LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5551

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 23 April 2020

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

5552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

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

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG-KONG, G.B.S., J.P.

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5553

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

5554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5555

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, G.B.M., G.B.S., M.H., J.P. FINANCIAL SECRETARY

THE HONOURABLE TANG-WAH, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

THE HONOURABLE TAK-KUEN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

THE HONOURABLE WING-HANG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY

THE HONOURABLE KWOK-WAI, I.D.S.M. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

THE HONOURABLE YING-WAI, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

THE HONOURABLE CHING-YU SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

MR LIU CHUN-SAN, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

DR BERNARD CHAN PAK-LI, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

5556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

GOVERNMENT BILL

Second Reading of Government Bill

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in ): This Council now continues with the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2020. Members who wish to speak will please press the "Request to Speak" button.

APPROPRIATION BILL 2020

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 February 2020

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Good morning, President, I wonder if you can remember when the Budget was delivered? We might think it was a long time ago, but it was actually delivered on 26 February, only 57 days have passed up to the present and it is less than two months. Yet, a lot has happened during this period of time, and it is as if we have gone through several centuries. We have witnessed the global epidemic outbreak caused by the novel coronavirus, affecting the economic development of many countries and regions. At this juncture, confirmed cases have been detected in at least 215 countries and regions over the world, the number of confirmed cases has exceeded 2.55 million, and the death toll is as high as 170 000.

There are only four death cases in Hong Kong, which is not considered as a high figure. Compared with the 299 death cases during the SARS outbreak in 2003, it can be said that this is the achievement made by the efforts of our heath care personnel and the cooperation of the public. Here, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to our health care personnel.

That said, apart from the epidemic outbreak, Hong Kong has also been entangled with many political controversies. For instance, the Police have arrested more than 10 people of the pro-democracy camp, many of whom take a very mild position and have made considerable contribution to the development of the political system and democracy in Hong Kong. Certainly, there are also the statements issued by the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5557

Council and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region regarding the Legislative Council which has given rise to a dispute on the constitutional roles of the two Offices. Furthermore, changes in the political accountability team have been announced in these two days, which is a major earthquake in the officialdom.

Therefore, I really have the feeling that we are talking about something which is out-of-date when we are debating on the Budget in the Legislative Council today as time has brought great changes to the world, and we believe that such changes will come one after another. Being Members, we certainly have to put forward our views on the Budget so as to reflect public opinions. Even though our words were wasted for most of the time, but we will still speak out resolutely.

President, among the measures in the Budget, I believe members of the public generally welcome the disbursement of an allowance of $10,000 to Hong Kong permanent residents aged 18 or above, as well as the reduction of salaries tax and tax under personal assessment for the year of assessment 2019-2020 by 100%, subject to a ceiling of $20,000. It can be said that these measures are responding to the expectations of society, and they can also assist members of the public facing unemployment, pay cuts or those who are required to take unpaid leave.

It is a pity that, with hindsight, this $10,000 is really a small amount, and the Government has missed an important opportunity by not including it in the first-round of Anti-epidemic Fund measures to have it handed out as expeditiously as possible. We are still looking forward to this with great anxiety, whereas the Government has missed the opportunity to offer timely assistance to members of the public.

The Budget forecasts a deficit of about $140 billion, which is equivalent to 4.8% of the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"), and substantial funding is involved. However, what we are concerned about is whether the funding is used and allocated properly. These are the issues that every member of the public will care about.

The assistance provided for the unemployed is certainly a major issue. The answer of the Government leaves much to be desired as it has not adopted our proposal of offering unemployment assistance to those who have lost their 5558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 jobs. We are extremely disappointed about this. The unemployment rate in Hong Kong stood at 3.4% prior to the delivery of the Budget, i.e. in January. The Census and Statistics Department ("C&SD") recently released that the unemployment rate from January to March this year was as high as 4.2%, which is the highest in nine years with an additional of 28 000 people having joined the rank of unemployed. The underemployment rate has also increased by 0.6 percentage point to 2.1%, which is the highest in the past decade.

I have proposed that the Government should provide emergency unemployment assistance to those who have been thrown out of jobs recently, so that they can receive a monthly allowance of $6,000 commencing from March until the epidemic subsides. It will be much more desirable if an allowance of $9,000, which is similar to the measure of "safeguarding jobs", can be provided. Nevertheless, it is such a pity that my expectation has failed. The Government even suggests that the unemployed should apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") on the grounds of administrative convenience. Even though the asset limits for CSSA applicants will be relaxed by 100% for six months under the second-round of Anti-epidemic Fund measures recently introduced, successful applicants who are, say, single persons, will only receive the standard rate at $2,525. How much help can this be? They will also be subject to a very complicated means test during the process of applying for CSSA. We believe that this measure fails to meet the urgent needs of the unemployed and it is absolutely unacceptable. As a total of some $100 billion will be disbursed under the Anti-epidemic Fund, are the problems faced by the unemployed not the problems that we should resolve in the first place?

Handling an emergency situation as if it is at normal times is the deficiency of the Budget and the two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund measures. What we have seen is that, overall speaking, the second-round of Anti-epidemic Fund measures are very generous to individual trades, but they are very mean and harsh to the unemployed, why is this so? As such, we are very disappointed with the second-round of Anti-epidemic Fund measures.

What is found most unacceptable and most dissatisfying in the Budget by members of the public―many Honourable colleagues have mentioned this before―is the drastic increase in the expenditure of the Police Force. The estimated expenditure of $25.8 billion has not only hit a new high, but it also represents an increase of $5.1 billion over the original estimate for 2019, the rate of increase is as much as 24.7%, or equivalent to a quarter. The Police Force's LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5559 estimated expenditure of $25.8 billion has exceeded the sum of the estimated expenditures of the remaining five disciplined forces, namely the Fire Services Department, the Correctional Services Department, the Immigration Department, the Customs and Excise Department and the Government Flying Service. Moreover, the expenditure of the Police Force has grown by $5.1 billion, which is more than three times of the aggregate increase of $1.7 billion in the expenditures of the remaining five disciplined forces. Speaking of manpower, the Police Force will create 2 542 additional non-directorate posts, making the total number to 35 790, an increase of 7.6%. Whilst the overall growth in the number of civil servants is to be suppressed, the manpower of the Police Force suddenly has such a big increase, including the creation of one additional directorate post, making the total number to 74. This establishment is also comparable to the total establishment of the remaining five disciplined forces. The Police Force is obviously the big winner of the Budget.

According to the figures provided by C&SD, the population of Hong Kong was 7.5 million at the end of 2019. The Budget proposes to increase the establishment of the Police Force to 35 790 posts in 2020. That is to say, there will be 477 police officers per 100 000 people. It is said that the police-to-public ratio of Hong Kong ranks fifth in the world, and the Police has been upgraded rapidly in terms of manpower and equipment. In this case, how can we resolve the serious clashes between the Police and members of the public, which has been a long-standing problem? We must deal with the root of the problem in order to resolve the serious clashes between the Police and members of the public, whereas the root of the problem is that members of the public have their views but the Government does not listen to them. When members of the public have their views, the Government merely relies on the Police to treat them with violence. We cannot accept this. Dealing with the problem through increasing the manpower and strengthening the equipment of the Police Force will only make it even worse.

For some time in the past, members of the public have strongly criticized the Government for showing partiality for the Police Force which has committed abuse of power and arbitrary arrest. Instead of conducting an independent inquiry and restricting the behaviour of the Police Force, now the Government provides more resources and manpower for the Police Force. How can the problems be resolved? This is just like putting out a fire with wood and adding fuel to the fire. The Budget reflects such a basic attitude of the Government, which will only drag Hong Kong into a dangerous situation where it is more 5560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 difficult to resolve the problems. The Government has yet to reflect on itself so far, how can the people have greater confidence in the Government? In this way, the Government will only get half the results with twice the effort in policy implementation.

Having said that, being the representative of the education sector, I am very disappointed with the part on education in the Budget. It is a lacklustre piece in terms of policies, growth of education expenditure and proportion of education expenditure in government expenditure, and there are obvious signs of regression. First of all, there are only a few relatively new education policies this year, including the continued payment of examination fees for candidates sitting for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination in 2021, and the arrangement of short-term STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) internships for undergraduates and postgraduates of universities, etc. These are undeniably good measures, but they are far from sufficient to resolve the problems currently faced by the education sector.

President, I have proposed a number of education policies on behalf of the education sector, including the implementation of a pay scale for kindergarten teachers linked to the Master Pay Scale, increased funding for early childhood education, improved manpower of kindergarten teachers and administrative staff, and taking care of students with special educational needs, etc. in respect of early childhood education. Yet, none of these measures have been incorporated in the Budget. Regarding primary and secondary education, I have also suggested the continuous improvement of the "class-teacher ratio", reducing the number of students per class in primary and secondary schools as well as special schools, and relaunching the School Improvement Programme projects. Measures like these to improve the quality of education have also been left out in the Budget, making many principals and teachers very disappointed.

Next, let us look at some figures. Although the growth rate of recurrent education expenditure remains stable at 7.2% in this year's Budget, it is 1.3% lower than the growth rate of 8.5% in the overall expenditure of the Government. The most worrying point is that the total expenditure on education shows a negative growth of -13.2%, which is virtually the only department among all with a decrease in total expenditure. Compared with the overall increase of 15.4% in the Government, the discrepancy is as much as 28.6%. Education expenditure completely lags behind the average growth rate of the expenditure of other government departments. It has never happened before.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5561

On the other hand, regarding the proportion of education expenditure in government expenditure, the estimated total public expenditure on education of $112.3 billion only accounts for 14.5% of the total government expenditure. Is this a huge amount? No, the decrease is quite obvious when compared with the fact that education expenditure accounted for about 20% of the total government expenditure in the previous year. It cannot be mentioned in the same breath with the case at the time of reunification (i.e. in 1997) when education expenditure accounted for about 25% of the total recurrent government expenditure, as there exists such a great difference. Compared with the situation of developed regions over the world, education expenditure in Hong Kong only accounts for 3.9% of GDP, while that in developed regions generally accounts for 5%, the difference is obviously far too great. Notwithstanding this, the resources of the Police Force are among the best in the world, which reveals the problem of treatment with partiality. At the same time, Financial Secretary Paul CHAN even stated publicly on the radio that in the future, the resources allocated to areas such as health care and education will not be as much as in the past, claiming that adjustments needed to be made at this stage. We understand that the Government needs to make adjustments in response to the risks of economic downturn, but why do they have to reduce the expenditure on health care and education? I hope the Financial Secretary will give a response in this regard. For instance, the Government has withdrawn some funding projects of tertiary institutions at an earlier time, can they be submitted to the Legislative Council again for approval as soon as possible?

President, the Budget and the two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund measures have proposed some ways to help some members of the public, but they are far from sufficient to address the overall problem, and education issues have been blatantly ignored. I hope the Government will attach great importance to education in the future, and it can also really (The buzzer sounded) …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, please stop speaking immediately.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, when discussing the Budget, many Honourable colleagues would first make a basic analysis on Hong Kong's economic situation. I would like to briefly talk about it too. The pro-Government camp keeps saying that the present epidemic has added to the 5562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 miseries of enterprises which already find it difficult to operate because the "black-clad rioters", as they called them, have long put enterprises in dire straits. Yet they would never admit that such serious conflicts in Hong Kong were calamities brought about by the pro-Government camp and the administration. We had all along requested them not to push through the "extradition to China Bill", but they would not listen at all, eventually causing harm and impacts on every industry, sector and member of the public in Hong Kong.

President, the Democratic Party will oppose the Budget mainly because of three points, all of which can be boiled down to uneven distribution. As we all know, the Budget is about distribution of social resources, i.e. financial and public resources. Firstly, Hong Kong is one of the wealthiest cities in the world, but it is also one of the cities with the widest wealth gap. The grass roots lead an extremely hard life, but the Budget refuses to implement universal retirement protection. Many problems of uneven distribution of resources in society have remained unsolved for years.

Secondly, facing the impact of the epidemic, the Government rolls out support measures which are seriously lopsided. They claim that they seek to "safeguard jobs", but actually, they are safeguarding enterprises and big company owners. The Government said that based on the number of employees in an enterprise, a monthly subsidy capped at $9,000 would be granted to each employee for a period of six months. This is providing financial assistance to enterprise owners under the pretext of supporting employees. It is a measure to safeguard company owners because the latter are not obliged to hand over the subsidies to all the affected employees. Certainly, the Financial Secretary would say this subsidy scheme has two principles. The first one is that employees cannot be dismissed … I have said it wrong. It is not that employees cannot be dismissed, but the number of employees should not be fewer than the number declared in the submitted application. The second one is that all the subsidies have to be spent on the employees. As we have uncovered in the Question and Answer Session earlier, a company owner may also be an employee because he is really a member of the company. He can be the Chief Executive Officer, and his family members can also be employees of the company. These people can disburse the subsidies to members of their own circle, while those who have lost their jobs or whose wages have been cut drastically may not receive any subsidies. Hence, we are gravely concerned about the problem of seriously uneven distribution under this scheme. Moreover, the Government refuses to set LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5563 up an unemployment assistance fund. Consequently, many wage earners are forced to apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, the threshold of which is difficult to pass and the procedures cumbersome. Many wage earners affected are thus unable to receive the assistance which they urgently need.

Thirdly, the allocation of public resources to various government departments is uneven. We see substantial growth in the financial resources for the Police to obtain additional manpower and equipment. The growth in resources for social welfare and health care lags far behind that for the Police. As far as we can see, how did the Police perform over the past few months? They abused the use of force, beat up members of the public and reporters, assaulted Members, and indiscriminately arrested and charged the innocent. In the end, charges had to be dropped in the Court. Now they are even worse. It has been exposed that the so-called "petrol bomb case" turns out to be allegedly fabricated and orchestrated by themselves. Given such rotten management of the Police, Chris TANG of course cannot shirk his responsibility. The Police led by him are telling stories all the time. The people of Hong Kong witnessed the "12 June", "21 July" and "31 August" incidents. The Police have committed countless violent and evil deeds on various occasions. How can the Government ask us to increase resources and manpower for the Police? No way.

President, the Budget mentioned the need to enhance the promotion of the rule of law. Every year, it would talk about the need to promote the Basic Law. The Budget sets aside $450 million for Teresa CHENG to promote the rule of law, while $23 million is allocated for the promotion of the Basic Law. Let me first talk about the promotion of the rule of law. Can Teresa CHENG promote the rule of law? She herself is an exemplar of ruining the rule of law in Hong Kong. Why not ask YIP Kai-foon to promote the prevention of theft and "Limpy Ho" to promote anti-drug work? What an irony it is, President, to assign Teresa CHENG to promote the rule of law!

As regards the promotion of the Basic Law, it is good that Secretary Patrick NIP is present. He used to be the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs. Today, he is the Secretary for the Civil Service. He is associated with these two portfolios. I wish to tell Secretary Patrick NIP that he has done nothing wrong. He should not have admitted any fault. Over the past two decades, Article 22 of the Basic Law has been interpreted in the right way. No 5564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 department of the Central People's Government should interfere in Hong Kong's internal affairs. This is written down in black and white. Now they have blatantly smeared him, accusing him of making a mistake. So he has to kneel down. And this is not enough. He has to prostrate himself and say he was wrong. Why was he wrong? All along, it was what JIANG Enzhu said. Various leaders of the Central Authorities also said they would not interfere in Hong Kong's affairs. If the practice has suddenly changed, they may as well say that they have changed it themselves. This is not his fault. Secretary, I understand very well the feeling of being smeared. In respect of the "21 July" incident, I am often smeared by others. The pro-Government camp has also smeared me, accusing me of being the culprit. But never mind. The Secretary can continue to serve as a good official. However, would he, as the head of the , please abandon such a wrong mindset of forcing the Civil Service to kneel down.

Speaking of promoting the Basic Law, the pro-Government camp should be experts and Mrs IP is the best expert among them. This time Mrs Regina IP does not play the role of "grapes". Instead, she plays the role of a "prophet". She said, "How could this be? It is obviously wrong. How could the mistake be left unattended for such a long time and not corrected until now?" Mrs IP was former . She has also served as a Member of the Executive Council and the Legislative Council for years. If the interpretation of Article 22 of the Basic Law was wrong, why did she not point it out earlier? What is most ridiculous is that even her own chief information officer said in the past that the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") had violated Article 22 by interfering in the Chief Executive Election. But now she said this person is an Australian, so he does not know the Basic Law. Is she kidding? I think Mrs IP had better establish a brand later. Since she is well-known for being likened to "grapes", her brand may be named "prophetic grapes". She can go to places reputed for fruits, such as Aomori in Japan, to source grapes and name them "prophetic grapes". After eating these grapes, Mrs IP may perform spitting out the pips and then predicting which provision of the Basic Law is wrongly interpreted by simply looking at the arrangement of the pips of the grapes. I think this is absolutely a selling point, but whether it will become a hit is a different matter.

President, yesterday Mrs IP also mentioned that the use of public funds by Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") was unsatisfactory, saying that its ratings were low and its cost-effective was poor. She further accused LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5565

LEUNG Ka-wing, the Director of Broadcasting, of not doing his best in the promotion of "one country". Knowing very well that Taiwan is not a sovereign state, a female reporter of an English channel under him still asked whether it could join the World Health Organization ("WHO") during an interview with a senior WHO official. She alleged directly that LEUNG Ka-wing should take the responsibility.

President, I wish to point out that if the Government or Members of the Executive Council say the expenditure of RTHK should be cut due to its low ratings, may I ask them to find a mirror and take a look at themselves. How many people watched the dialogues of those senior officials with the public on the Internet? Only some 80 people watched the live broadcast of LAW Chi-kwong―the one still in office―online. What does this figure mean? President, if I was going to do a Facebook live broadcast, there would be more than 80 viewers even during the waiting time when I had not yet spoken. How can they still have the face to talk about ratings? Furthermore, it is regrettable that they did not mention an important fact, that is, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau allows such large broadcasters as Television Broadcasts Limited ("TVB") to cancel the airtime reserve for public broadcast. But never mind. Making unremitting efforts to become stronger by itself, RTHK performs remarkably well on the Internet. Its online hit rates are outstanding. The hit rate of Headliner exceeds 20 million, whereas that of Hong Kong Connection has reached 36 million. Now my children and my wife do not watch TVB at home. Rather, they watch Hong Kong Connection and Headliner online to find joy in sorrow every week. I hope the pro-Government camp will not quote figures out of context, make a biased interpretation and smear RTHK. RTHK, being under their oppression all along, is already unable to improve its manpower situation and equipment. It is even not given the approval for the construction of the New Broadcasting House. But now the pro-Government camp have gone so far as to smear it right here and accused it for yielding poor results.

President, the Budget is in fact one of the tools to resolve social conflicts. Now the greatest conflict in our society, as we all know, came from public resentment which has never been addressed since the Government's attempt to push through the draconian "China extradition law", and the Government has never responded to the people's demands either. We want to boost the economy, and the Financial Secretary also always talks about the need to improve the economy. To achieve social stability, the first thing we need is a well-functioned government. Only then will the people live in harmony. Will 5566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 the Government respond to the people's five demands? It has not made any response so far. Yesterday noon, Carrie LAM announced the replacement of several Directors of Bureaux under the accountability system. However, President, the ones who deserve replacement the most are actually Chief Executive Carrie LAM, Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG, Secretary for Security John LEE and the Commissioner of Police. These four are the four principal culprits harming Hong Kong. If the four of them lay out a mat in a street in Central and squat on it, and Hongkongers are each asked to give them $1 so that they will pack up and leave, I believe the coins piled up on the mat will be higher than the statue of the queen in the Statue Square.

President, let me offer a piece of advice to the Government. If it wishes to resolve the political dispute, it must humbly listen to the people's views and sincerely respond to their five demands, rather than just thinking about how to legislate for Article 23, how to provide additional equipment for the Police, and how to arrest and prosecute the pro-democracy camp and members of the public with draconian laws. Social conflicts cannot be resolved in this way. Hongkongers will unswervingly keep fighting for democracy and justice and defending the rule of law. They will never surrender. They will never act like the SAR Government, which only listens to the Central Authorities, kneels down, prostrates itself, blames itself and keeps swallowing its words. I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, every year in the Budget debate, I like to make a comparison of former Financial Secretaries. We referred to Donald TSANG, while he was in the office of Financial Secretary, as the one "who dealt a blow to predators". And for Henry TANG, we said he brought good luck. John TSANG, who succeeded him, was often dubbed the one who "made the wrong estimates" and "a scrooge". When the incumbent Secretary, Mr Paul CHAN, assumed office, we already said he had to fight an uphill battle, because we all know that the economic downturn has spread around the globe and befallen Hong Kong.

Today, I wish to tell Secretary Paul CHAN that, in addition to fighting an uphill battle, he should have "super eyes" and "super ears". He should consolidate the experience of former Financial Secretaries to look into ways to help Hong Kong weather the crisis. It requires determination to "deal a blow to predators", and the success of the fight against the epidemic hinges on the solidarity of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is now facing both external and internal troubles. During the scrutiny of the 2018-2019 Budget, we already foretold here LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5567 that we would be beset with an economic hurricane, the like of "Mangkhut". We hoped that he would allocate generous fiscal reserve to support enterprises so that they could persevere and take proper precautions, and close the windows to stay away from the storm. However, the situation today is worse than those days. With the breakdown of China-United States relations and a global epidemic outbreak, Hong Kong is already plagued by severe external troubles.

And how about the internal troubles? In other countries, in the face of economic recession and the threat of the epidemic, their ruling and opposition parties will both put aside their conflicts and, in the event of terrorist attacks, be particularly united. Nonetheless, Hong Kong is the contrary. In my view, the opposition camp of the Legislative Council has not reviewed the overall situation and embraced the concept of doing things for the greater good. However, at least, I have heard just now Mr LAM Cheuk-ting say that the Democratic Party would support the Budget. I hope they can take even a further step back. The pro-establishment camp also wishes to have a good opponent, together with whom we will confront the epidemic. Now, various countries in the world are all in the same boat and have to band together. In Hong Kong, no matter how much we hate each other, we must have the best interests of the people and public at heart.

At this time, some Members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong still visited the United States to call for sanctions against Hong Kong. The so-called Hong Kong Policy Act and human rights act are essentially economic and political sanctions against Hong Kong, causing a downgrade of the economic rating of Hong Kong. Political stability is a great advantage of Hong Kong. Hong Kong has now become unstable politically, but some people fear that Hong Kong would not be totally dead. A group of young people who are inexperienced and easily fooled and are yet to graduate from university went to the United States and asked for sanctions against Hong Kong. I will reprimand them. Yet, Members of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong should never provide ammunition for foreign countries to strike Hong Kong repeatedly. We can see from such moves that they are working in collusion, one from within and the other from without, which includes paralysing the House Committee of the Legislative Council. They have even made such a grand gesture as to explicitly state that should they become the majority in the Council, they would negative all Budgets, motions for funding applications and government bills, in a bid to paralyse Hong Kong and "one country, two systems". It is a serious violation of the basic principles and policies under "one country, two systems".

5568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

At this point in time, the opposition camp still has to filibuster. As the saying goes, "the tree longs for calmness, but the wind will not subside", when the Finance Committee examined the second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund, Mr CHU Hoi-dick still proposed an adjournment motion and wanted to call a stop to the granting of life-saving money. On the one hand, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen requested a universal cash handout of $10,000, but expressed his opposition to the motion in the meeting on the other. It shows that he has a split mind and cannot control himself. Though he succeeded in having his proposed measure implemented, he has been opposing it all along and lost control completely. Under such circumstances, Hong Kong is feeling the sweeping wind preceding the impending storm.

The economic "Mangkhut" has arrived in Hong Kong, but its two political camps are still attacking each other. Can we face up to the present predicament? I consider it contingent upon Hongkongers. Internally, Hong Kong is like a coach carrying different people which has travelled to an unfamiliar place and sunk into a quagmire. But those people are still bickering over what the other has said in the past, instead of pushing the coach out of the present predicament. Continuing to bicker, they will only win a quarrel but lose a home―lose Hong Kong.

The Financial Secretary's "super eyes" should look at the world, China and the young generation. Given the collapse of the Sino-United States trade negotiations and the strained relations between the two countries, it is impossible … I think it has got into a dangerous situation comparable to the Cold War. For this reason, other than the United States, we must set eyes on places including Europe, such as Central and Eastern Europe, Africa and South America. The Government cannot just act in the conventional way, because they have already imposed sanctions on us. We cannot rely on others; the Government has to break its own grounds. Looking at China, I anticipate that China ought to be the economy recovering from the epidemic the fastest. We should envisage, after the epidemic has come under control, how to make early efforts for the economy and talents of Hong Kong to tie in with the economic recovery of China. The Government should make advance preparation, and this requires "super eyes", not waiting.

Looking at the young generation, the epidemic has certainly awakened our total awareness of the application of technologies in such areas as artificial intelligence, high technology, etc. The representative of the education sector, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5569

Mr IP Kin-yuen, just keeps asking for more funding. I want to tell him that I teach humanities―I declare―and that laws, the Basic Law, history and culture can be taught with the use of high technology. I always wish that a museum will be built in Hong Kong, where people will feel they have entered the time tunnel upon entry. And in such an environment, children will love learning. This is the way of thinking in economic adversities which fosters cooperation among generations. In this day and age, we need to learn from history, temper ourselves with difficulties and have the creativity of young people. "Super eyes" are required to combine these elements while "super ears" are used to hear public views. I had mentioned a cash handout during my several meetings with the Financial Secretary. Initially, he was very reluctant to give away cash. Then he changed his mind and considered handing out $5,000, and the amount was eventually increased to $10,000. We can see that he has listened to public views―he has heard them at last. The popularity rating of the Financial Secretary is 42%, higher than that in 2009. I think even he himself has not expected this, which is the result of heeding public views.

Moreover, in the Budget debate a few years ago, I liked to talk about the television programme As Long As You Live in my speech. The programme mentioned that elderly care measures were implemented in Korea or other places. Today, life is most difficult for our elderly persons because the new strain of pneumonia attacks the elderly the hardest. But I believe Hong Kong can get over it. How can the Government provide a stable life for elderly persons? It needs "super eyes" and "super ears"―setting up a central provident fund and not relying on the Mandatory Provident Fund; setting up a temporary unemployment assistance fund and a loan fund for occupation switching. In the discussion on the Lehman Incident, I had already pointed out that we did not want the unemployed to become recipients of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"). These people wish to rejoin the workforce by either switching their occupation or upgrading themselves to become consultants. Most of them were capable senior managers in large corporations, but are unemployed today. I have already received such messages forwarded by my friends. They will definitely make all-out efforts to not become CSSA recipients. Hongkongers do not want to receive CSSA! If given a choice, they would rather rejoin the workforce with the help of the Government and earn their own living.

I share the Financial Secretary's worry: where does the money come from? I think it is the first time that I support a cash handout, for I have a real liking for 5570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

"one country, two systems" and the low tax regime of Hong Kong. I even remember that the Financial Secretary, Mr Paul CHAN, while he was a Member of the Legislative Council, proposed an expansion of the tax regime. In fact, I did not quite agree to it as I like such a simple tax regime very much. Moreover, Articles 107 and 108 of the Basic Law establish for Hong Kong the principle of keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues and the simple, low tax policy, which have attracted many foreigners to Hong Kong and lured back many Hongkongers who had emigrated. That said, the environment Hong Kong is facing today is indeed different from the past, and so I keep a more open mind. I agree to a cash handout, because life is really hard for members of the public. It is so difficult that perhaps they are even unable to pay for their daily necessities. The Government will hand out cash this year, and will people expect the same next year? I definitely do not want the Government to do this. I hope society teaches people how to earn their own living. "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime". The second "fish" is a verb, meaning teaching people how to earn money.

Firstly, I wish the Financial Secretary will find someone to refute the so-called "Yellow Economics", the notion of which I refer to as "dummy economics" or "dimwit economics". Some people would actually do such things for political purposes. Hongkongers are not so dumb. Whoever are dumb will continue to follow the lead of such people. They have actually uttered "Yellow Economics" and "Yellow Economic Circle". Are Hongkongers like that? Are they so foolish to such an extent? People proposing such notions are the true dummies, who are not qualified to do business. They just want such notions to brew in society. These people are so foolish that they will kill Hong Kong's economy. If they are not foolish, they must harbour malicious intentions.

I have had a two-hour discussion with Prof CHAN Yan-chong, Prof HO Lok-sang and Prof Francis LUI. I wish to say to the Financial Secretary and he thinks that nowadays, many countries rely on printing banknotes to solve economic problems. Given the consideration of political stability, Hong Kong cannot print banknotes and the Hong Kong dollar is still linked to the US dollar. The Secretary has truly put a lot of efforts to tackle economic problems, and I have also listened attentively. The fiscal reserve of Hong Kong still stands at $1 trillion, but we may really have to consider issuing bonds. Of course, I hope that the epidemic in Hong Kong will be brought under control immediately, then we do not have to consider doing so. However, the Government may have to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5571 prepare psychologically and conduct a relevant study early because $1 trillion, though not a small amount, is not that much and will be depleted very soon. The one-time payout cost a staggering $260 billion. Without restructuring our economy, the Government's fiscal reserve will dry out very soon should there be another round of cash handout. This cannot be done, and I will not agree to it. Thus, the Government cannot hand out cash time and again and it must think carefully.

Prof HO Lok-sang and Prof Francis LUI do not find a cash handout entirely agreeable. They told me the premise is that, if Members request a cash handout, they must make it clear to the Government that the epidemic must be brought under control shortly. Then they would agree to a cash handout, otherwise they would come out and level criticisms. They consider that the economy of a society cannot be solely supported by cash handouts. Nevertheless, I have convinced them because the situation right now is extremely difficult. It is not any normal day but a crisis faced by all Hongkongers and the whole world. What can be done if not a cash handout? In view of the economic difficulties in Hong Kong, I hope Secretary Prof and various government departments will stand firm and united in fighting the epidemic. I would rather endure another two or three weeks. After the epidemic is brought under control, economic activities can be resumed.

Adversarial economy is an assignment for the Financial Secretary, and a topic on which young people have many thoughts. We, the young middle age, also have our own thoughts, and even retirees have many thoughts as well. He should have more dialogues with different generations with his "super ears". Hong Kong must stand on its own feet. Can we tide over the great challenge of economic recession? What we lose is not money, and what it takes to win is not money neither, but our hearts. Can we rescue the economic and political situations that have been caught in a quagmire with one heart? We must push this coach forward again, and stop chiding each other due to the conflicts arising in the vehicle. If not, we would have been starved to death eventually for preoccupying ourselves with chiding each other and failed to get out of the predicament. It is meaningless. We must safeguard "one country, two systems" with one heart, notwithstanding our diverging views. Frankly speaking, the Basic Law was enacted 30 years ago. Today, 30 years later, I do not see any new problem emerging. You can check back the news at that time. I do not see any new problem, including the one about residual power. I will not 5572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 discuss the Basic Law today. I only wish to tell the Financial Secretary that, as I cherish the opportunity to have him here to listen to hear my speech, we must safeguard "one country, two systems" and our happiness with one heart.

President, I so submit.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, due to the continuous ups and downs in the trade conflicts between China and the United States, the blows dealt by the "black violence" to Hong Kong, and the looming shadows of the novel coronavirus outbreak, Hong Kong is under attack on three fronts and as a result, the economic and social conditions in Hong Kong, which were already put to the test, have aroused greater concern and anxieties. The SAR Government has introduced four rounds of relief measures since mid-August last year to support enterprises and safeguard jobs with a view to mitigating the grave impact of the "black violence" on the economy, society and the people's livelihood in Hong Kong. Regrettably, the sudden onslaught of the epidemic has triggered an abrupt cliff-like drop of the already weak economy, and we are like being trapped in a dark tunnel, not seeing the end of it so far, let alone a flicker of hope.

Against the backdrop of weak public confidence and uncertain prospects, this Budget has spent huge sums of money in rolling out one-off relief measures at about $120 billion, which is equivalent to over 4% of the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"), with the objective of generating the urgently needed stimulus effect for the local economy. Together with the two rounds of measures introduced under the Anti-epidemic Fund to support industries affected by the outbreak, the Government has spent close to $290 billion in total, which is equivalent to 10% of the GDP. Such an extent of financial input is unprecedented. The development of the epidemic is changing rapidly and we have not seen any significant improvement yet. Over the past weekend, in the face of obstruction and opposition orchestrated in every possible way by Members of the "mutual destruction camp" and with the unanimous support of the 41 votes from the pro-establishment Members, the Finance Committee approved the provision of $137.5 billion for the second round of measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund in order to provide relief to enterprises and workers in dire straits. I hope that this Budget can also be passed by the Legislative Council as soon as possible.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5573

President, the epidemic has impacted on the tourism, retail, catering and aviation sectors, shopping malls, as well as many other industries. The challenges have yet come to an end, and it is unlikely that the number of in-bound visitors will return to the original level in a short time. According to the statistics published by the Hong Kong Tourism Board some time ago, the provisional figure for visitor arrivals to Hong Kong in March was 82 000, a drop of nearly 99% from last year, and the average daily visitors even dropped to below 100 in April. As a chain reaction, the unemployment rate from January to March 2020 rose significantly by 0.5% to reach 4.2%, the highest in nine years, showing that the social and employment conditions in Hong Kong are extremely critical. In view of social unrest and the raging epidemic, the highlight of the Budget falls on the cash payout of $10,000 to Hong Kong permanent residents aged 18 or above, which costs the Treasury around $71 billion and attracts the most public attention.

Making cash handouts by opening the public coffers is an extraordinary measure to reignite consumer spending after the epidemic is alleviated, thereby giving a boost to the economy and stimulating a rebound of the economy. But the premise of giving cash payouts should be meeting pressing needs. It should not be an illusion to quench the thirst of the people. The Financial Secretary said some time ago that the cash payout scheme should be able to start taking applications in late June for the cash payout to be disbursed starting from July. But compared to the Macao Government in providing cash handouts to the public last year, it took them only four months from announcement to completion of the scheme. There is indeed ample room for improvement. Moreover, the effectiveness of putting money in the people's pockets to stimulate the consumer market depends on three factors: First, the development of the epidemic; second, the willingness of the public in spending money; and third, peace and stability in social atmosphere.

Insofar as the third factor is concerned, I hope that the majority members of the community who oppose violence will support the Government in its continuous efforts to maintain stability in society. The opposition camp must cease to harbour any wishful thinking of inciting the public to take to the streets. Meanwhile, the Government should plan ahead and draw up plans early to attract consumer spending and explore ways to boost public confidence in the economic 5574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 outlook, so that the public will stay in Hong Kong for spending, thereby revitalizing the domestic consumption market and speeding up the recovery of our economic vitality. This, I think, will be more helpful to the industries affected by the outbreak and will hence reduce the risks of an economic downturn in Hong Kong. Otherwise, if, upon cessation of the financial assistance, the business environment remained unfavourable and rental continued to be on the high side, waves of business closures and layoffs would be triggered at any moment and by then, the unemployment rate would surge.

President, apart from throwing huge sums of money into a series of measures to support the enterprises and safeguard jobs in an effort to provide relief to the public, has this Budget proposed any forward-looking measure to invest in our future? In its financial management, the Government should in the first place focus on investing in our future and injecting resources targeting social problems and the people in need. Like a number of Budgets in the past, this Budget is still geared to promoting the development of a diversified economy and strengthening the pillars of the Hong Kong economy, namely, financial services, tourism, trading and logistics, as well as business and professional services. The objective is to consolidate the fundamentals of Hong Kong and hence provide a strong basis for identifying new areas of economic growth. However, the handling of cash payouts alone has reflected the backwardness of Hong Kong in terms of innovation and technology.

President, in this Budget we do not find a lot of new ideas in respect of financial services or innovation and technology. In the past two Budgets the Financial Secretary injected $100 billion into financial services and innovation and technology and put forward a number of major initiatives, such as the Green Bond Grant Scheme, investing in Phase 1 of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park at the Lok Ma Chau Loop, establishing in the Hong Kong Science Park two research clusters focusing on health care technologies and artificial intelligence and robotics technologies, and making equity injection into the Innovation and Technology Fund, with the objectives of developing new engines for the Hong Kong economy and enhancing the advantages of the local financial market to enable Hong Kong to seize the opportunities brought by the -Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the Belt and Road Initiative. Measures were also proposed to improve government services, such as earmarking several hundreds of billions of dollars to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5575 support the hospital development plan, and providing subsidies for organizations to carry out restoration works on vacant sites and school premises, rather than injecting the huge surplus into various funds and not putting it to any use. However, it is regrettable that the measures proposed previously to enhance innovation and technology development in Hong Kong have made very slow progress. For instance, regarding the establishment of the two research clusters in the Hong Kong Science Park as proposed in the year before last, the Government has been making the same remarks since the end of last year that 65 proposals have been received from world renowned universities and research institutes and the first batch of research institutes are expected to be set up this year. But what are these world renowned universities and research institutes that are going to be set up? Is there any university or research institute pulling out because of the impact of the "black violence" and the epidemic? I had followed up this issue at meetings of the relevant Panel and have yet to obtain a definite reply. Hong Kong is already lagging behind many countries in the development of innovation and technology. If the follow-up work remains sluggish after concrete measures have been introduced, how can we create a pool of talents and attract universities, research institutes and overseas enterprises to come to Hong Kong?

