LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13753

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 25 June 2015

The Council continued to meet at Nine 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 JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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.

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

13754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

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.

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

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

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

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.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13755

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

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

13756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

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.

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.

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

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

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

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13757

PUBLIC OFFICER ATTENDING:

MR LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

CLERK IN ATTENDANCE:

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

13758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning. We now continue with the debate on the motion of "Implementation and continuance of 'one country, two systems'".

IMPLEMENTATION AND CONTINUANCE OF "ONE COUNTRY, TWO SYSTEMS"

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 24 June 2015

MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, why do I request to be the first one to speak this morning? Before the meeting was suspended last night, Mr Alan LEONG flew into a rage in respond to the remarks made by Mr CHAN Han-pan, saying that Mr CHAN Han-pan's criticisms against the Civic Party had gone so far that "if you want to condemn somebody, you can always trump up a charge". He also said that Mr CHAN had little knowledge of the Basic Law and was not up to standard to discuss with him. Such an attitude made me think that he is imperious and arrogant, which is indeed dumbfounding.

I left my seat to seek Mr Paul TSE's advice. I asked him if it was common for lawyers to adopt such an attitude in court. Mr TSE said that people with this kind of attitude would definitely lose the lawsuit. Frankly speaking, since Mr Alan LEONG becomes the spokesperson of the "lunch box meetings" of the pan-democrats, there have been great changes in his attitude and remarks. Some members of the public have pointed to me that they now realized that Senior Counsels' speeches were often cynical, mean and offensive, and it was not uncommon for them to lose temper. Perhaps this is simply a reflection of the attitude of the pan-democrats.

Mr Alan LEONG once stated that the Basic Law was not too bad. Prior to its establishment, the Civic Party was named the Article 45 Concern Group, which manifested the great importance it attached to the Basic Law. When he gave his speech yesterday, he said that the version of Article 45 of the Basic Law enacted in 1989 was slightly different from the version published in 1990. I am not surprised as the content of the Article had been amended upon consultation with various parties. For instance, it is stipulated in Article 45 that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13759 candidates should be nominated by a nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures but the latest proposal requires candidates to obtain nominations of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee. I consider this a democratic approach as the candidates are required to obtain the endorsement of more than half of all the members. I would regard it as the manifestation of democracy. What is more, the election is to be conducted by secret ballot.

Mr LEUNG said that Hong Kong people can be the boss with the power to elect the Chief Executive. That is right. But Mr LEUNG has omitted the point that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) has the ultimate power to appoint the Chief Executive, and that any amendment to the method for selecting the Chief Executive shall only be valid with the approval of the NPCSC. Hence, if we pay no regard to the framework laid down in the 31 August Decision of the NPCSC, even if the amendments were endorsed by a two-thirds majority of Members of the Legislative Council, they would hardly be approved eventually. A political party comprising a number of barrister members ought to have a better understanding of Article 45 or even the entire Basic Law, yet oddly, its members support the idea of civil nomination which has never been stipulated in Article 45 of the Basic Law. Even the Bar Association opines that civil nomination is contrary to the provisions of the Basic Law, how can they blame the Central Authorities for betraying trust and justice?

I concur with the analysis made by the former member of the Civic Party Ronny TONG who, in giving his speech last time, said that there was a lack of mutual trust between the Central Authorities and the pan-democrats. The two sides have great discrepancy in their interpretation of "one country, two systems". While the Central Authorities consider that they have the right to intervene, the pan-democrats want to assume full autonomy. In light of their vastly different concepts, how should we rationalize their differences in the interpretation of "one country, two systems"? Regrettably, Mr TONG will soon leave the Legislative Council and resign from the legislature in order to pursue his dreams. I can understand him. Last night, I also learnt that Mr Ronny TONG has only tendered his resignation to the President and the issue has yet to be gazetted, so he can still change his mind before late September. I very much hope that he can change his mind and help Members of the pan-democratic camp gain a better understanding of "one country, two systems" with a rational and pragmatic attitude.

13760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

As "one country" is the premise, how can we have "two systems" without "one country"? How can we be safeguarded if the People's Republic of China and its Constitution are non-existent? All sorts of powers are derived from the Basic Law. Mr Gary FAN said "one dominating country" and "two subordinate systems" and there was intervention from the Central Authorities. He even said that additional requirements have been added to the Basic Law. All such remarks just do not make any sense. If everyone keeps on having this mindset, the "one country, two systems" mechanism will be vulnerable to attacks. Recently, a handful of students burnt copies of the Basic Law in public, does it mean Hong Kong do not need the Basic Law nor "one country, two systems"? Do they want to turn Hong Kong into one of the Mainland cities? There are now two different viewpoints among Members of the pan-democratic camp. Though the Democratic Party is inclined to communicating with the Central Authorities, they are merely paying lip service. For the Civic Party, they severely criticize the act of communicating with the Central Authorities or meeting with people of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

"One country, two systems" requires mutual accommodation. If no dialogues can be initiated, there will not be any communication. How can a stranger be of any help to "one country, two systems"? Some people rashly accuse others for betraying Hong Kong people, but what they have done are detrimental to Hong Kong. They are precisely the ones who have ruined the interests of Hong Kong people.

Mr Charles Peter MOK said they have neither the power nor influence. In my view, they simply pretend to be the weak with an aim to deceive the people. It is because the 28 pan-democratic Members had vetoed the proposal for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, and had thus deprived 5 million eligible voters of their opportunities to select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage through "one person, one vote". We really do not know when we will have such an opportunity again. Mr Charles Peter MOK appears to be very indulgent towards activists of "Hong Kong independence". He even said that we have made a fuss, but it is a fact that the ideology as well as the words and deeds concerning "Hong Kong independence" are getting increasingly distinct. We hope that the pan-democratic Members will avoid reinforcing such words and deeds; otherwise those activists will keep on charging and protesting or even using explosives, giving rise to endless troubles.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13761

I so submit and support the amendments proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr Martin LIAO, and oppose the original motion as well as other amendments. Thank you, President.

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the "one country, two systems" principle, formulated by our country's late leader, DENG Xiaoping in the 80s, is not only forward-looking, but also rational and practical. Under the premise of Hong Kong's return to the Motherland, the principle has a stabilizing effect on Hong Kong people's confidence in the future. It has been almost 18 years since Hong Kong's reunification. Owing to the contacts over the past 18 years, the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Special Administrative Region (SAR) as well as Hong Kong people should have been closer; yet the fact is just the opposite. One of the reasons is that some people have wrongly understood the principle and policy concerning "one country, two systems", thereby giving rise to incessant disputes.

Take the recent work on constitutional reform as an example. Right from the very beginning, Members of the pan-democratic camp had denied the constitutional power of the Central Authorities over the electoral system for the Chief Executive. They insisted on adopting civil nomination which ran contrary to the Basic Law and even staged the 79-day illegal Occupy movement following the relevant decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), and eventually, they vetoed the constitutional reform package. In the face of such an attitude of giving no regard to "one country", how can the Central Authorities believe that the pan-democrats will uphold "one country, two systems"?

When speaking on the motion on the constitutional reform a week ago, Mr Dennis KWOK pointed out that if the constitutional reform package was endorsed, the Central Government would claim that it had already honoured the pledge as stipulated in Article 45 of the Basic Law to implement universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election, and hence, "pocket it first" might mean "pocket it forever". I would like to point out here that the viewpoints of Mr KWOK and other pan-democratic Members had completely ignored the requirement that the method for selecting the Chief Executive must take into account the actual situation in the SAR and proceed in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. As a matter of fact, the Central 13762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Authorities had explicitly pointed out that there was room for further enhancement in the universal suffrage proposals in future, and relevant arrangements had been laid down in Annex I to the Basic Law as well as the "Five-step Process" determined by the NPCSC in 2004, both of which manifested the sincerity of the Central Authorities in implementing the Basic Law and "one country, two systems". Yet, the pan-democratic camp had deliberately distorted the interpretation of such sincerity. I think all of us should be able to tell what their intention is.

Recently, Mr KWOK has also pointed out in a newspaper article that the voting down of the constitutional reform package was not detrimental to "one country, two systems", as constitutional reform was by no means the entirety of "one country, two systems". Nonetheless, I would like to ask Mr KWOK whether the vetoing of the constitutional reform package has undermined the mutual trust between the Central Authorities and the SAR. At present, the constitutional development has come to a standstill and radical forces who are gaining ground are also expected to further dominate the poor political ecology in the future. Even the Basic Law has started to be openly challenged by a minority of people. We are worried that if we gradually lose the foundation laid down by "one country, two systems", can Hong Kong bear this consequence?

During the discussion on the constitutional reform, the pan-democrats adopted an evasive attitude towards the requirement that the Chief Executive has to "love the country and Hong Kong", and they even condemned the Central Authorities for attempting to override the Basic Law or "one country, two systems" on the ground of "national security". Such remarks have in effect placed both parties on the opposite side and deliberately eliminated the element of "one country" from "one country, two systems", which is even more misleading.

The pre-requisite of "one country, two systems" is "one country". On this basis, any policy implemented in Hong Kong has to be compatible with the overall interests of the State or even tie in with national policies, and we can by no means implement any policy endangering national security simply because Hong Kong enjoys "a high degree of autonomy" in its administration. As a SAR, the Chief Executive of Hong Kong has to be appointed by the Central Authorities and be accountable to the Central Authorities and the SAR. If the Chief Executive does not safeguard the nation's sovereignty, security and development interests but adopts a mindset of confronting with the Central Authorities at all times, how can Hong Kong implement "one country, two LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13763 systems"? The attitude of the pan-democrats has somehow illustrated the deviation in the interpretation of "one country, two systems" among various political forces, and this is the crisis faced by "one country, two systems" at the moment.

Last year, the State Council published the White Paper on The Practice of the "One Country, Two Systems" Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (White Paper), stating that the Central Government exercises "overall jurisdiction over Hong Kong". The White Paper also conveys the message in a simple and direct manner that "the powers of the SAR are granted by the Central Authorities", and that both the Central Authorities and the State play a very important role in the SAR's development and hence should be respected. From a macro point of view, "one country, two systems" is a kind of experiment which entails a conciliatory attitude from both sides and leaving room to each other. It is certainly undesirable to pull the rope tightly and make it even more entangled. Regrettably, more often than not, the reality does not happen in the desirable direction. The pan-democrats are of the view that the original intent and purpose of implementing "one country, two systems" are to prevent China's "one system" from influencing Hong Kong, and only then can the core values of Hong Kong be safeguarded. This explains why they have been adopting a confrontational attitude towards our country over the years. Of course, "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" have already been protected by the provisions of the Basic Law. However, they have forgotten that "one country, two systems" is adopted by the Central Government to realize the peaceful reunification of the country with the aims to safeguard the country's sovereignty, security and development interests, and to maintain the long-term prosperity and stability in Hong Kong. In this connection, we should never do any harm to the interests of our country.

Over the last couple of years, conflicts between Hong Kong and the Mainland have intensified. People from the localism have been organizing the "anti-locust" campaigns and "liberation protests" time and again and they have even gone so far as to propose the elimination of anything Chinese. Some youngsters have even intruded into the barracks of the People's Liberation Army as well as burnt copies of the Basic Law at public meetings. Not only have the pan-democrats not inveighed against such behaviours, some of them have even participated in certain campaigns. This being the case, people are inevitably worried whether "one country, two systems" will sustain.

13764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

President, "one country, two systems" has been in operation for some 18 years, during which there are incidents of wilful distortion, resulting in certain people having different thoughts or even misunderstandings towards the Basic Law and "one country, two systems". Such thoughts and misunderstandings must be rectified so as to maintain and safeguard "one country, two systems". Though the process is difficult, I am still optimistic and reckon that Hong Kong people will try hard to respect the constitutional basis, establish a relationship of mutual trust with the Central Authorities as well as re-establish healthy interaction. Only by better implementing and continuing "one country, two systems" can we maintain a sustainable political, economic and social development of Hong Kong, and have a more extensive room for development.

At this moment, we should all consider afresh how to implement "one country, two systems" properly and rationalize the relationship between the Central Authorities and the SAR. I hope the pan-democratic camp will abandon their mentality of confronting the Central Authorities and establish a healthy relationship with the latter instead. The SAR Government should also play an active role in narrowing the gap between the Central Authorities and the pan-democrats, so that proper dialogue can be established. If it is proved that the principle of "one country, two systems" does not work, the consequences for Hong Kong and the young people will be disastrous.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, the constitutional reform package was eventually voted down and the disputes over the reform have actually sapped the community as a whole. Over the past two years, Hong Kong has focused its attention on politics while livelihood problems have been neglected. Our society has been relying on the past strengths and Hong Kong's competitiveness is on the decline. I would like to remind Hong Kong people that we should never allow our economy and people's livelihood to be adversely affected by politics. We have seen in recent years cases of many regions engaging in fierce political struggles to the neglect of economic development and people's livelihood; consequently, society as a whole, particularly young people, suffer enormously. Hong Kong should not follow their footsteps. Fortunately, recently there are many voices in the community requesting us to redirect our attention on people's livelihood, and there are proposals of capitalizing on the opportunities brought about by the "One Belt One Road" initiated by the Central Government, hoping that our economy can move back to the right track.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13765

While I think that economy and people's livelihood are our most pressing tasks, there are certain basic problems which definitely require clarification and that is, the meaning of "one country, two systems". Recently, there are signs of deliberate misinterpretations of the meaning of "one country, two systems", leading the society onto a crooked path. If this situation continues, it is highly likely that new conflicts may emerge and by then, Hong Kong will never have a day of peace.

The basic meaning of "one country, two systems" is the existence of two systems in one country. It is stated in the Basic Law that "the socialist system and policies shall not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the previous capitalist system and way of life shall remain unchanged for 50 years". However, it is also explicitly provided that Hong Kong shall be a local administrative region which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government, and it is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China.

As a general understanding, Hong Kong implements a system different from that of the Mainland within the same country, and it enjoys a high degree of autonomy. There are altogether three elements in question, namely "one country, two systems and a high degree of autonomy". According to the provisions in the Basic Law as well as the advice of the then Basic Law drafters and legal scholars, the three elements of "one country, two systems and a high degree of autonomy" are equally important. However, today some people interpret the meaning of "one country, two systems" from different angles. They have on the one hand incessantly exaggerated the importance of "two systems", but intentionally or inadvertently neglected "one country" on the other. They have even interpreted a "high degree of autonomy" as a concept similar to "absolute autonomy", which not only distorts the Basic Law, but also gives rise to social conflicts and disputes.

Although it has been nearly 18 years since the reunification of Hong Kong, many Hong Kong people still lack an in-depth understanding of the Basic Law, and they also lack a thorough understanding of the Central Authorities. This being the case, when somebody brings up the idea of "attaching importance to two systems and belittling one country", it easily draws the support of the people, in particular young people who are discontented with society. As a matter of fact, in recent years, some people have persistently distorted the meaning of "one 13766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 country, two systems" in an attempt to interpret "a high degree of autonomy" as "absolute autonomy", which has intentionally or inadvertently provoked the feelings of some radicals and stirred up various social conflicts. This is by no means conducive to society. The mainstream opinion in society will not support this kind of radical thoughts because such behaviours are actually playing with fire.

It is most worrying that such extreme and radical ideology has emerged in society. Some days ago, the Police detected a bomb-making case. It was suspected that a radical organization claimed to be the "National Independent Party" planned to initiate a bomb attack at a time when the constitutional reform package was put to vote. As the case is currently under investigation, we are not in a position to make too much comment. I have no idea whether this is an organized act to promote "Hong Kong independence" or simply an isolated incident. In any case, Hong Kong people should stay alert. Though such extreme ideology or acts of "Hong Kong independence" may only involve a handful of people, the whole society of Hong Kong may be affected when the poison sets in. I believe the vast majority of the people will not support this kind of radical act. For those people aspiring to democracy, they only want to pursue freedom and happiness, rather than deal a blow to the stability and prosperity of society.

Nowadays, the widespread of distorted remarks on the Basic Law is attributed to the fact that many people have little knowledge about the Basic Law and can thus be easily exploited. Many people interpret the Basic Law arbitrarily with their own preconceived ideas. They have imposed their own thoughts on the interpretation of the Basic Law, trying by all means to exploit the textual loopholes. Hence, there is a significant discrepancy between their perceived Basic Law and the genuine Basic Law. In fact, there are authoritative interpretations of the Basic Law and we are not allowed to make casual remarks. In my view, the Government should accord top priority in stepping up the publicity of the Basic Law in order to rectify the mistakes, so as to facilitate Hong Kong people's understanding of the true meaning of the Basic Law provisions, and stop certain people from interpreting the Basic Law arbitrarily.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13767

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the subject of this motion is "Implementation and continuance of 'one country, two systems'". In terms of the subject alone, I have no objection in principle. However, regarding the wording of the original motion, which reads, "to earnestly invite the Central Government to implement and continue the state policy of 'one country, two systems' in Hong Kong in accordance with the original intent of 'one country, two systems'", one may have the impression that the Central Government has failed to implement "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. I consider such words misleading and prejudiced, and for this reason, I definitely cannot agree with the original motion and will thus vote against it.

