hong Kong. I must point out that such kind of conversion has not taken into consideration the need for general economic development, especially the fact that industries have been the mainstay of Hong Kong in the past decades. It has also completely disregarded the history and root of Hong Kong. As I have described time and again, this is turning Hong Kong into Tibet and Xinjiang to achieve political ends. By attracting massive Mainland immigrants and tourists to Hong Kong, the ultimate aim is the "Mainlandization" of Hong Kong. From this, we can see that political goals override all other factors.

The number of tourists has been on the rise and hit a new record high in this year's Labour Day Golden Week, with the number of Mainland tourist arrivals increasing from last year's 360 000 to this year's 400 000. Regarding the promotional campaigns of the HKTB, according to the Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report recently released by the World Economic Forum, Hong Kong's ranking has risen from 15th in 2013 to 13th. Overall speaking, this seems to be a positive comment. But if we look at the criteria and breakdown of the assessment, we may realize the severity of the problem. Hong Kong obtained a high score because, inter alia, our Ground and Port Infrastructure ranked first in the world, which has pushed up our score. Yet, Hong Kong ranked 127th in price competitiveness and the lowest in World Heritage cultural sites among 141 places, which reflected the lack of characteristics in our tourism. Coupled with the high commodity prices, not only tourism has been affected, people's livelihood also suffers as people's wages have not increased accordingly. The increase in tourists has pushed up commodity prices, and the issue has attracted many debates in the past year or so. Hong Kong people were infuriated, and this is why tourists had been assaulted.

Concerning the two indicators of World Heritage cultural sites and oral and 10444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 intangible cultural expressions, Hong Kong is at the bottom of the list with zero mark and the Government should feel ashamed. Chairman, I advised the Government to revise the tourism policy many years ago and a proposal was submitted a decade ago recommending the development of a historical and cultural life circle of Hong Kong for tourism purpose, including environmental protection. Using Mui Wo as an example, I suggested the Government to preserve Hakka culture, re-open the Silvermine Cave and establish a silvermine museum, with a view to developing Mui Wo into a new tourist attraction of history, culture, natural landscape and ecology. Although the entire proposal was submitted to the Government, it has not implemented any proposal at all. The Home Affairs Bureau has dismissed the proposal to re-open the Silvermine Cave with various reasons, but many other places in the world have opened mine caves as tourist spots. The most important of all is to take adequate precautionary measures, such as placing iron nets to prevent rocks from falling and building suspension bridge. In fact, there are many designs that can turn the Silvermine Cave into an attractive tourist spot. Mine cave is also a kind of cultural heritage, and some people even said that Emperor Bing of the Song Dynasty had been to Mui Wo. Though I am not an archaeologist, I also know that Hong Kong has a high level of historic significance, it is only that the Government prefers to bury the history. Even if we do not mention the history of British-Hong Kong, we may refer to the Song Dynasty. There are famous relics of 2 000 to 3 000 years ago in Ma Wan. And yet, the Government has not preserved them for tourism purpose.

Referring to natural ecology that I mentioned earlier, a European photography competition announced its result this afternoon. A video clip from Hong Kong which captures the natural landscape of Sunset Peak was awarded the fourth place. It is very rare for Hong Kong people picturing natural landscape to win global awards. As there is much in Hong Kong's natural landscape, history and culture that we should treasure and preserve, I had suggested, more than a decade ago, the development of a tourist spot using the character CHEUNG Po Tsai as the theme. Take a look at the Cheung Po Tsai Cave in Cheung Chau, it is even worse than a public toilet, but CHEUNG was the subject of a movie and a famous legendary figure in South-East Asia. In fact, if we can turn the life or events of some famous figures into a story, we can create new tourist spots. Nonetheless, the Government has ignored the significance because in its eyes, there are only goldsmith shops, cosmetic shops and shops of prestigious brands. With its history and characteristics being completely buried, Hong Kong has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10445 become a place with no thinking.

Owing to the abovementioned comments and the fact that the HKTB only attached importance to quantity but not quality, failed to promote Hong Kong's characteristics, caused the sinking of Hong Kong with over-emphasis on quantity as well as created conflicts within the community and between China and Hong Kong, the HKTB must bear the primary responsibility. For this reason, I support the relevant amendment.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up and talked loudly)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you should sit down after entering the Chamber and should not stand up and talk.