President, the epidemic has dealt a blow to the local business environment and the commercial and industrial sectors, especially the small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") which are facing considerably severe challenges. SMEs are the pillar of economic and social development in Hong Kong. They account for over 98% of the local enterprises and employ a workforce of about 1.3 million. As their business operation is not large in scale and their risk tolerance level is comparatively low, they are vulnerable to changes in the external environment and economic volatility. After six months of attacks by the "black violence" on Hong Kong, the sudden outbreak of the epidemic has dealt a greater blow to SMEs. They either have to suspend their business operations to fight the epidemic or shorten their business hours, encourage their workers to take no-pay leave or even lay off their workers, or worse still, close down their business altogether. The Budget has shown understanding and responded to the needs of the industries by introducing the concessionary low-interest loan with 100% guarantee commitment provided by the Government under the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme. The repayment period for the loan is three years and SMEs are provided with an option for a principal 5576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 moratorium for the first six months. This, I believe, will be helpful to SMEs in addressing the difficulties in securing loans and their liquidity problems.

However, according to earlier surveys, it is estimated that about some 15 000 shops will close down by the end of this year, accounting for a quarter of the total number of retail shops in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation Limited ("HKMC") started to take applications for the concessionary low-interest loan under the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme on the Monday just passed, i.e. 20 April. The scheme is met with enthusiastic response from bank customers which are SMEs and a few thousand of them have registered in advance, which shows a keen demand for the loan. I hope that the banks can expedite the approving process where unacceptable credit risks are not involved. HKMC should also approve the applications expeditiously. This, coupled with the approval of the second round of measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund by this Council last weekend, may give some breathing space to enterprises originally intending to close down their business and hence enable them to continue with their operation and this will, in turn, slow down the increase of the employment rate.

On the other hand, the landlords of shops and shopping arcades must also shoulder their responsibilities. When the community at large faces difficulties, they can no longer shirk their responsibilities with any excuse. They should respond to the repeated public appeal made by the Government and take steps to tide over the difficulties with the shop tenants by taking the initiative to lower the rent as appropriate.

President, Hong Kong and our country as well as many countries all over the world have adopted their own fiscal policies to channel huge sums of money to support various industries and members of the public in order to cushion the impact of the epidemic on the economy. With close to $1,000 billion in the fiscal reserve, the SAR Government, being more affluent than many countries, has introduced relief measures costing $290 billion in total, which will reduce the fiscal reserve from some $1,100 billion to $800 billion to $900 billion. But given the long way to go in battling the epidemic and the need to consider issues of post-epidemic economic recovery, the Government cannot pay attention only to the current circumstances to the neglect of the future needs in the use of the fiscal reserve.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5577

President, as the Budget has spent a large amount of money on the relief measures, will it lead to structural problems in the government finance or put it in other words, will the recurrent expenditure grow too fast or even outgrow the recurrent revenue? The Budget, however, did not shed much light on how revenue can be increased. Here, I appeal to the authorities to conduct studies early and put forward proposals to improve the financial conditions of the Government, rather than just trusting to luck. I hope that the fiscal revenue can restore to its previous position in a short time.

Speaking of the financial position of the Government, I must mention that early this week, a credit rating agency, Fitch, downgraded Hong Kong's credit rating to AA- on account of the huge expenditures of the SAR Government. It is ironic that after the release of the Budget, the same credit rating agency had said that it would maintain Hong Kong's credit rating at AA given that Hong Kong still amassed a huge fiscal reserve. While these words still ring in our ears, this credit rating agency now said that as the economy is hard-hit by the epidemic, the SAR Government has to increase its expenditures to rescue the market, and in making its comments, the social conflicts caused by the opposition to the legislative amendments were also taken into account, which hence led to its decision on a downgrade. This shows inconsistency in its practices and neglect of the strong fundamentals underpinning the local economy and financial market, and its view is unfounded.

Lastly, as shown in earlier surveys, 46% of the people support the passage of this Budget by this Council. I hope that the "mutual destruction camp" (The buzzer sounded) … will not use various excuses to block the disbursement and use of these funds for instant relief as proposed in the Budget. Thank you, President.

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

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, this year's Budget has met unprecedented challenges. Under the impact of the novel coronavirus epidemic, there is currently a continued drop in Hong Kong's overall economy and employment rate, bringing about more serious and far-reaching impacts than that of SARS in 2003.

5578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

While the SARS epidemic only broke out in a few regions and countries, there has been a global outbreak this time around. While the epidemic has started to come under control in Macao, Hong Kong and the Mainland, we still have no idea when it will come to an end at the global level, making us feel that an economic recovery is nowhere in sight.

One may say that the current outbreak has aggravated the predicament faced by the tourism industry. Since the riots arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments in June last year, inbound tourism has taken an immediate hit, and outbound tourism has also felt impacts of varied degrees. After going through business hardship for half a year, the tourism industry kept fingers crossed for, restoration of order and peace in society and possible revival of business approaching the peak season of tourism this Lunar New Year. Regrettably, the novel coronavirus epidemic suddenly broke out in Wuhan in January. Since late January, Hong Kong and the Mainland have successively implemented border closure in phases. With the issuance of the Red Outbound Travel Alert on all overseas countries and the implementation of the 14-day quarantine policy by Hong Kong following the subsequent outbreaks in different places around the world, both inbound and outbound visitors can hardly be seen.

In recent days, there have only been a few hundred inbound and outbound passengers per day, which simply pale in comparison to the daily average of 100 000 to 200 000 passenger trips previously. Over the past few months, travel agents organizing inbound, outbound or local tours have all been moaning and groaning as they just see money going out but not coming in, which can be regarded as the hardest hit industry among all. Recently, Mr CHU Hoi-dick has gone so far as to say that tourist guides have received unwarranted special treatment from the Government. His remark proves that he is entirely detached from reality, knowing nothing about the hardship faced by the industry. He should know that since the riots arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, quite a number of tourist guides have been left with no income for 10 months in a row. Travel agents have now been brought to a complete standstill. I hope Mr CHU can better understand and comment objectively on the actual situation of various sectors instead of stirring up social conflicts by making sweeping statements.

President, while the tourism industry has directly employed only 270 000 workers of the local labour force, its service chain is rather long which, according to conservative estimates, has directly and indirectly facilitated the employment LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5579 of more than 800 000 people in a number of sectors. The disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments last year and the current epidemic have fully reflected the ripple effects of tourism on the overall economy of Hong Kong. In addition to travel agents, tourist attractions, hotels and aviation, other affected sectors include retail, catering, transport, logistic or even real estate, advertisement design and insurance services. Take the retail sector as an example. According to government statistics, spending by visitors to Hong Kong has accounted for as high as 40% of the total volume of domestic retail sales in recent years. The drastic drop in the number of visitors has brought down the income of workers in a number of associated sectors. They have started to take no-pay leave or even become jobless. It is an indisputable fact that the overall economy of Hong Kong has been mired in recession due to sluggish sales.

At this difficult time, the Government has launched several rounds of relief measures and two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF"), setting aside more than $20 billion of the fiscal reserves aimed at safeguarding jobs and supporting enterprises. Such initiatives are commendable, particularly the disbursement of the second round of AEF given its wide coverage and massive funding, which will be of great help to most companies and employees in difficulty in Hong Kong. Certainly, as the saying goes, "the problem lies not in scarcity but uneven distribution". As the Government aimed at assisting enterprises and workers at the soonest possible time, omissions were inevitable when formulating the relevant support measures this time around. I hope the Government can plug the gaps and assist more members of the public and enterprises in need as far as practicable.

Under the current exceptional circumstances, it is the collective wish of employees and companies across the territory to obtain the funding early. While there are still inadequacies, including the fact that a number of my suggestions made to the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux have failed to achieve the desired effect, given the pressing task to support enterprises and safeguard jobs, I, as a Member and representative of public opinion, certainly supported the funding proposal for the second round of AEF when it was put to vote at the meeting of the Finance Committee last Saturday. The earlier it is passed, the earlier the relief will be granted. It is the general wish of members of the public, which is also a matter of black and white. Nevertheless, the opposition camp proposed at the meeting that the proceeding be adjourned, obstructing the smooth conduct of the meeting. Eventually, they even ignored 5580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 the plight of the public and voted against the proposal collectively. I hope Members from the opposition camp will no longer be carried away by the victory in the District Council election. Instead of taking a political path that leads to mutual destruction, they should think more about the present plight of members of the public with empathy, and do more solid work for the community, including lending their support to this year's Budget.

President, this year's Budget can basically achieve flexible allocation of resources with expanded scope of subsidies based on the needs of various sectors. But when it comes to tax relief and rates concession, the measures proposed in the Budget lack new ideas, which are generally the same as the ones offered last year, and the recent relief measures have not provided extra concessions in the relevant areas either. It is observed that in the general economic environment of Hong Kong at present, most households and enterprises have encountered difficulties, and they often have cash flow problems. Under the existing mechanism, taxpayers may apply to the Inland Revenue Department ("IRD") for holdover of provisional tax. Yet, IRD has to process the applications on a case-by-case basis, which is cumbersome. I hope the Government can consider allowing employees and enterprises of the relevant sectors, such as tourism, retail, catering, hotel and aviation, which are most affected by the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments and the epidemic, to hold over the payment of personal salaries tax and profits tax payable by companies for the current year, so as to ease their burden.

Second, the Government should also consider granting rates concession to those sectors which feel a more far-reaching impact of the epidemic. Take the hotel sector as an example. Occupancy rates are currently in the single digits, and worst of all, it is not known when the tough time will end. In view of the substantial daily and payroll costs, the Government should try to offer assistance. Although each hotel will get a subsidy of $300,000 or $400,000 from the second round of AEF, it is utterly inadequate for the hotel sector. The best way to give them direct assistance is rates concession, which I hope the Government can consider.

President, with an additional amount of $790 million allocated to the Hong Kong Tourism Board ("HKTB") in this year's Budget, as well as the money left behind from cancellation of some activities and promotional programmes by HKTB last year, the marketing budget available to HKTB for the current year is estimated to be $1.2 billion, which I consider necessary. As announced by HKTB earlier, with the new budget of $400 million, a three-pronged strategy, i.e. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5581 stimulating domestic consumption, stepping up marketing efforts and boosting the number of overnight visitors, will be adopted. I consider that under the exceptional circumstances, particularly when Hong Kong's tourism industry has come to a standstill, the allocation of additional resources to HKTB merits support.

The disease now spreads around the world. According to the latest figures, Hong Kong may soon become a region with zero infection. Given the external uncertainty surrounding the epidemic and traffic disruptions, it is anticipated that Hong Kong people will have little desire to travel. According to the experience back in 2003, in the early stage of the upswing, members of the public preferred joining local tours, which served to boost domestic consumption. Since HKTB has decided to stimulate domestic consumption in the first phase of its plan, it should allocate some of the resources to support the industry in promoting local tours.

At present, business is bleak for quite a number of local tourist attractions. For instance, the Ocean Park and Disneyland have been closed for days, and business is bleak for travel agents, hotels, restaurants and the retail sector. HKTB can offer assistance and take the lead in encouraging such sectors as tourist attractions, hotels, restaurants, retail stores and travel agents to jointly launch local tour itineraries with unique characteristics, so as to promote domestic consumption and gain more momentum for recovery. After border closure is lifted overseas and on the Mainland, HKTB may further decide how to proceed to the next stage of work having regard to the actual development of the epidemic, including considering stepping up overseas marketing efforts and raising the proportion of overnight visitors.

In the past, HKTB used to allocate most of its resources to advertising and publicity. In recent years, it has also begun to grant subsidies to the industry in the form of financial support and incentives instead. Facing this grim situation, HKTB should increase subsidies for the industry and particularly, take on most of the costs incurred from external promotion. Increasing the relevant subsidies will definitely serve to make industry participants with financial difficulties more proactive in external promotion of tourism products. When doing promotion, industry participants with networking connections can reach different customers on a more extensive basis with more diverse products launched, which will be better than relying solely on advertising and publicity. It will be more conducive to the recovery of our tourism industry in the future.

5582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

President, the relief measures costing $120 billion introduced in this year's Budget and the two rounds of AEF have totalled $290 billion, equivalent to 10% of the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"). The deficit is estimated to be as high as $139.1 billion next year, equivalent to 4.8% of GDP, going beyond the international standard of 3% of GDP and breaking with the philosophy of public finance management to keep the expenditure within the limits of revenues. Nevertheless, we can see that facing a once-in-a-century epidemic, countries around the world have all introduced various forms of relief measures, and I do not think Hong Kong should be an exception.

I notice that the measures rolled out by the Government so far are actually similar to those of other countries. Hong Kong's reserves will drop from the level of $1,100 billion to approximately between $800 billion and $900 billion in the future. Fiscal reserves should still be in a healthy state. But if the epidemic shows no sign of abating despite the relief packages and a third round of relief measures is necessary, people will inevitably be worried that the reserves of Hong Kong are not enough. For this reason, the Government should prepare for recovery from now on, and examine proper ways for resumption of work and school after the epidemic, and ways of restoring external connections and economic activities to make the market more vibrant.

Meanwhile, the Government should also study the circumstances under which Hong Kong may consider reopening in phases cross-boundary transport links with neighbouring regions and countries where the epidemic is relatively more under control, lifting entry and exit restrictions and gradually resuming normal activities on the premise of protecting public health. I believe it is the collective wish of members of the public and various sectors and industries. For instance, we see that the epidemic is more under control in Macao than Hong Kong, and the epidemic in Hong Kong will probably come under control soon. Under such circumstances, can we consider resuming traffic between both places?

President, Hong Kong can be described as facing the double whammy of the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments lasting as long as six months and the once-in-a-century global outbreak of pandemic. Internal depletion has ruined our home, Hong Kong. The wind and rain out there have been shaking our foundation. To protect Hong Kong, our home, Hongkongers need to stand together in solidarity, waiting for sunshine after the rain. Only then can Hongkongers live and work in peace and contentment. But with endless internal depletion, even if the epidemic is over, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5583 the unlawful and violent protesters will come back stronger. The opposition camp will continue on the path that leads to mutual destruction politically, economically and socially. Hong Kong will never have a moment of peace, and people's life will not be protected.

A host of relief measures have been presented in this Budget, including a universal cash payout of $10,000. I call on Members from the opposition camp not to obstruct the passage of the Budget for their own political agenda and affect the well-being of the general public. In view of the business doldrums experienced by many trades and a record high unemployment rate, the SAR Government should also listen to voices from all sides, spare no effort in launching more measures, and help various sectors and members of the public in Hong Kong weather the storm.

President, I so submit.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I would like to first make clear my stance. I and other Members from the Democratic Party will undoubtedly vote against the Budget this time around. Before raising my arguments, I would like to make it clear that I hope the President will exercise restraint. As the President, you have the power concerned, but please be reminded that the Second Reading debate provides room for Members to present their views on the general merits and principles of the bill and indicate their support or otherwise. Yesterday, many Members indicated that for reasons of politics, police brutality, discontent with senior officials, and decline of freedom in Hong Kong due to an inept government, they could not approve any funding for the Government. However, the President accused these Members of having deviated from the topic. I hope today the President will exercise restraint upon hearing my arguments, and listen carefully about why representatives of public opinion oppose the Budget.

Hong Kong has many deep-rooted problems, many people are extremely angry, there are many inadequacies of public administration, and there has been a sharp decline of freedom in Hong Kong. All these are attributable to government officials, and the pro-Government camp who is holding a candle to the devil. My next point is that as long as the problem of police brutality remains unsolved, we should not approve any funding for the Police Force, nor 5584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 should we approve any funding for the officials in charge. The rapid retrogression of freedom in Hong Kong is attributable to the Hong Kong Government. When government officials are toadying to the Communists and scarifying people's freedoms for the sake of their own interests, we should not allocate even a single dollar to these officials. When Hong Kong society is rapidly degrading from rule of law to rule of man, we should not allocate even a single dollar to those officials who are supposed to play a gate-keeping role or who have personally caused such a change. We should no longer support such policies that continue to suppress Hong Kong's freedoms.

Police brutality, which still infuriates members of the public, has never ceased or waned after the "anti-extradition to China" movement. Clashes between the Police and the public take place from time to time, and policemen are virtually hated by everyone. They wilfully abuse the power conferred upon them by the law to revile and beat up members of the public, and arbitrary arrests and prosecutions take place every day. In the case of the recent mass arrests, for example, even the mildest democrats or leaders and pioneers of democratic movements have been arrested. What does this reflect? This reflects that Hong Kong allows no voices of democracy fighters, allows no such people to fight for freedom in the mildest way, and allows no dissenting views.

Members should not forget that last month, various District Council chairmen or elected representatives were arrested for posting online comments that targeted the Police or not being polite to policemen when presiding over District Council meetings. They were thus arrested in revenge. We must also remember that many sons and daughters of Hong Kong were arrested in the "anti-extradition to China" movement and are still serving sentences at reception centres at this moment. These good young people have lost their freedoms all because of police brutality. Regarding cases involving forced suicide, floating bodies or a mysterious fatal fall from a building, the Police have found no suspicious circumstances surrounding all these cases. The Police have recently been given one more tool to suppress the public, namely the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation ("the Regulation"). Even in the case of lawful processions and demonstrations and peaceful petitions, the Police have used the Regulation to prosecute the relevant persons. This has prompted me to propose amendments to the Regulation to restrain excessive police power.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5585

When all these problems have yet to be addressed, how can we allocate even one cent to the Security Bureau? How can we allocate even one cent to the Police Force? Many Members of the pro-Government camp and the Commissioner of Police have said that members of the public may lodge complaints under the complaint mechanism put in place by the Government. We are now proposing changes to this complaint mechanism. We consider this mechanism unfair, as investigation is conducted among peers of the investigators, and the Government can by no means be monitored. Under such circumstances, how can we approve these estimates of expenditure for you?

The sharp decline of freedom in Hong Kong is attributable to the tyranny of Chief Executive Carrie LAM and these incompetent senior officials. I recollect Carrie LAM saying that given the number of processions and demonstrations in Hong Kong last year, one would know that Hong Kong still enjoys freedom of procession and of demonstration. Hong Kong people had better take a look at the number of applications for processions and demonstrations which were objected to by the Police, and the number of lawful processions with letters of no objection which were interrupted by the Police by way of firing tear gas when the processions were in progress or had just started for 15 minutes last year. In many lawful processions, many young people are arbitrarily arrested or beaten up. This is the indicator of Hong Kong's freedoms. It is but an international laughing stock for Carrie LAM to claim that Hong Kong enjoys freedoms and Hong Kong people enjoy basic rights.

The whole world is watching. We previously said that intervention from Beijing or the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") is the invisible hand. The hand is now visible. It is the hand which manipulates each senior official from behind and interferes in the affairs of Hong Kong. LOCPG even meddles in the procedure to elect the Chairman of the House Committee of the Legislative Council. Worse still, the passage or otherwise of the Budget in the Legislative Council has also become LOCPG's business. LOCPG has trumped up charges, accusing Members of violating their oaths or failing to pledge allegiance to our country and uphold the Basic Law. It can say whatever it likes …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please get back to the topic of the debate.

5586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, I will get back to the debate. However, as all of these are the reasons why I support or oppose the Budget, I urge you to exercise restraint.

How much freedom does Hong Kong still have? The landslide victory of the pro-democracy camp at the District Council election has been a manifestation of public opinion. Our District Council members elected all represent members of the public, but funding proposals made by many District Councils have been constantly hindered by District Offices and delayed for a long time. The pro-Government camp often accuses us of hindering livelihood issues, but even when we are talking about expenditure items related to people's livelihood, these items are invariably hindered by District Offices. They prevent us from approving any anti-epidemic funding. They lock the doors to forbid us from holding a meeting, they do not even allow us to hold a meeting at the corridor, and they forbid us from entering the building …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please get back to the topic that the Council is now debating.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I am getting back to the topic. The Budget covers funding for District Offices, right? President, I am holding you in high esteem and calling you "President". I am asking you whether the Budget covers funding for District Offices. I am saying that we should not approve funding for the Home Affairs Bureau anymore. Have I deviated from the topic in saying so?

When the Government does not even respect representatives of public opinion and the outcome of an election, how can we approve any funding for it? What criteria does the Government adopt when appointing senior officials? The Government has appointed the Director of Immigration as a Director of Bureau as he had done a good job in rejecting the entry into Hong Kong of persons who were not welcomed by our country. His promotion may not be related to the display of a portrait of the Chinese President behind him. The Government is not appointing whoever has talent, but rather appointing whoever is pro-Communist. Who else has the Government appointed? It has appointed a member of a political party that has suffered the biggest defeat in the election. This political party has maintained only 4% representation in terms of seats in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5587

District Councils. Since this party, or, to be exact, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, has lost public support and suffered the biggest defeat in the election, the Government has specifically appointed one of its members. What can we see from the relevant appointment? It turns out that the appointee's father is a Communist, and it is thus natural to appoint him as a Director of Bureau. This is exactly appointing whoever is pro-Communist.

Regarding a government official's statement concerning whether Article 22 of the Basic Law is applicable to LOCPG established in Hong Kong, the Government has been saying over the years that Article 22 is applicable to LOCPG, and LOCPG should not interfere in the internal affairs of Hong Kong. That being said, our country suddenly assigned a mission, and the official was told that his statement was incorrect. He therefore hastened to withdraw his statement and apologized. Since he was willing to apologize, he could continue to serve in another position. He could no longer be in charge of this area, but had to be transferred to take charge of the civil service. Such rule of man is visible to members of the public. May I ask Patrick NIP whether he feels ashamed for overturning a statement valid for so many years and the research conducted with the assistance of so many professional civil servants …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I am reminding you for the last time. Please get back to the topic of the debate.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I am warning you for the last time, Andrew LEUNG. Stop restraining the speech of a Member. I am talking about the funding for Patrick NIP, right? I am saying that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau has not been doing a good job, and we should not approve the funding for him. Have I deviated from the topic in saying so? Andrew LEUNG, I am warning you not to abuse your power and restrain the speech of a representative of the public.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, if a Member has deviated from the topic in his speech, the President has the power and responsibility to give a reminder …

5588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Please explain how I have deviated from the topic in my speech …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is the power conferred upon the President of the Legislative Council under the Basic Law …

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I have said just now that we should not approve the funding for the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau due to its unsatisfactory performance and the Secretary should even be ashamed. Please explain how I have deviated from the topic in saying so …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): And this is clearly stipulated in the Rules of Procedure.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Will you please explain how I have deviated from the topic in saying that we should not approve the funding.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am giving you a reminder in my capacity as the President. You only need to get back to the topic of the debate and continue with your speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I am presenting my views on the general merits and principles of the Appropriation Bill 2020 ("the Bill") and indicating my support or otherwise. How have I deviated from the topic? Andrew LEUNG, please explain.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already given you a reminder. Please get back to the topic of the debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5589

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Please explain how I have deviated from the topic. I am saying that we should not approve the funding for these senior officials, who have not been doing a good job …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): When the President considers a Member has deviated from the topic in his speech, he must remind him to get back to the topic. Now you only need to get back to the topic of the debate before you continue with your speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I thank you for your reminder, but I do not need to get back to the topic, as I have all along been speaking on the topic.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Nothing more to add? Restraint exercised? I am saying that we should not approve any funding for the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, for the reason that the Secretary is incompetent, follows only the order of Beijing and fails to listen to people's voices. He maintains no personal dignity. He has sold out his dignity, but he can continue to be appointed. We should not approve the funding.

At a special meeting of the Finance Committee for examining the Budget, I specifically put a question to Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG and the Judiciary Administrator as to whether Hong Kong courts still exercise the function of checking and balancing the Government. When I had asked the question for the first time, the Government beat around the bush, saying that Hong Kong courts are impartial. When I had raised the question again on whether the courts still exercise the function of checking and balancing the Government, Teresa CHENG said that Hong Kong courts do not exercise such function as referred to by the Honourable Member. The Judiciary Administrator also failed to answer my question in the end.

The decline of freedom in Hong Kong is attributable to senior officials, whom I have been chiding for a long time just now, and the pro-Government camp who is holding a candle to the devil. We all need to take the initiative to protect the well-established traditions and mechanisms of Hong Kong. Under 5590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 the Basic Law, we have a political system marked by the separation of powers and checks and balances. If we dare not even speak aloud about such fundamental principles in the Chamber, we are virtually giving up the institution of checks and balances, and constantly endorsing an authoritarian or tyrannical regime or an apparatus to suppress members of the public in various ways. This exactly explains why there has been a steep decline of freedom in Hong Kong.

I urge all accountability officials to do a thorough self-reflection. We are now deliberating whether we should approve the funding for you, so I am not deviating from the topic. Many of you have developed your career in the civil service, and many of you were educated in Hong Kong, though some of you may have children studying overseas. As many of you have grown up together with Hong Kong people, why would you sell out your self-esteem and dignity and Hong Kong's freedoms in exchange for a government post? Can you live up to the expectations of Hong Kong people in doing so? Please gauge public opinion by walking around the streets and listening to members of the public. Hong Kong is already at a stage where its people live in extreme misery and its freedoms and "one country, two systems" are being eroded. I have been speaking today for the following purpose. We want to tell you, by opposing the Budget, how infuriated members of the public are and how dangerous the erosion of Hong Kong's freedoms is. If there is no "one country, two systems", businessmen can reap no benefits either. Do we want the international community to regard us as a free city or an authoritarian city under a tyrannical regime?

With these remarks, I oppose the Second Reading of the Bill.

MR ABRAHAM SHEK: President, before I speak on the subject, I would like to record my personal thanks and the appreciation on behalf of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong for the four outgoing Secretaries who left their job yesterday. We appreciate their contributions to Hong Kong over the years.

President, today, we discuss the Budget. What exactly is the Budget? The Budget must be seen in context with the Chief Executive's Policy Address. The Budget is a blueprint of the expenditures and revenues of the Government for providing services promised by the Government. In this light, I would like to speak on the subject.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5591

The Budget of our Special Administrative Region ("SAR") this year as delivered by the Financial Secretary is rather unique in the sense that it was conceived in the dark days of Hong Kong in the midst of riots and chaos. It was then tabled to this Council in the midst of COVID-19 which is a threat to Hong Kong's health. And the third part of this uniqueness is that the Financial Secretary will be able to test this Budget in the coming year, I am sure, given the economic doldrums and recessions that we are likely going to encounter. With these words, I support this Budget.

President, the SAR is in its darkest hour. Hong Kong is facing a triple crisis. We have been haunted by social unrest and riots, a prolonged pandemic and what threatens to be an economic depression. The unemployment rate is climbing and public confidence is at its lowest. This Council has been rendered almost dysfunctional. While the Administration is under restructuring, people are worried as they are disgruntled. There are simply no smiles under the face masks. Gloomy, it is.

We are supposed to debate the Budget here. Yet, the COVID-19 outbreak has changed the world as it has changed Hong Kong, as we all know. The 2020-2021 fiscal blueprint unveiled two months ago has been, to say the least, taken over by events. There is no point to discuss the nitty-gritties of the annual budgetary allocations. I will leave them to my colleagues. Officials have since hastily pieced together two relief packages. Those who are supposed to benefit from the measures have yet to receive their cheques. For this reason, I urge the Government to pay early in order to avoid further disgruntle.

Although the handouts are as vital to the community as ventilators are to COVID-19 patients, the efforts are short-lived. What we really need now is a vision that can offer us hope to ride out the bumpy months and years ahead. We are not in short supply of our own version of modern days' proverbs with a tablet of commandments on hand. Our leaders have shown us the political no-go zones under the Basic Law. What we need now is a Moses and a vision that can inspire hope, unite the people and guide us through this economic red sea. The Financial Secretary has shown his vision in this Budget and we are in support of him. So, let him show us his leadership under the vision.

The initial bailout for businesses and their employees eats into 10% of our annual GDP, amounting to approximately $300 billion. Officials remained bullish that our fiscal reserves can sustain public services for one and a half year even if there were not a dime of tax revenue. It is ironic that this scenario is 5592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 reassuring for them while the developed world are baffling with ideas. We are heading for at least three more deficit budgets in a row. I will bet my bottom dollar that this will turn out to be over-optimistic. The rate at which we are draining our reserves for pain-killing efforts is, in itself, appalling.

There are other troubling factors to play. Domestically, we have a rapidly ageing population on our back. Globally, Hong Kong is in danger of becoming a collateral damage in the escalating Sino-United States conflicts. Meanwhile, independent rating agencies have cited the Government's poor performance as a reason to downgrade Hong Kong in its credit rating to, I think, AA-. We need to set our eyes on the bigger picture. Leaders around the globe are searching their souls on how to re-establish order and restart their economies. Under normal circumstances, Hong Kong can tolerate our leaders to be just functionaries, but not in a crisis like this. We need to be assured that our officials are serving with both brains and hearts. As far as I can tell, they have not been doing so. The Government should have assembled an A-team of experts from both within and outside the Administration to think ahead. We have to think ahead in terms of wealth creation. All we have seen so far is just changing horses in midstream. Honestly, I do not have any panacea in mind. This is the challenge that calls for collective wisdom to kick the ball rolling. Here are my 10 cents of advice.

(1) Turn all fringe areas of country parks and the 720 hectares of the brownfield clusters yet to have a development timetable into new development areas. This can make land for more than 84 000 much-needed public housing units.

(2) Hammer a massive scheme to redevelop the 10 000-odd residential buildings over 50 years to make room for better planning and more efficient urban renewal.

(3) Lift the multiple stamp duties on residential and commercial property transactions that have outlived their purposes in order to revive the sluggish private property market. I have written twice to the Financial Secretary about this on newspapers. I am not talking for the benefit of the developers. I am talking for the benefit of the 1.2 million homeowners who have invested their lifelong savings in their homes. Do not let them become negative equity owners.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5593

(4) Acquire the remaining 25% of MTRCL shares from the stock market to free the dominating railway operation from the so-called fiduciary duty for the sake of greater public interest. The 20% discount coming in July for six months is appreciated by the 5 million riders who will benefit from it.

(5) Resurrect the realignment plan for the three cross-harbour tunnels without raising the existing tolls in order to ease traffic congestions, so that they will achieve higher efficiency before the expiry of the Western Harbour Crossing franchise in August 2023.

(6) Commit Hong Kong to zero road emission and other environmental targets in, say, a decade, to boost trade and technology with clean energy, which is the step the world is taking.

(7) Commission a cluster of care homes in the Greater Bay Area to give the 41 000 odd senior citizens on the waiting list a fast-track option. The Financial Secretary is a kind-hearted person. Last year, 7 045 elderly people in the queue ended up in the cemetery instead of care homes. This is a shame for Hong Kong.

(8) Offer free blood screenings to expecting mothers and senior citizens in order to popularize the DNA technologies developed by local universities in the global market.

(9) Rejuvenate the role of District Officers to initiate a territory-wide authentic public dialogue on contentious issues, including how to resume the process of political reform as outlined in the Basic Law.

(10) Last but not the least, the SAR is in dire need of a morale booster more than ever. For practical considerations, the Authority rejected the idea for Hong Kong to host the World Expo in 1997 proposed by my very good friend and ex-legislator, Stephen CHEONG. The idea was abandoned because the Authority was afraid that it would affect the reunification. It is now high time to map out such similar mega event as highlighted by Stephen CHEONG to coincide with what we have already earmarked for Lantau Tomorrow, the Greater Bay Area and "One Belt One Road" after the COVID-19 outbreak. We have to do more to promote Hong Kong.

5594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

These are my 10 cents of advice. President, I was thinking out loud. A public recovery playbook deserves input from the best and brightest we have in the Government. I challenge the Chief Executive to demand her political underlings in the 13 Policy Bureaux to each compile a 10-point action plan as I just did from the perspective of their respective portfolio for rebooting Hong Kong, then crystallize them into a list of options for the public to decide. Some of the proposals may work, others may not. Such a move can at least impress upon the public that the Government has not lost its will to fight. This is what Hong Kong is all about, the can-do spirit.

Let me tell you something. At the 18th National Congress, President XI mentioned three traps that China should not fall into. One of the traps is called a "Tacitus trap". What is a "Tacitus trap"? Tacitus was a Roman scholar who has warned that people would not trust an unpopular government no matter what it does is right or wrong. So, get out of that trap by doing something more positive. This is what President XI Jinping has warned China and we should take that into consideration.

Lastly, President, let me be blunt. The Administration led by Mrs LAM and her colleagues is slipping into the "Tacitus trap". I can hardly imagine how the incompetent Government could serve out its five-year term of office. Call it serendipity of history if you like, but the COVID-19 outbreak has presented itself as the last chance for the Government to prove their critics wrong.

CHURCHILL once said, "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty." With these remarks, I support the Budget.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong has been making a surplus in the past decade and sitting on a huge reserve. While we have saved for a rainy day in the past, it is of course necessary to dish out relief measures in face of the current predicament. These days, the Financial Secretary is also eager to listen to the opinions of all sectors of society. He will no longer keep a tight rein on the public money of Hong Kong under the current circumstances. In this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary estimates that government revenue in 2020-2021 will amount to $572.5 billion, but what we see is a relatively normal estimate. Judging from the situation in Hong Kong during the period between the drawing up of the estimate by the Financial Secretary and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5595 today, I believe that for some time in the future, the Government will not be able to make much revenue, especially when the business volume of all trades has fallen by 5% to 10% in the same period. Regarding the tax revenue in the future, if the Financial Secretary estimates that revenue from profits tax and salaries tax will amount to $202 billion, I believe he will definitely miss the target. When will the epidemic outbreak come to an end? When will there be an economic rebound? We are now still unable to tell, but there is no doubt about the situation in the first and second quarters. Such being the case, can the Government really make a revenue of some $500 billion? In addition, speaking of land sales, the Financial Secretary estimates that the revenue from land sales will amount to about $110 billion. Yet, given the weak market conditions, will developers be keen to participate in land auctions? Will they offer attractive prices to bid for the land put to sale by the Government in the future? I do not believe so. Therefore, even if we only talk about the total revenue of some $300 billion from profits tax and salaries tax as well as land revenue, I believe there will be quite a significant decrease in government revenue.

Therefore, I believe we will continue to see fiscal deficits in the next few years, coupled with the fact that in the past few years, especially after the current-term Government has assumed office, the Chief Executive often mentions the new philosophy of financial management. I somewhat think that her new philosophy of financial management is to spend money. Spending money is of course not a bad thing, especially when money is spent on social welfare, education and health care. That said, the Government will allocate about $270 billion to these areas in the future, and the relevant estimates have increased by 50% in a few years, the rate of increase is really astonishing. Certainly, such arrangements are fine when both the operation of the economy and the balance sheet are normal. We can spend more and spend more generously when we earn more. Yet, if we overspend and it is expected that the amount of revenue will not be substantial in the coming few years, this may lead to very serious problems. As a result, I advise the SAR Government that it should start to control its expenditure. Of course, we must help those in need, but the funding has increased by 50% in two years, which is a very alarming figure.

At this juncture, the most important thing is when the epidemic outbreak will come to an end, but no one knows. Insofar as the current situation is concerned, Hong Kong has done quite well in epidemic prevention. The daily number of new confirmed cases is only in the single digits, among which most of them are imported cases. Hence, I believe that economic activities can be 5596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 resumed in the short term. However, we might be overly optimistic if we just look at the epidemic situation in Hong Kong alone. Most importantly, we also have to examine the international situation. Regarding the current international situation, especially Hong Kong's major trading partners such as Europe and the United States, it is still very severe at the moment, and we have no idea when the epidemic will subside. The biggest problem now is that Europe and the United States have come to a standstill due to the epidemic outbreak, leading to a halt in all economic activities. And when there is a halt in all economic activities, we the sectors which are engaged in international trade will be plunged into difficulties, and many people may not notice this. People will certainly concern about the local economy, and the problem with local consumption (including retail, catering and tourism, etc.) is indeed very serious. But if you have paid attention to international trade, such as issues regarding Hong Kong's import and export trade as well as the manufacturing industry, these problems are actually much more serious than those associated with the local economy. Particularly, in case that the economic activities in Europe and the United States cannot be resumed shortly and there is a bit of further delay, I believe the grim situation faced by the Hong Kong economy will be unimaginable.