President, it has been almost 18 years since the reunification of Hong Kong. The successful implementation of the "one country, two systems" over the past 18 years has ensured social stability and healthy economic development. However, in face of keen competition from all quarters, Hong Kong should make more double its efforts in bringing better development to our society, people's livelihood as well as the economy in the coming future. In this respect, the Basic Law provides us with protection on various fronts, which include a robust and independent judicial system, free flow of information, a level playing field, as well as a clean and highly efficient civil service, all of which are important cornerstones of Hong Kong's success.

The Basic Law clearly stipulates that Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy and specifies that the social, economic and political systems implemented in Hong Kong are different from those on the Mainland; it safeguards the way of life as well as the basic rights and freedom enjoyed by the residents of Hong Kong; and defines the obligations of the residents of Hong Kong. Under the principle of "one country, two systems", the Basic Law provides the legal basis for its concrete implementation. It is the constitutional law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) which must be abided and respected by members of the public. Such being the case, I found it distressing and regrettable when some people blatantly burnt copies of the Basic Law earlier, and I earnestly hope that those people will learn more about the Basic Law and understand clearly that the Basic Law is an important cornerstone for implementing "one country, two systems". Undermining the Basic Law will not be conducive to Hong Kong's future development and its overall interests.

President, I respect the rights of Hong Kong people to pursue their ideals. Take the constitutional reform and universal suffrage as examples. In pursuing ideals, one should obey and uphold the rule of law while giving regard to the 13768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 various demands of other people, and avoid taking an irrational and confrontational position arbitrarily. As "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law are of paramount importance to the entire operation and development of Hong Kong, the Government is obliged to enable Hong Kong people to have a thorough and more accurate understanding of "one country, two systems" as well as the Basic Law. It is incumbent for the Government to allocate additional resources to promote "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law in order to enhance our sense of national identity.

President, last week, the opposition Members vetoed the Government's proposals on the method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 with a total of 28 votes, thereby shattering the aspirations of the majority to achieve universal suffrage. Furthermore, the timetable for universal suffrage laid down by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) was disrupted right away while Hong Kong's constitutional development has been forced to come to a standstill. I feel particularly disappointed and helpless. During the discussions on constitutional development over the past few months, the opposition camp had all along resolutely opposed and refused to accept the framework of the NPCSC Decision made on 31 August, and some people even proposed a motion demanding the invalidation of the decision of the NPCSC. Constitutionally speaking, both the National People's Congress and the NPCSC are the legislative organs with the highest authority in China, and the decision made by the NPCSC is legally binding. Though the HKSAR, being a part of China, enjoys a "high degree of autonomy" under the principle of "two systems", we must abide by and respect the NPCSC's decisions under the principle of "one country", for the relationship between "one country" and "two systems" is inseparable. For this reason, if someone demands the continued implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, but refuses to accept "one country" and only adheres to "two systems", this mode of thinking is indeed self-contradictory and is downright puzzling.

President, in recent years, it seems that more and more people consider that there are conflicts of interests between the Mainland and Hong Kong (the main conflicts involve such issues as parallel goods and "doubly non-permanent resident children"), and young people in particular have such an idea. Some people have put the blame on the Central Government and the SAR Government, and I find this argument neither objective nor accurate; and worse still, it does not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13769 help to alleviate the effects and impacts of such problems on various parties. In respect of economic and social development, there are increasing exchanges between Hong Kong and the Mainland, and the vibrant economic development on the Mainland in recent years has brought about numerous opportunities for both places. We should be pragmatic and make objective assessment to identify solutions to such problems. At the same time, we should also think about how Hong Kong and the Mainland can integrate with each other to achieve an all-win situation. I earnestly hope that various groups and strata in society will put aside their previous prejudices and bias, and support the Central Government and the SAR Government to implement "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong continuously. Let us join hands to work together for the overall well-being of the nation, Hong Kong as well as the public.

President, I so submit.

MR ABRAHAM SHEK: President, the opposition's recent celebrated euphoria over their 18 June concocted victory has actually cast a death knell to the constitutional reform of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), depriving 5 million Hong Kong people of their chance to vote for their Chief Executive in 2017. The 31 August reform package would have been given to Hong Kong people in realization of their dreams to have a leader chosen by the people, for the people and of the people. This would also have been the ultimate fulfilment of the concept of "one country, two systems" in terms of "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong affairs" and "a high degree of autonomy". Today's motion moved by the Mr Dennis KWOK pleading the Central Authority to stand by the spirit and the letter of the policy for the implementation and continuance of "one country, two systems" is most appropriate for the opposition to review their past transgressions. Their first wrong is that they have instigated the non-cooperation policy, and their second wrong is their vetoing of the 31 August reform proposal, which has put the law of reasoning out of office.

As my Honourable colleagues have elaborated in detail the legal and constitutional aspects of the Basic Law, here, I do not intend to repeat what they have eloquently spoken, but one thing cannot be stressed too much: the Basic Law guarantees the rights and freedoms as prescribed in its various articles in fulfilment of the promise of "one country, two systems".

13770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

The concept of "one country, two systems", President, has only a beginning when it was conceived and put to fruition by our ex-paramount leader, DENG Xiaoping, propagating our rights, freedoms, rule of law and preservation of our way of life for 50 years.

The concept of "one country, two systems", as I said earlier, has a beginning and it is not intended to have an end nor to be subjected to interferences and erosions of our rights and freedoms as protected by Article 31 of the National Constitution. Therefore, any allegation of Beijing's interference of this fundamental concept is diabolical and outrageous and reflecting people's lack of knowledge of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China (PRC).

President, YANG Shangkun promulgated the Basic Law of the HKSAR on 4 April 1990, including Annex I: Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; Annex II: Method for the Formation of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Its Voting Procedures and Annex III: National Laws to be Applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. In accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Constitution of the PRC, the National People's Congress has authorized the establishment of the HKSAR under "one country, two systems" and to ensure the implementation of the basic principles as prescribed under Article 1 to 11 of the Basic Law. Mr Gary FAN, I would really recommend you to read these articles to dispel your fear of the white paper issued by the State Council in June 2014. Our confidence in "one country, two systems" shall be based on the Basic Law.

President, since 1997, the Central Government has never shaken its conviction of "one country, two systems". From the decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of 2004, 2007, 2010 to the finale of the 31 August Decision in 2014, the Central Government has adhered to this very principle, which is sacrosanct to the survival of the HKSAR.

Very often, the pan-democrats' phobia of Beijing's interference over the implementation of "one country, two systems" is totally unfounded. Last week, Mr Dennis KWOK made an assertion that good governance, true democratic values and "one country, two systems" would diminish if the 31 August framework-based reform package was to be implemented. Mr Dennis KWOK's qualms about and disapproval of the reform proposals by misinterpreting the role LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13771 of the proposed 1 200-strong nominating committee and downplaying the role of 5 million of voters really exposed his lack of faith and trust in the Central Government and the people of Hong Kong.

Contrary to his pessimistic interpretation and misguided beliefs of the 31 August Decision, Hong Kong's core values such as the rule of law and its freedoms, aspirations to democracy and pursuit of good governance have remained intact ― I repeat ― remained intact since the handover as stipulated in the Basic Law. Had the passage of the 31 August constitutional reform package been realized, such core values, instead of being evaporated according to Mr Dennis KWOK's phobia, would have been further enhanced to new heights of democratization.

Under "one country, two systems", there should be mutual concessions as well as understanding and reciprocity. When the Central Government expressed unprecedented trust in Hong Kong people by offering Hong Kong people universal suffrage based on the 31 August framework, which 1.3 billion Chinese do not have, was it not pathetic that some of our colleagues harboured unfounded suspicion, mistrust and fear, resulting in the loss of a golden opportunity to enhance "one country, two systems"? The opposition should be reminded that trust in the Central Government and our people is a prerequisite for and is pivotal to nailing down the principle of "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong".

President, I strongly oppose Mr WONG Yuk-man's amendment. Hong Kong is an integral part of China and it is a constitutional fact that (The buzzer sounded) … "two systems" will coexist under the precondition of one China …

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

MR ABRAHAM SHEK: … Thank you.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I speak to support the amendments proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr Martin LIAO and oppose Mr Dennis KWOK's original motion and the amendments proposed by Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Gary FAN and Mr WONG Yuk-man.

13772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

President, it is meaningful to arrange the original motion and the amendments to be proposed today, the first Wednesday after the constitutional reform package was voted on. This deliberate arrangement was made so that Members of the opposition camp can shirk their responsibility in vetoing the proposal of electing the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" and the constitutional reform. They are putting the cart before the horse, misleading the people and trying to lead Hong Kong onto a dark road of no return. The fact that Members of the opposition camp have proposed the original motion and the amendments shows that they have not earnestly reflected upon themselves and thus failed to realize that the current undesirable outcome is actually caused by the wrong stance and ideologies adopted by them during the past 20 months.

President, if Members of the opposition camp would seriously reflect upon themselves so as to hold themselves accountable to Hong Kong people, they would realize that they have made six major political blunders. They should consider such mistakes carefully. First, the political relationship. Concerning the relationship between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Central Government, we should respect and abide by the state constitution and the Basic Law, foster mutual trust, communicate sincerely and enhance co-operation so as to make political compromises. We should not confront radically and adopt political struggles as the guiding principles, as the opposition camp does.

Second, Members of the opposition camp lack political credibility. So far, they have not given any account on their reception of Jimmy LAI's "dark money". Political parties, Members and individuals of the opposition camp and many politicians have received "dark money" from Jimmy LAI over the past three years, but they have not given any account to the public. They lack political credibility and have not lived up to the standard of political ethics expected of them.

Third, Members of the opposition camp have been politically irresponsible. During the promotion of the constitutional reform package over the past 20 months, Members of the opposition camp had continuously instigated and escalated political struggles, such that some commentators said that they were staging a colour revolution. Within the Legislative Council, they demanded the Chief Executive to step down. In this Legislative Session, they had proposed motions on nine occasions demanding the stepping down of the Chief Executive due to various reasons. After announcing that they would engage in a full-scale LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13773 non-cooperation movement, they progressed from individual cases of filibustering and to full-scale filibustering. Outside the Council, they initiated the illegal Occupy movement that lasted for 79 days and supported the so-called "shopping tour" protests. In the evening before the constitutional reform package was put to vote, they also engaged in various acts of violence. Members of the opposition camp had acted very irresponsibly in various ways and as some commentators had suggested, the opposition camp wanted to launch a cultural revolution in Hong Kong.

Fourth, Members of the opposition camp have abandoned their political beliefs, or the so-called "original intent". Under the banner of democracy, they have participated in social affairs in Hong Kong for twenty to thirty years, but in dealing with the important proposal of allowing Hong Kong people to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote", an important step to realize democracy, they "screened out" the package and voted it down last Wednesday. As a result, Hong Kong would continue to implement the system of coterie election, which has been frequently criticized by them. The Chief Executive will be selected by 1 200 people, as Members of the opposition camp had screened out the involvement of 5 million voters and deprived them of their political right. Therefore, Members of the opposition camp have abandoned their political beliefs and political ideologies!

Fifth, the political propositions put forward by Members of the opposition camp have become increasingly radical. They advocate the so-called localism and even call for devising the constitution by all people, overthrowing the puppet regime, launching an all-out attack on "one country" and opposing the ruling regime of China on all fronts. Considering the tactics that they have employed, I expect they would only become more radical in the future. Have they deeply reflected on how these tactics can help them achieve their so-called improved communication and co-operation? The two are actually poles apart.

Sixth, Members of the opposition camp have not reflected on their political ethnics. While they proclaim as democrats, they do not support democracy in their deeds. They defend those who belong to their own faction and attack those hold different views, expel those who disagree with them and refuse to tolerate different opinions. Hence, we have noticed that during the process, they had repeatedly bundled ideas together, issued joint statements, expelled dissenters from their political parties and called them traitors. Let us recall what happened in the past before Mr Ronny TONG's incident. Even though the SAR 13774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Government agreed to appoint some politicians who were close to the pan-democratic camp to certain public positions, these people were eventually expelled from the opposition camp, as in the case of Mr WONG Sing-chi and Mr Andrew FUNG. Mr Ronny TONG, being a frank critic, thus resigned from the Civic Party and from the Legislative Council. Actually, Members of the opposition camp should reflect on the six political blunders made in the past 20 months. If they are willing to reflect truly on themselves, they would still have a future and they would still be supported by the people of Hong Kong.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, this year marks the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China. The familiar saying "All these flow from the Basic Law" is one of the slogans used in the announcements of public interest made by the Government on the Basic Law. Unfortunately, after the reunification for nearly 18 years, some people in our society still have a vague understanding of the Basic Law and the policy of "one country, two systems". They tend to focus on the rights and freedom under "two systems", but neglect the responsibilities and obligations under "one country", thus distorting the original intent of the Basic Law. This phenomenon warrants our reflection.

The Basic Law has played a very important role in the history of the reunification of Hong Kong with China. It has not only provided the legal basis for Hong Kong's reunification, but has also stipulated the fundamental principles of the implementation of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". The rights of "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" stipulated in the Basic Law are conferred by the Central Government. In other words, the rights enjoyed by Hong Kong are not absolute but relative. While protecting "a high degree of autonomy", Hong Kong must also give regard to the overall safety and interests of the country. The Basic Law is irreplaceable and is subject to the regulation of the Constitution of China. As the Basic Law plays an important role in Hong Kong's affairs, a correct understanding and comprehension of the Basic Law is of great significance to Hong Kong.

President, it is unfortunate that recently there are actually some members of the public who do not attach any importance to the Basic Law, show no respect to "one country, two systems", and even know nothing about the Basic Law. They LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13775 have not considered issues in the light of the Basic Law but merely from the perspective of their own interests and look for suitable answers in the Basic Law, with a view to giving their own interpretation arbitrarily. Insofar as the concept of "one country, two systems" is concerned, they are putting the cart before the horse. In focusing excessively on the rights under "two systems", they are evading the responsibilities under "one country".

Last September, the outbreak of the 79-day illegal Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong was, on the one hand, attributable to members of the public being incited, and on the other hand, directly related to a lack of understanding of the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" on the part of some young people and members of the public. Let us take a look at another instance. Amid the disputes on the constitutional reform, although some people claimed that they abided by the Basic Law, they refused to accept the 31 August Decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. As a matter of fact, Chapter II of the Basic Law stipulates the relationship between the Central Authorities and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and its provisions have clearly pointed out that the HKSAR must fully respect the constitutional role of the Central Authorities. If some people turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to, and even wish to invalidate, the concept of "one country", they are basically putting the cart before the horse.

Recently, representatives of student unions of several universities blatantly burnt copies of the Basic Law. We were most saddened to see such actions. As members of the SAR, students can benefit from various rights conferred by the Basic Law to the young generation. The Basic Law is a constitutional instrument safeguarding "one country, two systems". Do students wish to negate "one country, two systems" by means of burning copies of the Basic Law? And should they forget their origin and treat the Basic Law in such a way?

President, what is more worrying is that there have been an increasing number of localism organizations in the past few years. People are using various channels to disseminate ideas such as "Hong Kong independence", "establishing the Hong Kong State" and "localism", which blatantly trample on the Basic Law and challenge the bottom line of "one country, two systems". President, if the objectives of these "Hong Kong independence" movements become more and more distinct, to the extent that the movements become highly organized with political platforms and established roadmaps, these organizations may challenge "one country, two systems", undermine the relationship between 13776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 the Central Authorities and the HKSAR, and adversely affect the economic development and people's livelihood in Hong Kong. This will bring nothing but harm to the territory.

It has been nearly 18 years since the reunification of Hong Kong. There have been a lot of discussions about "two systems" among the community. However, not many studies on "one country" have been conducted. Last June, the State Council issued a White Paper on The Practice of the "One Country, Two Systems" Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (White Paper). With respect to the policy of "one country, two systems", the White Paper states that "a comprehensive and correct understanding and implementation of the policy will prove useful for safeguarding China's sovereignty, security and development interests, for maintaining long-term prosperity and stability in Hong Kong". The White Paper emphasizes that "one country" is the premise of "two systems". There are criticisms that the White Paper is a gate newly established by the Central Authorities, which is tantamount to building an unauthorized structure on the Basic Law. In fact, these people have not seriously studied the original text of the Basic Law. Compared with the Basic Law, the White Paper has neither added nor deleted any substance. It has only adopted the means of going into details in order to present the substance of the Basic Law in a more comprehensive and accurate manner.

President, next week marks the 18th anniversary of the reunification of Hong Kong. I hope that the SAR Government and various sectors of our society will devote more efforts in winning the hearts of people in respect of reunification. I hope that the SAR Government will continue to make efforts to promote the Basic Law in order to help the public learn more about the legislative process and legislative vision of the Basic Law, facilitate a more comprehensive and accurate understanding of the Basic Law, so that various sectors will look to the Basic Law as the mutual legal basis on which they can forge a consensus. As the Government has pointed out, there are 160 Articles in the Basic Law which cover various aspects. Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails. It is my wish that members of our community will have a comprehensive understanding of the Basic Law, and work together in the implementation of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy".

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13777

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, before the meeting was suspended yesterday, Mr Alan LEONG well demonstrated the case of "if you want to condemn somebody, you can always trump up a charge". I also experienced how one assumed a haughty and domineering air. After Mr CHAN Han-pan's speech yesterday, Mr Alan LEONG turned his shame into anger and delivered a long speech. When Mr CHAN Han-pan spoke yesterday, he only quoted the views of some academics towards society and made known in the Chamber the past performance of the Civic Party; and what he said was not unfounded. However, instead of refuting, Mr Alan LEONG only brushed aside this issue lightly by saying "if you want to condemn somebody, you can always trump up a charge". This tactic of dodging the issue really beats me. Nevertheless, given the hard facts in newspapers and news reports, Mr LEONG may be able to deceive members of the public in Hong Kong, but he cannot deceive Heaven.