(Some Members left their seats for conversations)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats.

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Let me ask once again, does any Member who has not spoken in this debate want to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak) 10446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If not, I will continue to call upon Members who have spoken and are waiting for their turn to speak again.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will speak on Amendment No 482 which is related to the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau.

I believe Members would know that we have to face an important question right now and that is, how the authorities should formulate and implement long-term policies on financial services and public finance. The Government keeps telling the public that Hong Kong may have a budget deficit after 10 years and we must start saving money, which includes setting up a Future Fund. The Government will save up the money which can otherwise be used to provide various social services, especially in the areas of healthcare, welfare, education, and so on. The inadequacy of such services has already made many Hong Kong people suffer continuously, especially the grassroots. On the other hand, the Government squanders away money and uses every means to bypass the Legislative Council in making controversial decisions. The Government's decisions on the Express Rail Link (XRL) project and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project in the past have proven to be wrong. The XRL project should be completed in 2015, but it has now been delayed to 2016 or 2017 and it may even not be completed by the end of 2017. The costs have increased from $60-odd billion to $90 billion and it is still unsure if the project can be completed. The Government has not learnt any lesson from the XRL incident and has not reflected seriously on the delay of the project. Instead, it made an even more serious mistake on building the third runway of the airport, which is another regrettable decision.

The Government has been trying to persuade us that there is a need to construct the third runway, but it has not even resolved the most basic problem of airspace. Whenever the public or Members raise questions on this issue, the Government will say there is no problem and problems of airspace have already been resolved in the tripartite agreement entered into in 2007. When Members further asked which government department is responsible for the matter, the Government replied that it is the Civil Aviation Department (CAD).

Let us consider what the CAD has done. In the Director of Audit's report LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10447 recently published, the CAD was criticized as being "a big spender". All along, the CAD has spent more than it earned and has made wrong financial estimates. In 2013-2014, its capital expenditure was $413 million. It insisted on carrying out some unnecessary works, such as constructing luxurious recreational rooms, karaoke rooms, dance rooms with mirrored walls and installing many television sets. I do not know why the CAD has to install so many television sets. Anyway, the CAD is "a big spender" which is concerned about doing some window-dressing work, just like many "independent kingdoms" on the Mainland. For instance, some municipal government authorities have carried out many "white elephant" projects for window-dressing purpose. It is most surprising that a government department, which should perform actuarial tasks based on scientific measurements and data, has been so degraded that the Audit Commission criticized it as being totally irresponsible.

I do not know if Members still remember that the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) of the Legislative Council rarely used the word "deplores" after the non-compliance incident of Timothy TONG. However, the PAC used this word to criticize Norman LO, Director-General of Civil Aviation for neglecting his responsibilities and duties, building additional space without approval and alleging that he had no knowledge of matters for which he was responsible. As we all know, this "independent kingdom" has not complied with rules and regulations. According to a Member who has been a member of the PAC for more than 10 years, the non-compliance of the CAD was the worst case that he had ever seen since he first joined the PAC. Timothy TONG's case involved only one person. It was a case of dereliction of duty and non-compliance of rules and regulations on the part of the Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption. What he had done was unacceptable to the public and Members and he had spent money carelessly on entertainment. But, in the case of Norman LO and the CAD, the mistakes were not committed by an individual; in fact, the entire department has spent public money freely as if it was their own money.

Let me quote an example. In 2011, the CAD spent $575 million to procure the new air traffic management system, Autotrac 3 (AT3). When it conducted the tender exercise, it had not inspected the actual operation of the system and it was only after the procurement that hundreds of resolved problems had been identified. Even now, the system has not been fully commissioned. The CAD started to remedy the situation by sending some officials to conduct a study tour in Dubai. The traffic management staff in Dubai told CAD staff that 10448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 the new system had a poor interface design, it was not user-friendly and the impression given was bad. The system even broke down in Dubai for as long as 10 minutes. In fact, in the process of procuring the AT3 from Raytheon Company of the United States, a working group of the CAD had conducted six tours to seven places in the world to study traffic management in 2007 and 2008, but none of these places used the AT3 system in the contract awarded. It is even more terrible to learn that the former senior CAD staff member who was responsible for drafting the tender documents took up a job in Raytheon's Hong Kong contractor after his retirement. The transfer of benefits involved is obvious.