Import and export trade is one of the four pillar industries of Hong Kong. If we look at the pillar of import and export trade alone, the problem seems not so serious. Yet, import and export trade will affect the financial services industry, as import and export trade will give rise to numerous financing as well as lending and borrowing activities in the financial services industry, which will not only affect the financial system, but also the logistics industry. It is because transportation is needed only when there are goods, now that the production of all goods has been halted, why do we still need transportation? Therefore, the logistics sector is also crying for help recently, claiming that their business volume has dropped 90%. This is a matter of course, as Hong Kong's export volume has fallen by 90% and they are operating alongside with the import and export trade, how can they be spared? With respect to professional services, the majority of them are serving the import and export trade and the financial services industry. How can professional services flourish amid a halt in the import and export trade and the financial services industry? As such, I dare say that the four pillar industries are now facing more serious problems than those with local consumption (including retail, catering and tourism, etc.). Therefore, the Financial Secretary must keep a close watch on the international situation.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5597

We should not think that only small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") are facing difficulties nowadays. In fact, even listed companies are facing difficulties, especially those engaged in international trade. People may think that companies with tens of billions of assets are very robust, but listed companies heavily engaged in economic activities are currently facing difficulties as well. Europe and the United States have come to a standstill for the time being, with half of their economic activities being stalled. Take a company with a turnover of US$1 billion, we are talking about HK$8 billion here, as an example, its monthly expenditure may amount to HK$800 million to HK$1 billion. If it has to pull through these three months, from where can it find billions of dollars of cash to support itself? Thus, even listed companies will run into problems.

At present, the Government has launched several loan guarantee schemes which are also open for application by listed companies. Whilst these schemes are somewhat helpful, banks still have to follow the requirements stipulated by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority when lending out money. I have repeatedly called for relaxing the requirements on cashflow or repayment ability. Nowadays, how can we prove that the company is operating normally by means of repayment ability and cashflow? That said, we are not so pessimistic about the future, perhaps the epidemic will be alleviated within three or six months.

The whole world is preparing to print money and implement a quantitative easing policy. The United States has clearly stated that it will launch a quantitative easing plan involving at least US$3,000 billion. The Group of Twenty (G20) has also stated that it will launch a quantitative easing plan involving US$5,000 billion. As a result, US$8,000 billion to US$10,000 billion will be injected into the global economic system in the future. The asset bubble will burst again by then. Therefore, if we can help enterprises weather the difficult time in the short term, perhaps the economic environment will show relative improvement in the future. Nevertheless, we certainly do not expect a big rebound immediately like what followed the SARS outbreak, but at least economic activities can be resumed.

Although the Government has now introduced some good policies, there are also a bunch of loopholes. For instance, the scheme of subsidizing enterprises to pay wages with a cap at $9,000 is a good measure which can help a lot. However, disputes, contradictions and problems have begun to arise now. I am going to cite an example, would the Financial Secretary please study it after going back. Many owners' corporations ("OCs") are now discussing with their management companies―these are not disputes yet―which party should receive 5598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 the subsidies if the management companies apply for the wage subsidies. OCs have paid management fees in full amount without reducing the management fees of the management companies. The management companies will naturally pay wages as usual after receiving the management fees, such that the income of their employees, security guards and cleaners will not be affected. Yet, the management companies are also eligible to apply for the wage subsidies capped at $9,000 at the same time. If their applications are successful, those subsidies will of course go to their employees, but OCs have also paid management fees in full amount, then which party should get the remaining subsidies? As such, OCs have now begun to ask management companies to reduce the management fees, or to discuss the arrangement of the subsidies received. The Government may not have considered these issues very carefully when drawing up this scheme. Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong has once remarked that helping our people as expeditiously as possible is of the utmost importance, such that other issues can be put aside for there is no such a scheme which can plug all the loopholes. However, these issues will somehow give rise to disputes, so we should give them consideration as well. Based on this example, there are tens of thousands of OCs in Hong Kong which pay management fees in full amount, whereas the management companies which receive the management fees are eligible to apply for the subsidies at the same time, how should we deal with it?

I have cited the aforesaid example in the hope that the Government will plug the loopholes more carefully. For instance, enterprises which are not in predicament should not apply for the subsidies, so as to save the resources for those who are indeed unemployed. These people do not know how to make an application even if they are allowed to apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"). Those who have never applied for CSSA before really do not know how to make an application, and perhaps they may not be eligible indeed. On the other hand, what about members of the public aged over 65 who do not have a Mandatory Provident Fund account? We have already brought up an array of similar issues in the legislature.

I wish to put forward some views here. Can the SAR Government extend some help to local enterprises? For example, the Government Logistics Department ("GLD") procures a lot of items, can it give priority to local enterprises by procuring their products? For instance, there are a vast number of wholesale fabric companies in Sham Shui Po and Cheung Sha Wan, can GLD give priority to them in procurement? This can already help many enterprises.

Second, oil prices will present another problem. We all know that oil prices in the international market―Of course I am referring to those in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5599 speculative market―have turned negative, having dropped to as low as -US$30 or so, which implies that the sellers have to pay the buyers to sell the oil. Why do the oil prices of all oil companies and gasoline stations in Hong Kong still stand at over $16? Whilst international oil prices have dropped from $50 to a negative figure at the moment, oil prices in Hong Kong have only reduced by a few cents, this will be a very serious problem. The Government should study this issue, whereas the Competition Commission of Hong Kong and the Environment Bureau should do something as well. I believe this will have an impact on enterprises, especially the transport sector. The current oil price should be worth $10, how come it is $16? This has already affected the operating costs of all trades, so the Government should study and deal with it.

Lastly, the Liberal Party has proposed that consumption vouchers should be handed out if the third round of Anti-epidemic Fund measures are to be introduced. If the Government manages to offer other benefits after giving the cash handout of $10,000, please try to apply technologies to hand out consumption vouchers. Given that the new Secretary for Innovation and Technology has taken office now, I wonder if he can indeed apply technologies such as PayPal, Alipay and WeChat Pay properly to pave the way for handing out consumption vouchers. I think it is absolutely not difficult.

I hope the Government will listen more and continue to study how to help members of the public to overcome difficulties amid the severe economic adversities.

Thank you, President. I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 11:30 am.

10:59 am

Meeting suspended.

11:30 am

Council then resumed.

5600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, having listened to the speeches of a bunch of Members of the so-called constructive camp for more than a day, I really feel surprised because they seem to treat what happened in the past two weeks as if it has not happened at all, and the big events expected to take place in the coming few weeks or months seem to have nothing to do with them either. I often enjoy Mr Michael TIEN's speech about his new proposals or the success of his endeavour, but what is the situation that we are being caught in? President, now LUO Huining is the de facto Secretary of Municipal Committee of Hong Kong. Mr Dennis KWOK will soon be disqualified as a Member and may even be prosecuted for misconduct in public office anytime. The introduction of a national security law under Article 23 of the Basic Law is imminent. Moreover, a former Director of Immigration who displays XI Jinping's portrait which is as large as a basin for worship purpose in his office has now been promoted to the position of the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs and will be in charge of the "DQ" (i.e. disqualification) matters in the Legislative Council Election this year. However, now Mr Michael TIEN still talks about such things like speeding up the payment of cash handout and providing more subsidies, as well as calling for rental and tax concessions. It is not that these things need not be discussed, but just talk about these things is actually a kind of hypnosis to those Hongkongers who support Members belonging to the light blue or middle-of-the-road camps.

President, those who are also hypnotizing the people of Hong Kong certainly include Financial Secretary Paul CHAN. He presented this Budget two months ago but regrettably, he is not here and cannot hear what we say. As if he were Sam HUI, he mentioned in paragraph 187 of the Budget speech that "Hong Kong may have all sorts of shortcomings, but it is our home which allows diversity and freedom of development. Even if we have been disappointed, we can choose to feel hopeful for our future. Even if we are striving for different goals, we can work together to put aside our differences, make room for resolving conflicts, and drive Hong Kong forward."

The Budget speech he delivered was very pleasant to the ear. However, if we read the Budget carefully, we should know the actual situation. Many Honourable colleagues have repeatedly pinpointed the problem. Yet why do I still go on talking about it? Because this Budget has a most prominent theme, that is, to make the ("HKPF"), which is already a huge department, even bigger. This time the civil service establishment sees an addition of some 6 000 posts. Among them, 40%, i.e. 2 543 posts, belong to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5601

HKPF, while the amount of its resources has jumped from about $20 billion to $25 billion, representing an increase of 25%. No other departments can match it.

Meanwhile, Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") … If it follows that police officers are needed given the many disputes in society―this is Mrs Regina IP's logic―however, an impartial and neutral public broadcaster is also needed when there are many disputes in society. How come the estimate of departmental expenses of RTHK for the coming year has dropped by 6%? Here I would like to respond to Mrs Regina IP in passing. Just now she quoted the figures of 2018, saying that the Audit Commission had criticized RTHK for doing a poor job in terms of value for money. A lot of money had been spent to no avail, and no one watched the programmes. Regina IP is indeed a bit outdated because she still cited the figures of 2018. Secretary Edward YAU should know very well that from January 2019 to February 2020, the hit rate of Headliner of RTHK was 20 million, whereas that of Hong Kong Connection was 36 million. By comparing them with any other television programmes in Hong Kong, one will notice that if Mrs Regina IP's logic applies, there should be a substantial increase in the resources for RTHK this year because it has performed very well in terms of value for money after the audit review. However, not only is it not granted any additional resources. Now the Government is even going to cut its operating expenses by 6%.

Hence, we see that Paul CHAN is obviously toeing the old way of autocracy, trying to fix the people who raise questions instead of fixing social conflicts and problems. I try to empathize with the Financial Secretary. Perhaps acceding to the request for armaments expansion of the Police is not a choice he made and he feels aggrieved. That is why the Financial Secretary has already refrained from speaking too much on supporting the Police in the Budget speech in which he has control. I wonder if he was trying to save his own reputation. I have really conducted a search. Despite the 25% increase in the estimated expenditure of HKPF, not once did the word "police" appear in the whole Budget. I guess even the Financial Secretary could not foresee that there would be such rapid developments. Now the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office has found a ruthless official specialized in demolishing the holy cross to take over and from then on, the bureaucratic circle in Hong Kong … That is, since the practice of displaying XI Jinping's portrait in the office by former Director of Immigration has become a standard, we may need to take a look at the portrait of XI Jinping in our office to see if it is large and tall enough. I think 5602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 under the new situation, it has become increasingly hard for the incumbent officials in the Special Administrative Region Government to hold the bottom line of being a human being.

President, the stance of the pro-democracy camp on the Budget has drastically changed in the light of the views of the people of Hong Kong over these few years. Regarding the 2017-2018 Budget, I remember that some Members of the pro-democracy camp voted in favour of it, while some voted against it. Today, however, the Financial Secretary puts forward a Budget which blatantly aggravates social rifts and intends to dole out $10,000 to everyone to gift wrap the weapons of HKPF. Hongkongers and many Honourable colleagues of the pro-democracy camp have already made it clear that there is no need to worry about being smeared by such people as Ms Alice MAK. We must vote against the Budget because the more the pro-Government camp says that in voting against the Budget, the pro-democracy camp is doing "mutual destruction" causing the people of Hong Kong to lose their health care, welfare benefits and jobs, the more it accentuates the logic of how the Communist Party of China ("CPC") and this bunch of Hong Kong agents advance their political interests in the name of people's livelihood.

According to their logic, for Hongkongers, food, welfare benefits and health care services come together with their support for the oppression and autocratic rule of CPC, and substantial increases in the funding and manpower for the Police to maintain stability. If this logic develops, Hong Kong will integrate with the Mainland very soon. People who do not strictly follow the practice of CPC will have all their scores deducted from the social credit system implemented on the Mainland. People who become dissidents will even have their children being barred from schools. They will be unable to buy any air tickets or high-speed railway tickets. Neither will they be able to open any bank accounts.

President, I guess many Honourable colleagues of the pro-Government camp―or the constructive camp which they call themselves―will definitely continue to use "mutual destruction" as the main theme and say how I, a representative of the "mutual destruction camp", will do deadly harm to Hongkongers. This will certainly be repeated over and over again during the Budget debate. However, I think at this juncture, the people of Hong Kong need to see one point clearly. After all, what has the pro-democracy camp been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5603 pursuing over the years? In fact, it is the "public will". We are talking about how the will of the people, not "public righteousness" concerning fairness and justice, can be manifested in the system through a democratic process.

Yesterday, Mr Alvin YEUNG mentioned that if Hongkongers choose to ask their representatives to veto this Budget in the Legislative Council, we, as Members, should have the power to decide how to handle the aftermath of the veto in accordance with Articles 50, 51 and 52 of the Basic Law. I consider that Mr Alvin YEUNG still has confidence in this Council and the Basic Law. I do not feel surprised. Why does Mr Alvin YEUNG still have such confidence? Because Honourable colleagues often speak on this matter during the debates in the Legislative Council. Recently, Chief Executive Carrie LAM has also asked, "What will happen if the pan-democratic camp dominates the Legislative Council?" When she raised this question, they seemed to think to themselves that under such a distorted electoral system of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, if we can surprisingly win the majority of seats―I wonder if Mr CHAN Kin-por shares this view―and gain control over the Legislative Council, they will admit their defeat unreservedly. How can they not act in compliance with the Basic Law? Because it demonstrates the genuine public views in Hong Kong. Hongkongers truly think in this way. They cannot act against public views which are the overwhelming majority. The stance of us in the pro-democracy camp is very clear. Since it is a Budget tearing Hong Kong society apart, we will definitely vote against it. At the same time, however, we are also challenging Members of the pro-Government camp. Are they actually willing to abide by the rules of the game? If the pro-democracy camp secures more than half of the seats in the Legislative Council Election in September, will they accept such an outcome? Or will they refuse to accept such a scenario in the same way as they see what happened in Hong Kong in the past two weeks? It turns out that so long as the people of Hong Kong have a chance to win through the ballots, it will pose a national security problem to CPC.

President, in fact, no one can evade what happened in the past two weeks and the serious issues which will take place in the coming few weeks or months as I have just mentioned. They should not be mistaken that everything will go smoothly if they bow down and feel contented by serving as members of the pro-Government camp. Now Beijing is serious as it has stirred up big trouble with the Wuhan pneumonia. It knows that after the epidemic has eased off, countries around the world will strongly retaliate on China. President, did the 5604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Financial Secretary mention this problem? He is still speaking on trivial issues. Now a disaster is around the corner. International sanctions and outflow of capital will apparently take place. Hence, CPC immediately targets Hong Kong to pre-empt the possible measures levelled against China by foreign countries.

In such a chaotic situation, I hope Honourable colleagues of the pro-Government camp will not lose their head. Do not be mistaken that they can still ride safely in the fishing boat. Now is the time to go left rather than right and compete in loyalty. Showing insufficient loyalty, even LAU Kong-wah could not be spared. I also wish to tell Hongkongers clearly that facing such a grave and volatile situation, we will not be afraid. We have to find ways to get out of the impasse and continue with our efforts to get back the power which Hongkongers should have, including the financial power.

With these remarks, I oppose the Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill 2020.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, before going into this Budget, I would like to share with Members an article that I read this morning. A veteran foreign journalist saw on television that after the start of the outbreak in Wuhan, many patients and health care workers crossed their fingers day and night that they could overcome the disease and cure the patients. Throughout the process, despite the adversities that they faced, they still struggled hard for survival amidst the epidemic, placing confidence in themselves and keeping a positive mindset. He said that reporters or people in the West like himself found it laughable when they saw these health care workers and patients dancing in the wards. But no sooner had their laughter subsided than they became aware of the imminence of the virus. Only then did they realize the importance of having an open mind and thinking positively in the face of the epidemic, for this is most useful to the process of treatment. This story tells us that life is sweet and bitter. In happy times, let us not be overjoyed; in times of suffering, do not feel despondent. We still have to fight with resilience and stay positive.

With regard to this Budget, I was shocked when I first read it, for some $630 billion is a huge amount of expenditure, accounting for as much as 20% of the Gross Domestic Product or GDP. So, will it constitute a breach of Article 107 of the Basic Law? It is because under this Article, the principle is to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5605 keep expenditure within the limits of revenues. But we must understand that these are extraordinary measures taken in extraordinary times, not something that we do every year. What is more, Hong Kong now faces not only the epidemic. The "black-clad rioters" in 2019 had dealt a severe blow to us. I would say that we are already badly hit and the situation is even getting worse. Yet, I am thankful, for Hong Kong has such an abundant reserve. As the saying goes, we have to save for rainy days. In times of famine or despair, or when we are sad, we who have this sum of money choose not to be a miser. In this connection, I have to commend the Financial Secretary for his decisiveness and courage in not acting as a miser.

In comparison, let us look at the United States, which is considered a great power universally―Mr CHU Hoi-dick may agree that it is probably his most admired country, and he may yearn for emigration to the United States one day or he may have submitted an application already―Such a huge country nevertheless has no reserve. All it has is the biggest debt in the world, amounting to as much as US$22,000 billion. It means that each American owes a debt of US$59,000 at birth. When faced with this epidemic, the United States is arrogant, indifferent, and opinionated, thinking that "China is the real sick man of Asia" and that the virus has nothing to do with the white people. As a result, it is in tatters as soon as it is hit by the virus, recording more than 40 000 deaths. With a population of only 320 million, the United States has been hit severely. Mr CHU Hoi-dick or people in the "pro-foreigners camp"―they always call us the "pro-Government camp" and I have no idea what it means―What they are doing is relying on the foreigners to elevate their position, praising the Western standard as the one and only standard …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please come back to the question of this debate.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Alright, I will come back to the Budget. We are blessed to have a reserve of some $1,200 billion and we are now using it to provide relief to the people in times of a disaster and revitalize the economy. Let me say this to the Financial Secretary: Not everybody would appreciate what he has done, especially as there are quite many people who have obtained benefits but are still taking him to task. This is the situation in society. I hope that the 5606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Financial Secretary will not feel discouraged, and he has my support. We must not allow the spirit of mutual destruction to override the work that should be carried out now. Insofar as this Budget is concerned, I wish to share with the Financial Secretary my views on a few areas relating to boosting revenue and cutting expenditure and spending within the means.

First, with regard to taxation, some colleagues already pointed out earlier that the tax base is too narrow in Hong Kong. It is high time to broaden the tax base. In around 2002, the then Financial Secretary, Mr Henry TANG, already conducted studies on the Goods and Services Tax, or GST. I think the Government should levy GST, especially as we face a new consumer market now. To many people, spending does not cause them too much pain nowadays and besides, money is not spent on meeting the needs of basic living but on consumer goods, such as buying iPhone, or Samsung or Huawei mobile phones, or going after hi-tech products. People spend lavishly and they are not in the least hesitant about it. I think the Government should consider levying GST at 3% as a start. This would be a good beginning.

Second, profits tax. We should increase the profits tax. Although a low tax regime is advocated in places all over the world, we should do the opposite. When everyone competes with a low rate of a mere 15% or 16%, we should increase it but the increase should not be excessively high. An increase from the standard rate of 16.5% to 17.5% or even 18% should be fine. Why should anyone refuse to pay tax when a profit is made?

Third, it is necessary for us to consider the capital gains tax, which can help curb the exuberance in property speculation. Currently, we seek to stop speculation by levying the stamp duty but I think it is unfair to genuine users, is it not? The entry threshold is so high. Why do we not increase the exit threshold instead? This can block the trend of speculation. Therefore, it is necessary to levy a capital gains tax.

Fourth, back in the era of Henry TANG there were two benevolent policies, so to speak, namely, the lowering of the wine duty and abolition of the estate duty. Regarding the wine duty, it depends. Sometimes a drink or two can be relaxing and a way to unwind, and when friends get together, it is good to catch up over a glass of wine but one must refrain from binge drinking. I will not propose to reintroduce the wine duty but the estate duty is necessary though the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5607 tax rate does not have to be as high as 18%. A mild 5% is fine. The capital gains tax that I talked about just now should also be pitched at 5%. As a start, we can levy these taxes at a few percentage points each to test the water. This way, our tax base can be broadened. The tax rate of GST which I mentioned just now should be 3%; the profits tax should be increased by 1.5% from 16.5% to 18%; the capital gains tax is 5%, and so is the estate duty.

With regard to boosting revenue, land resources are most expensive in Hong Kong. The Government always complains that it is difficult to resume private land and that it faces strong resistance in the process. It is because the Government only offered too little compensation but it wanted to deprive people of their valuable wealth. This is obviously unbalanced. How much is offered by the Government now? The ex-gratia payment is $1,000 per square foot, which is the rate for sites situated in Zone A. As for sites not situated in downtown areas or not in the vicinity of places where there may be development in future, they will only be graded as Zone B or C, in which case the discount is even bigger. Assuming the discount is 50%, the compensation is only $500 instead of $1,000. But after resuming a site, the Government may construct buildings measuring eight times the area of the site. In other words, the Government pays me $500 to resume land from me … 8 times 8 is 64; 7 times 8 is 56; so it means $60 per square foot. How can agricultural land be resumed at $60 per square foot nowadays? Even if the Government will develop public housing on the resumed site, the land price would cost some $3,000 to $4,000. Comparing $60 with $3,000, is there not a huge profit margin resulting from depriving the public or owners of the valuable costs of their land? I think in order to activate land development, the Government should, as the first step, review section 12(c) of the Lands Resumption Ordinance. It should not stifle the potential interests of the original owners in land development.

Money aside, the Government also has to provide mutually accepted incentives and proposals for achieving a win-win situation and reciprocal benefits. As I have always said, certificates of land entitlement should be reintroduced. In other words, the owner can take cash or land, or choose a 50-50 split between cash and land. What does it mean? The Government can reintroduce Letter B, so that people who have money and do not wish to take cash … because when they take cash today, it will depreciate tomorrow; but if I have a Letter B, this Letter B will increase in its value in future, and if a major consortium has a Letter B, it can have priority in applying to the Government for 5608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 land allocation or negotiate with it on land exchange, whether it be in-situ land exchange or whatever. This is a most effective incentive. I have proposed it no less than five times in this Council before but still, the Government has neither given some thought to it nor considered it an appealing idea. I am solemnly making this point here once again.

Before I talk about optimizing the use of country parks, I wish to add one point. With the reintroduction of Letter B, the Government, as a facilitator, can encourage cooperation between owners of brownfield sites and property developers, such as Hutchison Whampoa which owns container terminals. Currently, cargo volume may have dropped because of competition from the two neighbouring ports of Shekou and Yantian. Cargo volume in Hong Kong has been stifled and so, there is surplus land. If the Government can allow these … Let us not call it collusion between the Government and the business sector. It is the Government, as a facilitator, forging cooperation between major developers and owners of small brownfield sites, so that they will be willing to surrender land to the Government. This can achieve environmental protection while ensuring the provision of land for public housing development. Besides, the Government can encourage users of brownfield sites to cooperate with major consortia by relaxing the restrictions on sites for container freight or container terminals. Therefore, where there is policy, there is opportunity, and this can be taken into consideration. Financial Secretary, you are the convenor of the Task Force on Land Supply and so, it is most pertinent to discuss land issues with you.

In respect of country parks, the British are brilliant in freezing all the land in the first place. They did not really use it as country parks. While we have enjoyed some benefits from it, there are also downsides because country parks take up 48% of the land in Hong Kong and as a result, we are now so crowded as if we all live in subdivided units or "coffin cubicles". How can we strike a balance? Do we purely care about the environment at the expense of the quality of our living? How should we handle it? We should appropriately relax the restrictions on country parks, and the extent of relaxation should rest with the Government. I think this principle is not unbreakable. It is not like a prohibited place or restricted zone where trespassing is forbidden. I do not think this way. I think it can be handled with flexibility. Therefore, consideration can be given to brownfield sites and country parks.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5609

Moreover, how should country parks be developed? The objective of development should be to turn them into tourist destinations and sports and recreation centres. People aged over 55 are going downhill physically, and even if I wish to go hiking, I may not manage it, especially as I have no such training all along. Therefore, we should ensure that roads and facilities are properly provided in country parks. For instance, electric vehicles can be provided for visitors to travel around and the facilities surrounding the country parks should also be improved, such as car parks. I think these are very good ways to promote local tourism. They can also attract overseas visitors to come to Hong Kong for hiking. These are our assets, just that we need to put them to good use.

Lastly, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). What does the Greater Bay Area stand for? An enormous market, one which is 50 times the size of Hong Kong and 10 times the population of Hong Kong. It all boils down to the market, and everything that we have done is to create a market. Our compatriots in the Mainland are very generous in spending nowadays. If we can develop in the Greater Bay Area with the SAR Government taking a leading role and acting as a bellwether and then providing us with support, would that not be a good thing?

I have talked about ways to boost revenue, and in respect of cutting expenditure, the expenditure for Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") is just a small amount. But I very much wish to give a response here. RTHK said that it has a hit rate of 20 million and for me, Junius HO, I have a hit rate of 3 million but I spent only less than $10,000 whereas RTHK spent $580 million. They may as well hire me. It is certainly necessary to cut expenditure. Now who can benefit from education? It is teachers who are ruining our young students. We must think twice in this respect. Regarding this university grant of some $20 billion, I think half of it is thrown down the drain.

Therefore, the objective of boosting revenue and cutting expenditure can be achieved by allowing necessary expenditure while avoiding unnecessary spending. If Mr CHU Hoi-dick and his likes still have to complain when we have such abundant resources, I would urge them to go elsewhere and shout aloud for the people there. Here in Hong Kong there is no need for them to shout aloud.

Thank you. I so submit.

5610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, over the past year Hong Kong has come under the impact of the trade war between China and the United States, social turmoil and the novel coronavirus one after another, and our society and economy have been seriously affected. These days quite a number of companies are already on the brink of bankruptcy or even closure, and many members of the public are unemployed or in a state of semi-unemployment. Even if they still have a job, they do not know whether they will be laid off tomorrow. During such difficult times, the Government has rolled out two rounds of anti-epidemic support measures to assist enterprises and members of the public affected. Though there is much room for improvement, these measures have come as timely help to the public.

The Budget this time around was announced in late February. For the purpose of supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs and relieving people's burden, the Financial Secretary decided to implement counter-cyclical measures of a massive scale worth over $120 billion, including a cash payout of $10,000 to members of the public. This, together with the $30 billion and $137.5 billion committed under the two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund respectively, means that $287.5 billion from the Treasury have been spent on disaster relief. Given a worsening economy and the need to plug gaps, I look forward to a third round of measures. A highlight of the Budget is certainly the cash payout of $10,000 to permanent residents aged 18 or above. Hong Kong people very much welcome this. The Financial Secretary has explained that the payout of $10,000 aims at encouraging local consumption and relieving people's financial pressure. This is actually an important disaster-relief measure.

Many members of the community accused the Government of being a miser in the past, but I believe people will be thankful nowadays that by spending within our means and refraining from squandering money in the halcyon days, we now have sufficient reserves to cope with disaster-relief expenditure. The Financial Secretary has already estimated that the Treasury will record an unprecedented deficit of $276.6 billion, and we will continue to see deficits in the coming five years. However, due to the severity of the outbreak, the Government still needs to use its reserves for disaster relief. The most important thing is that when the outbreak is over, we will be able to revitalize the economy and increase our revenue expeditiously. In fact, the focal point of the Budget this year is supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs and relieving people's burden. People certainly understand and agree to this. But when the outbreak is over and there is much to recover, the revitalization of the economy will be an important task of ours.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5611

Hong Kong has experienced the Asian Financial Crisis and the Global Financial Tsunami. As pointed out in the Budget, to ensure financial security, under the Financial Secretary's steer, financial regulators have taken great efforts on shock-resistance and market surveillance for the operation of a stable and orderly financial market. Besides, quite a number of financial elites in the Legislative Council can also help the Hong Kong Government weather a financial crisis. I am therefore not too worried about financial issues. In fact, what I am most concerned about is how to put the Hong Kong economy back on the growth track. Nowadays, soaring unemployment rate, a wave of business closures, lack of orders for firms and cashflow problems of enterprises have dragged our economy into a full recession. Meanwhile, we have also noted that there will be great changes in international relations, and such changes will certainly affect Hong Kong's trade. As such, when the outbreak is over, how Hong Kong can attract overseas investors and customers to keep on doing business and shopping here will be a pressing priority.

I think it is important to change our traditional mindset by changing our role from a facilitator and regulator to a leader that actively promotes business opportunities and development. We must take the initiative to create business opportunities, solicit investors in the international market, and provide investors with assistance on all fronts. In terms of headquarters economy, the Government has actually done quite a good job. In recent years, some 9 000 foreign companies have set up offices and created 500 000 jobs in Hong Kong. Certainly, we do not want them to be driven away from Hong Kong by the problem of "black terror". The Government should find ways to retain them, enhance the appeal of working in Hong Kong to foreign investors, and provide more opportunities.

Now I would like to talk about the circumstances surrounding the insurance industry. I hope that the Government will expeditiously lend a helping hand to the industry, including insurance companies and all practitioners, for surviving the cold winter. Many members of the industry have relayed to me that riots have already dealt them a serious blow and now they have further come under the impact of the outbreak. Their income or commission has thus plummeted. The outbreak will subside one day, but our economy and business environment have been badly hurt, and the prospect of the industry is indeed worrisome. The Government and the Insurance Authority ("IA") must adopt appropriate measures to revitalize the local insurance industry when the outbreak is over.

5612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

In fact, during the Budget consultation in January, I had already relayed to the Government that due to the ramifications of riots, Mainland people had reduced their purchase of insurance products in Hong Kong. This, coupled with the economic recession, meant that the insurance industry would encounter a cold winter and be in need of government support, including the provision of various types of temporary support to insurance companies and practitioners. As the outbreak continued, I further relayed to the Government the plight of the insurance sector, particularly insurance intermediaries. There are currently some 120 000 licensed insurance intermediaries, and some 80 000 of them are self-employed persons. A big drop in sales has dealt a heavy blow to their commission income, and most of them have their income cut by over 50%. Even if they are entitled to a one-off subsidy of $7,500 for self-employed persons, this can hardly tide them over this difficult period. For this reason, the Government should expeditiously provide self-employed persons, including insurance intermediaries, with ongoing support, and the exact amount is certainly subject to the fiscal surplus of the Government and practical computations. I will later submit a proposal on behalf of various insurance organizations and practitioners and hope that the Government will consider it seriously.

In addition, I would also like to request IA to adopt certain concrete measures to tide the insurance sector over this extraordinarily difficult period. Such measures include: first, to review the implementation timetables for various compliance requirements to reduce compliance costs and thus alleviate the pressure of insurance companies in terms of capital costs and operation, including, specifically, conducting a review afresh on the timetable for implementing capital requirements. In addition, regarding the timetable for introducing enterprise risk management, International Financial Reporting Standard 17 Insurance Contracts, etc., it is desirable for the authorities to inform the industry of the actual circumstances after making clarifications, so that the industry can commit resources in phases to achieve savings.

Second, more importantly, given the trend of negative interest rates, the modes of operation previously adopted by insurance companies which relied on purchasing bonds may no longer be opportune and feasible. The various operational modes of insurance companies need to be reviewed, such as raising the limit of share purchase or relaxing the restriction on asset holding, so that insurance companies can operate in a new international economic environment. Third, as the insurance industry of Hong Kong offers a variety of products that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5613 allow for flexibility while catering to a comprehensive range of wealth management needs, Mainland customers prefer purchasing insurance products in Hong Kong. I hope that IA can join hands with the insurance sector to study how to make it easier for Mainland customers to purchase insurance products, including the adoption of technology to lift requirements on face-to-face sales. Fourth, I hope that fees to be levied on insurance companies and intermediaries can be reduced for the benefit of small and medium-sized agents and broker companies.

All of the above are short and medium-term measures, but they can all target the existing problems of the sector. In the long run, the Government still needs to consider my proposals concerning the Budget, including striving to open up the market of the Greater Bay Area, and particularly insurance after-sale centres, Health Insurance Connect and Life Insurance Connect, which we have long been talking about. In addition, we also need to implement the various proposals of the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. I am also very keen to strive for national treatment for insurance companies, so that they can set up business on the Mainland under the same conditions accorded to their Mainland peers, thus expanding the sales market of the Hong Kong insurance industry, and providing insurance companies and intermediaries with more opportunities.

Another point is to strive to make Hong Kong an international insurance hub, and assist the Hong Kong insurance industry in expanding their insurance business to marine insurance, aviation, agriculture, catastrophe, political risk, war risk, trade credit and the Belt and Road Initiative. However, due to a rapidly changing international situation, it is still uncertain whether Hong Kong's plan to open up the international market will be affected. However, regardless of how rugged the way forward is, we must persist in developing new key products in the industry. If Hong Kong is stuck in the old ways, it can hardly cope with the challenges in the new era.

In addition, I would also like to talk about tax deductions for annuity premiums. Since the introduction of an aggregate tax deductible limit for annuity premiums and Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") voluntary contributions last year, the relevant schemes have been well received by the public, particularly annuity schemes. According to the latest information, the sector has sold 130 000 deferred annuity policies, involving $9.4 billion. This 5614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 reflects the earnest demand for such products in the market and the fact that a product which provides a better retirement arrangement for Hong Kong people has been given the right boost by the Government. However, the average amount of each of the some 100 000 deferred annuity policies just sold is $71,000, but the existing tax deductible limit, which is only $60,000 and needs to be shared with MPF, is obviously inadequate. For this reason, the sector proposes to increase the tax deductible limit to $120,000, so as to encourage people with the means to be well prepared for their retirement and thus reduce their reliance on public resources. At the same time, we also advise the Government to review the implementation of the existing Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme, so as to enhance the scheme on all fronts expeditiously, attract more people with the means to join the scheme, and alleviate the pressure on public hospitals. I hope the Financial Secretary will further consider our proposals later.

In general, as the measures proposed in the Budget, including the cash payout of $10,000 that the entire city is looking forward to, can address the pressing needs of the public, I will render my support.

President, just now Mr CHU Hoi-dick has mentioned my name and talked about a new international situation. I would like to use the remaining several minutes to express my views. I personally very much appreciate Mr CHU Hoi-dick's perspectives on issues―regrettably he has just left his seat. Members may know that he used to work as a journalist in Iran, and he therefore has an international outlook and is capable of doing deep analysis. He has his convictions, and he is particularly enthusiastic about environmental protection. He once said to me that we should put aside politics, and only focus on environmental protection. I agreed with him. I appreciate his international outlook on the one hand, but, on the other hand, I disagree with his solution to the problem. President, would you please do not mind. As the new international situation is related to Hong Kong, please allow me to continue with my speech.

In fact, the novel coronavirus will really change the general international situation. This is what the Financial Secretary needs to note. What Mr CHU Hoi-dick has referred to just now is correct. When the issue has waned, many people or companies in foreign countries may initiate class action lawsuits and demand compensation from China. As we can see from many papers, this is certainly not reasonable. In the case of the Bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5615 example, who should be held responsible? Or in the case of Ebola virus, who should be held responsible? If the origin of the virus is to be identified and lawsuits are to be initiated against a country, who dares to purchase American assets in the future? It is absolutely unjust to target a country and confiscate the American Treasury bonds it holds. But this risk does exist. The reason is that the amount of American Treasury bonds is so enormous that no solution may possibly be found. An economic war or a physical war is not impossible.

For this reason, I am personally very much concerned. What should we do? I think Mr CHU Hoi-dick should not have repeatedly referred to "Wuhan pneumonia" just now, for we are Chinese nationals, ethnic Chinese or Asians. Sinophobia or discrimination against the Chinese has occurred worldwide, and some people have been verbally abused or beaten up. The situation is so frightening that some people in the United States have to buy guns to protect themselves. This will certainly deal a blow to people with Asian countenance. Even if you claim to be a Hongkonger, foreign citizens may not be able to tell the difference. They will regard us all as Chinese, and we are indeed Chinese. Chinese or Koreans will be regardlessly affected.

Insisting on using the term "Wuhan pneumonia" in a Chinese territory rather than the standard name accepted by the international community is really hurting Hong Kong people and ethnic Chinese. In the end, we or even our future generations will be stigmatized in the years to come. This will be a heinous crime. I think he should refrain from doing so. In such an international situation, we should certainly not act like someone who has travelled to the United States calling for sanctions on Hong Kong, for this will actually do great harm to Hong Kong. No matter how great their ultimate aim is, no matter how they claim to be doing that for the sake of Hong Kong, the actual outcome will invariably be Hong Kong people being bitterly victimized. Many people who support democracy will likewise be victimized. This will do greater harm to people like me, who treat Hong Kong as our home and hold only Hong Kong SAR passports, for the reason that we will go nowhere but only stay in Hong Kong.

In Hong Kong people hold different political views. I often say that Hong Kong is multi-coloured, so why does one have to become yellow? I am truly baffled. In fact, any circle, even the so-called "yellow economic circle", will be doomed to failure if the overall economy of Hong Kong is poor. For this reason, it is important that there shall be no colour divide. It is an agony to dine and 5616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 shop with a colour divide in mind. I think this simply does not work. The most important thing is that the overall economy of Hong Kong is good and everyone can make a living.