Mr LEONG said that he and Mr CHAN were not at the same level in discussing Article 45 of the Basic Law. I believe what Mr LEONG wanted to say was that Mr CHAN was inferior. However, I can say boldly for Mr CHAN and myself ― if Mr CHAN is not happy with what I say, he can later criticize me through the internal democratic procedure of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ― if Mr LEONG adopts this approach and conducts himself at this level when he talks about the Basic Law, then both of us really dare not put ourselves at the same level as that of Mr LEONG.

Mr LEONG said that Article 45 of the Basic Law has neither mentioned two to three candidates, nor the fact that the candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee to get "committee nomination". We should not just look at one single Article; instead we should read the entire Basic Law. When a certain Article of the Basic Law is unclear, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) has the authority to interpret the Basic Law. Even if we just talk about one single Article, take Article 45 as an example, the provision stipulates that "the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." Then why does Mr LEONG support civil nomination, a nomination method other than the nominating committee? Such an idea is obviously in contravention of the Basic Law. Why did Mr LEONG not stop such an advocacy but clamored for it during the illegal Occupy Central movement? Thus, the "original intent" mentioned in Mr Dennis KWOK's motion is subject to Mr LEONG's final say. The last sentence of Mr LEONG's speech was "People will make their own decision". Public opinion will also be subject to Mr LEONG's final say. 13778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Last night I thought about this issue for a long time before I went to bed. Eventually a thought flashed in my mind and I was enlightened. The performance of Mr LEONG yesterday as well as over the years can be attributed to his arrogance, thinking that all other people are not at his level and he is smarter than others. It is exactly due to this attitude that Mr LEONG will attain his political goal by hook or by crook. Wishing to have all powers in his hands, he adopts various means to suppress dissenting views. Is there any proof? Mr Ronny TONG is a case in point. The Civic Party is a large political party with six seats in the Legislative Council ― sorry, soon it will only have five seats. Speaking of inciting conflicts, causing division and tearing society apart, I am really not at the same level as Mr LEONG. Given that Mr LEONG is good at misinterpreting documents and even the Basic Law, good at twisting the words of other people but intolerant of other voices, dissension is thus inevitable. If Hong Kong continues to move forward under the guidance of Mr LEONG's thinking, and adopts the "three no's" policy of "no contact, no negotiation and no compromise" previously pursued by Taiwan, the society of Hong Kong will only move in a direction which will further depart from the original intent of the Basic Law, resulting in moving towards the road of "glory isolation" in many areas. By "glory isolation", it means someone regards himself in the right, but in reality, he is being isolated.

Finally, I would like to point out that the original intent of the Basic Law originates from the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. However, not many Members mentioned this point yesterday and today. Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "The State may establish special administrative regions when necessary. The systems to be instituted in special administrative regions shall be prescribed by law enacted by the National People's Congress in the light of specific conditions." Article 62 stipulates: "The National People's Congress exercises the following functions and powers: (13) to decide on the establishment of special administrative regions and the systems to be instituted there." As the Basic Law originates from the NPCSC, Hong Kong does not have "residual powers". This is very different from the system of the United States. In the United States, separation of powers is practised by the state governments and the Federal Government. I had discussed with members of the local community and university students about who holds a higher position, the President of the United States or the state Governor? Many said that the President of the United States has greater power. As a matter of fact, this is not the case. They cannot be gauged by a scale of higher or lower ranks because they are not in the same system. This is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13779 tantamount to asking who holds a higher position, President XI Jinping or BAN Ki-moon? As they are basically not under the same system, a direct comparison is not possible. However, the case of Hong Kong is different. The origin of its law and power is clearly set out. So we must not say that the Central Authorities do not have this power. If the relevant persons do not acknowledge this power, it is impossible to continue with the implementation of the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. Such a wrong mode of thinking should not be expressed among members of the public in Hong Kong. There is no fertile soil for nurturing "Hong Kong independence" or developing ideas that deviate from "one country, two systems". Even if there were, such ideas should not be allowed to exist.

President, I so submit.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the amendments proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr Martin LIAO, but I oppose the original motion and all other amendments. The wording of today's motion is, "That this Council requests the SAR Government to earnestly invite the Central Government to implement and continue the state policy of 'one country, two systems' in Hong Kong in accordance with the original intent of 'one country, two systems'." It seems to imply that the Central Authorities have violated the original intent of "one country, two systems" and have not implemented this policy. As a matter of fact, "one country, two systems" is an important policy concerning the development of our country. Since the reunification in 1997, this policy has remained unchanged and its effectiveness has met with positive responses from the international community.

Looking back, in the 80s of the last century, during the Sino-British negotiation on Hong Kong's future, the then state leaders recognized the special background of Hong Kong, and thus decided to implement the policy of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong after the reunification. An integral concept was formulated. Implementing "one country" is to safeguard the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong by the State. Implementing "two systems" is to maintain the capitalist system all along practised in Hong Kong, safeguard Hong Kong's exercise of jurisdiction over its own affairs, and ensure the way of living of Hong Kong people remain unchanged. The Central Authorities set out the concept in the provisions of the Basic Law, with a view to giving confidence to Hong Kong people and achieving the goal of a smooth reunification and a steady 13780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 transition. During the process of drafting the Basic Law, views from Hong Kong people had also been extensively solicited. Back then, provisions were stipulated in the Basic Law only after a broad consensus had been fostered in the community. Over the past decade or so, the Basic Law has been consistently and thoroughly implemented. It can be considered as the important cornerstone of Hong Kong's development after the reunification.

During this debate, some colleagues had earlier used some controversies to accuse the Central Government of intervening in Hong Kong affairs and undermining "one country, two systems". In my opinion, many of them made accusations on hearsay, and had even deviated from the understanding of "one country, two systems". Under "one country, two systems", Hong Kong, being a special administrative region of China, is an inalienable part of China. A "high degree of autonomy" is conferred by the Central Government to the special administrative region of Hong Kong. "One country" is the premise of "two systems". If we only talk about the autonomy under "two systems" and ignore the sovereignty under "one country", we are only interpreting "one country, two systems" in a one-sided manner. This is not only misinterpreting the original intent of "one country, two systems", but also be detrimental to the smooth implementation of "one country, two systems".

Interpretations of the Basic Law were made by the Central Government on several occasions in the past. In doing so, the Central Government was exercising its right in accordance with the law, clarifying the meaning of the provisions, and at the same time discharging its duties, so as to avoid confusion in the community of Hong Kong, facilitate resolution of disputes, and govern the HKSAR in accordance with the law. Looking back, during the 18 years since the reunification, the Central Government has made its best effort to fully implement "one country, two systems", strictly comply with the Basic Law, and always act in accordance with the law. It has also continuously reminded Hong Kong people to have a comprehensive understanding of "one country, two systems", and act in strict accordance with the Basic Law. Who have actually resisted the basic principle of "one country, two systems"? Who have attempted to violate and depart from the Basic Law? In fact, the answer is clear enough.

As a matter of fact, when compared to the era before the reunification, Hong Kong has been enjoying a higher autonomy and more democratic rights under "one country, two systems", which are manifested in various aspects such as executive power, legislative power and independent judicial power, including LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13781 that of final adjudication. Still, there are people who have insufficient understanding of history, or who are not willing to face history. Having developed a suspicious mind and a hypersensitive reaction towards the Central Government, they attempt to belittle and negate the role of the Central Government in "one country, two systems". This will only dwell a blow to the mutual trust of both sides and undermine the relationship between the Central Government and the HKSAR. Eventually the society will only be plunged into endless disputes and this will not bring benefit to anyone.

The controversies arising from the constitutional reform issue that have just past precisely reflected some people's attitude of taking no notice of "one country, two systems" and disregarding the Basic Law. The constitutional development must be taken forward in accordance with the Basic Law and the framework decided by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) in a gradual and orderly manner. However, some people had negated the Basic Law from the very outset and insisted that civil nomination and party nomination were indispensable. While opposing the framework set out by the NPCSC and negating the principle of gradual and orderly progress, they had depicted the discussion of constitutional reform as confrontation between the Central Authorities and Hong Kong people. Such acts were by no means conducive to narrowing differences and forging consensus. Looking from another perspective, if we do not acknowledge the constitutional status of the Central Authorities, it will be impossible for us to have any benign interaction with the Central Government, resulting in worsened relationship and failure to communicate. It will also be impossible to bring good prospects to various areas, be it constitutional reform, economy or people's livelihood.

What is more worrying is that the society is seemingly showing more interest in this kind of political disputes, resulting in some radical actions. For instance, some students had earlier blatantly burnt copies of the Basic Law, advocating the idea of Hong Kong people devising their own constitution and "Hong Kong independence". Today, someone has also put forward "devising the constitution by all people" in this Chamber. I believe colleagues are well aware that only a fully independent sovereign state has the power to devise a constitution. As Hong Kong is not an independent country, how can it have such a power? I hope we can reconsider whether the objective of such an action is to deny the constitutional status of the Basic Law, mislead the community, negate "one country, two systems", and sever ties with the Central Government. Of course, the Central Government and the SAR Government should also ponder 13782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 on why young people of today are at odds with the authorities? Why have they maintained a negative attitude towards the development of our country in various areas? The SAR Government should also reflect on whether there is insufficient understanding of "one country, two systems", inadequate recognition of national identity, and lack of education on the Basic Law among members of the community; or whether policy blunders of the Government in the past have brought about adverse impacts. It is necessary for the community to conduct a review.

President, I hold that it is very important to have a holistic understanding of "one country, two systems". Under "one country, two systems", we have rights as well as obligations. On the one hand, we enjoy "a high degree of autonomy"; but on the other hand, we have to respect the rights of the Central Government. The Central Authorities have a role to play in safeguarding "one country, two systems". However, Hong Kong must also do its best in discharging its duties and responsibilities. After all, under two systems, it is only through mutual respect for each other and drawing reference from each other that we can co-exist in harmony, join efforts in development and achieve a win-win situation.

I so submit.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, the policy of "one country, two systems" is an epoch-making idea, an open and bold innovation of the governance of a sovereign state over its administrative region. There is a historical background behind this innovation. After the founding of the new China, the State did not recognize the unequal treaties imposed by foreign powers on China. With the capacity to resolve the question of Hong Kong left over by history through peaceful negotiation, China proposed to resume its sovereignty over Hong Kong by implementing "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong", "a high degree of autonomy", and Hong Kong would remain unchanged for 50 years. Our state leader DENG Xiaoping clearly stated that, "The socialist country allows certain special regions to retain the capitalist system ― not for just a short period of time, but for decades or even a century".

The description of "one country, two systems" can be outlined as follows: the principal entity of the State practises the socialist system whereas the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) retains its original capitalist LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13783 system and remains unchanged for a long period of time. This is stipulated in the form of a constitution. "One country, two systems" is something new to us. After years of implementation, incessant exploration and enrichment, continuous enhancement have been made in accordance with actual situation, and with complementarity of strengths of the State and the SAR, the economy and people's livelihood have experienced joint development and advancement, the way of living and the commercial markets have remained stable and prosperous, thereby riding out various financial crises and faring better than many countries and regions. All these exemplify the exuberant vitality of "one country, two systems", and can basically be regarded as one of the most successful examples in history. The key to its success lies in the fact that "one country, two systems" is the basic state policy adopted by the Central Government to realize the peaceful reunification of the country with the aims to safeguard the country's sovereignty, security and development interests; maintain long-term prosperity and stability in Hong Kong; and ensure that members of the public can live in peace and work in contentment, enjoy the capitalist system and way of living which remain unchanged for 50 years. This is clearly the original intent of "one country, two systems" which has all along been implemented.

Members of the public in Hong Kong understand that "one country, two systems" is an integral concept. The Central Government exercises overall jurisdiction over "one country" which includes the HKSAR, and confers only a high degree of autonomy to the HKSAR. The Central Authorities discharges the state duty of handling Hong Kong affairs within the scope of its power. For instance, the interpretation of the Basic Law in four instances by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) had manifested its power to resolve and clarify the relevant legislative content. This is beneficial to Hong Kong. However, some people alleged that interpretation of the Basic Law had damaged the rule of law in Hong Kong. They also smeared that the Basic Law had become a law to be interpreted arbitrarily. In recent years, a small number of localists with ulterior motives opposed the NPCSC in exercising its entitled constitutional power with regard to the constitutional development of Hong Kong. They have provoked conflicts between the Mainland and Hong Kong, and have even blatantly advocated "Hong Kong independence". Concern for such a situation must be aroused among various sectors in the community. We absolutely must not allow these people to cause trouble and jeopardize national security.

13784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

President, "one country, two systems" is a brilliant policy that resolves a historical issue. It is not only conducive to the reunification of the nation, but is also a mission straddling one generation to the next, requiring the faithful implementation by one generation after another. Thus, it is imperative to have a correct understanding of "one country, two systems", implement the policy directive of "one country, two systems" in a comprehensive, accurate and consistent manner; as well as strengthen the education and knowledge of this policy directive. Under "one country, two systems", there should be a clear sense of precedence of the sovereign state and the subordinate region. However, the two must also co-exist. As the saying goes, "Country comes before home; if we do not have a country, how can we have a home?" The same rationale applies in this case. If we do not have "one country", how can we have "two systems"? Without the Constitution of our country serving as the foundation, how can there be the legal basis to formulate the Basic Law? Thus, it is only by respecting "one country" and implementing "two systems" that assurance in the long run can be secured.

President, implementation and continuance of "one country, two systems" is mentioned in this motion. In my opinion, implementation of "one country, two systems" must be based on loyalty and faithfulness, while its continuance must be able to sustain for a century. The original intent of formulating the policy of "one country, two systems" with the objective of serving both the country and Hong Kong is very clear. This state policy is innovative and open. The fact that the Central Authorities have acted in accordance with the Constitution and the law and have offered various benefits to Hong Kong are vilified as intervening in Hong Kong affairs. While "one country, two systems" allows the SAR to retain its original capitalist system and way of living, some people have unwisely developed it into a kind of localism which jeopardizes harmony in the community. Some people have also advocated a complete autonomy, and even demanded to replace "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" with "self-determination by Hong Kong people". We must guard against all these specious arguments and sophistry. Any poisonous seeds of "Hong Kong independence" must be eradicated; otherwise, they will bring calamity to "one country, two systems" and members of the public in Hong Kong.

President, I hope that Hong Kong people who genuinely wish to stay behind for the development of Hong Kong will make sincere efforts to proactively implement "one country, two systems". Only in this way can good fortune be bestowed on the Motherland and the SAR be benefited as well. I so submit. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13785

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, in these two days, I have been listening to many colleagues, and I find their speeches very interesting. Some Members suggested that the Central Government should reflect on why so many young people are dissatisfied with the governance in the course of implementing "one country, two systems". The SAR Government, the community as well as the pan-democratic camp should engage in self-reflection. However, I have not heard anyone said that the pro-establishment camp should engage in self-reflection. How come everyone has to engage in self-reflection, but it seems that the pro-establishment camp does not have to undertake any responsibilities?

In the 17 years since the reunification, owing to the fact that people have different understanding and standard of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", and "a high degree of autonomy" stipulated in the Basic Law, conflicts in the community have emerged. Nevertheless, we have all along adhered to this criterion, hoping that under the framework of the Basic Law, the core values of Hong Kong can be safeguarded, so that Hong Kong will become a place different from other cities in the Mainland and continue to enjoy prosperity and stability. These are our common aspirations.

However, in the course of governance during these 17 years, members of the pro-establishment camp or persons with vested interest have been exploiting the free political lunch conferred or given by the Basic Law to gain the greatest interest. Many members of the public thus have no other alternatives but to direct the spearhead at the Central Authorities. They hope that the Central Government will face the relevant problem squarely and address the root cause of the governance issue of Hong Kong. As we can see from the discussion in these two days, the governance issue, which a topic of great public concern, has all along been overplayed to the extent of becoming a national security issue. Some people have also put forward different views, such as self-determination by the people. As a matter of fact, this is merely a minority view, but some people insist that such opinion must be nipped in the bud. What benefit will overplaying the matter bring to the governance of society? What benefit will this bring to the implementation of "one country, two systems"?

Over the past 17 years since the reunification, in implementing "one country, two systems" formulated by the Basic Law, members of the public have all along been dissatisfied with the progress of democratic development. Nevertheless, we generally think that other constitutional provisions have 13786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 effectively safeguarded the community, people's livelihood as well as basic rights. As a matter of fact, the Basic Law has stipulated that our human rights and freedom, including freedom of speech, are safeguarded by various provisions. However, to our understanding, in assessing the implementation of the Basic Law, we should consider whether it can maintain social stability, and provide a way and platform to resolve social conflicts. Has anyone ever thought of these issues?

Over the past 20-odd months, we had exerted all efforts on the discussion of the Chief Executive election. The selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage under the framework of the 31 August Decision confirmed that the Central Government would conduct screening on the premise of national security. The requirements were clear enough. The Government asked the pan-democratic Members to accept the screening mechanism so as to safeguard national security. While we were determined to safeguard national security, if trivial matters are overplayed and elevated to the level of national security, the radical forces would make use of the opportunities to develop and gain strength. Rationality cannot be restored to society.