The Transport and Housing Bureau cannot shirk its responsibility for condoning the acts of CAD staff. It is even more disheartening that this Policy Bureau has not imposed any disciplinary sanctions on the CAD staff who are derelict of duty, but entrusted the biggest one-off infrastructural project in history costing $141.5 billion to them. What is the Government doing? Government officials regard public money amounting to $100-odd billion as gambling money by entrusting the entire project to a department which has neglected its responsibilities and to officials guilty of dereliction of duty. It is even more outrageous that the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, which should have scrutinized the accounts, has also neglected its duties. In view of these accounts, even HSBC, the financial institution well trusted by Hong Kong people, gave the three-runway option a negative assessment. According to the report of HSBC, the internal rate of return of the three-runway option is 3%. If we compare the three-runway option with another option of "enhancing the two-runway system", the expected net present value (NPV) of the latter option is -$4 billion while the expected NPV of the former is -$43 billion. Aren't there many officials working in the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau? Aren't them experts in this area? Aren't them good at examining the accounts?

Such a decision obviously cannot stand the test, but what has the Government done? To order to protect his white elephant project, the Government not only failed to fulfil its due responsibilities, but also took some other measures. First, it allows or even condones the Airport Authority of Hong Kong (AA) not to pay dividends to the Government. The total amount of dividends for 10 years, amounting to over $50 billion or $60 billion, should have been transferred to the Government General Revenue Account and well utilized. The Government certainly needs the money. Chairman, after the completion of the third runway project, if the problem of airspace cannot be resolved, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10449

$50 billion or $60 billion will easily go down the drain. Why do I say so? The authorities pointed out in a report in the 1990s that the two-runway option could provide a runway capacity of 82 flights per hour. After funding was approved to construct the second runway, the authorities published another report and made a correction, saying that 82 flights per hour was a miscalculation and the correct number should be 68 flights. Now, in proposing to construct the third runway, the authorities said that a runway capacity of 102 flights per hour could be reached. On what basis was the calculation made? It was made on the basis that problems of airspace could be resolved and aircraft could fly to the north. After the Government made a statement in the 1990s, they pointed out in another report in 2000 that that was not the case. Sorry, the money was spent. After the completion of the third runway in 10 years, will the Government publish another report to say that the figure is wrong, the consultant has made a miscalculation and the capacity of 102 flights per hour can never be reached? A former public official once said ― the incumbent officials will surely not say anything like that ― that even under the worst conditions, the estimated capacity of the second runway could be attained and a capacity of even 86 or 87 flights per hour could easily be reached.

If the second runway project had been running well, a capacity of 82 flights per hour could be reached. But now, after spending over $100 billion, the capacity may probably only be 87 flights per hour, an increase of merely five flights. Besides, $140 billion is probably only an estimated figure. Consider the XRL project. The costs have increased from $60-odd billion to $90 billion. As Members would know, there are often cost overruns in other infrastructural projects and cost overruns have become a norm now. The costs may exceed the estimate by a small percentage of 10% to 20%, but in the case of the West Kowloon Cultural District Project, the costs have exceeded the estimate by more than 100% and only half of the works have been completed after spending $20-odd billion. How can we trust the Government? How can we trust the Policy Bureau? Can we trust them to be our gatekeepers? The authorities are even incapable of operating in the mode of business organizations. People doing business will first consider whether the project is profitable, or will it incur losses? Will it turn into a bottomless abyss? As in the case of the XRL project, it can turn into a bottomless abyss anytime. The Government regards one abyss not enough, it has created another abyss. If it turns out that $140 billion is not sufficient to foot the bill, what shall we do? As Members would know, the Government has decided to carry out reclamation works costing $60-odd billion. Now that the work project has been gazetted, the Town 10450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Planning Board, which is a rubber stamp, will endorse it anytime.