As such, regarding Mr CHU Hoi-dick's question just now, I think he has seen the big picture, but his solution to the problem is all wrong. We should show our country that the existence of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong is meaningful, that is, it brings mutual benefits to our country and Hong Kong. I believe if we can do this, "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong will naturally be extended. However, if Hong Kong brings no good to our country but only makes our country feel threatened or even hurt, "one country, two systems" will soon disappear. Certainly, it is Hong Kong people's choice as to whether to make Hong Kong beneficial to our country and ourselves or to make it a threat to our country.

Some people have made it clear that they will resort to mutual destruction once they have obtained 35 seats of the Legislative Council. They will oppose all proposals. For example, even if the Financial Secretary proposes a cash payout of $20,000 to everyone, they will oppose it. Even if they do not know what proposal the Government will put forward, they have made it clear that they will oppose it. Are these people worthy of our support? I hope members of the public will think twice. Thank you, President.

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, in the concluding remarks of the Budget, the Financial Secretary stated that "Hong Kong has been intensely affected by the profound changes in the international political and economic landscape. Meanwhile, we had an extraordinary year with the occurrence of local social incidents. Social unrest and turbulence have revealed deep-seated conflicts in our community, which cannot be resolved overnight. We need to address these conflicts patiently and carefully as they have a far-reaching impact on the stability and development of Hong Kong in the future."

These concluding remarks reflect the current situation faced by Hong Kong. For this reason, I believe the high-sounding statement made by the Financial Secretary in "Economic Outlook for 2020 and Medium-term Outlook" that "Hong Kong's economic fundamentals remain solid and therefore our core competitiveness will not be shaken. The economy of Hong Kong should be able to recover once the epidemic is over" may be very far from the reality. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5617

President, it is difficult to discuss the economic prospects and medium-term outlook at this stage when the world is undergoing drastic changes. In the face of the current epidemic, the Financial Secretary placed the focus of the Budget on "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs, stimulating the economy and relieving people's burden". As a Legislative Council Member from the labour sector, I am much disappointed by the performance of the Government in this regard, in particular by the lack of an unemployment loan fund.

Looking around the world, many advanced economies have quickly introduced relief measures to help employees when the epidemic broke out in March. For example, the United Kingdom and France announced wage subsidies of 70% or more for the unemployed or employees taking unpaid leave; neighbouring Singapore also announced a 75% wage subsidy for all local employees and relaxed the subsidy criteria for self-employed people in the new round of relief measures earlier this month. On the contrary, in Hong Kong where the epidemic broke out in early February and the risk of economic downturn already existed due to the China-United States trade war and local social events happened earlier, the Government, although agreed to provide licence fee reductions or even subsidies to some industries, has not introduced prompt measures to support the unemployed or employees taking unpaid leave. In response to criticisms over the lack of support for employees, the Government only muddled through with the Love Upgrading Special Scheme ("the Scheme") under the Employees Retraining Board. Let us first not discuss whether the $4,000 allowance, which will be increased to $5,000 later, can really help unemployed workers affected by the epidemic. According to the information provided by the Administration to the Finance Committee in response to my request, as of February, only 10 000 people enrolled in the Scheme and fewer than 1 500 of them made it to graduation, indicating that the Scheme is of little help to unemployed workers.

In regard to the belated $80 billion Employment Support Scheme which provides wage subsidies for employees, I find it much exasperated but only half-baked. The measure is much exasperated because since the epidemic outbreak, various social sectors and parties have urged the Government to take measures to support employees affected by the epidemic. For instance, the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions has been calling on the Government to set up an unemployment loan fund. Yet, the Government has paid no heed to it. The measure is half-baked because it could only relieve the pressure of dismissal on grass-roots workers who still have a job, but unhelpful to 5618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 unemployed workers who are in most need. I understand the Government's considerations in deciding that only those making Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contributions will be eligible for the $80 billion Employment Support Scheme. Nevertheless, the Government could take a step further by allowing unemployed workers to withdraw funds from their MPF accounts and having the Government inject the funds back to their MPF accounts afterwards, so as to achieve the objective of supporting employees.

The Financial Secretary has finally listened to the opinions of the public and offered support through direct cash handouts. This is one of the few measures that has geared government policies towards public opinions. However, as the distribution of the $4,000 handout under the Caring and Sharing Scheme two years ago was cumbersome and time-consuming, whether people can benefit from the $10,000 cash handout this time promptly remains to be seen. I hope the Government will launch the scheme expeditiously upon the passage of the Budget, so that people can benefit from it as early as possible. Other bailout measures, such as rates and tax relief; double pay of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") and "fruit grant", are basically past practices without many new ideas.

President, in the welfare section in the Budget announced by the Financial Secretary, as mentioned by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare Dr LAW Chi-kwong in his blog, the estimated recurrent expenditure for social welfare in 2020-2021 amounts to $93.94 billion, while the Government's total welfare expenditure exceeds the $100 billion mark amounting to $115 billion, the recurrent expenditure also increases by 14.2%, which accounts for 19.3% of its overall estimated recurrent expenditure. However, apart from increasing the estimate, the Government should also consider whether the estimated expenditure is spent properly and targets at the crux of the problem in formulating various policies.

Information shows that the Government will commence the construction of 19 residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs") in 2019-2020. It is the largest number of RCHEs construction in a year in Hong Kong history. The number even exceeds the five-year total in 2012 to 2017. However, these construction projects cannot provide immediate remedies to the urgent needs of the elderly in Hong Kong as it will take at least four to five years for them to complete and come into service. As of end December 2019, eligible elderly people had to wait more than three years on average for an RCHE place. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5619 commencement of construction of 19 RCHEs cannot address the current shortage of RCHEs. More importantly, the population in Hong Kong is ageing rapidly. The Government must come up with feasible solutions with more vision and innovation. Moreover, the Government has repeatedly emphasized "ageing in the community" as the policy principle. Yet, it has only increased the service quota under the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly but failed to introduce more comprehensive support policies.

President, one of the 10 new initiatives to benefit livelihoods announced by the Chief Executive on 14 January this year is paying MPF contributions for low-income persons. It is estimated that about 200 000 people whose monthly income is less than $7,100 will benefit from this. Over the years, I have repeatedly stressed that the Government has to take care of family caregivers (mainly housewives). The Government has to bear the minimum monthly MPF contributions for people in the workforce who are neither employed nor full-time students, so that people serving different positions in society can live in dignity in their twilight years.

In addition, the Government proposed in the second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund a temporary relaxation of the asset limits for able-bodied applicants of CSSA by 100% for six months to support the unemployed. However, supporting the unemployed through CSSA is actually an unwise move which is the least desirable. I have to reiterate here that the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions, to which I belong, has all along advocated the establishment of an unemployment loan fund, under which people may take out loans from the Government during unemployment and repay in instalments once they return to work. In so doing, not only the difficulties faced by unemployed workers in the current epidemic can be solved, it will also be conducive to social stability and cohesion in the long run.

President, the five-day week policy has been implemented in civil service for 14 years. Yet, more than 20% of civil servants are still unable to benefit from it. Despite the pilot schemes carried out last year, I am concerned that the progress is still slow and the schemes will end in smoke. In the long run, full implementation of the five-day week work mode requires not only resources from the Financial Secretary, but also a review on the four guiding principles and a timetable for implementing the five-day week work mode on all civil servants. In addition, the Chinese medicine services for civil service introduced in March 5620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 were very well received. I hope the Government will conduct a review on it early, increase the number of Chinese medicine clinics and include Chinese medicine services in the recurrent civil service expenditure in future Budgets.

President, I so submit.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") can see that the unemployment problem is extremely serious now. More so, we are deeply concerned and worried that the unemployment problem will not be resolved in the short term.

Nonetheless, the figures and statistics compiled by the Government are lagging behind, failing to reflect the livelihood plights faced by the unemployed in society today. Hence, starting from this month, we will conduct surveys on unemployment and employment situations, with figures and findings of the surveys published regularly on a monthly basis.

A few days ago, we published the survey findings for April. Among the 2 225 people interviewed, over 80% are aged between 25 and 64, which made up the majority of the labour force. Among the 2 000-odd respondents, 80% indicated that their employment was affected, of which 14% (over 10%) have been laid off and over 60% have to take no-pay leave or stop working. Hence, their income is affected. One of the questions asked in the survey is about the assistance they wanted most from the Government. Among the respondents, 45% looked forward to the expeditious distribution of the $10,000 cash handout, that is the $10,000 handout mentioned in this Budget, 28% requested the Government to provide cash allowance for the unemployed and 26% requested the Government to provide wage subsidies for employees, which is similar to those under the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") being put forward.

Nonetheless, among the tasks which employees affected wanted the Government to do most, providing wage subsidies is the only thing the Government can do, yet the subsidies are not given to employees direct but via their employers and Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contributions by employees are a prerequisite. Regarding issues related to MPF contributions, I will explain it further later. Obviously, the current measures of the Government are not what the people who are unemployed, suspended from work and taking no-pay leave want most from the Government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5621

While the Financial Secretary is here, I would like to take this opportunity to raise this question again: Has the Government figured out a quick way to hand out the $10,000 to the public? We asked this question at the Legislative Council on the second day after the delivery of the Budget by the Financial Secretary, and discussed further with the Financial Secretary to see if the $10,000 can be handed out to members of the public in a convenient and expeditious way. We have stressed that it is not merely a matter of saving lives but also about saving trees. When the $4,000 was handed out last time, a lot of trees were sacrificed. Hence, when handing out the $10,000 this time around, shall the Financial Secretary try to save some trees? Otherwise, the trees will really come and look for the Financial Secretary at night, Buddy. Will the authorities consider reducing the large number of forms need to be completed and streamlining the paperwork involved? This is particularly so for cases involving recipients of the Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA"), "fruit grant", the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") and the Disability Allowance. Can the authorities identify these recipients through the systems of the Government and transfer the money to them directly? The authorities should understand that the people receiving OALA or "fruit grant" are old―they are old definitely as they are receiving OALA and "fruit grant"―and the majority of them do not have online banking accounts. According to the Financial Secretary, people who have online banking accounts may submit online applications for the $10,000 handout and those who do not have such accounts will have to complete the physical forms. Come to think about that. If these elderly people have to fill in a series of forms in submitting applications, a large number of trees will be killed. Besides, it will cause a lot of troubles to the elderly. The handout can actually be paid into their accounts direct, but now the elderly have to fill in various forms. Why can it not be done?

Last week, I asked the same question at the meeting of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. At that time, Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong said that it would involve a lot of procedures to do this and that had got me baffled. Is the information technology system of the Government really so outdated that this cannot be done even in a few months? In fact, our proposal is the easiest way out. If the authorities can resolve the relevant legal issues and provided that the recipients are willing to disclose their personal data, the authorities may pay the handout into their accounts. How difficult is it? As for the manpower shortage which the Government mentioned, we consider that if manpower shortage is the reason, the Government should create temporary posts. In fact, this is the best timing for increasing temporary posts and the authorities 5622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 should speed up recruitment. Why can the authorities not recruit additional manpower? This will provide more convenience for the beneficiaries on the one hand and increase employment opportunities on the other, which will be a win-win situation. Hence, I hope the Financial Secretary will explain how the procedures can be expedited and assistance be rendered to the elderly so as to spare them the trouble of filling in forms and undergoing all kinds of procedures in obtaining the handout. This is the speediest approach.

This group of unemployed persons are not merely facing livelihood issues, many of them have to repay mortgage instalments. I know some people engaging in the tourism industry, either as tourist guides or tour escorts, and they have stopped receiving tours since last year and are facing zero income. As regards the measures under the second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund, the Government has eventually accepted our proposal―Secretary Edward YAU is here―to allow licensed tourist guides and tour escorts to apply for a one-off subsidy. Nonetheless, before that, these people have been earning zero income for a long period of time and those who have taken out mortgage loans can no longer repay their mortgage instalments, whereas some of them may have taken out personal loans. In fact, some taxi drivers who have bought their own taxis can no longer make loan repayment for their taxis. We all know that the business situation of taxi drivers is gloomy nowadays. In the past, around 8:00 pm to 9:00 pm in the evening in Tsim Sha Tsui, passengers would have to queue up for taxis. Yet, the situation has changed now and taxis are waiting in line for passengers. Members may find this unusual sight of a long line of taxis in East Tsim Sha Tsui.

Hence, we should think about it. Under these circumstances, can the Financial Secretary think of any solutions to … With the new Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury and other newly appointed Directors of Bureaux, the authorities may discuss with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and explore with banks to see if the scope of the principal payment holiday arrangement can be extended to the above loans. We know this arrangement is already applied to mortgage loans for private housing or vehicles. Yet, could the scope be extended to subsidized housing, such as Home Ownership Scheme flats and Sandwich Class Housing Scheme flats, as well as certain personal loans? Can this be done? We all know that many wage earners are taking out personal loans for tax payment nowadays. They might have taken out personal loans last year for paying tax and they have been able to make loan repayment when they have income. But now, since they have no income, they cannot make loan LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5623 repayment, and then they will be sued and go bankrupt. The Government does not want to see a surge in the number of bankruptcy cases. Will the authorities discuss with banks for extending the coverage of the "Principal Payment Holiday Scheme" to personal loans other than mortgage loans for housing and vehicles? In fact, not all the banks are willing to offer mortgage loans for vehicles. In Hong Kong, there are several banks specializing in offering loans for commercial vehicles. Will the Government persuade these banks to offer the principal payment holiday arrangement to loans for commercial vehicles including taxis, light buses, goods vans or school buses? Financial Secretary, these measures will not incur any cost on the Government but merely some verbal efforts to persuade the banks. Due to the epidemic and the blow of the social incidents took place earlier, the economy is affected and the income of these people diminishes. Will the Financial Secretary give them a hand, so that they can ride out this crisis?

Moreover, as I mentioned earlier, according to the survey findings, apart from the most sought-after $10,000 handout, the people affected by unemployment also want the authorities to provide cash allowance for the unemployed, that is, the unemployment assistance scheme proposed by FTU last year. Yet, regrettably, the Government has not taken any action. How difficult is it? I know it has nothing to do with the Directors of Bureaux in the Chamber. Yet, why is the responsible Director of Bureau unwilling to set up the unemployment assistance scheme? How will the setting up of such a scheme affect him and why can this not be done?

I would like to cite two examples. Some time ago, FTU saw that the unemployment problem was serious and wanted to do something to help the unemployed workers. For this reason, we raised funds from the various sectors of the community, including the salaries donated by Members of the Legislative Council of FTU, and set up an emergency unemployment care scheme. We can merely express our care in a small way by offering $3,000 caring grant to 5 000 unemployed workers. We had never thought that the scheme would receive such enthusiastic responses when we first started the scheme. We specified an application period as we were not sure if the scheme would be well-received due to the small amount of grant offered and we did not know if the situation was so serious. Yet, on the first day of application, nearly 8 000 applications were received. These applications were then screened by an independent committee and cheques have been paid out since last week.

5624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Last Saturday, after the meeting of the Finance Committee, I went to Yuen Long to give out cheques to recipients. A man asked me after receiving the cheque, "May I have a word with you?" He did not look well and I dared not talk to him at the scene as there were other people around. I brought him to a room for a chat. I asked him about his problem and he broke into tears. He was a man of 50 with a family of four. His wife did not go out to work. He had two daughters, one went to primary school and the other was a graduate of a tertiary institution who was still seeking employment. Come to guess how much his net worth was. I think the amount may not be enough to pay the bill of a meal for certain Directors of Bureaux. All he got was $200-odd. He said upon receiving the $3,000 from FTU that he would spend around $2,000 on rent and the remaining $1,000 on food. This family of four was so miserable. Why does the Government not render any assistance when seeing this situation? Though the Government has introduced support measures amounting to $100-odd billion, he could not think of anyone who can help him. What did he do eventually? Had not the Government advised people to apply for CSSA? He did. When he submitted the CSSA application last month, the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") told him that due to the large number of applications, his application was expected to be approved only three weeks later. Had he not got the $3,000 grant from FTU, he would not have been able to survive for another three days, not to mention three weeks. The Government should not turn a blind eye to the situation. "Secretary IQ 160", with your really high intelligence quotient ("IQ"), could you appreciate the sentiments of society? Will you come to FTU to meet with the unemployed and ask why they have to apply for the $3,000 grant? The amount of the grant was not substantial―I believe the Secretary would also agree that $3,000 is not a big sum―yet they still chose to submit an application though it was time-consuming. Furthermore, the Government advised the people to apply for CSSA. The above mentioned family is eligible for CSSA because that man was the breadwinner and all the four members in the family were out of jobs. But he still has to wait as SWD does not know how long it will take to process his case. Another case involved a single mother living with a 22-year old daughter. The daughter has a job, but her income is not high, as in the case of many young people today, and her income has been reduced due to the prevailing epidemic. Since the mother is living with her working daughter, she is ineligible for CSSA and housing allowance. And since her daughter has a job, she cannot apply for rent reduction from the Housing Department. Does the "Secretary IQ 160" know that CSSA and unemployment assistance are two separate schemes? The CSSA Scheme is a household-based programme, which means an unemployed person cannot apply LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5625 for it casually. Secretary, can you lend them a hand? Financial Secretary and the various Directors of Bureaux in the Chamber, I do not know whether or not the Secretary with high IQ can hear the views of these people. If you can and feel sorry for them, I implore you to go back and persuade the Secretary and the Government to set up an unemployment assistance scheme to render assistance to the unemployed.

Moreover, I hope the Financial Secretary, being the government official responsible for financial matters, will not merely focus on provision allocation this time around. In my view, the Financial Secretary must get prepared because the economy of Hong Kong will be hard hit by the series of impact caused by social incidents, coupled with the prevailing epidemic. Indeed, the consumption mode of people has changed. Both the consumption mode and the employment mode have changed. In the past, we are not used to ordering takeaways via mobile apps―I think I am not used to this in the past―yet many people are familiar with it now. In the past, we do not feel comfortable to work from home and find this troublesome. Yet, now, many people have got used to working from home. Moreover, given the existing mode of work, the number of freelancers is rising. These freelancers are people who cannot benefit from the current subsidy scheme, for they do not have an MPF account.

Hence, I hope the Financial Secretary will have the foresight to make preparation for the economic downturn and the significant changes soon appear in the labour market. Under the epidemic, we have already got used to online services, and when the real economy and physical modes disappear altogether, the unemployment problem of non-skilled employees will deteriorate. The Government cannot turn a blind eye to this and do nothing. An unemployment assistance scheme should be introduced to help these people.

Another support scheme is to facilitate the unemployed to seek new employment, and this is very important. Apart from keeping an eye on the balance sheet, the Financial Secretary should also be more forward-looking and formulate various policies to help the unemployed. He should foresee the severe blow Hong Kong will suffer, make preparation for this and set up a fire wall for Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

5626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Just now Ms Alice MAK from the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") has made a speech focusing on some supportive measures for workers, small and medium enterprises and self-employed persons during the present epidemic. And in my speech I will discuss political issues and global economic problems from a broad perspective.

Firstly, I will expound on some political issues. Many Members from the opposition camp who are present have raised the question: Do the views recently presented by the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council imply that Members of the Legislative Council cannot cast dissenting votes? Of course, Members of the Legislative Council can cast dissenting votes, and the Legislative Council has the power to monitor the Government. But the problem is how we make our decisions on voting and how we perform the monitoring role.

I consider the relationship between the Government and Members of a gaming nature. The Government needs to strive for Members' support for the passage of some bills, including the appropriation bill, so it will concede to some demands made by Members as far as possible and implement feasible and financially viable measures. Members will also make their best efforts to undertake a great deal of lobbying for the Government and relay the actual situations of people to the Government. Given such a favourable interaction, the Government, under the monitoring of Members, has put forward many good policies, such as the cash handout of $10,000. I consider it the greatest compromise which is most helpful to people. Also, the Government has introduced many relief measures.

Accordingly, between the Government and Members there should be such an interaction. It should not be that Members just sit down, regardless of anything else, and say to the Government: I will definitely oppose it. If the opposition camp must oppose anything and everything, the Government actually would not like to discuss with them. Even a discussion could be held, it would be meaningless, because they will definitely oppose to the very end. How can the Government engage in any favourable interaction with the opposition camp?

Rather regrettably, there was such favourable interaction initially between the current-term Government and this Legislative Council, including the opposition camp. For example, the education sector and the information LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5627 technology sector were allocated several billion dollars of funding in the Budget two years ago. It showed that the Members representing those sectors had made certain accomplishments for the sectors. As a matter of fact, they could be regarded as having done their jobs. However, after the social movements resulting from the opposition against the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, coupled with―in my view―the aiding and abetting by foreign forces, the bugle call Assembly had been played and the opposition camp had assembled to resist and reject anything proposed by the Government. In a nutshell, they subscribe to a concept of "burning together" and veto the Government on all things. They even boast that―now as the pro-establishment camp is dominant in the Legislative Council, the Budget can be passed barring unexpected circumstances―However, the opposition camp states that the budget will definitely be negatived when it secures more seats in the future, no matter what, unless the Government agrees to the "five demands" and also "not one less", leaving no room for compromise. Most of such demands deal a direct blow to the rule of law regime of Hong Kong, such as no prosecution against all rioters and violent persons and their immediate release. How can these demands be satisfied?

The opposition camp has made impossible political demands―or they have demanded the immediate implementation of true dual universal suffrage―to threaten the Government and has deployed the political nuclear weapon to "burn with" the Government. Those being implicated and killed in the explosion are not other people, but all Hong Kong citizens. The opposition camp will not be killed, rather they will only fake death but not be killed by the political nuclear bomb, as they enjoy handsome and stable remunerations all the same, and even continue to reap benefits from the dead and pocket political donations. Be it political donations from overseas or local political black gold, it will continue to flow in. Therefore, such advocacy of "burning together" is absolutely inadvisable. I hope all Honourable colleagues will seek truth from facts and discuss from an economic perspective how the Government should use the appropriations.

The Government has allocated generous funding for social welfare, education and health care. Honourable colleagues will not have any disagreement about it. However, the opposition camp targets the estimated expenditure of the Police. The Budget does increase the estimated expenditure of the Police to $25.8 billion. The general public, having heard such an increase, will find it enormous. Why is there such an increase? Because of the 5628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 grave "black-clad violence" in the past half a year. If not the rioters, the Police need not enforce the law. If not the provocation, the Police need not arrest anyone. It is such a simple line of reasoning. Had the violent incidents not been incessantly escalated to the extent of local terrorism, I believe the Police would not need to increase its budget, particularly for the purpose of stepping up intelligence work and taking precautions. In fact, it was luck that no death had arisen from the few recent local terrorist attacks. Bombs were placed in a hospital, train stations and even sent to the Commissioner of Police. These were all rather serious crimes. The Police have even discovered a weapon warehouse and seized over a thousand bullets and a number of semi-automatic pistols, including even AR-15 semi-automatic rifles, all of which can take lives.

The opposition camp continues to fuel the anti-police sentiment in order to fish for political capital, reaping full benefits from the dead. As regards the incident of a young girl who has been shot in the eye, I feel sorry for the victim. But why did it happen? The opposition camp dares not mention it now. There are lies about 31 August and San Uk Ling Holding Centre. Some people even went to a public cemetery in the North District to stage a sham grave-sweeping ritual. Some people did so probably because the opposition Members often go to the United States to take lessons from POMPEO and have profoundly acquired his true teachings. POMPEO's true teachings are telling lies to deceive people, which is a marvellous trick of the United States. Courses are even offered to on such a trick. I wonder if any opposition Members have attended such courses; I have no idea.

Evidently, it is necessary to increase the resources of the Police Force. Furthermore, what is the quality of our Police Force? It would be meaningless to have this question answered by ourselves or the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary for Security. Let us take a look at a report published by the World Economic Forum, an authoritative international organization. According to the report, the reliability of the Hong Kong Police Force was ranked sixth in the world, after only Finland, Singapore, Switzerland, Iceland, etc., and far higher than the United States and the United Kingdom, the favourites of the opposition camp. Moreover, Fraser Institute of Canada also put Hong Kong Police Force on the sixth place in the world. For such reasons, Hong Kong Police Force merits everyone's support. Of course, as regard the mishandling of individual incidents or a black sheep in the entire force, the Police Force will definitely carry out rigorous investigations. For example, the Police Force is investigating a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5629 recent case rigorously. I will later return to the issues of the Police Force in the session of consideration by committee of the whole Council.

The second topic I want to discuss is the $10,000 handout. People are most concerned about when the $10,000 will be handed out. It is not because, as Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has suggested earlier, the Government should hand out the $10,000 earlier so people can use it to support the protest movement. I do not know if the opposition camp wants to create a yellow "fleecing circle" and instigates some people to come forward as sacrifices. However, President, how can people receive the $10,000 at the earliest opportunity? The opposition camp asked why this item is not taken out for separate consideration. Very smart, the Secretary certainly would not take it out. Should it be the case, the opposition would filibuster frantically in the scrutiny of the Budget.

In addition, taking out the item of the $10,000 cash handout for separate consideration will certainly not expedite the disbursement process. The reason for people having not yet received or having to receive the sum at a later time―applications made in June and the sum received in July the soonest―is that the Government has to engage in coordination work with the banks. I know that the Government has been sparing no efforts in this respect. Hence, the bottleneck lies in the administrative procedures. The Government is working on it right now, but how can the procedures be further expedited? I find a few points worth considering. Among them, I find it necessary to set up a centralized cash handout mechanism and accounts, so that in the future, whether in prosperity or adversity, such accounts can be used for all cash handout initiatives of the Government. People need not register again, except those who have just reached 18 years old or eligible new arrivals.

Moreover, I want to discuss the global economy. Mr CHU Hoi-dick made a remark that left me with a strong impression. He said Hongkongers should have the courage to jump off a cliff, and that the pan-democrats are waiting for such a day. Buddy, if he is to jump off a cliff, do not drag me down with him. If he wants to jump into the water, do not drag Hongkongers down with him. Nonetheless, I concur with the concept of a "cliff". Such a "cliff" should be taken seriously, but never jump off from it. This costs lives. Having the courage to jump off a cliff does not mean you will not die. Alas! I do not know how to describe it.

What is the "cliff"? It does exist. However, other than the short-term economic woes arisen from the epidemic, we also have to look into the 5630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 development of the global economy, especially the trend of deglobalization. TRUMP is into building trade barriers, even targeting our country, China. Will there be the risk of a new Cold War? On the other hand, due to inept efforts against the epidemic, the economy of the United States is in a shambles. TRUMP also plans to print banknotes and introduce a quantitative easing policy irresponsibly. It will cause a great flood of currency, and will it give rise to another round of asset bubbles? After the financial turmoil last time, the Government seemed to have rescued the market, at the expense of hikes in property prices which caused great hardship on people's livelihood. Inflation has also shrunk wages of workers, whereas assets of large corporation and big capitalists have continued to grow, thereby further widening the disparity between the rich and the poor. I hope that the Secretary will pay attention to the overall global situation.

Unemployment also has to be tackled. The Government has just announced the unemployment rate, which is 4.5%. Secretary, FTU has pointed out just now that the actual unemployment figure is far higher. It has come to our attention that the working population of Hong Kong has reduced by 88 000 for no reason. It is not because, all of a sudden, the population of Hong Kong has rapidly aged, but that those 88 000 persons had completely failed to find jobs, and so they stopped seeking. As a result, the Government has excluded them from the labour force. Thus, hidden unemployment is also very serious.

Nevertheless, I am relatively optimistic and consider the grand reshuffle of the shape of global economy a challenge. Given the epidemic, the economies of Europe and the United States have almost come to a halt. Our country is making enormous efforts and will presumably recover faster. This new challenge will actually bring about new opportunities. For example, during the SARS outbreak in 2003, Jack MA of Alibaba seized a great opportunity. Under the circumstances of home office, he launched the online shopping website Taobao. Nowadays, many people use Taobao. Online shopping is incredibly convenient and has become a new trend. How should Hong Kong grasp such opportunities? I believe the Government really should reconsider re-industrialization. Hong Kong is not without advantages on this front. We have design talents, protection of intellectual property, freedom of information, as well as the absence of capital control. Recently, some companies have offered customized T-shirts service with mobile apps, and business has been brisk. These companies have capitalized on the long tail effect by accurately responding to customers' demands. Hong Kong may not have to engage in large-scale production, but it can refine the products to respond to customers' demands. In this way, re-industrialization can create a new solution.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5631

Moreover, re-industrialization can reverse the disparity between the rich and the poor and create more quality jobs, thus reining in the situation where trades of finance, investment and property development are doing business only among themselves. To say it bluntly, such trades, to a certain extent, do not engage in production, but only lead to the growingly centralized accumulation of wealth. However, if re-industrialization is taken forward, people will have jobs while small enterprises and start-ups will have business opportunities, thereby creating upward mobility in society. Moreover, Hong Kong should reinvent its entrepreneurship, and it is very important.

On the subject of entrepreneurship, I note that the Government will inject $2 billion into the Innovation and Technology Fund for the promotion of re-industrialization, as well as allocating $2 billion to the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation for converting an industrial building in Yuen Long into a Microelectronics Centre. In addition, the Government will enhance the Technology Voucher Programme from April onwards. However, Secretary, can such measures be implemented with greater flexibility so as to encourage creativity and entrepreneurship? Let me give an example. The application threshold for the Innovation and Technology Venture Fund is indeed very high. A minimum remaining committed capital of $1.2 billion is required, much to the chagrin of average micro enterprises and start-ups. Jack MA started out in running a small business with several people. It would be futile even if there is another Jack MA in Hong Kong, wouldn't it? Another example is that start-ups are not eligible for the fund. In my view, all of the above show that the Government has imposed too many self-inflicted constraints. The epidemic is comparable to a great war. After the war, the old components of the economy will fade away, with many things waiting to be done. The global setup will see a grand reshuffle. Hong Kong used to have some economic partners, on which we should not be overly reliant in the future, particularly the United States. I believe the United States may experience a long period of recession, or it is even uncertain if the country will be in decline. But we can no longer overly rely on it. Whether we can explore new markets and seize new opportunities hinges on the removal of restrictions and barriers by a more proactive Government. In this regard, I hope the Secretary can take a step forward and do more.

Thank you, President. I so submit.

5632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 2 pm.

12:59 pm

Meeting suspended.

2:00 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please speak.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the Budget of this year was delivered two months ago on 26 February. At that time Paul CHAN came to the Legislative Council and said $120 billion would be spent in the hope of boosting the economy. However, two months down the line, Hong Kong looks completely different now.

Two months down the line, we see a worsening situation; two months down the line, we see more chaos in society; two months down the line, we see a complete lack of confidence of Hongkongers in the future prospects. This time the Government will unprecedentedly―in its words, it has adopted an extraordinary approach―dole out $10,000 to every member of the public. As we all know, the current-term Government has long stated categorically that it would not hand out cash. It would not do short-term and seemingly ineffective work. Even if the Government would really hand out cash, it would haggle over every penny like Paul CHAN and Carrie LAM, taking more than a year to plan the handout of several thousand dollars.

This time, however, why would the Government spend $120 billion in addition to the $30 billion allocated earlier? On the surface, it is because the outbreak situation of the Wuhan pneumonia has dealt a heavy blow to the Hong Kong economy. But as everyone knows, according to the news reports, although the epidemic broke out in Mainland China early in around December, Hong Kong did not have the first case until mid- or late January. Hence, when the Budget was presented on 26 February, the biggest factor was not the Wuhan LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5633 pneumonia. Rather, it was the "anti-extradition to China" movement which had sustained from June last year to the beginning of this year. The "anti-extradition to China" movement has awakened the people of Hong Kong, making us realize that the greatest difficulty currently faced by Hong Kong is not only the Government's failure. Nor is it only Carrie LAM's incompetence or the fact that all the decisions of the Government antagonize the people. Rather, it is our observation of something even more horrible. That is, "one country, two systems" exists in name only.

Early last year, when the Government was bent on introducing the "extradition to China Bill", Members of the pro-democracy camp were not the only people across the territory who came forward to request the Government to think twice. At that time even many businessmen who had been doing well in the business sector in Hong Kong, including real estate developers and Legislative Council Members representing the business sector, raised objections. Some of them advised in private, and some in public that the Government should not introduce the "extradition to China Bill" because it was indeed tantamount to surrendering Hong Kong to China. Regrettably, despite such advice, the Government failed to make to its own decision though there were actually a lot of things which it could decide on its own. What was the reason behind? Was it because Beijing had stepped in and demanded that Carrie LAM should give such an order? Regarding this, of course only Carrie LAM or Beijing knows the answer.

No matter what, Hong Kong has thus experienced a most heart-rending period since the beginning of last year. Had the Government been willing to listen to public views, the issue could have been resolved properly. It would not have run into an unprecedented predicament, as in this year's Budget, and needed to spend $150 billion―this figure is in fact an understatement. Together with the public funds needed for the second round of relief measures of the Government, the total is nearly $290 billion. Hong Kong has also incurred a record-high deficit. The public funds expended account for 10% of GDP (i.e. Gross Domestic Product). The deficit currently faced by Hong Kong is unprecedented. If the Government had not been antagonistic to the people and really listened to their views, it would not have made this most gravely wrong decision last year, and Hong Kong might not have suffered such a serious blow.

Nevertheless, as we all know, there is no "if" in reality. The Government has already taken the worst step, driving Hong Kong into dire straits. In the 5634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 wake of an economic predicament, how can Hong Kong recover its strength? Can this $290 billion enable Hong Kong to get out of the plight? Some figures have caused us grave concern, and some changes have absolutely caused great worries to Hongkongers. On 10 February this year, Clara Ferreira MARQUES, a commentator of Bloomberg, described Hong Kong as showing symptoms of a failed state. She saw the people of Hong Kong scrambling for face masks and panic buying. They simply did not trust the Government, public organizations and even some private enterprises. Hongkongers saw the Government's inability to protect members of the public. It failed to provide basic necessary services, and even its legitimacy was challenged. From the perspective of social science, it was "fragile". In her article, she wrote that Hong Kong's way of handling protests in these several months was highly controversial. Coupled with the epidemic and the judicial system that has come under fire, the prospects of Hong Kong as a financial hub were gloomy.

On 10 February, the epidemic situation in Hong Kong was still not serious. Different parts of the world did not expected that apart from causing substantial economic losses, the Wuhan pneumonia would affect over a million people around the world, and hundreds of thousands of people would lose their lives because of the epidemic. While a small scale economic crisis in Hong Kong has escalated to a global one, we can see that the issue is not simply about the epidemic. Neither is it about whether the services in hospitals or intensive care units ("ICUs") or even the quantities of face masks in Hong Kong are adequate. A deeper question is whether we do have ways to restore Hongkongers' confidence. After the epidemic is over, can anyone continue to trust this Government, believing that it will defend their interests, is capable of governing Hong Kong and can lift up people's hearts? The problem is that we cannot see any prospects at all. In 2003, the SARS outbreak dealt a relentless blow to Hong Kong with nearly 300 deaths. At that time the death toll and the number of people admitted to ICUs were higher than the present ones. The impacts made were greater. But the people of Hong Kong had not lost hope on the surrounding environment, the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government and Beijing. Today, as regards the surrounding environment, except for the health care system to which we have access in our everyday life, we do not have the slightest trust in the entire Government or the Central Authorities in Beijing.

We know it is by no means easy to recover and get out of the predicament. Let us look at the general environment. The Index of Economic Freedom of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5635

Hong Kong has dropped 1.1%. According to the Index of Economic Freedom released by the Wall Street Journal and the Heritage Foundation in 2020, Hong Kong's ranking has fallen to the second. It has happened for the first time in 25 years since 1995. As highlighted in their report, besides the part about the rule of law which we consider a big irony, Hong Kong's scores in government size, regulatory efficiency and open markets have dropped. In regard to the rule of law, they have clearly pointed out that the risk of the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary being seriously imperiled by the amendment exercise of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance in 2019 still exists. Despite the low rates of corruption in Hong Kong, the report pinpointed the insufficient effort of the Hong Kong Government in the fight against corruption. There are good reasons for our worries. Since last year, in Carrie LAM's words, the Government has relied on 30 000 police officers to maintain its governance, and figures have told us that be it corruption or breach of discipline, the number of offenders in the Police was the highest among the disciplined services. Half of the people have zero confidence in the Police. Such being the case, our worries about recurrence of the problem of corruption in Hong Kong are absolutely justified.

An ineffective government, an unrestrained police force and a police monitoring system which lacks monitoring will only give rise to a bunch of people with privileges. The case of petrol bomb attack outside Kwai Chung Police Station which we noted this week turns out to be a fabrication by a police officer perverting the course of justice. In the past couple of years, cases of criminal offences committed by senior or junior officers of different ranks in the Police were common. The Hong Kong Police, from the senior to the junior level, fail to gain the people's trust, yet the Carrie LAM administration blatantly relies on the Police. Nevertheless, the present situation is still not the worst. We see that the estimated provision for the Police this year is indeed way out of line. The Government can go so far as to increase their funding without public consent, and after revision, their so-called OT (i.e. overtime) allowance has soared from the original $256 million to almost $2.55 billion, representing a nine fold increase.