Have they reflected on this point? If we ponder seriously on how to resolve social conflicts, can we consider from another perspective? Can we consider from the perspective of check and balance to resolve Hong Kong's problems? If the pro-establishment camp does not consider this point and the composition of the Legislative Council, but insists that the Legislative Council election by universal suffrage will only be realized after the Chief Executive election by universal suffrage, its hypocrisy will be revealed. Basically, they are not willing to give up free political lunch. In order to resolve social conflicts through a political system, a check and balance mechanism must be put in place. While the Chief Executive election is related to executive power, the arrangement of the Legislative Council election manifests the power of check and balance. Will a comprehensive discussion lead to a solution?

Unfortunately, this is the second day of the debate. In these two days, everyone has been shifting the responsibility to the pan-democratic Members because 28 Members had voted against the constitutional reform package, resulted in the community losing the opportunity of "one person, one vote". However, various sectors of society should think clearly, if the constitutional reform package is pushed through, a new definition will be given to "universal suffrage", and that is, we have to acknowledge that the screening mechanism LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13787 applied in the Chief Executive election by universal suffrage may be introduced to the Legislative Council election by universal suffrage which aims to abolish the political system of functional constituencies. The community and the pan-democratic camp are most unwilling to see this happen because we cannot accept a Council completely deprived of check and balance.

In these two days, as seen in the arguments presented by Members, responsibilities have been shifted to the pan-democratic Members. It has been pointed out that the Central Government, the SAR Government, the community as well as the pan-democratic Members have to engage in self-reflection. Has the pro-establishment camp been engaged in self-reflection? What responsibilities should be borne by them for the confused state of governance over the past 17 years?

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the amendments proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr Martin LIAO, but I oppose the original motion and all other amendments.

President, while the SAR Government and the pro-establishment Members have all along made every endeavour to implement "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law, the pan-democratic Members have been fighting for dual universal suffrage. In fact, there is no conflict between the two. The reason is that if "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law are not implemented, universal suffrage will simply be non-existent.

After the debate held yesterday and this morning, we can see that the views of the pan-democratic Members and the pro-establishment Members on this subject are poles apart. This Council has been seriously divided over a period of time in the past. Why do we come to this pass? Why do we have different understanding of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law? I think the essence of the pan-democratic Members has changed. In the past, they also talked about "one country, two systems", but now they only talk about "two systems" and cease to talk about "one country". I realize from the words and deeds of the pan-democratic Members as well as their speeches delivered just now that they do not recognize our country and the Central Government. They are even hostile to the Central Government. Though some localists talk about "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong", they in fact deny "one country, 13788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 two systems" as well as the core constitutional position of Hong Kong. From the outset, "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong", and "a high degree of autonomy" is a "three-in-one" concept. It should not be taken out of context.

Compared to many colleagues in the Chamber, my experience in politics is not very long. However, the pan-democrats I used to know were not like that. I remember Mencius once said, "The benevolent, beginning with what they care for, proceed to what they do not care for. Those who are the opposite of benevolent, beginning with what they do not care for, proceed to what they care for."1 The meaning of this is that those who are benevolent and kind will treat the ones they do not love in the same way as they treat the ones they love. Meanwhile, those who are malevolent and unkind will treat the ones they love in the same way as they treat the ones they do not love. Take the constitutional reform package that had just been vetoed as an example. Universal suffrage is treasured by the pan-democrats. I believe the pan-democratic Members of previous terms would adopt a friendly attitude towards the universal suffrage package which they had strong views. However, when the current constitutional reform package was put to vote, we could see a hostile attitude adopted by the pan-democratic Members to veto the package. They were determined to "kill" the constitutional reform package. While the Central Authorities, the pro-establishment camp and more than half of the Hong Kong people supported the implementation of universal suffrage in accordance with the law, the pan-democratic Members unswervingly opposed the package. Sometimes I feel very dejected when seeing such a situation.

President, Mr Dennis KWOK's original motion has specially mentioned the original intent of "one country, two systems". I would also like to take this opportunity to recap on the proposals of DENG Xiaoping and JIANG Zemin for Hong Kong's future in the 80s and 90s. In 1982, in a speech entitled "Our Basic Position on the Question of Hong Kong", DENG Xiaoping said (I quote), "Maintaining prosperity in Hong Kong depends fundamentally on applying policies suitable to Hong Kong, under Chinese administration after the recovery. Hong Kong's current political and economic systems and even most of its laws can remain in force. Of course, some of them will be modified." (End of quote) The pan-democratic Members criticize the White Paper on "one country, two systems" issued by the State Council last year as building an unauthorized

1 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13789 structure on the Basic Law. I hold that this is a false allegation. This is because DENG Xiaoping had already made it clear in 1982 that the Central Authorities' basic position on Hong Kong is "applying policies suitable to Hong Kong, under Chinese administration". This is very explicit.

Thus, "one country, two systems" was the solution, solving not only the problem facing Hong Kong, but also the problem facing China back then. In 1984, DENG Xiaoping pointed out in a speech entitled "One Country, Two Systems" that "one country, two systems" included the identification with the country. He said (I quote), "If at this stage people are still worried about whether they can trust us, having no faith in the People's Republic of China and the Chinese Government, what is the point of talking about anything?" (End of quote) Thus, if we do not identify ourselves with the country but adopt a hostile attitude towards the Central Authorities, there is no point of talking about "one country, two systems".

In 1990, JIANG Zemin said, "Preserving the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong is a basic state policy of China." He had also indicated that the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong was not only of great importance to Hong Kong, but also of immense significance to the Mainland. The pan-democratic Members believe that "one country, two systems" means the Central Authorities will not exercise any power over anything at all. Such an understanding does not comply with the long-standing position of the country. It is evident from the quotation I made just now that the Central Authorities' interpretation and explanation of "one country, two systems" have not changed from the outset, be it in the 80s or 90s or even now. Thus, I hold that the original motion is basically a pseudo-proposition. This is because the Central Government has all along implemented its basic state policy in Hong Kong in accordance with the original intent of "one country, two systems". The pan-democrats have distorted "one country, two systems" with many specious arguments. At first I thought the more the truth is debated, the clearer it will become. But after I have listened for quite a while, it turns out that for the pan-democratic Members, the more the truth is debated, the more blurred it has become. Are they actually playing dumb or pretending to be fools? I believe members of the public will make their own judgment. However, I can clearly see that for the pan-democratic Members, they are "beginning with what they do not care for, proceed to what they care for".

President, I so submit.

13790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

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

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, our system shall remain unchanged for 50 years following the reunification. In fact, one third of the 50 years has already elapsed, and we are about to face another one third in the middle of the span. Do we need to actively and pragmatically plan for the state of affairs after 2047? I am afraid that in the last 10 years, a lot of practical work will be involved, such as amending the Basic Law or making any other arrangements. Therefore, it is now a good time for us to understand or learn about the arrangements and implementation of the Basic Law and "one country, two systems". For this reason, I would like to express my gratitude to Mr Dennis KWOK for proposing this motion.

My views differ from those of many of my colleagues. While I think we have the hardware for "one country, two systems", including the Basic Law, we lag behind in terms of software. No system can work with the mere existence of legislation. Many people claim that we have the Basic Law, the military forces and institutions, but all these are merely hardware; as for the software essence of "one country, two systems" and the culture required, we have failed completely. Over the years the SAR Government has not done the work expected of it in this regard, so I think this subject warrants our discussion.

President, the seventh round of China-United States Strategic and Economic Dialogue has just concluded in Washington, DC. China and the United States discussed the South China Sea issue, the most important strategic issues, as well as the constitutional reform in Hong Kong that we had already dealt with. We voted hastily on the constitutional reform package; some media even criticized us for not delaying slightly but voted on the package on two inauspicious days, thus leading to the great folly that ensued. What are the reasons for arranging to put the package to vote on that day? Many people may not be aware that the timing and strategic arrangement actually involve strategic consideration of a higher level. Upon the settling of this issue, there will be fewer obstacles (such as the South China Sea issue and the constitutional reform in Hong Kong) between China and the United States, and two sides can have dialogue in a relatively peaceful environment.

President, some people may think that I have just digressed too far. As a matter of fact, Hong Kong is just a tiny place in China, if we fail to understand the strategies and arrangements of our country, the risks it faces as well as its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13791 concerns, we will only end up being tiny frogs looking at the sky at the bottom of a well. While "one country, two systems" is our main focus, it is actually a minor issue in the eyes of China.

President, many people have made no efforts to understand some very simple political concepts, such as capitalism, socialism and communism. To us communism is a scourge, a deadly cancer. In fact, communism may represent a utopia, an unattainable ideal, and many problems would arise in the pursuit of communism. If we have prejudice, thinking that it is cyanide, become allergic or even neat freak, we will not be able to tackle the core of the problem.

Since Hong Kong is on the periphery of China, we cannot ignore the factors of space and time when it comes to geopolitics. Over the past several decades the Communist regime had really done many things that Hong Kong people consider inappropriate, and this has become a historical burden. However, since one-party rule is in place with no changes in ruling parties, this burden cannot be relieved by a change of personnel, the Communist Party thus has to bear the responsibility for the past history. Some people constantly call for ending one-party Communist rule. I am afraid those who make such an appeal probably do not understand the concept of communism. Although being a party in name, the Communist Party is actually not a party but an institution, an institution that transcends the government. For this reason, if we constantly compare the Communist Party with other parties such as the political parties in the United Kingdom and the United States, we will actually be ignoring the genuine essence, for the Communist Party is not a party but an institution and thus it cannot be replaced at any time.

While we must certainly conduct in-depth studies in this regard, I would like to emphasize again that Singapore has seven academic research centres that specialize in studying the state of affairs in China and its other neighbouring countries. However, in Hong Kong, we only have the One Country Two Systems Research Institute, which has not conducted any meaningful study, and not much funds have been allocated to conduct studies. China knows about Hong Kong far better than Hong Kong knows about China. How many of us truly understand the system of China? How many of us care about the national policies of China? How many of us have any knowledge about the China-United States issues that I mentioned just now? We merely set eyes on Hong Kong, so I hope that despite our bad performance and the criticisms directed against the pro-establishment camp, we can at least make good use of this opportunity to start afresh. 13792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

I welcome Mr Ronny TONG's departure from the radical line, a move that may awaken more people. Our past practices and ways were not appropriate. If we want to move forward, we must gain more knowledge in a humble manner, and have a better understanding of the state of affairs of our country, the difficulties it faces and the way it is moving ahead. Only by doing so can we better grasp the development of Hong Kong, support our country at this position and time, and enable Hong Kong to do a better job.

I certainly agree that with regard to some political packaging and ethics, the officials of the Hong Kong Government might be less sensitive about the perception in the past. We must pay special attention to this in the political sense. That said, it is most important for us to understand the very essence of the software for "one country, two systems"; otherwise, we would only be concerned about the various legal arrangements under the Basic Law, to the neglect of the most important issues that we should pay attention to.

Over the years the United Kingdom has preserved many of its traditions despite the lack of a constitution. Hong Kong has the Basic Law, but we have made no efforts to understand the Basic Law, neither do we know how to defend the stance under "one country, two systems". We must never overstep the proper boundary under "one country, two systems". Despite the fact that we enjoy freedom of speech, the constant appeal made by our colleagues and the media to end one-party rule may, I am afraid, have overstepped the proper boundary under "one country, two systems". Thank you, President.

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

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, "the solider has come!" I think we do not have a sufficient number of "thieves" in this Chamber. The number of Members present is insufficient; we must rely on the "solider" to summon them back. Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure … no, but which provision should I invoke? I do not know. After all, I think a quorum is not present. By visual inspection, I fail to see the presence of a quorum. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13793

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please speak.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, through our discussion today on the "one country, two systems" proposition, we can refresh our understanding on "one country, two systems" as we debate the subject in this Council. I must thank Mr Dennis KWOK for giving us this opportunity. Nonetheless, I hold that the proposition he stated in the motion, namely, that the SAR Government be requested to earnestly invite the Central Government to do this and that in accordance with the original intent of "one country, two systems" simply does not exist. Hence, I will not support his original motion. Instead I will only support the amendments proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr Martin LIAO.

It has been 18 years since Hong Kong's reunification. The practice of "one country, two systems" is unprecedented, so to speak. There is no experience we can draw on and we can only rely on lessons learnt from practical experience. The practise of having two systems in one country allows Hong Kong to maintain its capitalist system. During these 18 years, Hong Kong has maintained prosperity and stability under "one country, two systems", with its Gross Domestic Product increasing substantially from $1.344 trillion in 1997 to $2.2556 trillion last year. The foundation of our prosperity and stability lies exactly on the Basic Law. But many people have belittled the Basic Law or distorted it deliberately, and some even burnt copies of the Basic Law. This is something we should be wary of.

Although I am sure Members are well-versed in the Basic Law, I still want to read out the provisions of Article 45. It reads as follows: "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government.

13794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

"The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

"The specific method for selecting the Chief Executive is prescribed in Annex I 'Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region'."

Clearly, it follows from the wording itself that the method for selecting the Chief Executive has been prescribed under Article 45 of the Basic Law, namely, the candidates are to be nominated by the nominating committee. Yet throughout the debate from yesterday to this morning, Members including Mr Alan LEONG kept saying that while they respected the Basic Law, the National People's Congress had erected "unauthorized structure" on top of the Basic Law. But judging from what they have said to date, all their views are in contravention of the Basic Law. They demanded the adoption of civil nomination to nominate candidates for the office of the Chief Executive, but this term has not been mentioned in Article 45 of the Basic Law at all. I cannot imagine how a senior barrister can present something totally unseen in the Basic Law as the most correct interpretation of the relevant provisions.

Separately, a "fake professor" had incited other people to participate in Occupy Central or civil disobedience ― pardon me for the slip, I mean Prof TAI. It is quite inconceivable for him, as a professor of law at the University of Hong Kong, to violate the law blatantly and mobilize other people to occupy public places. Worse still, he shamelessly went to the Police to give testimony, claiming that he was turning himself in. His action is indeed an eye-opener for Hong Kong people.

Many members of the public whom I come into contact every day invariably say that Hong Kong has changed. Why did that happen? It is because the law has been distorted by some people who supposedly have legal knowledge or who proclaimed to be law-abiding citizens. If the law works to their advantage, they would regard it as law, but if the law does not work to their advantage, they would say it is wrong. I once read a book written by Prof LAU Siu-kai about the current political situation of Hong Kong, and there is a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13795 paragraph describing the dissatisfaction felt by the middle-class on the current political problems. Perhaps allow me to cite the paragraph as follows (and I quote), "The middle-class is dissatisfied with the political situation, including their dislike for the close-mindedness and alienation of government officials. They consider that the current mechanism for co-opting elites in society and consulting public opinions has become ineffective. The above actually reflects how some people perceive the current situation. Nonetheless, due to the instigation of some politicians, such feelings of dissatisfaction have manifested into the current dissatisfaction against the political system." (End of quote)

In order to steer Hong Kong onto the right track again, I think we must refresh our understanding of the Basic Law and "one country, two systems", which are important cornerstones for the political reform to proceed and for Hong Kong to move forward.

I so submit.

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

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I believe many Members are waiting for me to speak, but they can rest assured because I do not intend to move any adjournment motion. President, you said earlier that I was happy to be called "a thief", but you have taken me wrong. What I meant was that I was most honoured that your ruling had "gone astray" because of me. President, you have misunderstood my meaning.

Regarding today's motion debate, I think more should be said about the prospect. As we all know, "one country, two systems" has existed in name only since the establishment of the Central Coordination Group for Hong Kong and Macao Affairs in 2003. Under its baton, different classes as well as various trades and industries in Hong Kong are being manipulated ubiquitously and pervasively.

The Umbrella Revolution is a continuous struggle under the principles of "one country, two systems", self-determination by the people and "a high degree of autonomy" for Hong Kong people. The goal is to ensure the continuous existence of "two systems" under "one country, two systems" and hence, the 13796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 preservation of our core values. It is particularly clear that over the past three years since the Big Liar LEUNG Chun-ying came into office, Hong Kong society has been ripped apart and embroiled in conflicts, resulting in the gradual disappearance of our core values, as well as the gradual destruction of the neutrality of the Civil Service, including the impartiality of the President. Under the circumstances, what can be done by Hong Kong people? The question on many people's mind is: In the aftermath of the Umbrella Revolution, especially when the "fake constitutional reform" proposal under the framework laid down by the 31 August Decision was vetoed by an overwhelming majority vote of 8:28 in the Council, what is the way forward for Hong Kong's democratic movement?

President, since its founding in 2011, People's Power has all along advocated for struggling inside and outside the Council. We hold that civil disobedience and the non-cooperation movement are the way forward for striving "a high degree of autonomy" for Hong Kong people as well self-determination for our future and fate. Hence, we stage filibustering inside the Council. Outside the Council, we participate in actions of civil disobedience and have been arrested many times for such actions.

In the coming year or in the future, many things can actually be done by Hong Kong people. In the future, we advocate the hoisting of yellow umbrellas, or even the holding of "three strikes", that is, workers' strike, merchants' strike and students' strike as a means of struggle. In our daily lives, we can use simple gestures, such as the actions taken by students of the Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts in their graduation ceremony, to demonstrate our resistance to unreasonable governance as well as the governance by a government without people's mandate. The students were engaging in performing arts, unlike the "hypocritical rhetoric" of LEUNG Chun-ying. It is very important for us to display this attitude of non-acceptance on all occasions. It is a form of power if each Hong Kong citizen displays this attitude of non-acceptance: it becomes the power to say "no" to autocracy.