Without submitting any detailed and persuasive report and without producing any agreement, the Government said that reclamation works would commence next year. Some works have already been done, the Government is good at adopting this tactic; spending several ten million dollars to make a start and then force people to accept, as in the case of the XRL project. Mr Michael TIEN, who is not in the Chamber now, said back then that since the Government had already spent $60-odd billion, we might as well spend a little more to make up the shortfall. Does that make sense? Shouldn't the Government act as our gatekeeper? Shouldn't it consider carefully on our behalf what should be done and what should not be done? There are still many issues on agreements and airspace to be resolved. In fact, two former Director-Generals of Civil Aviation have expressed their views on the question of airspace. As Members may know, airspace is a very serious issue on the Mainland and only the People's Liberation Army can determine the use of airspace. Members may ask, isn't the use of airspace determined by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC)? Actually, the CAAC is only responsible for civil matters and it cannot regulate matters which concern the army. Nevertheless, the Government told us that there is no problem with airspace; no problem at all.

Chairman, if the funding is not sufficient to foot the bill in the future, by then, the incumbent Directors of Bureaux, the Director-General and even the Chief Executive Officer of the AA may have got off scot-free. If these people have done a good job, they will get bonuses; if they have not performed well, they may still get a "golden handshake" with $30 million, just like the former employee of the MTR Corporation Limited of which the Government is the major shareholder. How on earth can this happen? How can an employee of a public organization, who had made mistakes, leave his post with several ten million dollars? But this happened with our Government. It would spend $100-odd billions on a project without the slightest hesitation and entrust it to the CAD. How has the CAD been performing as a government department? Two senior staff responsible for the procurement of the system, namely Simon LI and Mr Richard WU, had been promoted to Acting Deputy Director-General and Assistant Director-General respectively within six months after being reprimanded. Although they had made mistakes, they were still promoted because they were shielded by the Director-General. The Government turned a blind eye on this matter and asked us to continue to trust the Policy Bureau, trust the CAD and approve of the funding. The air traffic control system only cost LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10451

$500-odd million; the radar which cannot function effectively cost $100 million and building the tower cost an additional $200 million, making a total of only $800 million to $900 million. Although the total cost is killing, it is only $800 million to $900 million. However, the project under discussion will cost $140 billion. A number of Policy Bureaux have not performed their roles as gatekeepers properly. The Government has not only let the people down, but also asked us to provide funding for a project which will incur deficit in the future. This Government is beyond cure.

I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr WONG Kwok-hing has just left the Chamber. Frankly speaking, I do not know how many cans of fried dace with salted black beans can be bought for $900 million. Chairman, I am going to talk about K C CHAN. John TSANG who treated the elderly with little conscience is my natural enemy. When one hits a dog, he must also consider to whom the dog belong. I now hit the dog of John TSANG and I also censure him as well.

Chairman, I have read out the duties of K C CHAN; about public finances, his boss, the Financial Secretary, said in reply to my question that "public finances … (d) ensure that resources available are deployed appropriately and used cost-effectively in providing services that best meet the needs of the community." I have quoted his words in the previous session and he said that the stability of our financial system should be maintained, as if the Lehman Brothers farce had never happened. Dr KWOK Ka-ki simply summed up just now that this can be compared to "usurping power by holding the emperor as a hostage "as described in The Three Kingdoms. LEUNG Chun-ying would like to be CAO Cao but he may not be able to do so, and I will not be YANG Xiu.

This is a mystery case. The incompetent Director-General of Civil Aviation said that if he was not involved in the formulation process, these policies should be effective ― let us not bother about what filthy acts he had made and let us pretend to turn a blind eye. The Chinese side, that is, the CPC Central Government, only said that there were discussions in 2007 and there would be further discussions later. But now the Chinese authorities have not said that there will be further discussions. Is this not "usurping power by holding the emperor as a hostage"? The CPC Central Government has been wronged. 10452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015

Actually, agreements had been made and the airspace problem had been solved, but we had not been informed. Will the Central Authorities refute the rumour? Chairman, will they do so? I have no intention to say that "XI Daquan", the President of China, is like Emperor Xian of the Han dynasty, he was of course angry. After all, the person involved in the negotiation remained silent. The other party had indicated unilaterally in 2007 that discussions had been made, and there would be further discussions. Yet, no discussion has been held since then.

Based on this judgment, K C CHAN continued to jump the gun. Chairman, I must thank you for reminding me that funding has already been made under subhead 060 of head 7 concerning revenue estimates, just that we are not aware of it. Chairman, you are also not aware of that; as you are so smart, you would have corrected me if you are aware of this act. In other words, 70 Members present have fallen asleep. Since the Government has jumped the gun, we could not exercise our powers under the Basic Law. If the Government does not receive dividends, do we have the right to raise questions? The Government should inform us out of courtesy, and should not conceal this fact, right?