This is still not the worst scenario. This week, we saw continuous bombardment from the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO") and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR ("LOCPG"), criticizing, influencing and denouncing Legislative Council Members. They even made irresponsible remarks on 5636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Members' voting preference in the Finance Committee. This is precisely the biggest problem in Hongkongers' view. Such acts have sent "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and a "high degree of autonomy" to doom. How can a doomed government and a doomed society restore the people's confidence? In a society with no future, what young people see is the imminence of authoritarian rule. When we saw the behaviour of the Police previously, we thought only the Police had come out to serve as the henchmen. Now there is no such need. Now HKMAO and LOCPG have come forward to brazenly tell us in public that they are the boss. As such, where have all the principles of "one country, two systems", the Basic Law, "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and a "high degree of autonomy" gone?

Years after the reunification, what Hongkongers remember most is that in 1999, ZHU Rongji, the then Premier of the State Council, presented a work report in which he said to this effect, "The direction of 'one country, two systems' has been implemented comprehensively and thoroughly. Working in strict compliance with the Basic Law, the Central Government does not interfere in the affairs within the autonomy of the Hong Kong SAR and ensures the implementation of 'one country, two systems', 'Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong' and a 'high degree of autonomy' in the HKSAR, thus winning universal praises." This was the last time when the Central Government boldly spoke in the interest of Hong Kong. After 5 March 1999, it became history. Hong Kong degenerated into a society which neither followed the rule of law nor implemented a "high degree of autonomy" or democracy in accordance with the Basic Law. In such a rotten state, no matter how many hundreds of millions of dollars are given out by the Government, it cannot win back the people's hearts, and the next generation does not harbour any expectations either. It is only when the Central Authorities step back, only when Hong Kong is given a truly democratic constitutional system with genuine implementation of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and a "high degree of autonomy", and only when Hongkongers can really have a democratic constitutional regime to which they are entitled according to the Basic Law and which has been delayed for years, that Hong Kong can move on. Otherwise, Hong Kong will see no way out but a dead end.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5637

DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): President, although the Financial Secretary has exceptionally put the part on medical and health care at the forefront of his Budget speech―I believe it is due to the epidemic outbreak, which is just like calling on God in adversity―he is merely harping on the same string in fact. For instance, he talked about the second 10-year Hospital Development Plan again, which has already been repeated in the Policy Address and the Budget for four years. Enhancement of health care manpower training has been proposed for many years. Introduction of advanced medical devices for treating cancer and other diseases requiring specialty services has been mentioned in the Budget in 2019. Expansion of the scope of the Drug Formulary of the Hospital Authority ("HA") has also been repeated for two years. Establishment of a public health care stabilization fund was proposed last year. Development of Chinese medicine services has been repeated for four years, and there is also the promotion of primary health care services. That is to say, nothing new has been proposed in the Budget. This is my first point.

The estimated expenditure on medical and health care amounts to $87.1 billion in this year, among which a provision of $75 billion is allocated to HA. Given the dim economic outlook, the accounts of the SAR Government are "in the red" in 2019-2020, the first time for Hong Kong to register a fiscal deficit in 15 years. It is forecast that we will continue to see a deficit in the coming five years. Notwithstanding this, the growth and the ageing of the population will not be suspended because of an economic downturn, whilst members of the public will not fall sick less often when the funding for medical and health care is reduced in view of a fiscal deficit in a particular year. It is precisely because the overall expenditure and funding for public medical and health care services would inevitably be cut down due to a drop in government revenue, I hence proposed in 2017 the establishment of a $10 billion public health care stabilization fund, and the Financial Secretary has now adopted my proposal. Some people teased me when I put forward such a proposal back at that time, saying that the economy was booming, property prices had doubled, and the fiscal surplus had reached hundreds of millions of dollars, why would someone suggest to build up savings when the Government was so deep-pocketed? I put forward this $10 billion savings plan in 2017 and proposed it again in 2018, the Financial Secretary finally adopted my proposal in 2019, i.e. in last year's Budget.

Even though this proposal had been raised in the Budget, some people still considered it more desirable to spend this sum of $10 billion on innovation or 5638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 primary health care, etc. They still failed to understand the use of such a fund at that time. This tells us who have the foresight and who show belated awareness or even no awareness. It is precisely because the Government will reduce the funding for public health care amid an economic downturn during which there is a drop in revenue. In view of this, I have suggested the Financial Secretary to withdraw the required sum from the $10 billion public health care stabilization fund to make up for the shortfall in the funding for public health care, in order to weather through the bitter winter of our economy which will last for a couple of years.

We have been rushing about for isolation facilities and wards recently. For some time, the 1 000 or 1 400 isolation beds are insufficient to meet the demand, such that some confirmed patients had to wait for admission to hospital at their home. However, managing a total of over 28 000 beds and having more than 70 000 employees, HA has received a funding of $70 billion this year. HA has a total of 28 000 beds, but we now have to rush about for 1 000-odd beds. In face of this epidemic, HA was in chaos at the beginning, failing to provide the most basic protective equipment for frontline health care personnel and deal with its stock of medical supplies properly. This has greatly undermined our confidence in epidemic prevention. The problem does not lie in insufficient resources but in their uneven distribution. HA has never been in lack of manpower, but there have been long-standing problems with its staff establishment and mismatch in resources, yet such problems have only become so obvious amid the current epidemic outbreak. The Financial Secretary has already proposed in last year's Budget that HA should be urged to improve the situation. Since HA has failed to manage public hospitals properly, there is no way for the management to shirk their responsibilities.

On the matter of retaining talents, the Financial Secretary has proposed to enhance the Special Retired and Rehire Scheme and to consider creating opportunities for Associate Consultants to be promoted to Consultants within the next five years. As a matter of fact, the manpower problem of HA has always been "fattening the top and slimming the bottom", and there are too many management posts but far too less frontline staff under its cumbersome structure. I propose to establish a mechanism for adjusting the monthly fixed allowance for employees who joined HA in or after April 1998 with a view to retaining the experienced middle-level health care staff.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5639

The Budget and the Anti-epidemic Fund mainly provide funding to HA, and it seems that the Government has forgotten that private health care services and dental services are also an indispensable part of the health care system. As we can see from the data of confirmed cases at the early stage, many patients have sought treatment from private doctors. As these people were only diagnosed as confirmed cases at a later time, the clinics which had contact with them need to suspend business, whereas the doctors also have to undergo quarantine and observation, thereby exerting a great economic impact on them. Private doctors also have to face problems in paying rent or wages. As such, the Government should consider expanding the scope of its support measures in a bid to help fellow practitioners to ride out this difficult time.

It is mentioned in paragraph 43 of the Budget that around $180 million has been allocated to the University of Hong Kong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University in 2018-2019 for carrying out short-term renovation works and enhancing facilities. Yet, the Government withdrew several funding proposals for health care teaching facilities projects on 15 November and 26 November 2019 respectively. I once again urge the Government to submit the agenda items to the Finance Committee for discussion as soon as possible so that the projects can commence as scheduled. This will involve a funding of some $1 billion.

As regards relieving people's burden, I believe the measure which can live up to the public's expectation most is the cash handout of $10,000 to all permanent residents aged 18 or above. It is estimated that 7 million people will benefit from the measure, entailing an expenditure of $71 billion. In my proposal submitted to the Financial Secretary, I have mentioned that handing out cash is the simplest and most direct way to benefit each and every member of the public. Administrative costs can be reduced on one hand, and the processing time can be shortened on the other. As indicated by the Financial Secretary, this is a one-off special measure which will not become a long-term financial burden.

In face of the epidemic outbreak and economic predicament which are virtually unpredictable, I hope the Government will address the pressing needs of the public, respond to the aspirations of society in a timely manner, manage public finance fairly and impartially, thereby enabling the Hong Kong society to regain vitality gradually.

5640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Since I still have some time left, I would like to talk about another issue. The Financial Secretary has mentioned "Fight the Epidemic" on page 9 of the Budget, whereas "Fight the Virus Together" is also mentioned in a pamphlet on the Anti-epidemic Fund. I have not taken any day-off and have basically gone to work in the hospital since 1 January 2020. I also went to work in the hospital every week during the New Year when everyone was most panic-stricken. I provide consultation service in outpatient clinics and am responsible for colonoscopy examination on Mondays and Tuesdays, and then come back to the Legislative Council on Wednesdays. When I come across the phrase "Fight the Virus Together", I know it is merely a slogan. They say let us fight the virus together but mean another. This is what all of us can see.

As regards the part on health care facilities in the Budget, I can give you some information. When the epidemic outbreak in Europe has come to the whatever wave, we can see the importance of medical and health care services. European countries with more than 100 000 confirmed cases include Spain, Italy, France, Germany and the United Kingdom, but it is rather strange that the death rates in these five countries vary so greatly. The death rate in Germany is about 3%, but that in the remaining four countries is over 10%. Why is it so? I can tell you the reasons. According to the data of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, eight hospital beds are available for every 1 000 residents in Germany, which ranks first in Europe, whereas only two or three beds are available in the United Kingdom, Spain and Italy, and the figure in Hong Kong is 4.1. Therefore, a large number of confirmed patients in Italy did not have the chance to be admitted to hospital, they were not admitted to hospital before they passed away at home. This reflects a shortage of hospital beds. As for the number of beds in intensive care units, Germany also tops the list with 29.2 beds per 100 000 residents, over three times the number in the United Kingdom, Spain, Italy and France.

Speaking of health care manpower, I have repeatedly reminded Honourable colleagues not to piggyback on this issue during this period of time. Because most of the health care personnel, including myself, have hold fast to their positions during these few months. Over 90% of the health care personnel have hold fast to their positions, we basically go to work every day. So, please be fair. All of us are working with the aim of having the epidemic subside as soon as possible. Under the wise leadership of President XI, Wuhan was willing to impose a lockdown decisively, and the city's economy can now start to resume. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5641

Macao closed its borders decisively and implemented immigration control and quarantine measures under the principle of "one country, two systems", so its economy can resume as well.

"Primary Health Care" and "Development of Chinese Medicine" have been mentioned in the latter part of the Budget, but I reckon that the Government will further promote developments in these two aspects only after the epidemic outbreak has come to an end. The part on medical and health care is followed by that titled "Developing a Diversified Economy". I am aware that people are very concerned about the economic situation, and I agree that Hong Kong is a very important economy. I wish to talk about the economic considerations of the leaders of the United Kingdom and the United States. The leaders of many places have in one way or another taken the epidemic lightly when it first broke out. They include Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris JOHNSON and President of the United States Donald TRUMP, who have all along been talking about the economy since the epidemic broke out up to the present. When the epidemic outbreak has gone out of control with a continuous surge in the number of confirmed cases, we can then see the difference between Hong Kong and Singapore. Whose economy will recover more expeditiously? The number of confirmed cases in Hong Kong is around 1 000 at present, but that in Singapore will soon rise to over 10 000.

The report of the Select Committee to inquire into the handling of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome outbreak by the Government and the Hospital Authority set up by the Legislative Council has pointed out the following: "In the handling of the SARS outbreak, the Chief Executive directed that containing and controlling the spread of the disease should be the Government's top priority … The Select Committee notes that it was only at the later stage when the epidemic was subsiding that the Government began to focus its attention on the economy which was dealt a heavy blow by the SARS epidemic. The Select Committee considers that the Government was right in putting public health before the economy." I wish to remind all of you that it is not a very difficult task to fight against the epidemic, there is no need to spend a lot of money and buy plenty of stuff. I think the report of the Legislative Council on SARS is similar to the instruction booklet for washing machines or rice cookers. Essentially, you only need to follow all the procedures.

5642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Eight recommendations have been made in the report on SARS, and so far the Hong Kong Government has done not bad in respect of four of them. That said, it has not implemented the other four recommendations or there have been delays in their implementation. Thus, I would like to tell you in brief, the Government can deal with the epidemic simply by following that "instruction booklet". I also wish to remind all of you that the fight against the epidemic is not very complicated, and the relevant work can be divided into three tiers. At the tier which involves members of the public, separation and distancing should be implemented, and such measures include wearing masks, social distancing, as well as performing hand hygiene, personal hygiene and environmental hygiene. Such work would not entail a huge expenditure, and there is no need to buy invisible masks or state-of-the-art air purifiers.

The second tier refers to the hospitals, which involves the question of whether we have sufficient beds, isolation wards, and intensive care units. British Prime Minister Boris JOHNSON was admitted to the intensive care unit of a hospital when he got infected. Patients cannot receive treatment in a timely manner in case that no intensive care units or beds are available, which will result in a situation similar to that in Italy. What is more, the Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health is responsible for tracing or releasing accurate information, which is also a part of the fight against the epidemic.

As for the tier involving the Government, it is actually very simple. First, at the source, is the immigration control policy implemented satisfactorily? When was it implemented? Was it implemented at the earliest possible time? Second, insofar as people entering Hong Kong are concerned, whether they are Hongkongers or not, have we done a good job with our "man-to-man" strategy? Or are there any loopholes? Besides, have we done well with home quarantine, compulsory quarantine and quarantine camps? In fact, it does not cost much to carry out such work, but it is exactly the key to epidemic prevention, which has already been made crystal clear in the report on SARS (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.

MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the Appropriation Bill 2020.

This Budget has earmarked $120 billion for taking forward a series of relief measures. Among these measures are the cash payout of $10,000 for residents LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5643 aged 18 or above and measures to support enterprises and safeguard jobs, which we can call to mind more easily. Indeed, the Government has answered the aspirations of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the general public and responded to public opinions.

Of course, in view of the current situation of the epidemic, actually this Budget should be read together with the two rounds of measures introduced successively under the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF"). In February, the Government allocated $30 billion for the first round of AEF measures. Coupled with the $120 billion relief measures proposed in this Budget and the second round of AEF measures introduced lately at $137.5 billion, the Government has altogether provided around $287.5 billion in total for measures taken to assist various industries, various types of enterprises and many members of the public affected by the epidemic.

President, this epidemic has brought exceptional challenges to Hong Kong, and the SAR Government has responded to the needs of society in an unprecedented manner. According to the Government, the objectives of the measures are first, to help businesses stay afloat; second, to keep workers in employment; third, to relieve the financial burdens of individuals and businesses; and fourth, to assist the economy to recover once the epidemic is contained.

In all fairness, judging from the performance of the SAR Government in its work to combat the epidemic, I would say that overall speaking, it has fulfilled its duties. Despite that we are hard hit by two waves of the epidemic, actually we can see that the officials and civil servants of the SAR Government have remained calm in meeting the challenges. We can see that in the process, they have respected the views of medical experts and made scientifically-based decisions. We can also see that the authorities have adjusted the policies in response to the continued changes in the epidemic.

However, President, in the light of the gravity of this epidemic of the century, we should also review our inadequacies in order to improve the governing ability of the SAR Government in response to crisis in future. Particularly, attention should be given to why, after so much effort has been made, there are still people who are not quite supportive and happy. I think this 5644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 is a good opportunity for the SAR Government to sum up some experiences, and this will be of great help to the future of Hong Kong.

President, speaking of the epidemic, it can be viewed as a social crisis; and when it comes to crisis management, actually it consists of two parts. First, there is the part of operation or operational issues. How exactly the SAR Government provides a policy response in its daily work to a crisis? This part aside, the other part of crisis management and handling is symbolic. It can refer to gestures or actions that are more of symbolic in nature. In fact, both parts are indispensable in the handling of crisis.

Let me draw an analogy. If a family lost its way while hiking, the children who have never been lost before may be frightened. On the part of the parents, other than thinking about ways to take their children out of the woods and look for a way out, what else should they do? I think that we, as parents, all know that we should, of course, take care of our children. If they are in panic, we should calm them down and even hug them, and we should encourage them every now and then by telling them that we would be safe very soon. This precisely explains the point that apart from doing practical things, it is also necessary to take actions targeting sentiments or emotions, and actions that are symbolic in nature. Only in this way will the public feel that the Government's performance is up to par in handling the epidemic.

Speaking of the handling of the epidemic, what areas of work do we include in the part of operation now? The Government has to formulate various policies from time to time. This is why we have seen a number of regulations enacted by the Government under Cap. 599 in an effort to adjust the policies in the light of the epidemic. Certainly, the Government also has to listen to the views of the experts, coordinate the anti-epidemic efforts of various government departments and carry out daily management work, with a view to performing its role in combatting the epidemic. This part of work must be done. But the Government must also understand that for all such practical work done by the Government, very often the public do not see it, nor do they understand how much work the Government has done to tackle the epidemic and how exactly the Government can help them.

In this connection, the symbolic actions which I mentioned just now are most important. These actions will enable the public to feel that the political LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5645 leaders are capable of bringing the situation under control, that they are committed to fighting the epidemic, and that they will lead the people out of the plights. This is actually most crucial in handling crisis. It is because when a crisis arises, the public will certainly have certain expectations of the Government. On the one hand, they hope that the Government can solve the problem. On the other hand, actually the people are on tenterhooks. They hope to see actions taken by the Government to dispel their fears. Particularly when they feel anxious and apprehensive about the future, it is all the more natural for them to have a reasonable expectation that the Government can do something.

Of course, as shown in examples of crisis management in other places, when a natural disaster occurred, we often see the political leaders paying visits to places hit by the disaster to show that they are dealing with the crisis seriously and that they care about the sufferings of the victims. Certainly, for the purpose of effective crisis management, the Government must be decisive and respond promptly, and this is also crucial. It is because if every time measures are put forward only after damages are done or problems have fully surfaced in society, we would fall behind public sentiments and the people would not be satisfied. Therefore, what the Government must do is to demonstrate at any moment during a crisis that it is closely connected with the people.

From the studies on crisis management, actually we can find many such examples. President, in 2002, the serious flood that occurred at a river in Germany is precisely an example of proper crisis management. That natural disaster in 2002 happened in Germany before their election, but the Government's handling of the crisis had changed the results of the election entirely. Back then the German media extensively reported on a lot of the Government's practical work or operational work as I mentioned earlier. But statistics showed that these reports about the practical work did not change the actual public support for the Government. Quite the contrary, for media reports on symbolic actions or gestures such as those mentioned by me earlier, even though the media reported these actions or gestures from some negative angles, information showed that these reports could obviously pump up public support for the Government.

Although the German Government recorded at that time a huge fiscal deficit as a result of having to provide financial assistance to people affected by the disaster, it could still command public support. What did the opposition camp do at the time? They voted against the financial provisions and accused 5646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 the ruling party of being speculative and irresponsible in causing a fiscal deficit and taking a wrong approach. On the other hand, the then Premier visited various areas hard hit by the disaster and openly met with the people there, and as it was before the election, leaders of the opposition camp also paid visits to the less affected places where the support for their electioneering was stable. Given the image of leadership portrayed by the German Premier during the disaster, coupled with his timely visits to the affected areas and timely assistance, the ruling party was eventually saved in the election and the result was reversed. Before the election, as the ruling party had performed ineffectively in tackling the economic problems, opinion polls showed that their popularity was behind that of the opposition party. Originally their support rate was only 44%, compared to 51% of the opposition party. But a month later, the poll results reversed in that the ruling party had a rate of 53% whereas the opposition party's was 43%.

President, there are more than one example in history. Even in this novel coronavirus epidemic, we can see that parliamentary elections had just been held in the neighbouring South Korea. Likewise, the incumbent President and the ruling party won in the elections because they had handled the epidemic properly. Of course, there were also cases showing just the opposite in history. The handling of the disastrous hurricane Katrina by President BUSH of the United States is precisely an antithesis. This shows that the failure to take symbolic actions properly in crisis management will actually create a negative impact on the governance or support rate of the Government.

President, coming back to Hong Kong and particularly in this epidemic, how have we performed in handling the crisis? As I said earlier, overall speaking, we can see that the decisions of the SAR Government are scientifically-based, and in terms of policies, I think the Government has made adjustments from time to time, and I would say that the Government has done its part. I have made this point earlier on. Having said that, there are still situations worthy of our review, including whether government officials, in the course of their handling of the epidemic, have, as I said earlier, closely connected with the people from an empathetic point of view. Let me cite an example. At the start of the outbreak, there was a shortage of face masks in society. We understand that the shortage was real, but did the Government take any symbolic action that I just mentioned? Did it try to motivate various sectors of the community to take part in donating masks for the old and the weak? Or, in the recent "AEF 2.0", why is it that the green minibuses are omitted? Nobody can give a reason for that. Moreover, regarding some businesses that are forced to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5647 shut down due to this epidemic, such as party rooms, their operators have kept asking me why other industries being forced to shut down are given subsidies whereas they have none at all. Even I myself cannot think of the reason.

Many Members mentioned the unemployed today. This "AEF 2.0" can indeed help many enterprises and keep workers in employment. But for some industries affected by this epidemic, especially those told by the Government to shut down temporarily which I mentioned earlier, if they are forced to shut down, meaning that their workers have to stop working, they will not be able to apply for subsidies to meet 50% of their workers' wages. If the Government provides no assistance to them but only tells them to apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") and if they are ineligible for CSSA, how can members of the community feel that the Government empathized with them?

In this last minute of my speaking time, I must mention that recently the opposition camp has openly declared that they will strive to obtain a majority of seats in the Legislative Council Election in September this year. Then, they will take this advantage to force the SAR Government to yield, or else they would negative all bills and Budgets in future. This year, AEF and the Budget can still be passed with the support of us in the pro-establishment camp, thus enabling us to provide support for enterprises and safeguard jobs in an effort to ride out the difficulties with the people. But if there would be changes in the situation of the Legislative Council in the next term and all the Budgets and proposals like those under discussion today would not be passed, Hong Kong society would really be doomed to mutual destruction thoroughly. Therefore, I urge the people of Hong Kong to think twice.

President, I so submit.

MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): President, although merely two months have passed since the Financial Secretary announced a new Budget on 26 February, quite a number of unforeseeable new circumstances arise in the interim. In particular, the recent outbreak of the epidemic has badly hurt the Hong Kong economy, and virtually no one can be spared. Faced with this dire situation at such a critical juncture, the Financial Secretary has tabled a Budget with a massive deficit, so as to stimulate the economy through a proactive fiscal policy, and respond timely to the aspirations of various social sectors. He has demonstrated a pragmatic attitude of adapting to changing circumstances and a 5648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 governance style of addressing people's needs and concerns, and he has the courage to take responsibility at the same time. He is therefore worthy of our commendation.

The Budget also proposes a series of measures to alleviate the financial pressure of enterprises and members of the public, including tax reduction, rates concession, rental and other subsidies, and a cash payout of $10,000 to each eligible member of the public. Given the economic downturn and uncertain prospects, these relief measures will be conducive to boosting and stabilizing public sentiment, maintaining market confidence, driving consumption, and providing a shot in the arm for the Hong Kong economy. I and the Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong, which I represent, would like to extend our gratitude to the SAR Government for introducing various rounds of highly effective relief measures since the middle of last year, and we also welcome the further introduction in the Budget of a massive package of counter-cyclical measures to assist members of the public and enterprises in overcoming difficulties on various fronts.

It is noteworthy that the Budget devotes quite a number of chapters to analyse the public finances of Hong Kong in the future, saying that Hong Kong will see the largest budget deficit in 2020-2021, and the Operating Account of the Government is expected to record a deficit for five consecutive years starting from this year. The Financial Secretary has also taken a forward-looking perspective and proposed strategic directions and strategies in respect of issues such as developing a diversified economy, creating development opportunities, rebuilding Hong Kong's competitiveness and maintaining the long-term stability of public finances.

The Financial Secretary has mentioned in the Budget speech that "we may need to consider seeking new revenue sources or revising tax rates". In this connection, I have asked the authorities the areas in which the Government is considering seeking new revenue sources, whether the highly controversial general sales tax is included, whether it has considered the levy of a tax on heat-not-burn tobacco products, and whether the rate of betting duty will be raised. Regrettably, the Government has given an unsatisfactory reply, only saying that at this stage it adopts an open attitude towards seeking new revenue sources and revising tax rates while failing to put forward a specific plan.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5649

I certainly understand that formulating the policy on government revenue falls within the remit of the Treasury Branch of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau. Since the Bureau has a new Secretary recently, I hope a new person and a new style will enable the Bureau to expeditiously study new government policies on generating revenue, and give a new reply to the industry, rather than merely saying that it adopts an open attitude. Nevertheless, I believe the Government will uphold the principle of managing public finances prudently and ensure the necessary and proper use of public money. Certainly, I will also support the Government to step up the study on plans for seeking new revenue sources, including investing the Future Fund in projects with high returns or projects in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.

President, over the last year there have been unpredictable changes in the international situation. As Hong Kong is an important financial centre of our country and also a commercial city orientating towards the international community, how can it be unaffected by major changes of the world these days? Faced with ever-changing internal and external circumstances, the SAR Government should introduce proper corresponding measures in its annual Budgets. Not only must risks be prevented, but wise strategies must also be introduced to cope with and overcome risks and challenges. Regarding supporting enterprises and safeguarding jobs in particular, further measures must be introduced expeditiously, and any measures for boosting the economy and relieving people's burden warrant no waiting and delay.

The first quarter of this year has just ended, and we can easily see, after a simple computation, that under the double whammy of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus and a global financial crisis, the Hong Kong economy is entering recession. At the same time, businesses are facing great operating difficulties, and the unemployment rate has risen to a frightening level. Fortunately, the SAR Government has long been adhered to the principle of managing public finances prudently to ensure the robust financial position of Hong Kong, and we have also accumulated abundant fiscal reserves by saving for a rainy day. As indicated by the Financial Secretary when delivering the Budget in February, "Our current fiscal reserves of about $1,100 billion enable us to roll out special measures amid the prevailing economic downturn, such as paying out cash." Nowadays, all industries in Hong Kong are languishing, and many small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") are facing the problem of capital chain rupture, but the Government is ready to accept good advice and accepted the proposal of the 5650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") by increasing the total guarantee commitment of the Special 100% Loan Guarantee under the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme to HK$50 billion, increasing the maximum loan amount per enterprise to HK$4 million, and extending the effective period of the principal payment holiday arrangement from 6 months to 12 months. However, as helping someone to cope with an emergency is like quenching a fire, I hope that the Government will expedite the vetting and approval process, so that the industry will not have to wait for too long. At the same time, the Government should also urge banks to make special arrangements for special cases, and stay with the industrial and commercial sectors and SMEs through thick and thin.

In addition, I would like to point out that despite the introduction of various concessionary measures in the Budget, it is not sure whether every company can benefit, and the amounts involved are not that large. The Government has introduced a loan guarantee scheme, but, as "money borrowed must be repaid", the help rendered is limited after all. Nowadays what is most important for SMEs is cash flow. There are voices in society that the Government should expeditiously revoke the harsh measures targeting the housing market, so as to avoid upheavals in the economy. If the Government is concerned about the impact of a full revocation of the harsh measures on the public, it can actually consider and discuss the possibility of revoking harsh measures targeting industrial and commercial properties other than residential properties. This will help increase the revenue of the Government, and make available another self-help option to the industrial and commercial sectors to cash out.

President, the Financial Secretary has stated in the Budget that the Government will provide the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation with funding for converting an old factory in the Yuen Long Industrial Estate into a Microelectronics Centre to provide modern manufacturing facilities. In terms of re-industrialization, however, the Government has yet to devised a comprehensive policy blueprint. I hereby urge the Government again to expedite the relevant work of the Committee on Innovation, Technology and Re-industrialization. Apart from the innovation and technology industries, it should also raise the representation of persons who have background in traditional manufacturing industries with a competitive edge and value-added potentials in the Committee, and strengthen the functions of the policy-making, consultation and high-level coordination mechanism, so as to enhance the top-down design and cross-disciplinary collaboration. I also hope that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5651

$2 billion Re-industrialization Funding Scheme proposed in the Budget can be implemented as soon as possible, rather than being merely empty talk, so as to inject new momentum to reboot the industries of Hong Kong.

Earlier the supply of masks in Hong Kong was very tight, and their prices were also very expensive. Some manufacturers have manifested their market acumen, walked ahead of the Government, and set eyes on the business opportunity of mask production by introducing automated production lines and conducting research on new types of masks. While many members of the community think that mask production is an extremely low-end manufacturing industry, masks can actually be a type of high-end technology products. For example, the government-funded Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel succeeded in developing reusable masks and won a prize at the International Exhibition of Inventions of Geneva. The Nano and Advanced Materials Institute Limited has also developed nano masks, and such breathable protective masks can filter bacteria and viruses more effectively. These latest cases of re-industrialization of Hong Kong are indeed worthy of our reference.

Re-industrialization is very important to our economic prospects, and even more important to our fiscal revenue. It is also conducive to enhancing the anti-epidemic capability of Hong Kong. As evident from the experience of the Mainland, as long as smart production lines are established, all materials and equipment will not need to be purchased from outside. As soon as a mobilization order is issued, medical supplies urgently needed by society can be incessantly produced.

Let us take a look at Hong Kong's competitor, Singapore. Its manufacturing industry still accounts for 20% of its GDP. Apart from bringing about economic growth, industrialization is also conducive to addressing unexpected needs. For this reason, both the Government and the industry should take the opportunity of mask production this time around to fully promote Hong Kong's re-industrialization, and step up the planning of the layout of emerging industries such as biotechnology and health care, so as to increase the fiscal revenue contributed by Hong Kong enterprises to the SAR Government.

The outbreak of the novel coronavirus has affected the entire world. Not only have factories on the Mainland not fully resumed production, but also supplies from other regions have not arrived at factories on time due to the problem of transportation. This has affected the livelihood of Hong Kong manufacturers and has a direct bearing on the amounts of taxes paid by the public 5652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 and Hong Kong's fiscal revenue. In view of this, BPA has pointed out when meeting with the Financial Secretary that some manufacturers have invested in designing and producing semi-finished products, but because supplies have been hindered or logistics have yet to be fully resumed at the time of the delivery of goods, customers have cut their orders or even taken action against the manufacturers for payment recovery, and thus the manufacturers have encountered serious cash flow problems.

Given the close economic ties between Hong Kong and the Mainland, many manufacturers who have factories on the Mainland and related industries such as trade and logistics have particularly been adversely affected in terms of business operation and management. Regrettably, we did not see the provision of targeted support for the manufacturing industry by the Government in the Budget. As regards the loan-related measures I mentioned just now, my point is likewise "money borrowed must be repaid". We know that the Government has assisted us in this regard, but the manufacturing industry can by no means benefit from the subsidies of $80,000 or $200,000 provided directly for the retail industry or the catering industry.

In addition, many members of the industry have relayed to me that since Hong Kong and the Mainland have both implemented very strict quarantine measures, they must abide by a 14-day quarantine order each time upon entering or leaving Hong Kong, thus seriously affecting business activities in Hong Kong. I certainly understand that the border control and quarantine measures are well-intentioned, and are very effective as we see that the number of confirmed cases in the past several days is only in the single digits. I appreciate the anti-epidemic work of the Government. However, President, I would like to point out that from 23 January 2020, when the Department of Health recorded the first confirmed case, to 19 April 2020―there was no confirmed case on 20 April―Hong Kong recorded a total number of 1 026 confirmed cases, of which 627 were imported cases, and most patients had travel history and were overseas students who had returned to Hong Kong. In order to strengthen my argument in this regard, I have looked through government records and made a summary. I have found out that since 8 February, of those who have returned to Hong Kong from the Mainland and were subject to the home-quarantine requirement, not a single person has been confirmed to have contracted the novel coronavirus pneumonia. I stress again that this is the figure of people who have returned to Hong Kong from the Mainland through the Shenzhen Bay Checkpoint LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5653 on land. Not a single person has been infected. Since February, some 80 000 people have entered Hong Kong through that checkpoint, or an average of only some 1 000 people have done so each day, which is a small figure. On this basis, I urge the Government to immediately relax the quarantine requirement on the executives and management of enterprises, who are cross-border commuters, to a limited extent as appropriate, so that Hong Kong manufacturers can continue with their operation.

President, when commenting on the Budget, many of my colleagues accuse the Government of being "tight-fisted for benevolent causes but lavish on unworthy causes". I do not very much agree with this. Since the outbreak of the disease, regardless of whether we are talking about the unprecedented cash payout of $10,000 to each member of the public, or the expeditious introduction of the first or second round of Anti-epidemic Fund, the Government has been generous in each case, and it has even gone so far as to spend beyond its means despite the pressure of significantly raising budget deficits in the coming years, so as to save the economy and protect people's livelihood. The move made by the Government in this respect certainly deserves our recognition.

However, be it the Budget or the Anti-epidemic Fund, it is basically unrealistic for us to seek perfection as loopholes are bound to exist. Even though there are loopholes, it is not a matter of concern as long as they are plugged expeditiously by way of introducing the third round of relief measures to help those industries which have not been taken care of, such as the manufacturing industry I just mentioned. It would be most desirable if further support measures could be provided for individual industries that have already received assistance.

As indicated by the Financial Secretary in the Budget Speech, no matter what our backgrounds, beliefs and aspirations are, we all cherish and love Hong Kong. I hope that the Financial Secretary can strive to connect with various social sectors and draw on collective wisdom, so as to enable all industries to expeditiously return to the right track and tide them over this difficult period.

With these remarks, President, I support the passage of the Appropriation Bill 2020.

5654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, due to the demonstrations arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments last year and the outbreak of the novel coronavirus this year, the Hong Kong economy has been badly hurt and people are living a hard life. The Budget we are now discussing is to address people's pressing needs and the difficulty they faced. Apart from the exceptionally large amount of expenditure this year, the Government will also hand out $10,000 cash to each member of the public, with the hope of addressing the needs of people who are in misery. We would like to render our support in this regard. We also hope that the Budget can be passed as soon as possible, and the measures proposed can be implemented by the Government and benefit members of the public as soon as possible.

That said, I would like to focus on talking about land development today, for the reason that I have particularly followed up policies and work in this area. Speaking of the novel coronavirus pneumonia, people are likely, in many cases, to compare it with the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome ("SARS") in 2003. But apart from being the year when SARS broke out, 2003 was also a turning point in the housing policy of Hong Kong. I think the harm caused by the volte-face of our housing and land policies back then has probably been severer than that caused by SARS. It has resulted in a shortage of land and failure to allocate public housing flats to people nowadays. There is a land shortfall of over 1 000 hectares.

Members must remember that not only did the Government formally decide in 2003 to cease the production of Home Ownership Scheme flats and halt all regular land auctions, but it also stopped land formation. Furthermore, Kwu Tung North, Fanling North and Hung Shui Kiu development plans that had been undertaken for some 20 years were also frozen at that time, and fortunately all these plans have been passed now. These days, given the outbreak of the novel coronavirus pneumonia worldwide, the economic prospects in the coming one or two years will, I believe, not be that promising. According to the assessments of many economic analyses, the economy will be worse than that at the time of SARS, and the time of recovery will likewise be longer than that at the time of SARS. However, land development is a long-term ongoing task, and I wonder whether there can be a turning point these days. While we ceased the production of housing flats following SARS years ago, can there be a turning point from this day? In other words, we should catch up today so that the housing and land development can cater to the needs of Hong Kong people, rather LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5655 than, as we did back then, promote "big market, small government", exit the housing market or cease land formation due to market conditions and housing price fluctuations in a certain period. Otherwise I am afraid we will only repeat past mistakes. I believe our generation or our next generation has already been affected, and if the policy is stuck here, harm may possibly be caused to the next generation of our next generation.

However, I actually have confidence in the Financial Secretary's determination to develop land, for when he served as the Secretary for Development, he abolished the Application List system in 2013 to resume the Government-initiated sale mechanism. This indicated that the Government had regained the control of land supply. In 2013-2014, the Government put on sale a large number of sites in a row, and these sites were sufficient for producing 13 000 flats, which represented 70% of the 18 000 new flats supplied in the same period. In 2016-2017, the last year when he served as the Secretary for Development, the sites sold were even sufficient for supplying 14 000 flats, the largest supply since 2003. For this reason, I have absolute trust in the leadership of the Financial Secretary. Since he could deliver such results when he was the Secretary for Development years back, I have greater expectations on him when he is the Financial Secretary now. I hope that the Government can do more when land supply is under its control.

Regrettably, we have seen that over the three consecutive years from 2017-2018 to 2019-2020, the Government has considerably slowed down the pace of land sales, supplying an average of only some 6 000 flats each year, representing only one third of the supply target of the Long Term Housing Strategy. The Financial Secretary may later reply as to whether the Government is still in control of land supply as it did years ago. I believe that if the Government has the will, it must have the power and edge to do so. I hope the Government can set its mind on this.