If a more radical approach is to be adopted, we can initiate some occupation actions, say, to occupy a street, a park or an entrance, provided that the action must be taken peacefully. For even more radical actions, we can use the power of consumers to strike against the royalists or economic forces titling towards the Hong Kong Communist regime by initiating general boycott actions or boycotts against certain products.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13797

Looking back to history, people's economic power is a tool often deployed in resistance movements. For example, during the stay-at-home strike in South Africa in the 80s, black people were urged to stay home and stop consumer spending in order to protest against the apartheid policy of the all-white government. As a result, the economy of the entire Johannesburg was half paralysed.

Labour strikes would be an even more violent form of protest. In 1989, Solidarity or the Independent Self-governing Trade Union of Poland led a three-month general strike which eventually brought the then Communist regime to its knee, and people's demands for democratic elections were accepted. As shown throughout history by protest actions in India, South Africa as well as other places under the rule of a Communist regime, people under autocratic rule can achieve success eventually through their determination in staging non-violent civil obedience actions of non-cooperation and non-acceptance.

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

Of course, some people would say that Hong Kong is only a tiny place, how can it stand up against a government ruling 1.3 billion people? How can 7 million people of Hong Kong stand up against a government ruling 1-odd billion people, the People's Liberation Army, or even the SAR Government which is controlled by "evil cops" and "black cops"? But let us not underestimate the influence brought about by the willpower of people engaging in struggling.

If Members can still recall, the Canton-Hong Kong Strike which took place in Hong Kong, Macao and Guangzhou in 1925 had eventually forced the British-Hong Kong Government to accede to people's demands. After the 4 June Incident in 1989, it was planned to launch "three strikes" (that is, workers' strike, merchants' strike and students' strike) in Hong Kong on 7 June. I was also personally involved in the matter. At that time, under the helm of SZETO Wah, Chairman of Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China, the "three strikes" to be commenced on 7 June were suddenly called off by SZETO Wah owing to riots in Yau Ma Tei on 6 June. Nobody knows if there were other reasons behind. From the biography of "Uncle Wah", many political puzzles were left unanswered as to whether his then decision was genuinely based on the objective environment or whether other special forces were lurking behind. 13798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Nevertheless, from the perspective of history, be it the history of overseas countries and local history, if local resistance movements are to be taken forward, actions ranging from holding yellow umbrellas to "three strikes" are essential strategy to strive for "one country, two systems", "a high degree of autonomy" for Hong Kong people, as well as the continuous existence of "two systems" under "one country, two systems". People's Power will definitely continue with our struggles with perseverance. (The buzzer sounded)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Speaking time is up. Please sit down.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): The Basic Law is in fact a document expounding on the implementation of "one country, two systems". The last sentence of Article 159 of the Basic Law reads as follows: "No amendment to this Law shall contravene the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong." I was told by Mr Martin LEE that this provision was added upon his request because he was concerned that the provisions thereunder might be interpreted wilfully after the promulgation of the Basic Law. Hence it was vital to include a provision against contravening "the established basic policies of the People's Republic of China regarding Hong Kong".

Regrettably, since the establishment of the SAR Government in 1997, this general policy and the provisions of the Basic Law have changed beyond recognition after various interpretations, decisions and statements had been made, and even some "unauthorized structures" have been imposed. The White Paper on The Practice of the "One Country, Two Systems" Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (White Paper) promulgated last year even dispensed with the steps of making statements, explanations, decisions, and so on. By publishing the White Paper, a new interpretation is given to the Basic Law, and a new framework is defined. "One country, two systems" is undermined through these incessant attempts of moving the goalpost and redefining the boundaries.

In Chapter 8 of The Analects․Wei Zheng, Zi Xia asked Confucius what filial piety was. The first words uttered by the Master in reply were "The difficulty is with the countenance." He then went on to explain that, "If, when their elders have any troublesome affairs, the young take the toil of them, and if, when the young have wine and food, they set them before their elders, is this to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13799 be considered filial piety?"2 The latter two examples are related to objective actions, for instance, letting the elders have good food and doing chores for them, which can be measured against objective standards. But the Master's first answer, viz., the difficulty is with the countenance, is more elusive because this is something strictly subjective. "The difficulty is with the countenance" means that when doing deeds out of filial piety, we must let the elders feel our happiness and gentleness, and that we are doing them from the bottom of our hearts. It is most subjective and well illustrates the cultural difference in the interpretation of "one country, two systems" under discussion now.

Many Hong Kong people are used to the common law system. To them, so long as they do not breach the written laws or violate the prohibitions thereunder and perform certain duties under the law, they have already given their support for "one country, two systems". But it turns out that this is not the case in the eyes of the leaders in Beijing. The additional requirements also include love the country and love Hong Kong. Yet these requirements involve subjective judgment without any objective standards. Moreover, even though the pro-democracy camp has vetoed the constitutional reform package in accordance with the original "Three-step Process" under the Basic Law or even the "Five-step Process" imposed illegally, they are still subject to over-the-top criticisms and treated as if they have denounced "one country two systems".

Given such a difference, the motion debate moved by Mr Dennis KWOK today on the continuance of "one country, two systems" is most timely. As we can see now, the boundary and definition of "one country, two systems" have become increasingly blurred. Has it even reached the point of "letting those who comply with me thrive and those who resist me perish"? I am quite convinced that it was not the original intent of "one country, two systems".

In fact, we must constantly review the true meaning of "two systems" as no place can remain unchanged for 50 years because society is always changing. But we have a basic principle, that is, other than national defence and foreign affairs which are the responsibilities of the Central Authorities, affairs of the SAR must be handled under the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy", and implemented through democratic elections as provided under Article 45 of the Basic Law.

2 13800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

However the constitutional reform package intends to formalize the coterie elections under the guise of a nomination process, and Hong Kong people are then made to endorse the coterie nomination process. I am sorry but we really cannot agree to it. Even though we vetoed the package in accordance with the procedures provided under the Basic Law, we are regarded as being treacherous. In that case, how can we maintain the "two systems"?

Under "two systems", apart from the difference in political systems, Article 39 of the Basic Law also provides for the protection enjoyed by Hong Kong people regarding their freedoms and human rights as vested by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including the freedom of speech and expression. Without such protection, the previous way of life in Hong Kong will be gone.

Yesterday, Mr James TIEN stated that the "two systems" were actually premised on the economic situation to ensure that the previous capitalist system shall remain unchanged. I am sorry to point out that the concept of "two systems" goes far beyond the economy. It also includes the protection I mentioned a moment ago under Article 39 of the Basic Law regarding our previous way of life as vested by the ICCPR, that is, the protection for our freedoms and basic rights under the "one system" of Hong Kong.

Regrettably, over the past 17 years, we can see that the "two systems" have been eroded constantly, so much so that certain parliamentary protocol is being destroyed. Before 1997 when Sir John SWAINE was the President of the Legislative Council, who would have thought that a WhatsApp group would be formed to allow the President to discuss the proceedings with a major political party in the Council while he is presiding at a Council meeting? Who would have thought that the President could send messages to Members advising them to reserve their energy and not to speak first? That is exactly the downfall of the "two systems". To prevent the fall, we must work together to uphold the "two systems". Hence, Deputy President, I support the motion proposed by Mr Dennis KWOK today. I also hope that all Hong Kong people would be aware of the ongoing downfall.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13801

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Dennis KWOK for proposing this motion "Implementation and continuance of 'one country, two systems'", and the number of Members who are interested to speak on this motion has outnumbered that of the motion on constitutional reform. According to my observation, Members who had not spoken on the motion on constitutional reform last time have spoken on this motion.

However, it seems to me that Members still have not shaken off the shadow of last week's "Wait for 'Uncle Fat'" incident. The speeches made by a number of royalist Members are, to be polite, a bit eccentric or, to be blunt, neurotic. They have put forward many conspiracy theories and far-fetched speculations and have overplayed the issue.

Firstly, when Mr WONG Kwok-hing spoke just now, he said that the scheduling of Mr Dennis KWOK's motion on "one country, two systems" to be conducted after the voting of the constitutional reform package was a premeditated and well-planned act with ulterior motive. But may I ask how Members can ascertain when the motion will be dealt with when they submit the motion topic? Have they read the "Chinese almanac" to choose the date and time?

Secondly, not knowing that the constitutional reform package would be put to vote on 17 and 18 June, how can the Member premeditate to defend for himself during the discussion of the implementation of "one country, two systems" after the package was vetoed? This is a completely weird and far-fetched speculation made by Members seeking to overplay the matter. I therefore have to play the role as "the vanguard against WONG" and highlight the fallacious argument of Mr WONG Kwok-hing.

Mr Dennis KWOK's motion reads, "That this Council requests the SAR Government to earnestly invite the Central Government to implement and continue the state policy of 'one country, two systems' in Hong Kong in accordance with the original intent of 'one country, two systems'." Regarding the original intent of "one country, two systems", it is of paramount importance to talk about the original intent of advocating the system.

In the 80s, Mr DENG Xiaoping, a veteran of the Communist Party of China (CPC), put forward the principle of "one country, two systems" to deal with the transfer of Hong Kong's sovereignty, with a view to realizing the 13802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 unification of China. At that time, Mr DENG Xiaoping was well aware that Hong Kong people and the international world had no faith in the CPC, in particular, the chaotic situation since the founding of the People's Republic of China in the past decades had made Hong Kong people extremely nervous in the early 80s. Thus, Mr DENG Xiaoping had reiterated time and again before he died that the principles of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" would remain unchanged for 50 years. Notwithstanding that, I think we need not carefully weigh the phrase "remain unchanged for 50 years" because in my opinion, the "50 years" therein does not have any special meaning. If he said the situation would remain unchanged for a thousand years, Members may find it too abstract, whereas "50 years" is a foreseeable future, by then people of that generation should have passed away.

He once said, "There will be no changes in my generation or in the next. And I doubt that 50 years after 1997, when the Mainland is developed, people will handle matters like this in a narrow-minded way. So don't worry, there won't be any changes." That is what he meant. We should not be doing the count down, worrying what should be done in the remaining 20-odd years, let alone classifying the remaining days into the so-called early period, intermediate period and later period. The fact is, the four words "one country, two systems" is an instrument of rule to stabilize people's confidence. During the transitional period before the transfer of sovereignty, this instrument was used to tell Hong Kong people not to be anxious and not to emigrate. Today, bigwigs anointed by the CPC are probably more loathe than some Hong Kong people to see any changes in Hong Kong.

Another instrument is the remark made by former General Secretary of the CPC, JIANG Zemin, in December 1989 when he discussed the relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland with the then British diplomat, Percy CRADOCK, that is, "well water does not intrude into river water". JIANG Zemin put forward this argument of "well water does not intrude into river water" during the transitional period because Hong Kong people were generally worried that the CPC would interfere in Hong Kong affair after 1997, and the CPC was also worried that Hong Kong would overthrow the Beijing regime ― which is almost impossible. The then CPC leaders considered that the two sides should not interfere with each other after the reunification. The "one country, two systems" policy is like a firewall which pacifies Hong Kong people on the one hand, and guards against the intervention of Hong Kong people in Mainland LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13803 affairs on the other. However, the Beijing Government was adamant in holding the power of final interpretation, and has put "one country" before "two systems" when elaborating the political issues of Hong Kong.

Today, many Members accused that we merely focus on "two systems" to the neglect of "one country", but what can we talk about "one country"? "One country" is an objective fact. Will it disappear if no one talks about it? When Hong Kong people expressed concern over the cases of ZHAO Lianhai and LI Wangyang, as well as China's human rights and the rule of law, we were berated as "well water attempting to intrude into river water". The remark made at that time was actually "well water does not intrude into river water" but not "river water does not intrude into well water", in which "well water" refers to Hong Kong and "river water" refers to the Mainland. According to our understanding, both sides should refrain from intruding each other or crossing the line. However, when Hong Kong people expressed dissatisfaction over the intervention of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong's elections, we were berated as being instigated by foreign forces and promoting "Hong Kong independence".

Supposedly, "one country, two systems", "a high degree of autonomy" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" are the solemn undertakings of Beijing to Hong Kong people. During the period from the late 80s when universal suffrage was included in the Basic Law to the transitional period and then 10-odd years after the transfer of sovereignty, Beijing has been evasive about the true definition of universal suffrage. This has given the public the wrong impression that the universal suffrage mentioned in the Basic Law would enable Hong Kong people to have a genuine choice in the election. However, the White Paper on "one country, two systems" published by the CPC last year has not only denied our right to "a high degree of autonomy", but has clearly stated that the Central Government has "overall jurisdiction" over Hong Kong. Worse still, the framework of the 31 August Decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress last year has also exposed the cruel reality that the so-called "genuine universal suffrage" is the election of candidates screened under the tight control of the CPC by Hong Kong people.

Since there is not much time left, the last thing that I want to say is, regarding the notions of "one country, two systems", "well water does not intrude into river water" or the universal suffrage promised at a later date, they are all instruments used by the Chinese side to control Hong Kong. Control can be 13804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 good in the sense of stability and prosperity which people often said, but when people began to cast serious doubt on what has been guaranteed, for example, it is impossible to implement genuine universal suffrage, Hong Kong will inevitably plunge into a state where governance is no longer possible. Therefore, the best governance is to implement genuine universal suffrage and uphold "one country, two systems".

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

DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Hong Kong would have reunified with the motherland for 18 years six to seven days later. The motion "Implementation and continuance of 'one country, two systems'" proposed by Mr Dennis KWOK on behalf of the Civic Party today is indeed a very solemn and serious one. I think members of the public, colleagues of this Council, the SAR Government and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Liaison Office) would wish to see Members discussing this motion in a serious and solemn manner. Our discussion seeks to review, based on facts and reasons in a practicable and easy-to-understand manner, whether "one country, two systems" has been smoothly and effectively implemented in Hong Kong over the past 18 years. However, after listening to the speeches made by a number of Members who have spoken yesterday and this morning, especially the Members proposing the original motion and the amendments as well as those from the pan-democratic camp, I find this motion a waste of time.

I find the speeches of many opposition Members pretty saddening and disheartening. Why? Because what they have said are mere sophistry and ravings, fabricating and distorting the truth. Mr Dennis KWOK intended to urge for better implementation of "one country, two systems" through this motion, but his speech delivered yesterday was nothing but malicious accusation, just like a thief accusing others of theft. If he proposed this motion on behalf of the Civic Party, I can see why Mr Ronny TONG has to leave the party. He has made the right decision. It is downright impossible for him to "wallow in the mire", and he has no choice but to leave as he is too shameful to work with his party members. I hope Mr Dennis KWOK will engage in self-reflection for he should not go on this way.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13805

Deputy President, the grand idea of "one country, two systems" is not only a promise made by the State to 7 million people of Hong Kong, but also a promise made to the 1.36 billion people nation-wide and the rest of the world. The promise is solemn. In the past 18 years, the State has demonstrated great sincerity and determination to implement "one country, two systems". But regrettably, some people of Hong Kong have made numerous attempts to disrupt and stifle the development of "one country, two systems". They were overwhelmed with joy to see the smooth development of "one country, two systems" being upset. This is because their mentality still remains in the colonial era and they wish to be governed and ruled by foreigners. This kind of mentality, though beyond the understanding by people who genuinely love the country and love Hong Kong, is now gradually poisoning and affecting the people of Hong Kong, just like the SARS virus, and the impacts are far-reaching. I hope the SAR Government and the Central Government will carefully and categorically deal with these people, so as to prevent this SARS virus from impeding the development of Hong Kong.

Many Members who spoke yesterday considered it evil and shameful for the pro-establishment camp or certain Members to enhance communication with the Liaison Office. They have forgotten that the Liaison Office had extended olive branches to them time and again, requesting for meetings and dialogues, yet such requests had been turned down on various pretexts and they had even put forward unreasonable requests, with the intention of creating an impression that the Liaison Office look antagonistic and insincere. However, they felt elated and honoured to be invited by foreign consulates for meetings, and would publish the photos right after the meetings. Why would they fawn on foreign forces but regard Mainland organizations as enemies? This is precisely the colonial mentality, which has been gradually infiltrated into this Council and Hong Kong like evil cults, spreading fallacious views throughout the territory and causing serious impacts.

The greatest problem is that the opposition camp fails to appreciate the good intention of the Central Authorities. During the past 18 years, whenever Hong Kong was plagued with crises and challenges, the Central Authorities was always ready to offer help in terms of money, resources and manpower, so as to tide us over the difficulties. Do Members know how many masks were sent to Hong Kong during the outbreak of SARS? Mainland people complained about the shortage of masks back then as all masks were exported for priority use by Hong Kong people. Also, the Central Government has introduced one after 13806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 another a number of economic initiatives favourable to Hong Kong, such as CEPA and the Individual Visit Scheme, with a view to bringing prosperity and stability to Hong Kong so that we can live in peace and work happily. But has the opposition camp appreciated and understood the good intention of the Central Government? No, it has instead used these measures to condemn the Central Government, advocating the so-called "Hong Kong independence" and organized "anti-locust" campaigns to instigate antagonism and conflicts between Mainlanders and Hongkongers. Seeing that people in China and Hong Kong are unhappy, the opposition camp is elated for they can find a new way out and reap political benefits. This kind of mentality is totally incomprehensible.