Well, let us fall asleep and continue to stay happy. We can have time for cake and tea. We are not sad about having to pay more than $5 billion because payments have to be made over the next 10 years. Is there any problem with such payments? As long as we open the door, the thieves will come in to take the money. This is "not the burial ground for 300 taels of silver; your neighbour is not the thief". There is no money and money has not been stolen.

Chairman, as regards financing for the construction of the third runway of the airport, section 6 of the Airport Authority Ordinance (Ordinance) stipulates that "the Authority shall conduct its business according to prudent commercial principles". If the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA) is to maintain AAA rating … AA will have to borrow loans in the future and pay interests. Similarly, the "money in our drawer", that is, increasing airport charges and not paying dividends to the Government, will be used for repayment. Nevertheless, many people including Mr NG Leung-sing argued with me. He is really ignorant and shameless. He asked how we could follow the standard of HSBC. We might as well let him do so! Yet, he is useless. Without the blessing of the CPC, how could he become a banker? He is out of tune.

Chairman, the financial feasibility report submitted by HSBC in 2011 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10453 already stated that the AA intended to construct the third runway. The report recommended that the AA's outstanding loans should not exceed $26 billion. Buddy, now that the Government does not receive dividends and allows the AA to increase charges, but it still has outstanding loans amounting to several ten billion dollars. The loan will certainly exceed $26 billion; what is the difference between the situation in 2011 and 2015? What happened to the AA? Has it taken any drugs? Why has it suddenly bloated? The AA has an outstanding loan of $9 billion and a proposed additional loan of $17 billion; the actual amount of loan, after deducting interests, is $11 billion. That was the amount at that time. Chairman, reasonable people would say that HSBC was wrong but what has gone wrong? Nobody has pointed out any mistakes but some people have accused and publicly insulted me.

Under section 20(2) of the Ordinance, where compliance with a direction given by the Chief Executive in Council results in the AA's being unable to discharge its duty to conduct its business according to prudent commercial principles, the Government shall pay to the AA a certain amount. In other words, the Government has to make compensation to the AA. HSBC commented that this proposal is not feasible; the AA is unable to discharge its duty to conduct its business according to prudent commercial principles. So, this is a doubtful case. Did the Executive Council request the AA to carry out the expansion project or did the AA make the request? I dare not say. If the Executive Council requested the AA to implement the expansion project, in accordance with section 20(2) of the Ordinance, the Chief Executive will be DONG Zhuo who "usurped power by holding the emperor as a hostage". I do not want to describe him as CAO Cao as the heroic image of CAO Cao is perfect; I would say that he is DONG Zhuo. I also hope that LEUNG Chun-ying and his teams would have bad endings like DONG Zhuo. They have openly deceived us and they are now shirking responsibilities even though they were well informed.

If the Executive Council requested the AA to implement the expansion project under section 20(2) of the Ordinance, it should give an account to the Legislative Council. Being unable to conduct business according to prudent commercial principles, the AA may have to make compensation in the future and the Government may have to make up for the shortfall. At present, we have to make payments and even allow them to exploit passengers. What kind of person is he? This is an act of deceiving the public. Chairman, I know how judicial review will be conducted in the future. There are many experts and 10454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 professionals among Legislative Council Members. I have the lowest academic qualifications as I only had Secondary Six level. How come they have not identified the problem? How come they have not mentioned this point? Why has funding injection been made under the subhead? What kind of Members are they?

If Mr NG Leung-sing, the banker, thinks that the financial feasibility report is not detailed enough, he will be "buzzing" and grumbling. According to the financial feasibility report submitted by HSBC in 2011, the problem of cash shortfall would arise when constructing the third runway, and the amount involved was $112.8 billion. HSBC estimated that the cumulative cash flow from 2014 to 2031 include: (a) net cash flow from operating activities amounting to $185.4 billion; (b) Midfield Phase 1 capital expenditure and Replacement capital expenditure, amounting to $83 billion; (c) cumulative dividends, amounting to $78.9 billion, that is, 80% of annual profit not collected by the Government; (d) net cash flow after giving out dividends, amounting to $23.4 billion, that is, the balance of (a) minus (b) minus (c). These are the available cash flow. In addition to the existing loans, there is still a need to borrow another considerable amount of loans. What will be the collaterals for the loans? Whatever the collaterals are, they belong to us, Chairman. (e) minus (d) equals the cash shortfall; (e) is the outstanding amount of $136.2 billion, and after deducting the original amount, the outstanding loan is $112.8 billion. These are simple accounts. What kind of person is Mr NG Leung-sing? Does he not know how to make such calculations?