In fact, regarding the concept of money in our discussion of the Budget, apart from focusing on the amounts, we are likely, in many cases, to talk about sayings such as "one has to spend a little to earn more" or metaphors such as "time is money". Members can well imagine that if we do not spend more money on regaining the control of land supply or producing more flats, we will only end up focusing on value for money, which the Government is most accustomed to adopting. When it comes to value for money, however, only explicit costs are taken account of, while social costs or time spent are largely 5656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 disregarded. For this reason, value for money may instead inhibit civil servants from thinking out of the box to adopt a new fiscal philosophy or remove barriers.

Since the Financial Secretary is present, I would like to share memories of the past with him today. If he still remembers, he should know that when he was the Secretary for Development, he had the intention of developing North East New Territories. He should remember that in a place known as Sheung Shui Wai in the North District, he once held a large outdoor consultation meeting, which was attended by many people. Regrettably, when the briefing was about to finish, chaos occurred as a person hurled a water bottle at the podium only for venting his discontent with the compensation system of the Government.

In fact, regarding the compensation system or the resettlement system, people were not concerned about whether the Government had the money for compensation or resettlement, but whether they could, following land resumption, still live in contentment, or, to be exact, whether they could be allocated public housing flats. It was as simple as that. It was not about the classification of compensation zone A, B or C in land resumption. The problem dragged on for a long time, but, as far as I know, the Financial Secretary was working hard. The Development Bureau and the Transport and Housing Bureau spent a lot of time studying whether squatter residents affected by land resumption could be allocated public housing flats without being subject to any asset and income test. In the end, thanks to the support from the Chief Executive, the Financial Secretary and the Director of Bureau, the various sides eventually were able to coordinate the allocation of public housing flats to squatter residents without any asset and income test.

What was the ultimate outcome? The North East New Territories development plan was successfully passed by the Legislative Council. As we could see, while several years ago people vented their discontent with the plan by hurling water bottles and staging sporadic protests, it was applauded and supported by many people on the day when the relevant motion was passed. People did not focus on whether the amounts of compensation from the Government would increase progressively. There were no changes to the amounts of compensation, only that the policy was relaxed and they were allocated public housing flats. This demonstrated coordination among government departments. I think that this idea may not be applicable to the Budget, but I would like to tell the Government that Hong Kong is now running idle and at a standstill not because of whether or not the Hong Kong Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5657 has adequate fiscal reserves or the will to allocate funding, but because of undesirable government policies or coordination among government departments.

As I said just now, the Government focuses on the concept of value for money and merely pays attention to explicit costs. It has not occurred to the Government that if it spends more money to address existing problems, the time so saved can help save more money. Had the Government coordinated the North East New Territories development plan several years ago, spent more money or relaxed the policy to allow for the allocation of public housing flats to people without any asset test, housing arrangements would have been made for them earlier. If the land in North East New Territories could facilitate the early supply of housing to the public, how much cost can Hong Kong society save? As far as the new fiscal philosophy is concerned, I think the Government should consider whether it should take value for money as the only yardstick for managing public or government finances.

Apart from the example above, I would also like to give a new example to praise the Government for its performance recently. It has actually thought out of the box. Faced with the outbreak of the novel coronavirus pneumonia, it was difficult to identify premises to be used as quarantine facilities, but the Government acted decisively and identified several contractors to swiftly produce 120 separate quarantine units within 28 days. This batch of units was modelled on the 20-ft standard containers, and components of the units were prefabricated in factories. This demonstrates that the Government is capable of producing 120 quarantine units within only 28 days. Evidently, it is not a question of capability but one of readiness on the part of the Government. However, I cannot put all the blame on the Government for its inaction, for when it had completed these 120 units and planned to produce more, it was immediately besieged by the opposition. Questions were put to it as to why it had failed to act in accordance with procedures and only chosen a certain contractor. I know that the Government is faced with great pressure, but my point is extraordinary things must be done at extraordinary times. Faced with the shortage of quarantine units amidst the outbreak of the novel coronavirus pneumonia, the Government must take special means if it wants to develop quarantine centres to cope with the outbreak. Certainly, I am not saying that the Government can break the law, but if it can compress certain process, I will certainly render my support. In the future, when faced with cardinal issues of right and wrong or urgent problems, the Government should, I think, also act with such speed and determination.

5658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

In this case, except for the derision from the opposition, were there severe criticisms in society when the Government identified contractors to swiftly produce 120 separate quarantine units and some other units subsequently? I believe the number of proponents is absolutely larger than the number of detractors. People generally believe the Government has been doing a good job. I also hope this can serve as an exemplar. The Government says that a large number of transitional housing units need to be produced before reaching the housing supply target. In fact, we have constantly advised the Government to, apart from considering corporation with non-governmental organizations, take the lead in studying the use of existing idle or abandoned land for developing more transitional housing units with the same speed, procedure and attitude towards oversight as seen this time around, so that the Government can really make up for lost time and use the relevant sites to develop permanent housing. Before the completion of permanent housing units, the Government can produce more transitional housing units for accommodating members of the public. I hope the Government can accept this piece of advice.

My speaking time is limited. In fact, in this speech I have most wanted to talk about the identification of land and the two examples given by me. Civil servants of Hong Kong have long been highly efficient and acted in accordance with procedures. I believe this is still recognized by the world. But the problem is as follows. In the past the Government would exercise discretion which allowed it to expedite the handling of certain matters while at the same time acting in accordance with procedures. Nowadays, however, the Government seems to only focus on procedures while failing to exercise discretion, and no one, whether he be a Director of Bureau, a Secretary of Department or the Financial Secretary, is courageous enough to call the shots. It merely places emphasis on procedures, with specific departments dealing with specific matters, or only focusing on value-for-money audits conducted by the Audit Commission. I would like to point out that the Government has lagged far behind other regions or places in terms of efficiency. Simply in the case of nearby Macao, from so many civil servants of Macao whom I have approached, I realize that civil servants of Macao are very committed, and they are also able to formulate many policies because they are not subject to too many restraints. I hope the Financial Secretary can truly apply a new fiscal philosophy, join hands with Hong Kong civil servants to break out of the box, and place emphasis on efficiency while also following procedures. The reason is that Hong Kong must make up for lost time, particularly in the areas of housing development, technology, or innovation and technology.

I so submit. Thank you.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5659

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I think to the Financial Secretary or the majority of Hong Kong people, they do not care much about the Budget debate held every year or the Budget this year. There are three reasons for it. First, the public feel that the Budget has little to do with them. To people who are watching the live broadcast of this meeting or who still care to pay attention to meetings of the Legislative Council, I think their feeling is that compared with the two rounds of measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund, the Budget does not have much to do with them. This may be because the measures proposed cannot address the pressing needs. The cash payout of $10,000 proposed in the Budget may not be disbursed to the public even next year. So tell me, why should they care about it?

Besides, regarding the main points of my speech, I think in these two days of Budget debate, there are only two topics―No, I can barely say that there are three topics. First, the cost and time required for the disbursement of the $10,000 cash payout; second, how the increase of the "military spending" of the Police Force is calculated; and third, Members' arguments on the position stated recently by the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council on the incident of Mr Dennis KWOK. I will leave aside the third topic for the time being.

With regard to the Budget, members of the public are indifferent to it and this, I can understand. A budget is supposed to materialize the measures proposed in the Policy Address or the policy administration of each term of Government, especially as the Carrie LAM regime has already entered its mid-term and in other words, it is half way through the implementation of the four-year or five-year plan put forward by her. I have to point out in particular that after 2010, Hong Kong has obviously been incorporated into the overall national plan of Mainland China. From the angle of the positioning or position of Hong Kong, it seems that we should keep an interest in the budget delivered every year. But this year's Budget may happen to be formulated for the purpose of the epidemic, and the stark reality is that―let me say to the Financial Secretary that I do not mean to offend him―Members have only confined their discussion on the entire Budget to whether or not $10,000 would be handed out and how it would be disbursed. Actually the question of whether or not $10,000 would be disbursed should require no further discussion. The focus of the entire Budget debate is just how the $10,000 would be disbursed and why the Police Force should need a large amount of provisions. What is there to discuss when the contents are so sketchy and shallow?

5660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

If I must give my comments, I can make only two points. The question under discussion is not whether or not $10,000 should be disbursed. All political parties have focused on how it should be disbursed in their discussion. How can Members of the pro-establishment camp―Mr MA Fung-kwok and Mr Paul TSE are in the Chamber now―support and demand the handing out of a universal cash payout by the Government? Does the Financial Secretary understand the implication of their doing so? Why do we Members in the opposition camp, especially Members whose position is clearly defined, demand that the Financial Secretary should provide a cash payout? It is because demanding a cash payout represents our denial of the ruling regime. The opposition camp holds that the Government has neither the mandate nor ability to redistribute social resources. As such, how could it be the case that the pro-establishment camp supports the Financial Secretary in giving a cash payout and yet the pro-establishment camp is not given a dressing down by the Financial Secretary?

President, never have I thought that I would be the one making this point. It seems that I have turned into a member of the pro-establishment camp, and this is really crazy. This is not right. This really is not right. In supporting the disbursement of $10,000, the pro-establishment camp is making a denial of the Carrie LAM regime. Actually there is nothing wrong with it. Carrie LAM will be ousted and the Financial Secretary may probably hide a snigger underneath his mask. This may be the case. But they, being the pro-establishment camp, actually cannot demand the setting up of a regular mechanism for handing out cash by the Government. My buddy, it is treacherous to put up such a demand.

A budget is the plan on the use of public finance. The pro-establishment camp should consider it from the angle of how Hong Kong should be developed and such consideration should be premised on their belief that this regime has the mandate and ability to redistribute resources. It has never occurred to me that the pro-establishment Members in the Chamber now―of course, Mr MA Fung-kwok and Mr Paul TSE have not spoken yet, and I do not know their positions―would call on the Government to hand out cash (the Anti-epidemic Fund is a different matter). Are they in any way different from Mr CHAN Chi-chuen when they demand the handing out of $10,000? Do Members see this point? Do officials get it?

This is denial of the Government. To put it plainly, in demanding the $10,000 cash payout, they are defying their superiors. It means that they want to disband the Government, and they question why the Government should keep so LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5661 much money because the Government is incompetent, lacking in vision and knowledge, and weak in will and power, so the Government should return the money to the people. The disbursement of the $10,000 cash payout is to return money to the people. How can the pro-establishment camp support it? So, let us keep an eye on the voting results, and I think from the position of the pro-establishment camp, it is necessary to settle the scores with Members who cast a supporting vote.

Besides, concerning the discussion on police violence or police powers, actually there has been no changes in the situation since I was elected in 2016. The kernel of the discussion is that a ruling regime not elected by universal suffrage is autocratic in nature. This regime was open and liberal in form before 1997 purely because of some administrative structures, certain police regulations or certain code of ethics, so to speak. However, the ruling regime need not pretend to be "gentleman" now and so, they beat people as they like and use pepper spray on the dissidents the moment they start to speak. It no longer needs to be open and liberal, and all it needs to do is to be autocratic. As a result, police violence has been discussed for four years from 2016 to 2020, and I am wearied of it. Why? Members may refer to my opening remarks for the reason. At this juncture today, in the view of the Financial Secretary or perhaps to members of the public or other officials, what advice would they like me to give them in my capacity as an elected representative? Honestly I really do not know how to give any advice. I wonder if Members have read the news. Had the Financial Secretary done some rethinking this week, he should have thought about how we can make use of what we have learned for the past few decades to understand the changes in the world. KIM Jong-un may be critically ill, and there is a chance for the unification of South Korea and North Korea to be achieved. Oil futures can fall to negative prices, which is unprecedented in history. Obviously it is the epidemic that has promoted the whole world to decouple from China. They are not separating from China but decoupling from China. Last year, I asked several oral questions on the China-United States trade war in a row. This topic is already outdated, and the China-United States relations have taken the cold war's pattern now. But the public think that the trade war does not have a lot to do with them. Why? It is because the trade war involves issues such as quota, and so on, but the world economy has come to a halt now. Some people may say that the United States imposed higher tariffs on China because of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act or this and that reason relating to Hong Kong, but the economy has already come to a standstill.

5662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

This week, if I were the Financial Secretary, what would I have in mind when looking at this Budget? Financial Secretary, what is on your mind? Do you think about when you or the Government will carry out a reshuffling? Is this what you have been thinking about? Let me tell the many colleagues in the Chamber that if the Financial Secretary expects us to give a response as elected representatives are supposed to do, I can put forward for discussion those issues over which I criticized the Police three years ago. I can also tell the Financial Secretary to set up a committee on basic wages, just as the pro-establishment camp suggested. I can say that as the Government records a fiscal surplus every year, it should put it to good use to ensure that people out of jobs are given an allowance to meet their basic living expenses. I already made these proposals two years ago. But in view of what happened this week, I must say that I am unable to put forward some concrete views for my supporters, my like-minded fellows, and Hongkongers who still regard Hong Kong as their home. I can only appeal to them to stay positive, eat well and be happy. People who are in a meeting can watch Sam's singing performance, and people attending a meeting here in the Chamber can play video games. But do not put the camera on me.

President, what exactly are the public expectations for this Budget? Let me make a brief introduction. Leo GOODSTADT has written a book about Hong Kong, entitled A City Mismanaged: Hong Kong's Struggle for Survival. The last chapter of the book is related to the budget―President, do not stop me for straying away from the question―and he said that actually Hong Kong has a feature for the past several decades―the Financial Secretary must know it very well―and that is, Hong Kong has been offshore, or stayed away from Mainland China with a separation between Hong Kong and China being implemented carefully. However, the past Chief Executives had congenital deficiency or the mentality of fawning on the Communist Party of China. He wrote, "The most serious weakness of Chief Executives has been an inability to comprehend the 'political' risk for Hong Kong firms when doing business on the Mainland." Of course, in terms of timing, this line refers to the period that begins from the reform and opening up of China and ends at the Mainland/Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement, or CEPA. In other words, all the Chief Executives, namely, TUNG Chee-hwa, Donald TSANG, LEUNG Chun-ying and Carrie LAM, thought that Hong Kong would have another opportunity or a second chance, so to speak. Examples are the Lantau Tomorrow Vision, how Hong Kong can become a window of the Greater Bay Area under State planning, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5663 and so on and so forth; and there was also the "9+2" cities as proposed previously. I wonder if Members can recall them.

This line in his book has actually summed up the upheavals spanning the greater part of last year. "The most serious weakness of Chief Executives has been an inability to comprehend the 'political' risk for Hong Kong firms when doing business on the Mainland." What does it mean? It means that the Chief Executives have not the least intention to defend the business environment in Hong Kong. The system of private property rights is a salient point of the Basic Law, and in the words of Leo GOODSTADT, it is "offshore" in economics. He has made a lot of observations on the Basic Law. I do not wish to link this with politics or talk about how Hong Kong should defend "one country, two systems", the system of private property rights and human rights. I do not wish to talk about these things. At this juncture, let me ask the Financial Secretary this: Why is it that from the speeches of so many Members from the business sector and functional constituencies ("FC")―of course I support the abolition of FCs―we can clearly tell that they are worried? Their worries actually do not purely stem from the general situation around the world, that is, the economic volatilities, or their own losses, but the fact that, as we have noticed, the feature of Hong Kong staying offshore, so to speak, has completely vanished this year.

Let me briefly talk about the implications. The amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance is meant to directly place Hong Kong in a position in the legal system where there can be intervention from Mainland China. Moreover, judging from the clear pattern of the China-United States trade war now, when countries worldwide have decoupled from China, the economic mode of "front shop and back plant", or the so-called Hong Kong mode, on which Hong Kong has relied for development over the past three decades, will cease to exist. The manufacturing industry or the re-export business can only remain stagnant. Of the four pillar industries, only the financial services industry is not affected. Why? During this period of time, we have come to realize that the financial services industry is no longer an industry of Hong Kong. Tourism, trading and logistics, as well as professional and producer services have all gone, and what is more, the world is going to isolate China in future, so what can Hong Kong do? Some people are now telling the United States to punish Hong Kong. Hong Kong is expected to lose its status as a separate customs territory. Then what is the way forward for Hongkongers? My conclusion is: Let us all eat well (The buzzer sounded) … and sleep tight.

5664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

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

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, to address the economic downturn arising from the social riots last year and the novel coronavirus epidemic, the Financial Secretary rolled out counter-cyclical measures of a massive scale in the Budget with a view to "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs, stimulating the economy and relieving people's burden". Apart from the usual measures of reduction of rates, salaries tax and profits tax, "double payment" for recipients of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance and "fruit grant", and paying the rent for tenants of public rental units, the Government has also responded to social aspirations by the disbursement of $10,000 to each permanent resident aged 18 or above.

Basically, I support this kind of measures. I further hope that the Budget can be passed expeditiously so that these relief measures can be implemented as soon as possible. Among them, the $10,000 cash handout is practically needed by many families. It can serve as an emergency fund to resolve the financial difficulties they are facing right now.

Last year, the general environment of the China-United States trade war and the social riots arising from the incidents of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments since June had already led to the progressive decline of Hong Kong's economy. Society was exhausted in coping with the situation. For this reason, from August to October last year, the Government successively launched four rounds of relief measures. Yet regrettably, hardly had one upheaval subsided when another occurred. At the beginning of the year, novel coronavirus broke out, making even more profound and extensive impacts. Not a single industry or stratum could be left intact. Responding swiftly, in mid-February the Government introduced the first round of the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") in the sum of $30 billion, and further put forward in the Budget a corresponding proposal costing $120 billion to "support enterprises and safeguard jobs". Recently, in response to the persistent epidemic, the second round of the AEF totalling $137.5 billion was launched. After calculation, it is estimated that the fiscal deficit in 2020-2021 will increase from the original forecast of $139.1 billion to $276.6, accounting for nearly 10% of the Gross Domestic Product.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5665

Owing to the economic downturn, revenue from land sales and taxes has decreased. As clearly stated by the Financial Secretary, it is highly possible that the fiscal deficit will expand to $300 billion this year. Undeniably, the Special Administrative Region Government has always upheld the principle of managing public finances with prudence. Over the past 23 years since the reunification, only five financial years have recorded a deficit apart from last year, including the year of 2002-2003 and the year of 2003-2004 which respectively saw a deficit of $61.7 billion and $40.1 billion due to the outbreak of SARS.

President, the fatality rate of the novel coronavirus pneumonia in Hong Kong is relatively low, but it has a relatively long incubation period and is highly transmissible. To prevent the spread of the virus and the health care system from being overloaded, which will cause the epidemic to go out of control, it is necessary for the Government to adopt anti-epidemic measures stricter than those adopted during the SARS period. Measures including tightening immigration control, closure of venues under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department and premises such as cinemas and fitness centres, implementing the order to prohibit group gatherings and promoting social distancing are unprecedented. All school classes in Hong Kong have been suspended for more than three months. The date for school resumption remains uncertain. The various anti-epidemic measures are certainly necessary, but the blow to Hong Kong's economic activities, obstruction to the business operation of enterprises and impact on people's living are extremely serious.

Furthermore, the novel coronavirus has spread rampantly worldwide. To control the epidemic, many countries adopted strict anti-epidemic measures. Economic activities around the world almost came to a standstill. It is expected that gradual recovery will take a long period. The chance of a V-shaped rebound in the local economy is slim. According to the latest figures, Hong Kong's unemployment rate in the first quarter has risen to 4.5%, hitting a record high in nine years. The aggregate unemployment rate in stricken areas such as retail, accommodation and food services sectors has surged to 6.8%, and it is estimated that the upward trend will continue.

As stated by the Chief Executive, the blow to Hong Kong from the epidemic is unprecedented. Extraordinary measures are needed to cope with exceptional circumstances. For this reason, a budget deficit nearing $300 billion was formulated to cope with the present plight. It is indeed reasonable. However, in my view, such money must be spent properly to produce the 5666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 intended effects to relieve people's burden and maintain the economic impetus in society.

President, of course it is vitally important to provide support for every member of the public and every enterprise affected in handling the current epidemic. The second round of AEF introduced by the Government lately has addressed the requests made by me and members of many industries, providing anti-epidemic support for various professions and sectors. I believe it can largely alleviate the problems. However, we cannot neglect the local cultural and arts sector, sports sector and creative industry which are also stricken areas being hit severely. The support measures need to be expanded and strengthened, particularly since some industry members who cannot benefit from the two rounds of AEF are still in need of urgent assistance. The Government must further help those who have been missed out without delay.

President, the physical presentation ceremony of the Hong Kong Film Awards has been cancelled because of the epidemic. This year, 17 Hong Kong films contest for the awards. The announcement of the results is eagerly anticipated. However, looking ahead, we wonder how many Hong Kong films can contest for the film awards next year. This has caused us grave concern. The Hong Kong film industry has been impacted by the issue of "dual contract" on the Mainland the year before and suffered from the riots last year. Now can it tide over the epidemic and retain a group of professional production staff? This is also worrying. I am absolutely not raising any alarmist talk.

Recently, members of the film industry and I have met with the media. Representatives of the industry said that to their knowledge, so far there are only three movies planned to be filmed this year. The number is only one tenth of that last year. Many practitioners are forced to temporarily switch to another profession to make a living, and a lot of them may not come back. Back then, when the Government set up the Film Development Fund and the Hong Kong Film Development Council, the objective was to nurture talents working on and behind the stage and raise the production output and quality, in the hope that Hong Kong films can have sustainable development. I have served as Chairman of the Hong Kong Film Development Council for six years. Last year, the Government further injected $1 billion to show its determination in enhancing support. However, the outbreak of the epidemic has dealt a great blow to the normal operation of the industry. The AEF launched by the Government provides support for the cinema industry, but no measure has been put in place LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5667 for the industrial chain of the film production industry. I made an urgent proposal that the Government should mobilize the Fund to render support, but the Government did not accept it on the grounds that such an act would deviate from the original intention of the Fund. As the saying goes, "With the skin gone, to what can the hair adhere?" If the Government ignores the current difficulties of the industry or sits with folded arms, it will lead to wastage of talents. Then all the earlier efforts may come to nought.

President, what is faced by the film industry is only a small part of the problem. In fact, in the sports, performing arts, culture and publication sector represented by me, owing to the characteristics of the sector, a large number of practitioners are freelancers, that means the so-called self-employed persons. Many of them joined the sector with enthusiasm, devoting their youth, making continuous efforts to upgrade and train themselves, giving play to their strengths on different stages and making a lot of contributions to Hong Kong. Among them, there are film workers devoted to the dream workshop, arts workers engaged in various types of performing arts and visual arts, as well as sports, music and dance instructors and coaches who keep working quietly and assiduously. Yet regrettably, owing to their capacity as self-employed persons and flexible job nature, this time they can only benefit from the $10,000 disbursed to all members of the public, and some of them can apply for the financial assistance of $7,500.

In the wake of closure of venues and school suspension, now some of them, to maintain their livelihood, even have to give up their own profession, abandon their dreams and switch to such jobs as working at construction sites, delivering food, sewing face masks and washing cars. This group of people are already more fortunate because there are also a considerable number of practitioners who cannot find another job shortly. Living from hand to mouth, they have to exhaust their savings. Some may have to struggle for seven months until the next school year commences. They can hardly live on. Moreover, a large number of cultural and sports venues and organizations in the private sector, such as musical instrument shops, music rooms, rehearsal rooms and sports clubs, barely manage to hang on in dire straits.

President, we have injected $50 billion and precious land resources for the construction of the West Kowloon Cultural District, and spent $30 billion on the construction of the Kai Tak Sports Park. These are important infrastructure. Yet in the development of the cultural, creative and sports industries, talent is the 5668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 soul of the whole industry. The Government must do its best to support these people who are the mainstay of the industries to prevent wastage. Otherwise, it will be difficult for the hardware to give play to its functions. It will also be hard for our cultural and creative industries and sports to continue to develop healthily in Hong Kong.

Hence, I urge the Government to actively consider the launch of the third round of AEF, including the establishment of a separate scheme to provide financial assistance to practitioners who do not have any Mandatory Provident Fund account. Moreover, it should raise the amount of subsidies granted to practitioners in the first and second rounds of the Fund. The Government should also draw reference from the catering and retail sectors and provide one-off subsidies for private organizations in the arts sector, sports sector and creative industry. Moreover, many arts groups have undertaken school tour projects organized by various public departments or organizations, of which almost 1 000 performances have to be fully cancelled owing to school suspension. The Government should request and help the organizations concerned to reasonably share the risks and losses caused by the epidemic and make compensation.

President, the top priority of the Government is to save the entire cultural, arts and sports sectors and the creative industry amid the epidemic. Meanwhile, the Government cannot merely think of the present in financial management. Now it should make full preparations so that after the epidemic, it can promote expeditious recovery in society and support all industries and sectors in taking off again. In particular, while the epidemic still persists, many planned projects cannot commence on schedule, and some regular operations have to be suspended too. For this reason, some expenses originally budgeted by the Government have not yet been used. How to utilize such resources and inject additional ones to facilitate social recovery after the epidemic is a question which should be immediately considered by the Government. The Budget did not address this aspect. I can understand it because we are still dealing with the epidemic. However, the Government must make timely preparations and take immediate action after the epidemic.

President, let me cite the example of the cultural and creative industries again. Over the past several months, cultural, arts and performing arts activities have come to a halt, and cinemas have also been closed for some time. After the epidemic has subsided, what measures will the Government put in place to restore consumer sentiment and confidence, and encourage people to participate in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5669 cultural and arts activities? Another example is that in the wake of the previous social turmoil and epidemic situation, local cultural and performing arts groups have already stopped organizing any events for months and lost their income, but the industries still have to maintain operation. Survival is just not easy. Even after the epidemic is over, the industries may not be able to organize any events again due to cash flow problems. In this connection, how will the Government provide support? Similarly, in the sports sector, many large-, medium- and small-scale sports events need to be suspended one after another because of the epidemic. After the epidemic, how will the Government help sports organizations to reorganize events? How will it encourage public engagement and enhance the overall social atmosphere? These warrant the Government's consideration. I hope the Government can expeditiously communicate with the industries to look into their needs, reserve sufficient resources and make proper preparations for their recovery after the epidemic. It should also incentivize them to make proactive efforts to help restore the overall atmosphere.

At the same time, President, the Budget mentioned the need to maintain the growth and vibrancy of the economy and identify new areas of economic growth. But currently, two new areas of economic growth did not receive much attention from the Government. One of them is the cultural and creative industries. This year, the Budget merely played the same old tune and kept repeating the past work, lacking a general strategy and foresight for the development of the industries. The second one is the sports industry. This time the epidemic has reflected that the number of people engaged in sports-related work in Hong Kong is not small. The number of sports coaches alone is nearly 20 000. Besides, quite a number of people are engaged in events planning and sports administrative work. Some of them work under the Government's subvention framework, while a number of them engage in commercial operation. Hence, it is absolutely not true that sports have no economic contribution. Rather, they have great potential for industrialization. Over the years, I have all along proposed that the Government seize the opportunity from the development of the Kai Tak Sports Park to promote the development of the sports industry. Regrettably, so far there has been no active response. I hope the Government can seize the opportunity and adopt clear strategies and measures to support the development of these two new areas of economic growth.

With these remarks, President, I support the Budget proposed by the Government. Thank you, President.

5670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, we are now considering the Appropriation Bill 2020 relating to the Budget involving an expenditure of some $600 billion. The preparation of annual Budgets should be an exercise and opportunity of wealth redistribution, and the SAR Government has huge reserves. How many reserves are there? Our fiscal reserves stand at $1,100 billion, with the size of the Exchange Fund totalling as much as some $4,200 billion. As one of the wealthiest cities in the world, Hong Kong's Gini Coefficient has all along been high, and we rank first in the world in terms of the disparity between the rich and the poor. It is such a pity that we cannot even provide our elderly with a happy life in their twilight years.

The Old Age Living Allowance is still means-tested even now. Applicants have to provide considerable family details just to get a monthly sum of $2,000 to $3,000 from the Government, and go through meticulous vetting before they will be granted the subsidy. Fingers crossed that the elderly will not fall ill. Why? The median waiting time for specialist services at public hospitals is currently as long as 120 weeks, with more than half of the patients having to wait more than 28 months before they can see a doctor. There are some 49 000 cases on the waiting list for cataract surgery, of which half of the patients in New Territories West have to wait 23 months. By then, they may have turned blind. Moreover, one should not think that it is easy for the elderly to wait for places of residential care homes. The current waiting time for contract subsidized residential care homes is 41 months, the highest in five years. Last year, 7 041 elderly persons passed away while waiting, unable to get a place at residential care homes the moment they died. Honourable Members, where does the money go? Why is the money not used to build hospitals, assist the elderly, increase health care manpower and build elderly homes? The money is always spent on small or big "white elephant" projects: with $86.4 billion on the construction of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), $69.4 billion on the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB") and $82.9 billion on the construction of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"). These infrastructural projects have even recorded massive overruns costing $19.6 billion for XRL and $14.4 billion for HZMB, and a further funding of $10 billion has to be sought from the Legislative Council for SCL even now. Is that not good money thrown after bad? Financial Secretary, if the money, which is otherwise wasted, is used to help the elderly and persons with disabilities instead, it will benefit many.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5671

This Budget, as always, gives favouritism to consortia, merchants and dignitaries to the neglect of the underprivileged. The only bright spot is the universal cash payout of $10,000. Lots of people have called on Carrie LAM to arrange for immediate disbursement without delay, so as to tide the underprivileged over the difficulties arising from the epidemic. But she has refused to heed our call. Buddy, registration will only begin in late June and it is not known when we can receive the payment. Those dying for help cannot endure any longer, so what is the point of giving them delayed assistance? It has even sought a funding of $1 billion to cover the administrative costs. Buddy, $1 billion! Since it intends to offer cash payout, why is the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") not exhausted to offer a universal payout of $30,000, thereby saving the administrative costs while benefiting people? But she has turned a deaf ear to all these suggestions. No place in the world will adopt such a stupid approach as she does in handing out money. In Singapore, the payout of S$600 to every resident aged above 21 will be disbursed on 14 April, meaning that they can get the payment within one week. For the Emergency Response Benefit provided in Canada, members of the public can receive the money within 10 days. People will get a monthly payment of C$10,000 for as long as four months. In Australia, a subsidy of A$15,000 offered to every worker will be disbursed in the first week of May, benefiting some 6 million people. What is Carrie LAM's Government doing? What on earth is Carrie LAM's Government doing? We have suggested that she set up an unemployment assistance fund. She has turned it down and told people to apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") instead. Is that a proper attitude of handling things? The epidemic over the past few months has thrown people out of job. Living from hand to mouth, they simply have no way to make ends meet. Yet, she has asked them to apply for CSSA. Saying that the asset limits will be relaxed, she has asked people to apply for CSSA as a solution. Has it ever occurred to her that it is actually incumbent on her to address the imminent needs of those families? While other cities are all doing such work, she has done nothing at all! President, it is even more ridiculous of her to request the Legislative Council to allocate $25.8 billion to the Hong Kong Police Force at this juncture. She must be off her head requesting us to give them a funding of some $20 billion under the prevailing circumstances to beat young people, journalists and Hong Kong people.

President, Carrie LAM has pushed through the evil law, turning Hong Kong into a mess in the first place, followed by her incompetence in fighting and containing the epidemic, leaving the general public in the lurch. Yesterday saw 5672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 a radical shake-up in Carrie LAM's cabinet, with four Directors of Bureaux leaving and Patrick NIP transferred laterally. Poor him. His hands were trembling when meeting the press earlier. Buddy, what is going on? What has Secretary NIP done wrong? He has told us that the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") or other departments of the Central Government shall be bound by Article 22 of the Basic Law. What is wrong with his statement? The press release was amended twice on the same night. One can easily imagine how he was reprimanded behind closed doors. It is really pitiful and saddening that he has been transferred laterally without even knowing what he has done wrong. We all see the way Carrie LAM treats her subordinates. She is harsh and mean, kicking them away when she needs them no more. I wish to tell Teresa CHENG and John LEE not to worry. These things will keep happening, and it will be their turn next. The prophecy of Che Kung is really accurate, foretelling that the mills of justice grind slowly but exceedingly fine. The funny part is that the very person who should have gone has stayed, wasting the resources of Hong Kong.

President, the whole Budget has shown us that in the process of wealth redistribution, the Government has not even left grass-roots people a morsel. Announcing the universal payout of $10,000, the Government considers itself smart, but when the payment will be disbursed still remains unknown. While we have suggested that she exhaust AEF to offer a universal payout of $30,000, she has turned it down. Now we have to wait till late June before making the registration, and it is not known when we can get the payment.

The most ridiculous part is that Carrie LAM has really resorted to every possible means to suppress Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") at the same time. Just now, Dr Junius HO has said it costs him no more than $10,000 to make a video clip. Asking people to hire him for making a video clip, what a big joke! As a radio station of Hongkongers, RTHK is really something, which remains firmly committed to reporting the truth despite tight resources. President, amid such a difficult time today, RTHK has still managed to win one gold and two bronze awards in the New York Festivals Radio Awards. It is the radio station of Hong Kong, and the pride of Hongkongers. Given the tight financial constraints, it is still committed to reporting the truth and safeguarding journalists' right to editorial independence and freedom of the press.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5673

President, the entire Budget laid before us is surely tight-fisted on benevolent measures but splashing out on unworthy causes. But it is time for us to think about one thing. How effective is this Budget in resolving the multiple structural problems mentioned by me at the very beginning? Can it consider itself a great philanthropist simply by giving consideration to the increase in CSSA rates or the additional months of Disability Allowance granted every year? But a large portion of the resources simply cannot benefit the underprivileged and the general public. Most importantly, in such a tense atmosphere at present, Carrie LAM has been facing challenges from all sides. People now call her the "nine-point Chief Executive". There has never been a Chief Executive whose popularity rating keeps going down. In the fight against and control of the epidemic, no one will thank Carrie LAM. The credit should go to Hong Kong people. At this juncture, Hong Kong people have helped each other out and really bitten the bullet to go through the battle. Yet, I wish to point out the importance and necessity of the opportunity to have a debate on the Budget as it is all about the hard-earned money of Hong Kong people.

We certainly hope that the use of the hard-earned money of Hong Kong people at a critical juncture can help Hong Kong people. But frankly, we see that the Government, in introducing AEF, seeks to safeguard jobs to the neglect of the unemployed. It remains unknown when we can receive the payout of $10,000 proposed in the Budget, and there are also a whole host of problems. Those families with all members living in subdivided units watching television broadcast now are pitiful. Living in a room with a bunk bed only, how much do they have to pay for rent now? They have to pay $7,000 to $8,000. How can they possibly make it through? How can they possibly endure it? There are always some 200 000 people waiting for public rental housing, and one can never see the end of the queue. How many flats can be built a year? It will be awesome if some 10 000 to 20 000 flats can be provided. They are kept waiting for ages indeed.

Dwellers of this city only have humble wishes, simply looking for a roof over their head, food on the table, a job to do, and continued existence of an atmosphere of freedom and intrinsic values of Hong Kong. In fact, these are just very humble requests. But the movement of opposition to the push for the draconian "China extraction law", coupled with the anti-epidemic performance, has completely tarnished the reputation of Carrie LAM's Government as a whole. I exhort those Directors of Bureaux who remain in their posts to look at their boss and ask themselves whether their boss will be there for them if they are the next 5674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 ones who get into trouble. When it comes to Carrie LAM, Hong Kong people are clear-headed. While political views can be different and divided into the blue and yellow camps, people definitely share the same dislike for Carrie LAM. The very person who should have been replaced has stayed, and she has even shamelessly come forward to tell us she will continue to lead the SAR Government.

President, we certainly do not want to be obsessed with the argument over such controversial issues as the axing of funding due to the low popularity of Carrie LAM in the Budget debate. But as stated by me at the beginning of my speech today, we have really seen a large number of people in dire straits. Leaving aside the prevention and control of the epidemic, life is already hard for them. When the epidemic broke out, Carrie LAM's reluctance to close the border has resulted in suspension of business for many trades. At present, lots of restaurants and retailers have been moaning and groaning. It is precisely because of the frequent and abrupt changes in the policies of Carrie LAM's Government which have left people confused. Carrie LAM has never had any intention to take on the responsibility. She considers it only necessary to provide some assistance, and it has never occurred to her that she is the root cause of people's suffering. Things that have happened so far since last year have been getting more and more amazing. She has been a jinx from the very beginning to now. I would like to give those new Directors of Bureaux and Administration Officers a heads-up that it is no easy task to serve their boss, for they will know neither what is in her mind nor whether she will have her knife into them the next second. We need only to look at what has become of Patrick NIP.

President, is there really no solution to the structural problems discussed by us every now and then? The answer is actually in the negative. Just now, I have proposed a series of ways of wealth redistribution and proper management of public expenditure, so that the funding will no longer be wasted or put to unworthy uses. Spending on those small or big "white elephant" projects should actually be cut. If the problem of cost overruns can be mitigated, the money saved should suffice to meet our needs. The payment of the Higher Old Age Living Allowance only costs us some $20 billion a year. We may ask members of the public whether the sum of some $20 billion should be allocated to the Police Force or the Old Age Living Allowance of $2,000 to $3,000 disbursed to the elderly every month? We should certainly assist the elderly. It is just as simple and straightforward as that.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5675

Speaking of money, we pay tax and we work hard. Those fiscal resources are the fruits of our labour. Money in the coffers of Hong Kong does not belong to Carrie LAM. Do we need to engage in a heated argument in order that she will squarely address the issues raised by me just now? While Hong Kong has been confronted with major problems pertaining to food, clothing, housing and transportation, our Budget has completely disregarded such problems, simply treating us like nobodies.