The sole purpose of the motion proposed by Mr Dennis KWOK today is to damage "one country, two systems. He does not have the slightest intention to uphold "one country, two systems" or respect the Basic Law. If he respects the Basic Law, he would not have proposed civil nomination, which is completely detached from the Basic Law. I think he is really very shameful and hypocritical. If he keeps causing disruption, not only Mr Ronny TONG will leave the Civic Party, many more will follow suit and become independent Members like me. And yet, I will not join him because our thinking is too different.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, several pro-establishment Members have called a stag a horse and confused right with wrong, trying to mislead the public. Their lack of common sense, as well as their loud reproaches and invectives can be regarded as bandit logic. With powers in hand, they made wilful attacks at others. The prominent figure is Mr WONG Kwok-hing of The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions who spoke earlier. Just now he said, "Mr Dennis KWOK, you purposely plan to hold this motion debate today following the voting on the constitutional reform package. You have ulterior motives." Furthermore, Dr LAM Tai-fai delivered a long speech, falsely accusing us of being an evil cult.

Frankly speaking, Deputy President, do you remember that this motion debate was originally scheduled to be held at the Legislative Council meeting of 13 May this year; but it was later scheduled to be held this week? What kind of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13807 conspiracy or trick is involved? Since they lack the most basic knowledge of the Rules of Procedure, no wonder President Jasper TSANG has to join the WhatsApp group of the pro-establishment camp to make constant reminders.

Deputy President, the debate on "one country, two systems" is not to ask Members to repeat the saying that "we must care about 'one country', for without 'one country' there will be no 'two systems'". All these are platitudes. We must talk about the exercise, checks and balances of power. On 15 June 1215 some 800 years ago, the feudal monarch of England was pressed to accept the restraints under the Magna Carta. To date, this move has still been widely considered as the start of constitutionalism, for it reflected that the ruler (the one with absolute power or divine right) accepted the objective fact that his power was subject to restraints, marking the development of a political culture and governance practices by civility and rationality.

However, today in Hong Kong, many officials of the former colonial era, such as Mrs Regina IP and her like, often say that the British did not give us democracy in the past, but we can now seemingly enjoy democracy. They query why we did not fight for democracy in the past but engage in noisy protests now. Furthermore, many Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) who have just spoken, particularly the younger Members, blamed us for rejecting democracy when it is offered to us. Nowadays, there is a saying that we should accept everything that is offered to us or not offered to us. According to them, the "pocket-it-first" package was acceptable; but it is also acceptable if no package whatsoever is offered.

The DAB also fought for dual universal suffrage in 2007 and 2008, but they no longer mentioned about their campaigns following their failure. Such attitude is not worth mentioning. However, when we strive for true democracy, genuine universal suffrage, a Chief Executive election without screening and the abolition of functional constituencies, they make slanderous accusations against us and other Hong Kong people who strive for genuine universal suffrage. All in all, "the butt directs the brain", they cling to the bigwigs, blindly follow their way and fawn on them. No wonder something went wrong last week when they all hastened to leave the Chamber following an order made by their "class prefect".

Under "one country, two systems", Hong Kong people and this Council absolutely have the freedom to proclaim "no" to what they do not accept; they absolutely have the right and responsibility to do so. The vetoing power 13808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 exercised by the Legislative Council under the constitution is simple and straightforward. If pro-establishment Members could not accept this practice, felt guilty for their act and had to apologize and shed tears, they absolutely had the freedom to do so. But they should never make slanderous comments, disregard the facts and confuse right with wrong.

I believe all Members are familiar with the story "the Emperor's New Clothes". When all ingratiating officials, bigwigs and others dare not speak out the truth and praise the beauty of the emperor's new clothes, we simply need a child to tell the truth in plain words, "the emperor wears no clothes today". People will then realize that something has gone wrong. What we need is someone who is truthful and has the guts to speak out the basic fact.

What we want is to select the Chief Executive without screening and to abolish functional constituencies. Under "one country, two systems", we not only have to preserve and defend the characteristics and core values of Hong Kong, but also to give full play to them. We should not be obsessed with integration and further integration, and mainlandize our governance, ways and practices. As such, Deputy President, your ruling on Dr Helena WONG's hand-clapping act yesterday was correct, and I support you. The reason is that we do not want this Council to turn into an institution like the National People's Congress or the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, the members of which only clap hands to show approval, and then the leaders will also clap hands. You have therefore done a good job, and I support you.

Some people tend to escalate all issues to the level of national security. An example is Mrs Regina IP from the New People's Party who always makes such a remark. Many dictators seek to stamp out their opponents and dissidents in the name of national security. Such kind of tyrannical bandit logic will surely be opposed, refuted and defied by Hong Kong people, particularly by us who uphold freedom and defend the rule of law and human rights.

Members of the public, the days ahead will be difficult, as officials of the Central Authorities have already said that a group of uncompromising and obstinate people in Hong Kong vowed to fight continuously. This kind of Mainland terminology for power struggle by the Communist Party of China (CPC), as well as the practices of the CPC has become apparent and obvious since LEUNG Chun-ying's assumption of office. In the ensuing elections there LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13809 will be fierce contests, real Hong Kong people must stand up, fortify their conviction, and face up to the waves of challenges (The buzzer sounded) … we will nevertheless be able to safeguard Hong Kong.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHAN, your speaking time is up. Please sit down.

Does any other Member wish to speak?

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I must point out that people may have different feelings given their different perspectives on politics and their different horizons. This is particularly the case when it comes to the Mainland. How much do they know about the Mainland? They mostly read the Apple Daily, and they use their own personal philosophy to make analyses. An example is Dr Kenneth CHAN who has delivered his speech just now. Sometimes his remarks are exceedingly scathing, but I will not criticize him anymore.

Instead, I would like to direct my criticism at "Slow Beat" who has left the Chamber just now. "Slow Beat" is exceedingly absurd. He said that JIANG Zemin once stated that "river water does not intrude into well water". To him, "well water will not intrude into river water", but "river water will someday intrude into well water for sure". I think this saying is a rumour. In fact, when meeting with foreign officials subsequently, JIANG Zemin clearly remarked that "well water will not intrude river water, and river water will not intrude into well water". As such, we have witnessed the satisfactory implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong following the reunification.

In fact, I recall that when I first became a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC), we avoided commenting on Hong Kong affairs in our capacity as CPPCC members. Even if we wanted to express our views occasionally, we would do so in our individual capacity as Hong Kong residents. In the annual sessions of the National People's Congress and the CPPCC, the Premier stated in his government work report that Hong Kong should firmly execute, implement and uphold "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". I must tell Mr Dennis KWOK that he really should 13810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 not be anxious. He must listen to me, for he is younger than me. Being a CPPCC member for so many years, I have gained some knowledge about their mindsets and beliefs. Over the years I have noted that the country is heading towards the right direction in respect of policy implementation and the practices currently adopted. It is true that our country did make some mistakes and did not do so well in the past, but we should not attribute past failures or mistakes to the present leadership.

We must bear in mind that DENG Xiaoping referred to "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and things "remain unchanged for 50 years" on many occasions, which have also been quoted by many Members today. In fact, our country has taken concrete actions to prove its determination to implement "one country, two systems". Instead of turning Hong Kong into another Mainland city, the country has constantly requested Mainland cities to learn from Hong Kong, with the hope of developing more Hong Kong-like cities on the Mainland. Their determination is proved by actions.

In order to ensure that all entitlements enjoyed by Hong Kong people would remain unchanged under "one country, two systems" upon the reunification, the Central Authorities decided not to adopt the former practice of the British Government to send a governor to govern Hong Kong. Hence, no official has been sent by the Central Authorities to Hong Kong to serve as the Chief Executive, and Hong Kong people would select their Chief Executive among themselves. However, two points must be taken into account: first, the principle of gradual and orderly progress; second, the actual situation of Hong Kong. As regards universal suffrage, the words "universal suffrage" had not appeared in any drafts of the Basic Law, it was only at a very late stage that some prominent Hong Kong figures who were on friendly terms with the Central Authorities succeeded in fighting for universal suffrage. This well proves the determination of the Central Authorities to firmly implement "one country, two systems".

Recently some young people burned copies of the Basic Law because they dislike some of the provisions. As we all know, the provisions of the Basic Law aim at safeguarding the existing institutions of Hong Kong under "one country, two systems". In other words, the Basic Law is an amulet of Hong Kong people. Similarly, "one country, two systems" is also an amulet of Hong Kong people. As such, when Mr KWOK "requests the SAR Government to earnestly invite the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13811

Central Government to implement and continue the state policy of 'one country, two systems' in Hong Kong in accordance with the original intent of 'one country, two systems'", he must know that taking such action is very dangerous, and is tantamount to destroying the amulet.

Certainly, people may have queries over our recent frequent contact with the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Liaison Office). In fact, the pan-democrats also hope to engage in more communication with the Central Authorities. Let us be fair. The Central Authorities have an important role in constitutional reform. As far as this issue is concerned, I think it is only fair for the pan-democrats or the pro-establishment camp to have more contacts with the Liaison Office. Moreover, other than personnel of the Liaison Office, many people from foreign consulates also came to Legislative Council Complex over the past several days. Why did they do so? It is because we are concerned about the constitutional reform. As such, I hope Members will continue to support "one country, two systems".

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, "one country, two systems" has been implemented following the reunification. Regrettably, however, in recent years society has been affected by radical trend of thought that merely champions "two systems" and disregards "one country", leading to the increasingly tense relations between Hong Kong and the Mainland. Hong Kong has failed to fulfil its constitutional obligation under "one country, two systems"; it has not yet enacted legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law for safeguarding national security; and the constitutional reform package involving democratic development has been vetoed by the pan-democracy camp. On the contrary, in order to cater for the actual needs of Hong Kong in terms of economic development, the Central Government has allowed Hong Kong to directly participate in various international collaborative platforms, so as to maintain the international status of Hong Kong. Whenever Hong Kong meets any difficulties, the Central Government immediately offers a helping hand. Following the outbreak of SARS in Hong Kong in 2003, the Central Government immediately signed with Hong Kong the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement; introduced the Individual Visit Scheme that allowed Mainland tourists to travel to Hong Kong in their individual capacity; 13812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 launched cross-boundary Renminbi business and implemented the strategy of encouraging Mainland enterprises to "go global" through Hong Kong. As such, at a time of global economic downturn, Hong Kong could still attain steady economic development.

I agree that "one country, two systems" has been attacked time and again, but the party that sabotages "one country, two systems" is neither the pro-establishment camp nor the Central Government, but Members of the opposition camp. They have incessantly challenged the constitutional status of the Central Government, constantly chanting slogans of "self-determination" and "promoting democracy against Communism", which are virtually tantamount to challenging openly national sovereign and requesting for independence. The opposition camp constantly shouts slogans of "ending one-party dictatorship"; and Mr Alan LEONG has constantly made remarks against the Communist Party of China (CPC) that instigate fear and resistance. With malicious intent, they incite conflicts between the two places and damage their relationship. In the legislature Mr WONG Yuk-man even blatantly …

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please hold on. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): A point of order. According to my visual inspection, I think a quorum is not present in the Chamber, please do a headcount.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which provision of the Rules of Procedure are you invoking?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am simply telling you that a quorum is not present in the Chamber. I would like to remind you that we must have a quorum of at least 35 Members for holding a Legislative Council meeting.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13813

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A Member raising a point of order must first point out which provision of the Rules of Procedure he is invoking before the President makes his ruling.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): You may well refuse to call a quorum …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please sit down.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am telling you that a quorum is not present in the Chamber; you can make a decision, or you should not act as the President.

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

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Kam-lam, please continue with your speech.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): I agree that "one country, two systems" has been attacked time and again, but the party that sabotages "one country, two systems" is neither the pro-establishment camp nor the Central Government, but Members of the opposition camp. They have incessantly challenged the constitutional status of the Central Government, constantly chanting slogans of "self-determination" and "promoting democracy against Communism", which are virtually tantamount to challenging openly national sovereign and requesting for independence. The opposition camp constantly shouts slogans of "ending one-party dictatorship"; and Mr Alan LEONG has constantly made remarks against the Communist Party of China (CPC) that instigate fear and resistance. With malicious intent, they incite conflicts between the two places and damage 13814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 their relationship. In the legislature Mr WONG Yuk-man even blatantly demands the repeal of the Basic Law and the enactment of a constitution by all people. The arrogant attitude of the opposition camp has reached a worrying state.

Mr WU Chi-wai said that all parties must engage in self-reflection and they should ensure the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. With the vetoing of the constitutional reform package, the opposition camp has completely broken up with the Central Authorities. Disregarding the Basic Law and the decisions made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the opposition camp insisted on challenging the jurisdiction of the Central Authorities, and putting forward the idea of civil nomination which was in contravention of the Basic Law. They would rather the democratic development come to a standstill than move forward. They have smothered the golden opportunity for 5 million voters to select the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". Preaching that breaking the law is not tantamount to committing crimes, the opposition camp advocates armed struggle, occupation of streets, charging the Central Government Offices, besieging the Legislative Council Complex, and initiating a comprehensive non-cooperation movement in the Legislative Council, in an attempt to paralyse government operation. Are these acts conducive to maintaining prosperity and stability? Has Mr WU Chi-wai made any reflections, or was he talking nonsense?

The purpose of democratic development in Hong Kong is to enable Hong Kong people to better master their own affairs, as well as to improve their livelihood and the economy. However, the opposition camp manipulates democracy and turns it into a tool to resist the CPC. This not only impedes the democratic progress of Hong Kong, but also undermines the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong and even directly endangers national security. Since both Mr Alan LEONG and Mr Albert HO are senior Members and legal professionals, they should well understand the implementation of "one country, two systems" and the contents of the Basic Law. Regrettably, they have deliberately distorted the Basic Law and interpreted the Basic Law in a misleading way by quoting its provisions out of context. The framework for selecting the Chief Executive is clearly specified in Article 45 of the Basic Law, the Chief Executive selected must be appointed by the Central Government, and the legislation enacted on the selection of the Chief Executive must be submitted to the National People's Congress for approval. All these requirements explicitly illustrate that the Central Government plays a crucial constitutional role in respect of constitutional reform.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13815

Mr Ronny TONG has made his point very clearly. Will opposition Members ask themselves frankly whether they have violated the Basic Law in discussing the constitutional reform? The framework for universal suffrage as formulated under the Basic Law is in compliance with democratic principles. As long as we formulate a universal suffrage package in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law, Hong Kong's democratic development can be progressed in a gradual and orderly manner. Regrettably, opposition Members took no heed of public support for the constitutional reform package and insisted on voting down the package in a bundled manner.

In a press conference held some days ago, Mr Ronny TONG indicated that he quitted the Civic Party because the Party had veered away from its original intent of maintaining rational dialogue and had gradually become radical and confrontational. They believe that they can strive for democracy by illegal confrontational acts, but they have instead driven Hong Kong democracy into a dead end. Their belief that they can gain trust through confrontation is simply too naïve. Most sadly, they have incited young people to oppose national education in an attempt to sever the linkage of the young generation with the Motherland and nation. They have even cultivated ideas of resisting and opposing the CPC for the purpose of "acting against China and stirring up troubles in Hong Kong".

How come the Civic Party has turned from a political party advocating rational communication to one advocating radical confrontation? Is it due to personal interests, or are there any driving forces behind the scene? I earnestly advise the opposition camp to become rational and pragmatic again, to replace confrontation with communication, and to put overall social interests before individual political interests; otherwise Hong Kong will be plunged into the abyss of eternal doom.

Deputy President, I so submit.

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

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, many Members of this Council are legal professionals or academics in law, including Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr Alan LEONG and Mr Albert HO. Based on 13816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 their knowledge, what are their views on the Basic Law? For me, the Basic Law is a set of comprehensive provisions and should be considered from a holistic perspective. But they choose to interpret the Basic Law out of its context or even distort it. Some Members talked about building "unauthorized structure" on top of the Basic Law. As the Central Government and the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress are responsible for formulating the Basic Law, there is no "unauthorized structure" in any sense. In fact, they are the ones who dismantle the Basic Law.

Members of the public should well understand that there are laws in every country and regulations in every family. For the People's Republic of China as a whole, nothing is more important than the Constitution. The Basic Law under the Constitution is Hong Kong's "mini constitution". They often interpret the Basic Law out of its context, distort it and mislead the public. Honestly speaking, over the years since the Sino-British negotiations on taking back the sovereignty over Hong Kong, disputes have arisen incessantly, and the struggle for ruling power has never stopped. This is a matter of principle, a fact and the true nature of disputes.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

What is the democracy that they often talk about? I am of the view that democracy is just a means; the objectives of democracy are prosperity and stability, so that the public at large can live and work in contentment. Let us think about it. The so-called fighting for democracy, Occupy Central or other movements had brought nothing but misery to the people and affected Hong Kong's economy and prosperity. The tents outside the Legislative Council have caused hygiene problems, and the place is infested with cockroaches. Is this the approach they want to adopt in striving for democracy? Yet they connive at or even support and take part in these activities.