Mr NG Leung-sing said the AA can issue bonds; he is really smart and he really deserves a good reward. However, Chairman, he does not understand the relevant provisions. According to section 28 of the Ordinance, "subject to subsection (4) and to section 23(5), the Authority may create and issue, either in the currency of Hong Kong or in any other currency, bonds, notes or other securities, or negotiable instruments" and subsection (4) specifies that "the Chief Executive may issue a direction in writing given for the purposes of this section and directing the Authority not to borrow any sum (or its equivalent in a currency other than the currency of Hong Kong) which exceeds an amount specified in the direction without the prior written consent of the Financial Secretary." According to the above provisions, issuing bonds of $58 billion fails to comply with the principle of financial prudence, and government guarantees is required. In other words, John TSANG and LEUNG Chun-ying, the two brothers, must get involved. How could Mr NG Leung-sing make such remarks? He is definitely LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 10455 not convinced and he can refute me tomorrow.

According to section 29(1)(a) of the Ordinance, "The Legislative Council or its Finance Committee may from time to time by a resolution ("an authorizing resolution") authorize the Financial Secretary to give, issue or make undertakings, guarantees and other agreements which relate to any or all of the following, namely, the financial affairs of the Authority or a subsidiary and the due discharge or due performance, or the fulfilment, by the Authority or a subsidiary of any liability or obligation of the Authority or a subsidiary." In other words, we have certain roles to play. What roles are we now playing, Chairman?

I would like to ask why bonds can be issued to finance five tunnels and one bridge. $6 billion bonds were issued to finance five tunnels and one bridge, as well as pay the interests and principal. Although the Government does not need to bear the risks, if there are factors that can be controlled by the Government, such as the reduction of toll fees, that cause investors to suffer losses, the Government has to repay directly the bond issuer. Therefore, this approach is feasible and it was adopted at that time. Chairman, at that time, you were a Legislative Council Member but not the President, and you should remember what had happened. Even without government guarantees, the five tunnels and one bridge bonds had AA rating because these projects would certainly reap profits. The revenues of the Cross-Harbour Tunnel accounted for 46% of the total revenue, and the tunnel definitely brings profits because there are many users. The proposal concerning five tunnels and one bridge is similar to the DONG Zhuo proposal of "usurping power by holding the emperor as a hostage". Chairman, you were still a party leader in 2004. On 18 February 2004, the Government proposed a motion to the Legislative Council, seeking the approval for the issuance of bonds to finance five tunnels and one bridge. The Government's proposal also needs to go through the Legislative Council, buddy. What exactly is Mr NG Leung-sing doing?

Why do I criticize Mr NG Leung-sing? A lot of people are "buzzing" and grumbling. If bonds will be issued, why dig a hole in the Budget to forgo $5 billion revenue, and then ask us to approve the Budget? This cannot solve all the problems for it only targets the financial problem, and the airspace issues have yet to be resolved. Hence, Chairman, please do not always say that I have not done homework. I have a secretary and his name is "LEUNG Kwok-hung".

Chairman, I would like to ask the AA if the issue of bonds to finance the 10456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 May 2015 third runway needs government guarantees. We still do not know whether the AA will do so. The Government as the borrower can issue bonds under the Loans Ordinance to finance five tunnels and one bridge but the relevant proposal needs the approval of the Legislative Council. I have already made this point and I do not have enough time to speak. Indeed, the problems are too numerous to be recorded and DONG Zhuo brought calamity to the country, right?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): When the meeting resumes tomorrow, I will ask Members who have proposed amendments to speak for the last time.

Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, do you wish to speak?

(The Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury indicated that he did not wish to speak)

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 2.30 pm tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 7.59 pm.