Hong Kong of today is no longer a leased territory during the late Qing Dynasty to early Republican era. Therefore I hope they can reflect on whether their acts have served for the well-being of several million people of Hong Kong and for the Chinese nation as a whole. In striving for democracy, will they disrupt society or bring greater prosperity and stability to society? A moment ago, Mr Albert CHAN talked about the "three strikes". In my view, we should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13817 strike him out first. He always wreaks havoc in the Council, ushers in a violent parliamentary culture and creates adverse impact on the effective governance of the SAR Government. I think other pan-democratic Members also feel tired of him. While they dare not speak up in front of cameras, they are gossiping behind his back. Is that freedom and democracy? Serious harm can be inflicted by anarchism. I hope they can ponder more on this point.

President, regarding the motion on "one country, two systems" proposed by Mr Dennis KWOK today, I will support the amendments proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr Martin LIAO and oppose the original motion as well as other amendments. I so submit.

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, there is always something new under the sun. First, "one country, two systems" has already been implemented in the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council is controlled under China's sovereignty and even … President, please look at me. I have asked you time and again whether you are a member of the Communist Party of China, but you have never answered me …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please do not digress from the subject.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Can this be regarded as a digression? This is a question related to "one country, two systems".

Members of the royalist camp talked about respecting the "two systems", but regarding how the Council meeting should be conducted, or what should be done at certain time, they behaved like puppets. Should "two systems" be like that? Has it been written down in the Basic Law? Has it been stipulated that Members should communicate through WhatsApp? Did they act according to the Basic Law? Buddy, this is a question of ethics.

13818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

President, they cannot accomplish even the most simple task, say, go on a picnic. Hence, the deployment of scouts to fight the World War would surely be doomed. I have said so many times before. President, were you a boy scout? Would scouts all talk at the same time? Of course not, some said the meeting should end by 2 pm because they had other appointments. Some said that …

President, have you read the works of Confucius? I will not quote Mencius this time. Confucius said, "I have no wish to look on."3 Why did he say so? When attending a sacrificial ceremony in the temple, Confucius noticed that the rites and music of decorum were in tatters, and he was so saddened that he could not bear to look on. Buddy, here is the temple, and this is the place where the rites and music of decorum are in tatters. President, worse still, they were putting the blame on others. I would like to ask Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr WONG Ting-kwong and others: Did the pan-democratic camp pull the strings and make you put up the good show? Did they send you WhatsApp messages advising you what to do? We were just sacrificial lambs waiting to be slaughtered because the voting result was supposed to be 41:28. How dare you put the blame on us! Have you gone nuts? Are they insane? If so, go see a doctor!

President, returning to the subject, according to Mr WONG Ting-kwong, the Basic Law is a constitution and hence, it should be viewed in its entirety. I am sorry, but the entirety of the Basic Law or any other constitution comes from the making of the constitution. I would like to ask Mr WONG Ting-kwong: Have Hong Kong people taken part in the making of the constitution? Have Hong Kong people taken part in formulating the constitution which we are supposed to abide by? No. Then why do we need to abide by it? We have not taken part in any process at all. Military matters and foreign affairs are the embodiment of the state system. Has this Council ever suggested that Hong Kong should establish foreign relationship with the United States on its own? Has any discussion been held in this Council about whether the People's Liberation Army should station in Hong Kong? No. In that case, is the sovereignty still intact?

Of course, the situation is different in the Mainland. As I have pointed out time and again, a top-down approach is adopted in the Mainland. MAO Zedong once said that elections of the National People's Congress were nothing

3 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13819 but acting. I do not believe that all election results should be pre-determined by the party. We demand that Hong Kong people should be allowed to elect their own representatives, which should be alright so long as we do not meddle with military matters and foreign affairs. "One country, two systems" is just that simple. Why do you accuse us wrongly? When did we ever ask for independence? President, they are so ridiculous!

President, somebody has betrayed Members of the pro-establishment camp, including the President, by forwarding the WhatsApp messages to the Oriental Daily News for publication. Other than ZHANG Xiaoming and LEUNG Chun-ying, who could have made such manipulation? Buddy, you have been betrayed by a certain person. His deeds are despicable and filthy, just like WANG Zhen. I have spoken about a eunuch called WANG Zhen a number of times. It was on WANG Zhen's advice that Emperor Yingzong of Ming Dynasty had gone on an expedition to Tumu Fortress to attack a Mongolian tribe called Wala. But after the Ming troops were defeated, WANG Zhen made the emperor accompany him on a visit to his hometown so that he could return home in full glory. Now after they were defeated, they dare say that 70% of public opinion was on their side. They were lousy when pleading for forgiveness.

President, this is the true meaning of "one country, two systems". People at the bottom must dutifully follow the orders of their boss. If they made any mistakes, they would be like dogs with slices of meat being thrown into a hotpot, to be cooked in boiling water until the appetite of someone is satisfied. Isn't the idea of a dog meat hotpot scary? When eating the hotpot, people would slightly blanch slices of dog meat in boiling water and then eat them with sections of scallions, to be accompanied by some Shaoxing wine. Buddy, what a shame! LEUNG Chun-ying and ZHANG Xiaoming have betrayed you, and you have betrayed the pan-democrats. I am sorry but I do not like the idea of becoming the ingredients of somebody's hotpot, and I am not dog meat. President, I think the problem lies with "deploying scouts to fight the Third World War", and it is a disaster.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would try my best not to make Members feel bored.

President, "one country, two systems" is a solemn promise. As Members would know, unlike what some Members have just claimed, this promise …

13820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): According to my visual inspection, a quorum is not present.

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung, please continue with your speech.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): I have only spoken for about 10-odd seconds. I might as well start again.

"One country, two systems" is a solemn promise. Some Members have cited the remarks of some former leaders and claimed that it was the verbal commitment of state leaders. That is not the case because "one country, two systems" has been solemnly written down in black and white in the constitutional document of the Basic Law.

Around end-May to early-June, some students burnt copies of the Basic Law, which had aroused discussion in society. In fact, as we all know, without the Basic Law, it is useless to talk about "one country, two systems". In other words, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region might not exist without the Basic Law. Here lies the importance of the matter.

Nonetheless, Members of the opposition camp had come forward to defend those students. For instance, Ms Emily LAU said that it was understandable for students to burn copies of the Basic Law because civil nomination was not provided for. Even Mr Dennis KWOK who proposed this motion debate also said that students burnt copies of the Basic Law only because they were disappointed with the Basic Law as well as the implementation of "one country, two systems". Although he eventually admitted that it was wrong to burn copies of the Basic Law, and it would be difficult to maintain "one country, two systems" without the Basic Law, Members of the opposition camp could never LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13821 make the students well aware of the nature and seriousness of the problem if they just try to explain the matter from a defense lawyer's perspective. As a result, such kind of thinking will be perpetuated.

What will happen should this kind of radical thinking develop further? Eventually, whatever displeasing to them would be burnt; whoever disagreeable to them would be killed and the society that displeases them or having no fun will be destroyed. This is what is happening right now.

Why do radical thoughts keep spreading in society? The reason is that somebody is lending a hand to spread such thoughts without seriously addressing and tackling the problem. I would like to point out that the non-existence of the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" would not mean the success of "Hong Kong independence"; instead it would expedite the return of Hong Kong to the Motherland. That is all I can say. If we genuinely want to safeguard "one country, two systems", we should join hands in curbing or correcting the notions of "self-determination" and "constitutional amendments by Hong Kong people" because they simply should not have existed.

Speaking of "one country, two systems", a person who has studied law may simply interpret it literally and unemotionally, that is, "two systems in one country". Some people may interpret it from a territorial point of view, that is, the practice of a different system in one place within a country and hence there are "two systems". Some people may interpret it from a governance point of view, that is, the existence of "two systems" of governance within one country. Given that the expression "one country, two systems" only contains four words, I think it can give rise to many different interpretations and ideas, and different people may have their own interpretations. However, the original intent of "one country, two systems" can be seen clearly from the following provision in the Preamble of the Basic Law: "the socialist system … will not be practised in Hong Kong". Of course, many complementary measures are involved in not practising the socialist system in Hong Kong, but it will be another story.

For me personally, the spiritual meaning of "one country, two systems" outweighs the legal meaning. Why do I say so? Spiritually, "one country, two systems" means pursuing together what is good for the country, building a better future for the country, uplifting people's living standards, raising people's quality of life, and so on, under the co-existence of "two systems". That is how I interpret the meaning of "one country, two systems". If we narrow the scope 13822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 and just focus on Hong Kong instead of the whole country, there are also two factions of Members in the Legislative Council, namely, the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democracy camp. If this spirit is to be realized in Hong Kong, Members must set aside their disputes and work together towards a common goal of seeking what is best for Hong Kong. Notwithstanding our different political views, we must do what is best for Hong Kong.

Last year, the 79-day Occupy incident had caused serious disruption to members of the public who were not even involved in the discussion of the constitutional reform, affecting people commuting to work and to school, as well as those doing business. Members of the pan-democracy camp did not only turn a blind eye to this grave problem, but they even defended it by saying that the Occupy incident was for a good cause. Even though the tents outside the Legislative Council Complex were only removed yesterday, they still said that the persons concerned should be allowed to express their views, and the rule of law could cast aside first ― this is my understanding. Who is doing what is best for Hong Kong? I think the answer is obvious.

I did not have the opportunity to speak last week. Regarding the subject of constitutional reform, under the present situation of "strong capital, weak labour", it is actually very significant and helpful for the labour sector, wage earners or 3 million people to voice their views through selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage on the basis of "one person, one vote". But regrettably, due to a minority of Members … These Members also benefit from the Basic Law because it is clearly stipulated that the constitutional reform package must be passed with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the Members of the Legislative Council. As it is impossible to secure enough supporting votes, the constitutional reform package was vetoed. What will be the way forward for Hong Kong? Instead of engaging in empty talk about working with one heart, Members should focus their attention on livelihood issues.

Thank you, President.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, I have strong feelings about holding this motion debate on "one country, two systems" after the constitutional reform package was vetoed by the pan-democrats.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13823

The universal suffrage of "one person, one vote" should have truly implemented the original intent of "one country, two systems". But regrettably, the outcome was not something to our satisfaction, casting doubt of many people, particularly the international community, on the viability of "one country, two systems". If "one country, two systems" is not viable, should "one country, one system" be implemented after the constitutional reform package was vetoed? Is "one country, one system" better than "one country, two systems"? I think this question has been lingering on the minds of many Hong Kong people lately.

According to Mr Dennis KWOK who proposes the motion, it is desirable for the Legislative Council to vote down the constitutional reform package because it serves to demonstrate that Hong Kong people still have the power to say "no" under "one country, two systems". I find the logic of proving the existence of "one country, two systems" by denying "one country, two systems" laughable. Even for me who have the background of studying logic, I must throw in the towel before such twisted logic. The whole incident reminds me of the remarks made by some pan-democratic Members returned by functional constituencies. They said that they joined the establishment in order to destroy the pro-establishment camp. Indeed, they could say whatever they liked.

President, when DENG Xiaoping put forth the idea of "one country, two systems" back then, he was guided by the overriding principle of the country's unification. "One country, two systems" was meant to be a solution to the problems in cross-strait relations, and it has a deep and profound significance. Hence, since the implementation of "one country, two systems", Hong Kong has been playing a crucial role, both symbolically and practically, as it must strive to practise and implement "one country, two systems".

Can Members be honest with themselves and tell us what have they done for the implementation of "one country, two systems"? In particular, are the political parties aware of the numerous objective difficulties involved in implementing "one country, two systems"? For instance, the implementation of "one county, two systems" was only made possible through the co-ordination of all parties concerned in various aspects including concepts, logic, legal theories and ideologies, so that a way out was identified eventually. Regardless of our party affiliation, if Members truly think that "one country, two systems" is better than "one country, one system", what efforts have they made so far? What have they done so far? Members should stop fighting against each other like what we see today. Instead, I think we should take a moment to ponder on what we really want. 13824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Amidst the disputes over constitutional reform in the past two years, the idea of desinicization has emerged. I believe that no pan-democratic Member in the Chamber would say that they support desinicization. Of course, perhaps not all pan-democratic Members, but at least I believe most of them would not support desinicization. If they do not subscribe to this idea, why do they insist on desinicization when they talk about the "two systems"? Likewise, I think the advocators of "Hong Kong independence" and desinicization have also put the cart before the horse. At critical moments during the implementation of "one country, two systems", they have invariably tilted towards desinicization and the "elimination of one country". How can Hong Kong continue to tread along this path? I think we should all ponder on the question in a calm frame of mind.

If Members can still recall, Hong Kong was struck in a confidence crisis back in the 80s as many Hong Kong people had serious doubts and concerns about the reunification, worrying that the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong would be affected. There was also the nationality problem. At that time, many Hong Kong people had great reservation about the reunification as they were worried about the changing systems. Hence, many people had applied for foreign passports, while some wanted to retain their overseas nationalities. Although dual nationality was not recognized under the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China, for the sake of "one country, two systems", the nationality problem of Hong Kong residents was handled according to the relevant explanations given by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Hong Kong residents who had acquired overseas citizenship could still be regarded as Chinese nationals.

I cannot stress too much how accommodating the State had been in this regard. At that time, I was also involved in the entire process. I think it would be most important to note that the State was considering the matter from the perspective of Hong Kong people. I hope young pan-democrats would understand how we had proceeded back then. With this arrangement made under the basis of "one country, two systems", many hesitant Hong Kong people made up their minds to stay in Hong Kong for future development and hence, ensuring Hong Kong's stability.

In respect of the Judiciary, Hong Kong has an independent judicial system due to the implementation of "one country, two systems", and it is a significant progress from that in the colonial era. Some people may doubt my words, but LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13825 under the British-Hong Kong rule, the power of final adjudication was not vested in Hong Kong, but the Privy Council in the United Kingdom. At present, Hong Kong has its own Court of Final Appeal. Before arriving at this decision, we had discussed the worries of Hong Kong with various parties of the State. Eventually, it was decided that the power of final adjudication should be vested in Hong Kong. Do Members have any knowledge about this process? All these examples bear testimony to the State's utmost tolerance towards Hong Kong. It was the hope of the State that most importantly, Hong Kong people could remain confident about staying in Hong Kong under "one country, two systems".

Today or in the past decade or so, I sometimes feel saddened. At that time, I had participated in the relevant work and I do not understand why the younger generation of today and the pan-democrats would hold these ideas. If they do not support desinicization and "Hong Kong independence", why do they engage in antagonistic protests?

I agree that "two systems" embodies different concepts, and people may have divergent views. That is exactly why they must be put under the umbrella of "one country, two systems". If we agree with and intend to implement "one country, two systems", I hope we should be ready to make compromise on this basis. How can we achieve "one country, two systems" without compromise? On the one hand, there is the capitalist system, and on the other hand, the communist or socialist system. How can they co-exist? Endless co-ordination and mutual understanding are required.

Hence, given that the constitutional reform package had been vetoed, I hope Members will stop mentioning the "slip". Members present who voted against the package have failed many Hong Kong people as well as our predecessors who had devoted their lives in the promotion and development of "one country, two systems". I am gravely disappointed by their action, particularly those senior Members in the pan-democracy camp. How can they contradict their past position? I hope Members present who had successfully fought for the development of "one country, two systems" in the 80s can ponder on this question.

President, I feel very sad. Five million people should have the opportunity of selecting the Chief Executive with their votes, and we should be able to take a step forward. But some Members insisted on holding no 13826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 discussion, even though the other side had taken the initiative time and again to initiate discussion. But they still regarded themselves as heroes and insisted on holding no discussion. How then could the other side respond under such circumstances? Yet these Members still want to put the blame on other people.

After Members of the pan-democracy camp vetoed the constitutional reform package, they said that the Central Authorities should establish communication with them. Even people like me who are always keen to maintain communication are infuriated by their stance. As they are the ones who vetoed the proposal, what other matter can they discuss with the Central Authorities?

Having gone through the 80s and 90s, I sometimes feel very distressed. I hope the younger generation of the pan-democrats would understand that the State had made concessions with utmost tolerance on many important principles when designing "one country, two systems". I hope that from now on, we can walk along the path of "one country, two systems" with the same boldness of vision so that Hong Kong people (The buzzer sounded) … can maintain their way of life under their favourite capitalist system. Thank you, President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, you may now speak on the amendments.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, last night many Members of the pro-establishment camp spoke on the motion, including Mr Christopher CHUNG who made a mistake about one particular Chinese term in the original motion. The wording of the motion was chosen meticulously. The term I used in the motion is "敦 請" (earnestly invite) but not "敦 促" (urge). Why do I use the term "敦 請"? In fact, the meaning of the term is crystal clear. The term "敦 請" can be traced back to the Biography of DONG Zhuo in the Book of the Later Han, and the relevant passage reads as follows: "帝亦思舊京，因遣使敦請傕 求東歸，十反乃許。" (Missing the former capital of Luoyang, Emperor Xian LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13827 sent an emissary to earnestly invite LI Jue to consider his request of returning east. After ten rounds of correspondence, the request was acceded to.) Separately, in Chapter 12 of The Travels of Lao Can, the term appears in the following passage: "家兄恐別人請不動先生，所以叫小弟專誠敦請的。" (Sir, my elder brother was afraid that you would decline the invitation had he sent other people for you, he told me specifically to come in person and earnestly invite you to stay with us.) In fact, the term "敦 請" denotes a sincere invitation extended with all humbleness and respect. Contrary to the view expressed by some Members of the pro-establishment camp, the term does not carry the meaning of insubordination or offending the sovereignty and authority of the Central Authorities. It exactly reflects our different views on "one country, two systems". The existing constitutional framework must premise on an equal relationship built on mutual respect. It is absolutely not right to say that we must obey the decisions made by the Central Authorities or the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress categorically, and that we offend the authority of the Central Authorities or being insubordinate if we disobey or disagree with such decisions. In fact, the character of these Members and the existing problems with "one country, two systems" are well reflected in this incident.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, please speak on the amendments.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I will not take long. It will be very difficult to continue realizing the original intent of "one country, two systems" if both sides have such a relationship.

Whether "one country, two systems" has been well implemented is not based on the assessment of the Central Authorities or the narcissistic evaluation of the SAR Government. It is a fact that members of the public have become less confident about "one country, two systems", indicating that problems do exist with "one country, two systems". I hope government officials will not turn a blind eye to this fact.

Regarding the amendments proposed by various Members, the Civic Party will support those proposed by Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Mr Gary FAN, but will oppose the amendments proposed by Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Martin LIAO and Mr WONG Yuk-man.

13828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

President, I would like to say a few words about the comment just made by a number of Members that we do not respect "one country". Simply put, over the past 20 months, I had visited Beijing twice, Shenzhen twice and Shanghai once, and I had also met with officials of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Hong Kong twice, all for the hope of establishing communication, sincerely relaying the views of Hong Kong people on the constitutional reform and striving to open channels of communication. Notwithstanding such efforts, I have been criticized for not respecting "one country" and the Central Authorities. A moment ago, Dr LAM Tai-fai even said that I am shameless. Of course, I understand that in politics, nobody can be his own master all the time. He might have been instructed to say so …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, have you expressed your views fully on all the amendments? Later on, you still have a few minutes to respond to the views of other Members. You should use these five minutes to speak on the amendments.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): I understand. President, I have already stated clearly our voting preference for the various amendments just now. Thank you, President.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, a number of Members have spoken these two days, expressing different views. I will now give a brief response.

Mr Dennis KWOK's original motion requests the SAR Government to earnestly invite the Central Government to implement and continue the state policy of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong in accordance with the original intent of "one country, two systems". As I have already mentioned at my opening speech, I would like to reiterate again that since the establishment of the SAR, the Central Authorities have all along strictly complied with the basic 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, and supported the governance by the Chief LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13829

Executive and the SAR Government in accordance with law. Similarly, the SAR Government has strictly dealt with the affairs in Hong Kong in accordance with the Basic Law and the principles of "one country, two systems".

According to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China (Constitution) and the Basic Law, the Central Authorities have their constitutional roles and responsibilities in deciding the political system to be implemented in Hong Kong, and this is beyond doubt. Therefore, the SAR Government needs not earnestly invite the Central Government to implement and continue the state policy of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong in accordance with the original intent of "one country, two systems". Instead, we support Mr Martin LIAO's amendment as it clearly states the objective fact that the Central Government and the SAR Government have persistently implemented "one country, two systems".

A number of Members talked about the constitutional reform. The Basic Law clearly stipulates the relationship between the Central Authorities and the SAR under "one country, two systems", the constitutional powers of the Central Authorities, as well as the powers conferred to the Legislative Council, the Chief Executive and the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) insofar as constitutional development is concerned. This constitutional order must be recognized and respected by all sectors of the community. In this connection, there are specific provisions in the Constitution, the Basic Law and the relevant interpretations and decisions of the NPCSC.

Mr IP Kwok-him's amendment and the remarks of a few Members mentioned stepping up publicity of and education on "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law among the public, and I would like to say something in response. All along, the SAR Government has adopted different publicity methods to promote the Basic Law to different people, so that they can have a comprehensive and accurate understanding of the contents of the Basic Law. The relevant Policy Bureaux and departments of the SAR Government and the Basic Law Promotion Steering Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration, comprising government officials and non-official members, as well as five working groups under the Committee, that is, the working groups on local community, teachers and students, civil servants, overseas community and industrial, commercial and professional sectors have been actively publicizing "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law to members of different social strata.

13830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

The Education Bureau has been actively promoting education on the Basic Law. For example, it continues to organize professional development programmes on the Basic Law for secondary and primary school teachers in order to enhance teachers' understanding of the concepts and essence of the Basic Law. These courses cover contents such as curriculum planning, learning and teaching, use of learning and teaching resources, and knowledge enrichment, to facilitate the implementation of Basic Law education in schools and enhance curriculum leadership and teaching effectiveness.

To tie in with the work of the Basic Law Promotion Steering Committee, and as the year 2015 marks the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law, the Education Bureau has put in greater efforts on Basic Law education apart from its routine work. The efforts made include enhancing the Basic Law-related contents of the current subjects and specifying clearly the lesson time and encouraging flexible planning of learning opportunities; clarifying the scope of knowledge of the relevant subjects such as Liberal Studies, so that assessments will be further aligned with the course contents; organizing more focused professional development programmes for principals and teachers; providing more appropriate learning and teaching support; and including the promotion of the Basic Law as a priority theme designated by the Quality Education Fund. Furthermore, in tandem with the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law, the Education Bureau has specially produced a Basic Law video teaching resource package for junior secondary schools. In this connection, it also provides teacher training courses to enhance students' understanding of the Basic Law and the "one country, two systems" concept.

Promoting education on the Basic Law is the established policy of the Education Bureau. The Education Bureau will continue to collect from schools and teachers good practices in curriculum planning, learning and teaching and assessment related to education on the Basic Law. Through teachers' networks, learning circles and seminars, experience sharing among schools is promoted, so as to promote the effectiveness of education on the Basic Law, so that students and the younger generation will have a more thorough understanding of the contents of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law.

President, Mr IP Kin-yuen's amendment also touched on the education policy. The Basic Law clearly stipulates that "On the basis of the previous educational system, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall, on its own, formulate policies on the development and improvement LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13831 of education". In fact, academic freedom is an important social value of Hong Kong that has always been respected; it is protected by the Basic Law and is the cornerstone of the success of the higher education sector in Hong Kong. The SAR Government is committed to safeguarding academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The eight institutions funded by the University Grants Committee (UGC) are independent and autonomous statutory bodies. They have their own regulations and procedures, setting out the purposes of establishment, functions and governance structures. The UGC Notes on Procedures also clearly defines the different roles of the UGC, the Government and various institutions in the higher education sector. The Notes on Procedures sets out the five main areas of institutional autonomy, including selection of staff, selection of students, curricula and academic standards, acceptance of research programmes and allocation of funds within the institutions.

Mr Gary FAN mentioned the power to vet and approve the entry of Mainland residents. I would like to say a few more words based on the information provided by the Security Bureau. Article 22(4) of the Basic Law provides that, for entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, people from other parts of China must apply for approval. The acceptance and approval of one-way permit applications and the issuance of one-way permits are within the terms of reference of the Mainland authorities. The SAR Government will co-operate with the Mainland authorities in individual cases. For instance, where necessary, the Immigration Department should assist in determining the authenticity of the information on Hong Kong residents concerned in individual cases, the relationship claimed by the applicant and the authenticity of the supporting documents.

President, as mentioned in my opening speech, since the establishment of the SAR, the Central Authorities and the SAR Government have handled Hong Kong affairs strictly in accordance with the basic 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. I must reiterate that the design of the political system of the SAR is related to the embodiment of the country's exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, the implementation of "one country, two systems", as well as the basic policies of the country regarding Hong Kong. The SAR does not have the constitutional status or responsibilities to unilaterally change the systems established by the Central Authorities.

13832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Regarding the arguments and proposals in Mr Dennis KWOK's original motion and the amendments of Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Gary FAN and Mr WONG Yuk-man, the SAR Government thinks that they are incorrect, and furthermore, the Members have deliberately ignored the safeguards under the Basic Law that have brought prosperity and stability to the SAR in various aspects over the years. This is not beneficial to Hong Kong as a whole. Hence, the SAR Government calls upon Members to vote against the motion and the amendments. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, you may now move your amendment.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Dennis KWOK's motion be amended.

Mr IP Kin-yuen moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add ", as Hong Kong people are increasingly worried about the implementation of 'one country, two systems' and there have been various incidents or signs in recent years indicating that 'one country, two systems' is being severely challenged, especially in safeguarding academic freedom and educational institutions' autonomy by the SAR Government," after "That"; and to add ", and while implementing the state policy of 'one country, two systems' and making the best endeavours to safeguard the Basic Law, to uphold the SAR Government's autonomy in education matters; and in formulating and implementing Hong Kong's education policy under 'one country, two systems', the SAR Government must safeguard academic freedom and educational institutions' autonomy in compliance with Articles 136 and 137 of the Basic Law to enable education policy to develop in a professional manner" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr IP Kin-yuen to Mr Dennis KWOK's motion, be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13833

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr IP Kwok-him rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

(While the division bell was ringing, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung spoke aloud in his seat)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please do not speak aloud in the Chamber.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the amendment.

13834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment and 22 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and one abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13835

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Implementation and continuance of 'one country, two systems'" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Implementation and continuance of 'one country, two systems'" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

13836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him, you may move your amendment.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Dennis KWOK's motion be amended.

Mr IP Kwok-him moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "'one country, two systems' is a basic state policy adopted by the Central Government to realize the peaceful reunification of the country with the aims to safeguard the country's sovereignty, security and development interests, and to maintain long-term prosperity and stability in Hong Kong; yet, in recent years, there are some people in Hong Kong blatantly advocating the idea of 'Hong Kong independence', and in respect of constitutional development, disrespecting the constitutional power of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and disregarding the need to safeguard the country's security, thereby deviating severely from the original intent of 'one country, two systems'; in this connection," after "That"; to delete "earnestly invite the Central Government to implement and continue the state policy of 'one country, two systems' in Hong Kong in accordance with" after "the SAR Government to" and substitute with "step up publicity of and education on 'one country, two systems' and the Basic Law among the public (especially young people), so as to ensure the correct understanding and comprehension of"; and to add ", and its successful implementation and continuance in Hong Kong" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr IP Kwok-him to Mr Dennis KWOK's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13837

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

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

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, 13838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the amendment.

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 21 were in favour of the amendment and eight against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and one abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, you may move your amendment.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Dennis KWOK's motion be amended and I claim a division.

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "this Council" after "That" and substitute with ", in recent years, China-Hong Kong conflicts have turned increasingly acute, and its fundamental causes are that the Beijing authorities intervene excessively in Hong Kong affairs, while the SAR Government only acts submissively LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13839

when facing Beijing's intervention, not only relinquishing Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy but also proactively making Hong Kong mainlandized; in this connection, this Council reiterates that maintaining Hong Kong's uniqueness is the essence of 'one country, two systems', and"; and to add "; this Council also urges the SAR Government to be courageous to refuse the Beijing authorities' intervention in Hong Kong affairs, to firmly uphold the autonomy of the SAR governance, and to strive to safeguard Hong Kong's core values and protect Hong Kong people's basic political, economic, social and cultural rights, etc" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan to Mr Dennis KWOK's motion, be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven 13840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment and 22 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, 14 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and one abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, you may move your amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13841

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Dennis KWOK's motion be amended.

Mr Gary FAN moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "the 'one country, two systems' concept is a manifestation of the Central Government's recognition of the sense of local consciousness in Hong Kong, but since LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office as Chief Executive, the impact of the Central Government on the internal affairs of Hong Kong has been intensifying in various aspects; the white paper on The Practice of the 'One Country, Two Systems' Policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region issued by the State Council in June 2014 has even pointed out that the Central Government exercises 'overall jurisdiction' over Hong Kong, and that 'the high degree of autonomy of HKSAR is subject to the level of the central leadership's authorization[,] [t]here is no such thing called "residual power"', undermining seriously Hong Kong people's confidence in 'one country, two systems'; in this connection," after "That"; and to add "; to uphold the provision of Article 22 of the Basic Law which prescribe that no department of the Central Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the SAR Government administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law, including Paragraph 4 of Article 22 to enable the SAR Government to exercise the power to vet and approve the entry under the dual vetting and approval system of the One-Way Permit for immigration for properly gatekeeping the long-term population policy of Hong Kong; and to uphold the stipulations in Annex I and Annex II to the Basic Law to enable the SAR Government to steer Hong Kong's constitutional reform and decide on its own a democratic constitutional reform package for Hong Kong based on the will of Hong Kong people" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Gary FAN to Mr Dennis KWOK's motion, be passed.

13842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

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

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr Dennis KWOK voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13843

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO and Mr IP Kin-yuen abstained.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN and Dr Fernando CHEUNG voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, five were in favour of the amendment, 22 against it and three abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, 11 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and four abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LIAO, you may move your amendment.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Dennis KWOK's motion be amended.

13844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Mr Martin LIAO moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "requests" after "this Council" and substitute with "supports the Central Government and"; to delete "earnestly invite the Central Government to" after "the SAR Government to" and substitute with "persistently"; and to delete "original intent" after "in accordance with the" and substitute with "principle"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Martin LIAO to Mr Dennis KWOK's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

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

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13845

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against the amendment.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the amendment.

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment.

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

13846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 22 were in favour of the amendment and eight against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, 15 were in favour of the amendment, 14 against it and one abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, you may move your amendment.

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Dennis KWOK's motion be amended.

Mr WONG Yuk-man moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "requests" after "this Council" and substitute with "urges"; to delete "earnestly invite" after "the SAR Government to" and substitute with "request"; and to add ", and to allow Hong Kong people to exercise their right to self-determination and establish a constitutional amendments convention on Hong Kong Affairs to amend the Basic Law, so as to lay down a direction for constitutional development that meets Hong Kong people's aspirations, and to realize genuine 'Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong'" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man to Mr Dennis KWOK's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13847

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr WONG Yuk-man rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK and Mr Kenneth LEUNG voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr IP Kin-yuen abstained.

13848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Cyd HO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr Fernando CHEUNG voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, three were in favour of the amendment, 23 against it and four abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, 10 were in favour of the amendment, 17 against it and three abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, you may now reply and you still have five minutes and 42 seconds.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I will not use up the five minutes. I only wish to point out that I move this motion out of my passionate love for this system, hoping that it will maintain a robust and healthy development in the long term. When I find there are problems with the existing system, I propose to "earnestly invite" … I certainly do not wish to offend anyone LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13849 or be arrogant, and the phrase "earnestly invite" actually shows my utmost humbleness, respect and sincerity. If such a mild motion is still depicted by pro-establishment Members as defying the superiors, they have belittled the role of this Council laid down in the Constitution and the Basic Law. It is also unreasonable to regard our objection to the 31 August Decision as our denial of "one country, two systems". The power conferred to this Council by the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" to veto the constitutional reform package exemplifies our rights enshrined under "one country, two systems".

Mr IP Kwok-him pointed out that according to the White Paper on "one country, two systems", the Central Government has great power and it exercises "full jurisdiction" over Hong Kong. May I ask him: If he considers that the Central Government has such great powers, why then should Hong Kong people's rights to nominate and stand for elections be unreasonably restricted? If the Central Government really has so much power, what is it afraid of? The spirit of the rule of law does not mean one has to exercise all the powers conferred by the constitution, instead people in power should know how to be self-restraint. That is the true spirit of the rule of law.

Just now many pro-establishment Members said that we, the opposition camp, have promoted "Hong Kong independence" and caused division. Dr LAM Tai-fai also said that we do not respect "one country" and the sovereignty of the Central Authorities. As I have mentioned in my earlier speech, over the past 20 months or so, I had been to Beijing and Shenzhen twice and to Shanghai once, and had met with officials from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to discuss matters in relation to the constitutional reform. Are we not indicating our sincerity and frankness to express the views of Hong Kong people on the constitutional reform? Why are we berated for ignoring the Central Authorities? If we had no respect for the Central Authorities, we would not have spent so much time and effort. Nonetheless, I know what Dr LAM Tai-fai said was not words from his heart, and he might probably feel uncomfortable in saying that I was shameless. Therefore, Dr LAM can rest assured that I will absolutely not take his words seriously.

Last night, two relatively young Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, namely Mr CHAN Han-pan and one other young Member, persuaded me to follow Mr Ronny TONG's footstep and leave the Civic Party. I can only say in response that at least my party 13850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 leaders will never ask me to leave the Chamber at crucial moment for no reason such that I cannot vote. (Laughter) I am glad that Mr Alan LEONG, my party leader, has never asked me to give up my own personal views, nor has he asked me to give up the logical and analytical powers that an ordinary adult should have. I am still who I am and the Civic Party respects me as Dennis KWOK, not a voting machine or someone who leave the scene for no reason at crucial moment. I can only congratulate myself for the superb leadership of my Party.

President, the success of "one country, two systems" hinges more on the degree of freedom and rights that Hong Kong people enjoy, rather than how great the powers of the Central Authorities on Hong Kong. We can see that Hong Kong people have been losing faith in "one country, two systems", which is a reflection of the unsatisfactory situation of "one country, two systems". I hope that the Bureau will face up to the problem squarely instead of turning a blind eye to it, such that "one country, two systems" will finally be back on the right track.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Dennis KWOK be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr IP Kwok-him rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015 13851

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the motion.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Miss Alice MAK, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion.

13852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 25 June 2015

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung abstained.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, eight were in favour of the motion and 22 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 31 were present, 15 were in favour of the motion, 14 against it and one abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday 8 July 2015.

Adjourned accordingly at 1.02 pm.