President, in light of the current situation of Hong Kong, it is incumbent on us to think about how this Budget can offer assistance to members of the public more promptly and directly. Mr James TO has once and again suggested that the $10,000 cash payout scheme be handled separately. It is not something impossible. The Finance Committee considered the second round of AEF involving $130 billion last week. While it can consider a funding proposal involving $130 billion, why is it impossible to handle separately the $10,000 universal payout scheme costing $71 billion? It is downright puzzling. Sometimes, people can discern whether the Government or Chief Executive truly cares about the public or merely serves the "Grandpa".

In this Budget debate, particularly at the Second Reading stage, there are certainly voices for and against it with different stances, and Members will eventually put it to a vote. We have the freedom to vote against it, and interference from certain offices is not welcome. President, this is also to do with the dignity of the Legislative Council. In the debates held here, we seek to make, in different ways, the attending public officers understand people's plight. We frequently ask this question: Do those well-paid senior officials getting a salary of some $300,000 really understand what is going on out there? We need to tell or even criticize them on this occasion of debate. I wish to tell all members of the public that at this moment, the pro-democracy camp cannot affect what will become of the Budget because during the voting process and counting of votes, we are destined to lose no matter what. But it does not matter. We are confident in Hong Kong people, and equally so in the future of Hong Kong.

Today, we may not be able to fight for a better Budget which can benefit all people even more. Yet, we put our hope in every Hongkonger. This is the last opportunity in our current term of office to consider the Budget, i.e. the Appropriation Bill. While we cannot tell how much this Chamber will change the next time round, I must stress my confidence in Hongkongers and the need for complete distribution of wealth (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.

5676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG, please stop.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, just now, Mr KWONG Chun-yu said that many social problems are yet to be solved, such as the waiting time for residential care homes for the elderly and public housing, and the grass roots are in dire straits. Hence, he hoped the Government will hand out the $10,000 expeditiously. Judging from his speech, I thought he will support this Budget because all these expenditures are covered in the Budget, including welfare, housing and the $10,000 cash handout. Surprisingly, in the end, the Democratic Party's position is against this Budget. If he opposes the Budget, what did he make those pleasant remarks for? It is really puzzling. Nevertheless, I would like to talk about my views on the Budget.

The current epidemic basically caught the business sector and the public off guard. It also reflects the relative backwardness of Hong Kong's social security system. What kind of support is available to the underemployed or unemployed? There are very few, actually. These people are probably told to apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") only. Certainly, we can see the Secretary's proposal of a $10,000 handout to each person in the Budget to meet urgent needs and the first and second rounds of the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") proposed by the Chief Executive. However, these measures can only help some people. There will always be people who cannot be benefited, and thus feel neglected and overlooked by society or the Government.

I have asked the Chief Secretary for Administration whether the $10,000 handout can be first distributed to those in need or those whose records are kept by the Government, that is, CSSA or social welfare recipients. However, Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong said no. I wonder why not. They are precisely in the lowest stratum of the community and in most need of government support and their information and files have been kept by the Government. Hence, it is strange that the Government cannot give them priority in handing out the money. My office received a call from a disabled person yesterday. He had heard about our idea, so he called me hoping that I can ask the Financial Secretary and Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong again here today whether the $10,000 can be given to social welfare recipients first. This is the simplest way to do it, so why can it not be done? It is really puzzling.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5677

Of course, just like other Honourable colleagues, I am also dissatisfied with AEF as I think it is not sufficient. Nevertheless, I will not reject the entire AEF nor vote against the entire Budget because of these inadequacies as many people can still benefit from them overall. We cannot reject the entire Budget or all the measures proposed in the first and second rounds of AEF simply because there are some inadequacies. Nevertheless, how to make up for these inadequacies? Since the second round of AEF measures aims at filling the omissions in the first round of AEF, there should be a third round of measures to fill the omissions in the second round.

Let me share a few examples of phone calls received by my office. There was a salesperson whose original monthly salary was $16,000. Thanks to social events and black-clad rioters, his salary was reduced to $13,000 at the end of 2019. At the beginning of this year, his salary was further reduced to $10,000 due to the epidemic. Since April, his employer asked him to take unpaid leave for half of the month and reduced his monthly salary to $5,000 only. He cannot afford to pay rent now, but he basically cannot benefit from AEF. Thus, he is very disgruntled at the fact that his employer received subsidies but not him. There was a 65-year-old employee who has pay slips but his employer has not made Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contributions for him, so he cannot benefit from AEF. A registered worker, who serves as a casual worker at construction sites from time to time, also cannot benefit from it. A construction worker, who serves as a foreman, also cannot benefit from it because he is not a registered worker. Some restaurants received subsidies, but companies providing kitchen utensils to restaurants did not. The Government can offer assistance to drivers, but not to garages doing car repairs. Beauty salons are eligible for assistance, but hairdressers are not. Many self-employed people have not received even $1 of subsidy in the process. So is also the case for some non-registered small tutorial centres. Someone waiting for public housing told me that he was allocated a unit in Fai Ming Estate which was set fire to, but he has not received any compensation. Why did people who were allocated units in Chun Yeung Estate receive allowances, but not those who were allocated units in Fai Ming Estate? I can continue to share tens of thousands of examples with the Secretaries. However, I will not go on and on because there are really countless cases. The Government should further increase the subsidies under AEF or provide further subsidies in addition to those announced in the Budget in order to help these people.

5678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Certainly, no plan or budget is perfect. There will always be some inadequacies, but that does not matter. The most important are remedial measures. I would like to tell the Financial Secretary to remember three points: first, listen more to the opinions of the public and Members. We are, of course, not the most remarkable and our views may also be inadequate, but we can make up for the voices that he could not hear. If there are inadequacies in the Budget and AEF and the issues are dragged on for too long, people will be worried that they are left out and ignored, and thus give rise to social grievances.

Second, the Government must not make the support scheme too complicated, drawing on experience from the $4,000 handout in the past. Another point is that it should quit thinking that people would swindle public money. The most important thing is to help the people. Whether anyone swindles public money is secondary consideration, while helping people meet their pressing needs is the priority. The Government has countless ways to penalize for and deter people from swindling public money, but it should not indiscriminately shelve schemes helpful to the people simply because one person or a small group of people exploited the loopholes.

Third, the Government should learn from the cash handouts or relief measures introduced in the past, which were considered not enough and have always been a weakness of the Government. It has given out $6,000 and $4,000 before, so why can the $10,000 handout not be handled more efficiently and accurately? Can the system and database established this time be used as a reference and a basis when relief measures are necessary next time?

If the Government can keep these three points in mind, I believe it will certainly do a better job in implementing relief measures or even drawing up regular Budgets in the future. Surely, some difficulties have arisen in society, but we cannot put all the blame on the Government for insufficient relief measures. On the contrary, despite the present difficult economic and social situation in Hong Kong, some Honourable colleagues are still filibustering in the Council. This is a man-made problem that the Council and Honourable colleagues from the opposition camp have to reflect upon.

Another item most criticized in the Budget, according to colleagues from the pan-democratic camp, is probably the expenditure of the Police. The Police have pointed out on many occasions the reasons for the substantial increase in their expenditure. The main reason is that a large number of police officers is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5679 needed to maintain public order due to the "black riots" in the past eight months. It is a matter of justice and a manifestation of the rule of law for police officers to enforce and law and arrest rioters who broke the law. Glorifying black-clad rioters cannot conceal the truth. In the past eight months, we could see black-clad rioters preventing people from going to work and school every day, as well as demonstrations every evening. Road blockages, arsons, placing of bombs, vigilante attacks and vandalism of public properties and MTR facilities and occupation of campus all called for law enforcement actions by the Police. Since Police manpower and resources are needed to enforce the law, their expenditure will surely raise, thus the budget increase in 2019-2020. However, we have to see clearly that a majority of the increase is for overtime work allowance. If given a choice, I believe no police officer would want this allowance. They would prefer a stable and harmonious society so that they can resume their normal duty of maintaining law and order. Nobody wanted the overtime work allowance which can barely compensate for the pressure they faced in the past period of time and the doxxing and bullying their families had to suffer.

Another point raised by colleagues from the pan-democratic camp is that the Police have purchased a lot of equipment this year. What is wrong with purchasing or updating equipment? It may not be necessary to use the equipment purchased. However, if the Police do not have the right equipment to carry out certain operations, Honourable colleagues may turn around and criticize them. Therefore, I would rather the Police put the equipment purchased in storage and do not have to use them for a prolonged period of time. But what is the reality? If we read the recent news reports, we would understand that the Police have to purchase new equipment. In the past, police officers might wear anti-riot gears only. But now, black-clad rioters would throw acid bombs on them, shoot arrows at them and even slit their necks with a cutter. Should relevant protective gears not be purchased? They should absolutely be purchased. The media, the Police Sports and Recreation Club, the Commissioner of Police and even the department recruiting police officers have received white powder or even threatened by parcel bombs. Should relevant gears be purchased in response to the situation?

What we see now are not merely black-clad rioters, but an elevated violence level equivalent to terrorist attacks. Nevertheless, colleagues in the Council not only have not publicly condemned these black-clad rioters and bomb cases, but even glorified them. Recently, a teenager robbed someone's handbag. 5680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Today, a 16-year-old is charged with murder for having killed an elderly person with a brick. Is this what we want to see? Is this a social consequence of glorifying violent acts? If we continue to (The buzzer sounded) … glorify crimes, our next generation will indeed be affected.

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

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, since so many Honourable colleagues have already spoken, perhaps let me briefly sum up now. Two days ago, Carrie LAM asked what Hong Kong would become of if it was led by Members of the pro-democracy camp. I would like to tell members of the public that if Hong Kong was led by the pro-democracy camp, the boundary control points would have been closed long ago. Political consideration would not be placed over Hong Kong people's lives. If Hong Kong was led by the pro-democracy camp, we would disburse the $10,000 several months faster than the Carrie LAM Administration. If Hong Kong was led by the pro-democracy camp, the unemployed and those without any MPF (i.e. Mandatory Provident Fund) account would definitely not be subjected to discrimination and advised to apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance. If Hong Kong was led by the pro-democracy camp, the $100-odd billion expended under the Anti-epidemic Fund would definitely benefit more wage earners, unemployed people, self-employees and small and medium enterprises. If Hong Kong was led by the pro-democracy camp, the Police would definitely not be allowed to substantially increase their expenditure at this juncture. If Hong Kong was led by the pro-democracy camp, we would definitely hold meetings with the major landlords proactively to call for lower rents so that shop operators could tide over this difficult period. If Hong Kong was led by the pro-democracy camp, businesses banned from operation by legislative means due to the epidemic would definitely receive full compensation because the Government has made use of the law to deprive them of opportunities to do business. This is a matter of justice. If Hong Kong was led by the pro-democracy camp, mahjong parlours would not be granted $100,000 out of the $100-odd billion of funding while playgroup operators engaged in pre-primary education could not receive a penny. If Hong Kong was led by the pro-democracy camp, a limit would definitely not be set for the retail sector alone while no limit was set for food establishments in the disbursement of subsidies, thus enabling Maxim's Group to obtain tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5681

President, here I am not talking about politics, the constitutional system or Articles 22 and 23 of the Basic Law. What I am saying is, when members of the public are crying for help, worrying whether they can still afford the rent next month or whether their shops will close down next month, this Government, despite the some $100 billion having spent, still fails to ensure that wage earners will receive their wages and will not be dismissed. Such is the difference between the pro-democracy camp and Carrie LAM.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): I support this Budget. Hong Kong has been experiencing "black violence" for more than half a year and now hit by the coronavirus epidemic, the retail industry is facing a harsh winter. The number of tourists has dropped by 99%, a majority of local citizens stay home and many people work from home. The sales of the retail industry have plunged by 70% to 80% and even 90%. For the month of February, the value index of retail sales has decreased by 44%, whereas the total retail sales volume has dropped by 46.7%. Hence, I believe the people of Hong Kong can also tell how dire the situation we are in. Many people are already facing such predicaments as no-pay leave, dismissals or company closures.

Given the "black violence" experienced by society in the past half year or so, we already foresaw that Hong Kong's economy would take a dive. The Liberal Party had met with the Chief Executive, the Financial Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Administration. When we put forth our views on the Policy Address as early as in September, we took the lead in urging the Government to hand out $10,000 to the people of Hong Kong, for we realize that retail industry will become stagnant. If the people of Hong Kong have money in their pocket, the retail industry, wholesale industry, catering industry and different sectors along the economic chain will get a boost.

Afterwards, there came the epidemic outbreak and the Government rolled out the $ 10 billion Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF"). At that time, the retail sector and I met with the Financial Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Administration. We put forth four requests. First, we hope that the Government will offer 100% loan guarantees as it did during SARS, for many trades have told me that they cannot secure loan under the 80% or 90% loan guarantee provided earlier. Second, we hope the Government will follow the practice of Li Ka Shing Foundation in providing crunch time instant relief so as to boost the morale of the retail industries. Third, we hope the Government will support employees in the retail industries, for many employees engaging in the 5682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 retail industry have been taking no-pay leave since the end of January. They may work on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and take leave on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday, as their employers ask them to rest at home for there is no customer at all. For this reason, their income is reduced by half. Hence, we hope that the Government will support these employees by offering them a monthly subsidy capped at $20,000 for three months. Finally, we hope that the Government will pay the 5% Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contribution to be made by employers and employees respectively for half a year or one year.

Regarding the four requests mentioned above, I have to express my gratitude to the Government, Financial Secretary Paul CHAN in particular, for we have had in-depth discussion about our four requests and the Government has acceded to three out of the four requests we have mentioned. The maximum loan amount with 100% loan guarantee has been raised from $2 million to $4 million to support employers in paying wages and rents for six months. In fact, the scheme is open for application through banks on Monday, and many shops are thankful for this. We have asked the Government about the time required for obtaining approval in normal circumstances and it replies that approval may be granted in three days. Hence, this is an instant relief to shops facing a financial crunch.

As for the second request, the Government has arranged to hand out $80,000 to the retail industry. Many shops in the trade represented by me have already obtained the funds. Though $80,000 is not a substantial amount, the sum will enable those micro-enterprises to survive another two to three months, particularly during these few months when the businesses are really bad.

The third request is about providing wage subsidy to employees. In fact, this is a measure to safeguard jobs, which is most important in the second round of AEF. The Government will provide employees with a wage subsidy of $9,000 per month for six months. I think this can help many enterprises to sustain their business. Two to three weeks ago, when I attended a radio programme, I said the unemployment rate would possibly surge to 10%. I said so as many friends of mine in the retail industry have told me that they had decided to give up until they learnt about the measures introduced by the Government to safeguard jobs. The subsidies concerned can pay the wages of their staff, though not in full amount, so they may at least do some planning during these six months. Hence, I would like to express my gratitude to the Government for acceding to the several requests mentioned above.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5683

I have to say that there is no best, only better. When the first round of AEF was introduced, I asked the Government why the wholesale industry, the beauty and hairdressing industries, factories, education centres or tutorial schools were left out. Yet, President, I had not vetoed the proposal put forth by the Government at that time. When we noticed the oversight, we reminded the Government, and the Government subsequently rolled out the second round of AEF measures. Among the measures introduced in the second round, the $80-odd billion measures to safeguard jobs which I mentioned earlier have benefited members in various trades and industries. For an enterprise with two employees, each employee is provided with $9,000 per month for six months. That means $54,000 for one employee and $108,000 for two. For an enterprise with 10 employees, the Government will offer a subsidy of $540,000. In other words, various trades and industries are taken care of.

Yet, as I said earlier, there is no best, only better. Hence, I keep reminding the Financial Secretary that the Government needs to support employees aged 65 or above who do not have MPF accounts, as well as self-employed persons who have not made MPF contributions. The Government has to fill these gaps. As for those who have been dismissed and remained unemployed, the Government should pay special attention to them during this epidemic.

Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong has told me that the unemployed will be handled under a specific arrangement and the eligible limits have been increased by twofold. Yet, I want to say that many people in the trade are not used to long-term unemployment, and they are merely temporarily out of job because of the epidemic. They may not like others to know that they are unemployed, and if they are asked to apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, they may feel uncomfortable. Hence, we have asked the Financial Secretary to consider providing subsidies under a specified title, so that it would be easier for them to ride out this difficult time. I believe many Members also look forward to this.

Furthermore, the Government must render assistance to the self-employed who have not made MPF contributions, including persons engaging in the beauty and hairdressing industries because most of them are paid on a profit-sharing basis. This morning, I and the eight merchants associations of the hairdressing industries held a press conference. They said their businesses have plunged by 70% to 80%, or at least 50% in less severe cases, for people all stay home, so the 5684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 industries also need support. Regrettably, the employment support scheme has neglected their needs. Hence, I hope the Financial Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Administration will examine this carefully.

As for persons aged 65 or above, when I discussed the issue with Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong some time ago, he told me that they can apply for a monthly subsidy of $5,000 for 12 months for the middle-aged or the elderly under the Employment Support Scheme. I hope Financial Secretary Paul CHAN would explain to Dr LAW that the scheme is only available to new recruits, as I have already studied the scheme carefully. If my company has already employed persons aged 65, I cannot benefit from the scheme. Should I dismiss these employees then? This is an oversight indeed. I trust the Government would not deliberately neglect the needs of the group of people I mentioned just now, yet we all know that things come too quickly in the past few months. Hence, when the Government has to render assistance to such a large number of people within a short time, it is certain that some aspects will be overlooked. As such, upon the introduction of the first round of measures, we reminded the Government that it has neglected the needs of certain people. This time around, we also remind the Government that it has neglected certain people. I hope the Financial Secretary will remind the Chief Secretary for Administration about this and fill these gaps with joint efforts.

In fact, insofar as the present Budget is concerned, we in the Liberal Party have put forth a number of proposals earlier and 11 of them have been accepted by the Government, as mentioned by Mr Frankie YICK and Mr Tommy CHEUNG earlier. I would like to talk about the above four points in particular, such as the distribution of the $10,000 handout to all citizens aged 18 or above. If you have read the news, you should know that we are the first political party which comes up with the idea of a cash handout. We do not mean to claim credits as the Government had not responded to our request for handing out money. Later, many Members from the pro-establishment camp have expressed their views and some Members from the opposition camp have eventually put forth such a proposal. In the end, the Government announced the distribution of the $10,000 handout. Certainly, things did not turn out as Mr Alvin YEUNG expected. He had eventually proposed a motion under paragraph 37A and then he claimed that we opposed the distribution of the $10,000 handout. I believe everyone in the community is familiar with this story. Everyone knows what has happened.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5685

Apart from the measure of distributing the $10,000 handout, additional rental concessions of 50% to 75% for six months are offered for government properties. As the retail industry and various trades and industries are also facing the same plight, we implore the Financial Secretary to discuss with the Chief Executive the ways to secure substantial rent cuts by landlords so as to ride out this difficult time together.

I know that in Hong Kong, it is not easy for the Government to intervene in the private market. Yet, I believe the Government can often come up with some ingenious ideas in dealing with estate developers or major landlords, and I hope the Government will make every effort to negotiate with them during this difficult time. Some landlords told me that they also have to make loan repayments for their shops, yet they are now facing calls for rent cuts and are often subject to criticisms. What can they do? In fact, Financial Secretary, can you ask banks to relax the relevant requirements to alleviate the pressure on landlords by, say, allowing the shops to suspend their loan repayments for six to nine months or even a year, or allowing landlords to repay loan interests only but not the principal, and even suspending loan repayment for one year? If this can be done, the landlords will have more room to lower their rents. In my view, the authorities must start their work with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority or from the financial aspect so that the landlords will have the confidence in doing this.

I would like to respond specifically and briefly to speeches made by several Members earlier. Dr CHENG Chung-tai said earlier that he considered it strange for the pro-establishment camp to support the distribution of the $10,000 handout. First, President, as I said earlier, we are not supporting this measure but putting forth this proposal. Yet, what is the difference between me and Dr CHENG Chung-tai? The difference is that our party do not put forth such proposal every year without giving regard to the circumstances, be it good or bad, in Hong Kong. We put forth the proposal for we see that the present situation in Hong Kong is extremely miserable. This is also the reason why many Members from the pro-establishment camp support the proposal, and we must consider the circumstances in giving our support. Hence, we are different. We do not propose a cash handout regardless of the circumstances.

Second, Mr KWONG Chun-yu mentioned earlier that if the Government distributes a $30,000 handout to all citizens, the problems will be solved. President, if the Government merely hands out $30,000 to all citizens, then all the mirco, small and medium enterprises will have to close. May I ask for how long a wage earner can survive with the $30,000 handout? If the shops cannot 5686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 survive, their "rice bowls" will not be safeguarded. If their "rice bowls" cannot be safeguarded, they cannot survive long with the $30,000 handout, or even with a $100,000 handout. Hence, the key is how to support enterprises. If their "rice bowls" are safeguarded, it means they will be saved. Members should not veto the Budget merely because the Government does not support or disagrees with their views.

I heard Dr Fernando CHEUNG mention four times that if they are to rule, the issue on unemployment allowance will definitely be settled. President, the Budget has put forth measures amounting to $120 billion, together with the two rounds of AEF, it will be $287.5 billion in total. As for the unemployment allowance they have been talking about, the amount involved is merely $20 billion, which is 7% of $287.5 billion. I am not saying that I disagree to find ways to help the unemployed I mentioned earlier. Yet, should we vote against the motion because of this mere 7% and our failure to solve this issue at this point of time?

Last Friday, Dr CHEUNG attended the meeting of the Finance Committee with us. They voted for the adjournment motion concerning this $137.5 billion. Do you know how many phone calls I received? The callers said they were shocked. They needed the money, it was their lifeline, for their companies had to close and they could not pay their staff. Yet, there are Members of the Legislative Council who supported the adjournment motion and opposed the provision of cash handout and support measures.

President, we are now in a desperate time when all trades and industries are on the brink of closure. I really want to remind colleagues, including Dr Fernando CHEUNG who says that if he rules, the problem will be solved. The unemployed are not the only group we should take care of. Should Hong Kong merely take care of the unemployed? If we search "Fernando CHEUNG" on the Internet, we will see that he is well known for being the "Father of refugees". Does he want to turn all the people of Hong Kong into refugees? We need to be self-reliant. We have to count on our own efforts. I hope they will stop playing politics here.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I have listened to the speech of Mr SHIU Ka-fai just now. Two newly appointed Directors of Bureaux are in the Chamber. I am most worried that the newly appointed government officials know nothing, which means I have to explain the situation of the sector to them LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5687 all over again. After they have spent three, five or seven years to understand the situation, they may come telling me that they are going to leave their posts. Hence, I hope the two Directors of Bureaux will study more papers and enhance their understanding of the situation before coming back to communicate with Members of the Legislative Council.

Just now, I heard Mr SHIU Ka-fai mention particularly the distribution of the $10,000 handout. As I am in a low position, my words carry little weight and may not be able to represent the stance of my political party. Yet, I have my own views towards the distribution of cash handouts. Everyone is calling for the distribution of cash handouts. It is easy to give handouts but hard to make money. Moreover, there are no criteria for giving cash handouts. Some people ask for cash handouts every year, regardless of whether the economy is good or bad. In that case, I have to ask: When will the distribution of handouts be deemed unnecessary? Why do they not ask the Government to pay tax to the people of Hong Kong every year instead? This may not be the way to maintain peace and stability in the long run.

Hence, what Mr SHIU Ka-fai has said is right. I also think that people should be self-reliant, and it is most desirable to create a favourable employment environment in which people can support their own living. In a thriving economy, it is an honour to pay more tax. If I have a tax bill of $100 million, it means I am great and make a lot of money. It is my wish that everyone has to pay tax, has enough money to spend, is willing to give and does good deeds to help the needy in society. This is what an ideal society is. We should not turn Hong Kong into a welfare society. The newly appointed Director of Bureau used to work in the Labour and Welfare Bureau, and I hope he will give deeper thought to this issue. Certainly, the Democratic Alliance for the Progress and Betterment of Hong Kong ("DAB") supports items which offer long-term or temporary assistance to the needy, such as the unemployment assistance. As for the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF"), the opposition camp, the "mutual destruction camp", puts forth an adjournment motion and voted against the proposal of the Government at a previous meeting of the Finance Committee.

Regarding the Budget, as well as the first and second rounds of AEF, Mr CHAN Han-pan has put forth an argument which I very much agree. He says that there are fires burning in society, some involve historic issues and some involve the "black violence" provoked by the "mutual destruction camp" in June last year, and the third type of fire involves people of Hong Kong who have spent all their savings due to the incidents occurred since last June and their plight is 5688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 now further aggravated by the epidemic. Many areas in society are on fire. Since the SAR Government may not be able to understand each and every trade and industry in depth, it can merely call the fire engine to put out the fire whenever it sees one. Yet, a group of people stand in the way and tell the Government not to put out the fire. They say instead of putting out a single fire, the Government should put out all the fires. It is most desirable if a bucket of water can put out all the fires in Hong Kong. Yet, while Members are discussing ways to increase resources, Hong Kong may have been burnt to the ground already. Hence, the imminent task is to implement measures once they are ready.

Just now, a number of Members particularly mentioned the increased provision for the Police Force, accusing the SAR Government of strengthening Police's equipment. These Members are, in a way, chanting slogans, imposing untrue allegations on the Police Force. Why? Let us look back on the incidents in June last year. At that time, a wave of destruction swept the entire territory of Hong Kong, including damaging traffic lights, road blockage and acts of arson, and even a rise in robbery cases. As far as my trade is concerned, illegal fishing activities have also increased. Since marine police have been deployed to assist in maintaining law and order on land, the deployment of Marine Police officers in the waters would certainly be compromised. In fact, smuggling cases have also increased. This is a vicious cycle. The increase in provision for the Police Force is not intended to make available additional resources for suppressing protesters as some people claim but for maintaining the long-term peace and order of society, a favourable business environment for various trades and industries as well as the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.

The provision for the Police Force is not merely spent on the Police but also on the maintenance of law and order and building a platform for the development of various trades and industries. If the foundation is unstable, who will build their houses on it? Probably a few people will go to Iraq to do business in order to take the opportunities in crisis. Yet, I seldom heard friends going to Syria where firing of missiles and acts of arson occurred every day. I may have overstated the severity. The people of Hong Kong should be mindful of these misleading claims made by these Members and not be misled into thinking that the $20-odd billion is for increasing the "military equipment" of the Police. The term "military equipment" is wrong. The Government is increasing manpower to maintain law and order, to safeguard employment and employee's "rice bowls".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5689

The Secretary for Home Affairs and the Secretary for Innovation and Technology are in the Chamber now. The purpose of allocating additional provision to the Innovation and Technology Bureau is not for the creation of employment opportunities in the innovation and technology sector but to enable the public to benefit in their daily lives. If the public cannot benefit from the $100 billion or $1,000 billion put in by the Government while the sector is rich, it reflects that the Bureau is not doing the right thing. The same logic applies to the case of the Police Force.

Saving people is like fighting fire. Many industries are in need of government support by means of AEF or the Budget. As regards the industries I represent, we would like the Government to make an effort to solve one problem for us. I have mentioned the point of self-reliance earlier, and people do not want to live on the support supplement of the Government. Hence, I hope the SAR Government will allocate resources to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") and liaise with the Mainland. Fishermen from Hong Kong and Macao are subject to the regulation of two sets of laws when they go fishing. In the previous round of AEF, the Government has provided $80,000 or $200,000 to fishing vessels employing fishing workers to operate in the waters of Hong Kong and the Mainland. Yet, fishing workers boarding the vessels in the Mainland are subject to the 14-day quarantine requirement. Since these workers are paid a daily wage of $500, a vessel which employs eight workers in average will have to pay $56,000 in total. They may have received an allowance of $80,000, yet they have to pay $56,000 to workers. How can this be regarded as a measure supporting the production of the industry? Instead of providing direct subsidy to the sector, the Government should beef up the provision for AFCD, so that they will have the resources to liaise with the Mainland and urge the Mainland to relax the strict requirements and reduce or waive the fees. Such fees are merely a drop in the bucket to the Central Authorities which do not lack money. They did offer to provide 10 million masks to the United Kingdom but due to the late response of the British Government, the masks were subsequently sold to other countries. Communication is extremely important. Good policies will enable fishermen to survive this desperate time.

Moreover, certain quality inspection departments of the Mainland, that is the Register of Fishing Vessel ("RFV") of the People's Republic of China providing surveying services for our vessels, point out that services will be suspended to minimize contact amid the epidemic. However, where can we find 5690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 so many shipyards to provide surveying services for vessels in Hong Kong? Surveying services often cost several million dollars, which is definitely unaffordable to fishing vessels. Hence, the authorities have to communicate well with the Mainland Government to provide places for conducting vessel surveys so that the vessels can continue to operate. If vessel surveys are not conducted, the vessels will not be issued the Certificate of Inspection which confirms that they are in sea-worthy condition. The situation is comparable to the closure of shops on land as these vessels have to cease operation. It would not be helpful even if a subsidy of $100,000 is provided. Since a vessel costs $10 million, even a subsidy of $200,000 would not be sufficient for covering the loan interest. Hence, I hope the Government will enhance communication in this respect.

Second, I will return to the topic on agriculture. Land is definitely the key to agriculture. The Financial Secretary once served as the Secretary for Development. We often ask: Why are there always some farmers refusing to move out and opposing demolition when the SAR Government develops certain places? Certainly, some of them may be incited by others. Yet, it is true that some of them do not want any change, for they consider the environment comfortable and like to engage in farming. The problem is that, if there are always some farmers staging opposition when the SAR Government selects certain sites for development, such as the cases in Hung Shui Kiu, Yuen Long South or Kam Tin, it is not going to work. Hence, we hope the SAR Government will formulate an overall plan and allocate provision to conduct studies, so that all farmers can engage in farming as they want in a designated area. I have put forth the proposal of an "Integrated Agricultural Park", yet the SAR Government has replaced my concept with the plan of an "Agricultural Park". Some members from the opposition camp voice their objection on the ground of road connection issues, so the plan has not yet been implemented to date.

Whenever the Government comes to the Legislative Council to seek funding for taking forward research projects, it says that projects on the agricultural and fisheries industries can be included under these projects, so that the research studies in that area can be conducted together. Yet, it is unrealistic to do the research studies separately every time. We hope that the SAR Government will examine the approach of making an overall provision by formulating an overall planning for the agricultural industry in one go. In that case, landlords will not expect a change of land use in the next 10 to 20 years. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5691

Certainly, it does not mean that land use of all sites cannot be changed. At issue is that if landlords have such an expectation, they will only grant short-term lease to farmers. The shortest lease I have come across is two months. Under such circumstances, will the farmers invest $10 million in the agricultural site? It is impossible to do so. Then, the farmers will only buy a hoe and some seeds, and if their crops are ruined by rain and storms, they will start planting all over again. Only by doing so will the loss and committed costs be absorbed in the most cost-effective way. Given the policy issues at stake, certain farm sites are left in the primitive state, only minus the cattles. I hope that in introducing such plans as the land sharing scheme, transitional housing and the Lantau Tomorrow project, the SAR Government will conduct comprehensive planning and studies. Moreover, the Development Bureau and the Planning Department should avoid splitting the projects into dozens of items for discussions as they usually do because I really do not have the time to entertain them.

Third, it is about illegal fishing. Just now, I mentioned that "black violence" has aggravated the problem of illegal fishing. When the Government imposed the trawling ban in 2012, I told the Government that it had to beef up resource for law enforcement in waters first. Yet, I do not see any remarkable resource increase in this respect. At the time when KO Wing-man served as the Secretary for Food and Health, the number of staff, not the number of vessels, was increased by nine. Should the staff enforce the law in waters by swimming? At a joint meeting with a number of departments last time, I asked about the manpower required for an operation against illegal fishing and the authorities said that it would involve at least 30 staff members. Why? For even with the introduction of the vessel intercept device, which enables the use of loud speakers in delivering stop request to vessels, enforcement officers must escort the vessel concerned, as vessels cannot be left drifting in waters. After that, the authorities have to send officers to board the vessel intercepted and the number of officers deployed should be a few times of the number of persons on board of the vessel. Once on board, they will say, "Attention, we are here to take care of you, will the men stand on the left side and the women on the left"―most people on the vessels are men. Due to this practice, the cost of each enforcement operation is very high. Hence, I particularly ask about the practicability of changing the law enforcement measures and even relying on innovation and technology. Indeed, it may be unnecessary to do so. They may as well use the method invented in my grandfather's era, that is, shooting pink dye bullets towards the head of the vessel engaging in illegal fishing, like the red-dye used to deal with bank robbers which can hardly be removed. Since the vessel must berth, the authorities will 5692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 know which vessel is involved once it berths. The owners of the vessel may claim that the vessel has been stolen for illegal fishing. Yet, even if the prosecution may not be successful, it will impose greater responsibility on vessel owners and increase their cost of committing crimes. Even if vessel owners win the lawsuits, it does not mean that they are innocent. We should bear in mind that not too many people are into stealing vessels for illegal fishing. Hence, even if vessel owners are not convicted of the crime, it does not mean that they are innocent. This is comparable to people who are now charged with illegal assembly, "black violence" and making bombs but are acquitted in the end. It does not mean that they are innocent but merely that there is no way to convict them. I hope the Government will take note of this situation and increase their cost of committing crimes provided that the human rights of the people of Hong Kong are reasonably safeguarded. A balance should be struck.

I have only three more minutes to speak. In respect of live pig supply, I do not know if Mr SHIU Ka-fai has mentioned this. Whenever buyers encounter problems, they will surely come to the two of us. The total number of live pigs in the country has dropped due to the African swine fever. We notice that the number has dropped by 70% and the number will not increase significantly in the next five years. Why? If you are a pig farm owner, you will not raise 10 000 pigs right away in the absence of vaccine even though the licence allows you to do so. You may only raise 1 000 pigs to see if there is any problem. The production cycle of pigs is two years. If there is no problem, you may start raising 2 500 pigs and if nothing goes wrong, you will raise 3 000 pigs, 5 000 pigs and 8 000 pigs, eventually resuming full production. Only if no problem occurs during the long cycle can the supply of live pigs resume.

The supply of pork will not be abundant in the next few years, and the number of live pigs in Hong Kong is decreasing. Despite the difficult business environment, there is no significant drop in the number of butcher stalls. Why? Because some people are selling chilled pork as fresh pork. Assuming that I used to purchase three pigs but only get 1.5 pigs now, which is insufficient to cover my operating cost, yet raising the selling price is not an option. In the end, I decide to take a risk. Hence, some people are selling chilled pork as fresh pork, for they think the public are unable to tell the difference and will not notice even if they are cheated. As a result, the public think that chilled pork tastes the same as fresh pork, and fresh pork is affected. In this connection, the SAR Government has to work harder and allocate funding to study the feasibility of increasing the rearing capacity of local livestock farms accordingly subject to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5693 hygiene and environmental requirements. The Government should also examine the possibility of increasing short-term supply from other places. Otherwise, Hong Kong will have to put up with this situation in the next five years.

Finally, I would like to spend 30 seconds to share the views of my political party in particular, which is mainly about outsourcing arrangements. At present, though the SAR Government has provided funding for the relevant departments, hygiene conditions and shortage of masks remain a problem. Moreover, many contractors still tend to default on wages for three to four months, though the situation has improved slightly now. I hope the Government will review the administrative procedures again in order to make funding expeditiously available to contractors when home office arrangement is adopted by the Government, so that the funding chain of contractors will not be broken. This is an issue about supporting contractors of building management, cleaning services and security services (The buzzer sounded) … I will discuss this with the Secretary after the meeting.

President, I so submit.

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

I now suspend the meeting until 5:15 pm.

4:48 pm

Meeting suspended.

5:15 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, it is now 5:15 pm. Today's meeting is scheduled to end at about 7:00 pm originally. However, I understand the importance of this debate. Therefore, I will try to let Members who wish to speak speak before the end of the meeting. In order to let staff and 5694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Members know the approximate ending time of the meeting, I call on Members who wish to speak to come to the Chamber and press the "Request to speak" button before 5:30 pm.

Mr Jeremy TAM, please speak.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Just now, I heard many colleagues' arguments for or against the Appropriation Bill 2020. However, I would like to point out that Mr Steven HO mentioned African swine fever repeatedly just now. If he thinks the novel coronavirus should not be referred to as "Wuhan pneumonia", by the same token, why could he keep mentioning African swine fever? According to his logic, did he offend Africans and smear Africa? Africa has a population of 1.2 billion. Did he turn into their enemy? If the term "Wuhan pneumonia" cannot be used, then why could he say African swine fever? Please do not forget, many African countries participate in China's Belt and Road. He offended all these countries in one go. Using the same yardstick, I hope he can clarify and apologize publicly.

The Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF") is definitely the target of criticism in this Budget. This is obvious to everyone. The estimated expenditure of HKPF is some $20 billion. We have previously raised some questions on the Budget to the Administration through the Council in the hope of seeking early clarifications. However, we found that the Administration replied perfunctorily. It did not want to reply us and some figures are very doubtful to me. For instance, I asked how many times the Police used batons during the "anti-extradition to China" movement. Their reply was that the Police used batons in 104 incidents during operations in relation to the handling of public order events against the proposed legislative amendments. Is it possible? The Police used batons in 104 incidents only? The blood has really shed for nothing. Those people had nosebleeds because of excessive internal heat, right? They were blood-soaked. Police officers hit their heads every time, but the Police used batons in 104 incidents only? For this reason, I have doubts as to whether the Police have a proper record when discharging duties and question the expenditure of HKPF. There are some questions that they have not answered at all or were too lazy to answer. They simply said that relevant information was not available.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5695

Moreover, there is another point worth discussing. As I mentioned just now, the estimated expenditure of HKPF amounts to $25.8 billion, with an increase of 2 543 posts. One may assume that the huge amount of funding and substantial resources of HKPF will suffice, but actually, that is not all. I have raised questions on allocation warrants. It turned out that in 2019-2020 as of 29 February, HKPF has received $231 million in less than one year by means of allocation warrants. In other words, the some $20 billion provision for HKPF did not suffice. The provisions for other departments had to be credited to HKPF by means of allocation warrants. Is HKPF really so short of money? I have questioned Secretary John LEE in person at a committee meeting the reason for collecting these payments. He replied that they were for protection services. To put it simply, they were protection fees. Did he and Chris TANG bring two pots of tangerines to those departments for collecting protection fees? Since when does HKPF charge protection fees for protecting the facilities and personnel of other government departments or for enforcing security there? It seems that HKPF is really short of money.

I have also asked the $231 million were funded by how many government departments and which government departments had so much spare funding for paying HKPF. They gave me no reply either. I raise this question again and hope the Secretary will press his colleagues and reply me to which departments the $231 million belonged. Did those departments pay the protection fees voluntarily because they used police protection, or were they forced to do so? If those departments could afford to pay protection fees, then they do not need so much public funding this year. I really want to know the answer as it will directly influence my decision on the question about which departments do not need too much funding since they had spare budget to pay protection fees.

Are the Police really that poor? As someone has mentioned just now, in addition to the $2 billion overtime allowance, HKPF receives some $20 billion provision annually. But that is still not enough; they have to collect protection fees from other departments. I do not know what kind of a police force we are facing now. If we look at past records, this is not the first year that HKPF collects protection fees. It has done so in the past, although not as "fierce" as this year. In the 2018-2019 financial year, they have collected $83 million only. Apparently, they were really short of money last year. As for my question about whether government departments have to rent water barriers from the Police, I have not received a reply either.

5696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

So, what is the logic of the so-called allocation warrants? I spent some time reading the Public Finance Ordinance. Article 14(4) of the Public Finance Ordinance stipulates the authority of controlling officers to incur expenditure. It states that "A controlling officer may, in respect of any subhead for which he is the controlling officer, by allocation warrant signed by him or by a public officer authorized generally or specially by him, authorize any other controlling officer to incur expenditure or authorize expenditure to be incurred against any provision shown in that subhead (a) for any purpose within the ambit of that subhead; and (b) in accordance with the terms of the allocation warrant." The literal meaning is not very clear, but as far as I understand it, a controlling officer may allocate an amount―I do not remember whether the ceiling is $10 million or $30 million―to HKPF, but the allocation can only be made under the same subhead, that is, for the same purpose. However, although under the same subhead or for the same purpose, I understand that upon receipt of the allocation, HKPF may make changes. As regards the purpose for which the allocation received is used, I could not find such information in the papers.

Certainly, allocation warrants have been used in the past, but I have to know under what circumstances they were signed. As I mentioned earlier, did the departments signed the allocation warrants voluntarily? Did they reckon that payment of fees or tips were necessary because they requested HKPF's protection? Or did HKPF ask them for money in return for police protection and the two pots of tangerines they brought along, otherwise no protection will be provided? I am not sure. This is really strange. If a department delivered work beyond the ambit of its subhead and asked other departments for help, it is fine for that department to incur the expenditure by deployment of funds among accounts. However, that day Secretary John LEE also mentioned the provision of protection services which is strange. Should HKPF not protect all Hong Kong people and Hong Kong, which surely include government officials or the facilities and equipment of some government departments? Since when does HKPF charge protection fees as stated by Secretary John LEE? I really do not understand. In fact, I am not alone. Some other Members have raised questions.

At the Council meeting on 15 January 2020, Mr Alvin YEUNG raised a written question on the number of allocation warrants signed in the past few years, but the Secretary did not give a reply in regard to payment priority. He stated that "In response to the public order events in recent months, some LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5697 departments need to strengthen premise security, and have issued allocation warrants to the Hong Kong Police Force, incurring expenditure from their own subheads, for measures to enhance the security of government premises and public facilities such as the procurement of huge water barriers and other equipment. The purpose of which is to maintain their daily operations and to ensure that public services are not affected. These allocation warrants have not been used for meeting expenses of HKPF's personal emoluments subhead." I thought a department with security concerns would notify HKPF which would do some extra work if the security concerns are considered valid. It seems that this is not the case. Instead, departments with security concerns have to pay a protection fee to HKPF for protection and purchase of water barriers. How would the water barriers be disposed of afterwards?

If this logic stands, I am wondering if other government departments work in this way, too. For instance, if there is a fire but an allocation warrant has not yet been signed, will the Fire Services Department let other departments, such the office of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, burn? Not really. Will the Fire Services Department ask other departments to pay and sign allocation warrants before putting out the fire? Not really, right? If there are any security concerns, departments may purchase extra equipment or do extra work. However, in regard to the written question raised by Mr Alvin YEUNG that I just mentioned, the Secretary did not give a reply as to whether the purpose of the subhead can be changed upon receipt of the allocation? That is to say, upon receiving an allocation under a subhead from another department, does HKPF have the authority to change the purpose of the allocation, even if it is not used on personal emolument expenses? This is another mystery.

I think everyone has seen the standard of HKPF in the past few months. Why do Hong Kong people hate the Police so much now? Do not put the blame on divided society or biased media. Actually, most media are already much the same as official media. People receive more information on the pro-establishment camp than on the democratic camp from the media. Under these circumstances, why does everyone still detest the Police? This situation is actually very pathetic. Why has a city become like this? Why do people hate the Police? I believe they are forced by the Government. Do police officers like to beat people with batons or shoot people with guns because they have psychological problems? I do not think so. Instead, they were forced by the Government to do so. The Government has always put civil servants in a 5698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 dilemma. Whenever Hong Kong people have any complaints, hold any demonstrations, express any opinions or show any resistance, the Government will take the simplest way out and that is, suppression by force by mobilizing all police officers.

In the next session, we will discuss Budget cuts. Many of the amendments target the expenditure of HKPF. Will we be considered smearing? Will you turn white by saying that? No. How can a piece of black paper be paint black? The problem in HKPF is obvious to everyone. Hong Kong will not and cannot be peaceful if the problem is not dealt with properly. The Police have made mistakes, so investigations should be conducted to find out the truth. If they have done nothing wrong, investigations will clear their name. What is the problem with that? A few days ago, a police officer was suspected of staging a petrol bomb hurling incident. HKPF used to think this is impossible, but it has actually happened now. Have they cleared of name of the demonstrators? Is it possible that many incidents were actually staged by the Police? Has HKPF bowed in apology? Should Chris TANG feel ashamed?

I so submit.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Speaking of scripting, directing and performing by oneself, we certainly have to mention the "stapler incident" alleged by Howard LAM but not anything else. This is common sense, does Mr Jeremy TAM have no common sense at all? In addition, when Mr TAM rose to speak, he immediately piggybacked on Mr Steven HO by mentioning "African swine fever" in the same breath with "Wuhan pneumonia". I am aware that the supporters of Mr TAM would not look up for any further information after listening to his speech as long as what he said is pleasant to the ear. But I think I have the responsibility to speak it out. The English rendition of "非洲豬瘟病 毒" is "African swine fever virus", that is to say, as African swine fever virus is its scientific name, the Chinese name of this disease must be rendered in this way. Yet, the World Health Organization ("WHO") has already given an official name for the novel coronavirus pneumonia. Notwithstanding this, he still says "Wuhan pneumonia" at this juncture. It is actually very vulgar to use this term in the legislature in a manner similar to that of the ordinary man in the street, as WHO has already provided an official name, but he does not use it. Does Mr TAM want to tarnish the image of the Legislative Council, as if we even fail LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5699 to catch up with the information released by WHO? This is virtually the basic tone and logic of the opposition camp and the "mutual destruction camp".

Let me come back to the Budget. President, the Budget was delivered on 26 February. Frankly speaking, there were not too many prohibition orders back then and people took a wait-and-see attitude towards the epidemic. As it is already late April now, I think it is not too much to ask for rewriting the Budget. It is because I realize that all estimated revenue in the Budget―that is, the income in the coming year―to be frank, how can the revenue reach this level? We cannot be so optimistic anymore. That said, the Government can only utilize this sum of funding upon passage of the Budget. If we now request the Financial Secretary to rewrite the budget for the coming six months, shall we have to wait for another six months before its passage? That is impossible.

In view of this, the Government has established the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF"). In my opinion, the Fund is, to a certain extent, an integral part of the Budget for this fiscal year. It is because, as a matter of fact, the Fund is established in response to the epidemic in this year. Hence, I am going to talk about the AEF for a start.

The first-round funding of AEF of $30 billion seeks to support those sectors that have been dealt a blow by the violent acts of "mutual destruction", such as the retail, tourism, and catering industries, etc. The "mutual destruction camp" of course keeps on making trouble out of nothing. Whilst there is only $30 billion available, they proposed during the debate to hand out $10,000 to every Hongkonger. At least some $70 billion is required if $10,000 is to be handed out to every Hongkonger. Anyone who is familiar with Council business should know that Members are not allowed to propose any motions which would lead to an increase in government expenditure. I also raised this issue with Chairman Mr CHAN Kin-por at a meeting of the Finance Committee ("FC") meeting on that day. This motion is basically inappropriate, but the FC Chairman indicated at the time that he would rather spend a few minutes on putting this motion to vote, instead of letting members argue about it again. Therefore, the issue was handled in this way. But after all, these are low-level smearing tactics and third-rate speeches. They just wanted to make the first-round funding of AEF of $30 billion their personal capital.

The next point is the second-round funding of AEF of $137.5 billion that has recently been passed. We certainly understand that both Honourable colleagues of the pro-establishment camp and even the "mutual destruction camp" 5700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 consider this sum of $137.5 billion still insufficient. But the question is, though it is insufficient, why would some Members support it whilst some Members strongly oppose it in the end?

President, the reason is actually very simple. It is true that not everyone can benefit from this $137.5 billion, but why do I think it must be passed? Because the direction of the second-round AEF measures is very clear, it is to safeguard employment. What is the concept of safeguarding employment? Some people in the neighbourhood have told us that they are now unemployed, the measures cannot help them since the Government is safeguarding those who still have a job. I have explained to them calmly that it is just like a wound―my wife is in confinement after giving birth, I cut myself and bled when I was cooking last week―how can we stop the bleeding? Should we undergo blood transfusion first or stop the bleeding first? It is useless no matter how much blood is transfused if we do not stop the bleeding first.

The rationale of the second-round AEF measures is exactly the same. Priority should be accorded to protect those enterprises that are probably about to close down but still want to tough it out. The Government can lend them a hand so that they can hold on for a while, otherwise more people will become unemployed. This is what we ought to do and no one will object to this. Do we have to help those who are already in unemployment? Of course we should, but what can we do as they are not covered by this scheme? We can think of other ways then.

Nonetheless, what the "mutual destruction camp" is doing now, in short, is to reject totally anything that they dislike or not pleasing to the eye, or anything with even the slightest flaws. Thus, they have objected and voted against the $137.5 billion AEF funding. Nevertheless, why do they play these tricks? In fact, having served as Members for many years, all of us understand that given the support of Honourable colleagues of the pro-establishment camp, people in the neighborhood who need help and members of the public in need will eventually get this sum of money. The "mutual destruction camp" hence plays these tricks unscrupulously. However, what I want to say is, if the "mutual destruction camp" dominates the Legislative Council in the future, will members of the public still have the chance to receive such assistance by then? Be it AEF or relief measures in the Budget, there should be no chance at all. Why? Because they have indicated that they will veto all government motions if they dominate the Legislative Council in the future. They will veto all expenditure, each and every expenditure item, without making any consideration and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5701 screening. Perhaps they will even veto the Government's proposal to give a cash handout, since those of the "mutual destruction camp" claim that they will veto all motions. It is now time for Hong Kong to fight against the epidemic, what should we do indeed? Should we pursue "mutual destruction", or to allow the Government to do the work considered to be within their capabilities?

On the other hand, President, a wide range of initiatives have been encompassed in the Budget, though it was delivered at the end of February, which was a bit too early such that it may not give the best response to the epidemic. It is understandable as this is a matter of timing. That said, I can see a lot of initiatives worthy of our support in the Budget, including the handout of $10,000 to all Hong Kong permanent residents aged 18 or above, a one-month rent waiver for public rental housing, and the payment of examination fees for school candidates sitting for the 2021 Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination. What is more, the Budget also provides a funding of $30 million to enhance the employment programmes of the Labour Department ("LD"). Yet, I think there are two points to note. First, the employment programmes of LD have not been very effective in the past. On the other hand, many unemployed people have reflected that the staff of LD are underemployed during the epidemic―it was the staff of LD staff who are subject to underemployment, for they have to stay at home under the work from home arrangement―turning some job seekers away from the centres. Yet, I hope the current situation would show some improvement after Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr HO Kai-ming have followed up the issue.

In addition, the expenditure of the Hospital Authority ("HA") is also substantial. The Financial Secretary has set aside $10 billion for its development in 10 years, and another $3.6 billion for HA to retain health care talents. May I ask Honourable colleagues who intend to cast a negative vote, will they still have the face to meet their supporters or the general public after casting such a vote? Members of the ordinary public are also at stake, because if HA is able to retain talents, people who want to seek medical treatment can feel somewhat at ease, for at least the health care personnel in the hospitals are upholding a high standard of medical ethics and willing to help the patients. Therefore, I do not understand why. You may recall that the "mutual destruction camp" has cast a negative vote every year, and in fact, they are not doing something new. Do they have any new ideas by doing so? No. They would cast a negative vote every year, are there any new ideas? They accuse us of doing nothing new since we vote for the Budget every year. That is to say, both camps are not doing something new, how come it is more special for them to 5702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 do nothing new but it is our fault when we do not have any new ideas? I cannot get it. I do not understand.

After all, regarding how we should treat the Budget, people who have served in owners' corporations ("OCs") will know the answer in fact. Subsequent to the amendment of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344), theoretically, all OCs should now prepare a budget every year, based on which they will calculate the amount of management fees to be collected in the next year. This is a code of practice which should be followed in theory. However, as the legislature has to monitor policy administration by the Government, Members would usually propose some items that are not included in the original programmes. For instance, we may point out which parts require more efforts. This is our functions and duties as Members, it is right to do so. But the question is, should one cast a negative vote in the end simply because he thinks there are deficiencies or he is dissatisfied? Is a negative vote meant to be used to express one's dissatisfaction? We must give it some thoughts. If there are too many negative votes, it implies that the motion will not be passed. Government departments will have no money to spend, hence even the basic operations cannot be maintained. Of course, it is normal for everyone to expect outstanding performance from the Government. All people in the world wish that their Government can do so. But in fact, which government is able to deliver outstanding perform?

Therefore, we must rely on maintaining contact, running in and communication with the Government on a routine basis in order to reflect public opinion, and then urge the Government to make more efforts, instead of following the attitude of "one shall stand and one shall fall" adopted by the "mutual destruction camp". In short, they will completely reject everything about the Government when they are dissatisfied. It is very dangerous to reject everything, just as we will never reject a person, as everyone has imperfections. If imperfections are bound to be rejected, in fact nothing can be achieved in this world. This also applies to the second-round AEF measures. If we ask the Government to go back and rewrite the measures whenever we are dissatisfied, when will such measures be submitted again after rewriting? This is a kind of knowledge, which is also anyone's guess as no one knows the answer. How long will it take to get the job done when the measures have to be rewritten again and again?

Yet, the opposition camp, the "mutual destruction camp" would cheat us by saying that there is no problem, claiming that other proposals will be submitted LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5703 again very soon after one has been vetoed, they will be ready tomorrow. But the problem is, the proposal is not drafted by them, they know nothing about how many procedures it has to go through. They just encourage the general public to overturn and veto the proposals over and over again, suggesting that it is always correct to reject them. If such mindset continues to change for the worse, it would be similar to the current situation under which some people are indifferent to the standstill of the legislature and feel nothing when society stops functioning. I listened to a radio programme two days ago, the host always hard sells himself for lecturing people on liberal studies, but I knew there was a problem as soon as I heard his topic. His topic is: "The House Committee of the Legislative Council has come to a standstill, how does it affect your daily life? In fact, I was very angry after hearing this topic, because the whole question sounds quite plain and ordinary, but it is actually brainwashing. People brush their teeth, wash their face, have a meal, take a bath, go to work or go to school after getting up every day. The daily life of the public will not be affected when the House Committee comes to a standstill for a short period of time. Some people may not care about politics, and they continue to live their normal life every day. But does a standstill of the Legislative Council really have zero impact on people's livelihood? Absolutely not.

For instance, when we have to deal with some tax concession measures, we still have to set up bills committees to deal with the relevant bills even if the Budget can be taken forward upon its passage. For example, after the Government has proposed some tax concessions, we then have to set up a bills committee for the amendment of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. The present situation is that a bills committee has now completed its work and submitted a report, but the final deliberation cannot be proceeded with due to the standstill of the House Committee. People will then question why it takes so long for tax assessment to be done, or discover that they cannot benefit from the tax concessions immediately. It is because the House Committee is in a standstill. Students are of course not affected, but taxpayers who are working will know that they are directly affected. Why do some "yellow" media keep on misleading the public by concealing the impact on the general public when the House Committee is stuck in a standstill and the Legislative Council is paralysed? They really have an ulterior motive.

President, I so submit.

5704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There are still eight Members who request to speak, they are Mr Holden CHOW, Mr Paul TSE, Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Andrew WAN and Mr HO Kai-ming. I will allow these eight Members to speak and adjourn the meeting after they have spoken.

Mr Holden CHOW, please speak.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, the highlight of the Budget this time is certainly the $10,000 handout. In this connection, we ask that the $10,000 be given out more quickly and simply because it is an arrangement to fill the omissions for many Hong Kong people.

President, why do I say so? Although some measures in the second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") could meet the pressing needs of the public, there were indeed some omissions and inadequacies. For example, many people over 65 without making any Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contributions and the unemployed are still unable to benefit. I find it most undesirable that these people are told to apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") despite the Government's introduction of the second round of AEF. As a matter of fact, freelance work mode has become increasingly common over the years and are feasible in many industries, such as art and creative industries. Many new types of job have emerged and the number of freelancers is increasing. Let us take a look at other countries. For example, in Japan, the Government has provided a daily subsidy of ¥4,100 or an interest-free loan up to ¥10,000 to support jobless freelancers or self-employed people. These are some arrangements to support freelancers or self-employed people that we can see in overseas countries.

A considerable portion of the employed population in Hong Kong are people aged above 65 who do not have an MPF account. We can see that many of them are engaged in elementary-level jobs, such as cleaning and security, to name but a few obvious examples. We suggest that, insofar as employment support is concerned, the Government accepts other documents other than MPF contribution records, such as pay slips, employment contracts, working hours records or certain statutory declarations, as proof of work in applying for wage subsidies in order to achieve the objective of safeguarding employment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5705

As repeatedly proposed by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"), one of the key points under the current epidemic is that employment support measures should be complemented by unemployment relief. Hence, we have been urging the Government to devise policies in regard to unemployment relief, including an unemployment allowance. In my opinion, the Government should continue to follow up and handle matters in this regard after the passage of the second round of AEF.

President, in the past, we could see the layout of global supply chains against the background of economic globalization. However, as pointed out by many commentators around the world, the layout of supply chains will probably be restructured in the future after this epidemic. HE Ya-fei, Vice-Minister of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China, has also spoke on the factors to be considered in properly adjusting and restructuring the supply chains, including whether there are upstream and downstream alternatives for the supply chains. He also reckoned that China, as a global leader in manufacturing, needs to examine and consider this question seriously.

Lawrence LAU, Professor of Economics of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, has also stated that all supply chains should seek a reliable second source now. The restructuring of supply chains has become more urgent due to the epidemic. Therefore, I wish to call on Hong Kong to seize this opportunity in respect of the future layout of global supply chains. I believe China, as the world's factory, will continue to optimize its one-stop mechanism in the future layout of supply chains. As a part of the Greater Bay Area, Hong Kong should take advantage of this opportunity to accelerate re-industralization. I believe this is an opportunity for Hong Kong in the future, so I hope the Government will make further efforts in this regard.

President, in the Legislative Council's question session on the Budget, I raised questions on the manpower or expenditure of the Department of Justice in respect of prosecutions. We have noticed that "mutual destruction" of Hong Kong will undermine the law-abiding awareness of Hong Kong people. Moreover, the idea of achieving justice by violating the law proposed by them is a complete distortion of the concept of the rule of law. It is absolutely necessary for the Department of Justice, as the prosecution authority, to handle relevant prosecutions in a serious and solemn manner.

During the "black riots" over the past eight months, the Police have arrested more than 7 000 people. Over 1 000 people have been prosecuted so 5706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 far. We should understand that some prosecutions are still under progress. The prosecutions against some arrested individuals are still being processed. The Department of Justice will thus require more manpower and time to handle these prosecutions. Hence, we believe that the Department of Justice should make adjustments to its prosecution manpower and work arrangements in order to handle these prosecutions expeditiously. As we have always said, in order to create a deterrent effect against "black riots", the Court must try the cases as soon as possible and the rioters concerned must bear the legal consequences. Delayed prosecutions and lack of actions will cause riots to persist.

President, I have also pointed out the need for the Department of Justice to examine carefully the conduct of its prosecutors because we have seen recently that a prosecutor of the Department of Justice took advantage of his professional capacity and published a book which teaches young people how to circumvent the law so as to avoid prosecution for riots and illegal acts, with the aim of achieving justice by violating the law. President, how can Hong Kong show its commitment to the rule of law when a member of the so-called professional prosecution team under the Department of Justice advocated the rule of law on the one hand while, on the other, published a book which teaches people how to circumvent the law to avoid prosecution and in effect, promotes achieving justice by violating the law? Therefore, I hope the Secretary for Justice can tell the public its ways to tackle prosecutors whose acts violate the rule of law and promote achieving justice by violating the law? How will these prosecutors be dealt with and penalized? This is an important aspect in upholding the rule of law.

President, I also wish to point out here that the "mutual destruction camp" kept targeting the expenditure of the Police in the entire Budget debate. Just now, I heard Mr Jeremy TAM say that the expenditure of the Police is equivalent to charging protection fees. It is completely illogical and a blatant smearing of the Police. They target the Police and make completely illogical statements by using smearing tactics. President, of course, there are a lot of illogical things which are exactly what the "mutual destruction camp" wants. They seek to burn together with everyone as long as they are dissatisfied. They would rather break everything and let everyone pay the bills as long as they want to express demands or find other people unacceptable. This is the common mindset of the "mutual destruction camp". As long as they are slightly dissatisfied with the Budget and because they can pick on but cannot attack the Police, they will opt for "mutual destruction" and oppose the passage of the Budget, disregarding whether people LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5707 can get any money to meet their urgent needs. This is the mindset of the "mutual destruction camp". For a long period in the past, we witnessed the "mutual destruction camp" condone black violence. They have consistently condoned vandalism of shops and public facilities, and even setting someone with different political views on fire, and eventually asked all Hong Kong people to pay the bills. This is the logic of "mutual destruction" advocated by the "mutual destruction camp" which, I think, has been doing harm to Hong Kong society.

President, we want to make clear to the public in today's debate that this Budget and the recent AEF are absolutely necessary to address Hong Kong people's pressing needs under the current epidemic. We hope the public can benefit as soon as possible, contrary to the "mutual destruction camp" which opposes to all appropriations in order to achieve their political objectives, forbidding people to receive the money as a result. This is an irresponsible behaviour. We want to make the situations clear to the public.

President, I so submit.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): First of all, President, I thank the Financial Secretary for listening to our speeches in the Chamber for the whole afternoon. I recall that last year, I made a request seeking to help Mr TANG Lung-wai, who has served 20 years of his sentence in the Philippines. At that time, the Financial Secretary kept nodding, and we were consequently granted $10,000. This time around, I see that the Financial Secretary has also nodded. It is hoped that not only Mr TANG Lung-wai but also other Hongkongers facing unjust imprisonment in different places around the world can be granted this sum of $10,000 even if they have no Hong Kong document of identity. It means much to them. I also welcome the two new Directors of Bureaux attending the Council meeting in their new capacity for the first time. Yet they may find our speeches rather boring. Thank them for being here.

Needless to say, President, we all see that the current economic situation of Hong Kong is bleak indeed. At the time of the release of the Budget, perhaps things were not as bad as they are now. So in some sense, we may say that it has been superseded by events, indicating that the situation has worsened or become obsolete. One of the highlights of this Budget is the payout of $10,000. I will further talk about it later if possible.

5708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Indeed, the Budget announced two months ago alone may not suffice to stop the current situation from deteriorating. The Government has so far launched two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF"). I hope more subsidies can be provided, particularly because I am aware that a number of industries obviously cannot benefit from the two rounds of subsidies. In fact, it is inevitable that among various industries and sectors, some of them will be left out. Just now, I have heard Mr James TO shout himself hoarse in talking about the good things they will do with no omission if they are the ones to govern. I certainly hope to see the arrival of the day when it is their turn to govern. But in reality, even the best, the wealthiest and the most ambitious government will also leave out or fail to cater for certain industries for the time being, including the two industries which have frequently been approaching me for help in recent days. One of them is the entertainment industry.

We should not forget the slogan of "horse racing and dancing will go on" at the time of reunification of Hong Kong in 1997. While we have been holding horse races as usual now, dancing has stopped quite a while lately. Many such industries are the most vulnerable ones. When they seek help, not many Members are willing to offer assistance. I hope it is not because those industries are thought to be about entertainment only. In fact, they have made a lot of contribution. Just as Macao's gambling industry has made a substantial contribution to Macao's economy, those entertainment establishments, like sauna bathhouses, mahjong premises or establishments for dancing, open late into the night in Hong Kong have also been contributing to our society in obscurity, and they have similarly felt the substantial impact. Let us not forget that.

Another deeply affected industry is certainly the industry of intermediaries for foreign domestic helpers. I do not want people to get the wrong impression that only those industries with votes, such as the catering, tourism and hotel industries, are heavily subsidized, while other industries seldom mentioned or without votes receive no subsidy. I hope the Financial Secretary can briefly respond to this.

Recently, an article penned by Thomas FRIEDMAN has got my attention. Members may have heard his name. He is the author of the book titled The World is Flat. Mr LEE Yee has also cited the article. The article has basically depicted a global divide of "BC" and "AC", i.e. "before coronavirus" and "after coronavirus", indicating a complete transformation of our whole world by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5709 coronavirus. This Budget needs to cope with post-AC issues, which are comparatively more in number. I have also noticed a piece written by commentator Mr CHAN King-cheung. I share his views that in the days to come, things will get even worse than the SARS period due to the political issues involved. In the political aspect, to exaggerate a bit, I am afraid we will soon face the invasion of the Eight-Power Allied Forces and the Boxer Indemnity. Various countries will hold China accountable and claim for compensation, which will naturally have a detrimental impact on Hong Kong.

We have seen lots of political gestures lately. Are they made in light of the rather weighty political atmosphere at present? But in any event, the general conclusion is that Hong Kong will not be as lucky as it was in the previous episode of SARS, during which CEPA (the Mainland/Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement) and the Individual Visit Scheme ("IVS") were introduced to energize our recovery. There will not be such measures this time around. Hence, we have to rely on ourselves more in this respect, with extra prudence in accumulating wealth and living within our means.

The article by Thomas FRIEDMAN mentioned just now has also stated the need for us to take into account the clash between two cultures. Why do those more disciplined and orderly places, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, have done a better job in coping with the epidemic? Apart from our experience in coping with the SARS outbreak, a more important factor is that our society is more disciplined and willing to accept regulation. On the contrary, many Western countries may have no discipline at all in this regard, or even refuse to be regulated. In handling and preventing the epidemic, these countries have learnt a big lesson this time around. In his article, he stated the need to tighten culture while simultaneously advocating the loosening of the purse. By this he means "strict regulation with a loosened purse". This has brought us back to the topic today. I hope in this regard, the Budget, as suggested by FRIEDMAN, does not only relax the restrictions on credit facilities offered by banks to prevent a possible meltdown, but also puts cash into everyone's pockets, so that they can still manage to make ends meet even after their last pay cheque is spent. That is the lesson we have to learn and experience we have to draw on.

President, speaking of this sum of $10,000, I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for agreeing with a nod. I hope Mr TANG Lung-wai can receive the payment as early as possible. But I am afraid to others, it remains a mere 5710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 promise which will not come through even at a very late stage. I have heard criticisms from Honourable colleagues, saying that members of the public in other countries have got payment of subsidies. Certainly, the practice varies from one country or region to another. But as far as this is concerned, sometimes it is really necessary for the Government to conduct a review. The arrangement for the disbursement of $4,000 was nothing but a mess last time, while the $10,000 to be handed out this time around is within sight but still out of reach.

I have previously suggested that once the Budget is passed, assistance may be sought from the banking sector to disburse the payment prior to vetting and approval. It is hoped that the Financial Secretary can do some coordination if the banking sector is willing to assist. As long as members of the public have a bank account, they can sign a letter of authorization for the banks to make an application on their behalf, thereby enabling instant transfer of payment. While the sum of $10,000 can only earn meagre interest, it is a timely relief allowing all members of the public with bank accounts to be paid this sum of $10,000 instantly without a six-month wait. It means a lot because when people withdraw cash from the banks and spend it, every single penny can boost the market. Certainly, the banks will also have gains on the book because some people may not use the money. And to those members of the public with financial need, the money will serve as a timely relief which means a lot to them.

In passing, President, let me float some ideas to boost the economy. Certainly, those sitting here may be more an expert than I am. Yet, as mentioned by me just now, those support measures, such as IVS, are absent this time around. Confronted by all kinds of difficulties, we may have to step up our efforts in this regard. I agree that another $10,000 should be handed out. Offering an extra sum of $10,000 in addition to the payout of $10,000 may actually be the quickest fix.

I have mentioned the views of Mr CHAN King-cheung earlier on. All along, I think he is right because a number of industries have still been left out. No matter what has been done, there will always be some people left out for such reasons as the absence of Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contributions, retirement or other reasons. But one way that can benefit the majority of people is to give out another $10,000. An extra sum of $10,000 should be offered in addition to the payout of $10,000 because at the time of the announcement of the payout of $10,000 back then, the situation was not as serious as it is now. I consider it absolutely acceptable to offer another $10,000 now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5711

Moreover, I wish to say that I do not normally use display. The reason for me doing so this time around is that a Member from Kowloon East has made frequent mention of me on the Internet, and of course, there is more criticism than praise. One criticism of me is that our demands concerning MPF are not clearly put forth. Let me try to explain it.

Members can see the placard in front of me that read "Liberate MPF, the revolution of our pockets; demand for 'half', not one thing can be done without money". Basically, we are just using some terms familiar to all. I do not mean to offend anyone or show no respect for any demand. I only find those slogans familiar to all interesting, which may be used to fight for withdrawal of MPF savings. Basically, lots of people have MPF accounts. It is widely known that losses have been recorded over the years, and in particular, the first quarter of this year saw an average loss of $50,000 per person. There is a balance of approximately $180,000 for each account on average. That means we can get a sum of $90,000 if we are allowed to withdraw half of it. Do not underrate this sum of $90,000. Not everyone will do so, but if people are really allowed to make withdrawal, it will instantly generate an additional sum totalling $425 billion flowing in society. Where does the money come from? It comes from the contributions by wage earners.

Certainly, according to some, this will weaken their retirement protection. But if they cannot make it through at this moment, there is no need to talk about what will happen at the age of 65. We have never been in such a difficult time, and it therefore warrants unconventional actions. Given that MPF is an existing mechanism, it is easy to arrange for withdrawal without the need to spend much time on vetting and complicated procedures. Regular contributors can make withdrawal promptly, and MPF contributors from various industries and sectors can also make withdrawal as long as they have made contributions. More importantly, these are their hard-earned savings. Every single penny drawn at this moment will definitely matter more than any sum of money available to them at the age of 65. Hence, we hope to explore this possibility, and it requires slight changes.

Furthermore, I hope the Government can consider making MPF contributions for employers and employees so as to tide them over the most difficult period in the coming six months. On the basis of the annual contributions in 2018, the total sum stands at $59.4 billion, or a half-year total of $29.7 billion. This sum of $29.7 billion can do a lot, benefiting all employers 5712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 and employees with MPF accounts. For the second round of AEF, I hope the Financial Secretary or other public officers can give some thought to the issue. I certainly have yet to talk about public grievances. In fact, I have mentioned just now that MPF contributions saw an average loss of $50,000 per person in the first quarter. But meanwhile, fund managers reaped a profit of $3.7 billion in that quarter. They can even benefit from the second round of AEF, and each staff member serving the funds is also entitled to a subsidy of $9,000. Lots of MPF account holders are indignant over this, and it is hoped that the Financial Secretary can offer assistance in this regard.

Facing a prolonged period of structural deficits, what should we do? Given the time constraints, I can only put forth my recommendations briefly. As a former representative of the tourism industry, I certainly wish to make some requests on behalf of one of the most affected industries, i.e. the tourism industry. For example, I have long been criticizing the Cruise Terminal, considering it Hong Kong's Siberia, which is a waste of resources and of little use. Why can we not consider carrying out reclamation at the nullah―I call it a nullah because that is how it looks―leading into the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter? It will then instantly, to put it in a trendy term, "revitalize" the entire Cruise Terminal. All along, the biggest problem there is transport. The location of the Cruise Terminal is tantamount to a dead end, visible but not accessible from Kwun Tong. If reclamation is carried out there, the whole area can be revitalized instantly with abundant new land on which anything can be built.

Certainly, some have mentioned the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. But it actually hinges on our efforts, and amendments can be made. In fact, we should not impose way too many restrictions. We may consider transforming the Ocean Park into a museum of marine ecology rather than bailing it out with a funding of some $10 billion. I have recently talked to Mr CHONG Dee-hwa, a fish expert with much enthusiasm and expertise in this field. Later on, I may also discuss with Secretary Edward YAU to see how such attractions as the Ocean Park and King Yin Lei may be vitalized, such as transforming the Ocean Park into a natural science museum or a marine life museum, so that it will become an eco-friendly tourist attraction truly targeting Hong Kong people. We should not go into competition with other places in launching amusement rides because in terms of theme parks, Hong Kong hardly enjoys any competitive edge. Instead, some local and worthwhile facilities which can genuinely assist Hong Kong's young people in learning are better investment options. I believe it is time to think about the use of the Hong Kong Tourism Board's expenditure of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5713

$1.5 billion. Since we are now cooking "congee without rice" given the lack of any selling point, we may as well add more "rice" so that our "congee" will have more substance. That is something more worth considering.

President, facing deficits which are likely to persist in the coming years, I tend to think out of the box. The long-standing grievances and deep-rooted conflicts surrounding the housing issue is actually one of the reasons for young people taking to the street in large numbers. In this regard, I hope the authorities can consider whether, in the long run, public rental housing ("PRH") flats can be given away to those PRH tenants who have lived in their flats for some years (e.g. 10 years), while asking them to pay the management and maintenance fees in the future, thereby yielding annual savings in expenditure of some $20 billion and speeding up the construction of PRH flats. Furthermore, the Government may also subsidize the middle class or individuals yet to be allocated PRH flats with the savings, providing them with rental concessions or tax relief. The annual savings of some $20 billion can actually do a lot. The current exceptional time strongly calls for out of the box thinking on our part.

In the remaining 30 seconds, I mainly wish to express my strong dissatisfaction with the Department of Justice's handling of Little Sweetie's Chinachem Charitable Foundation over the years. The Foundation is estimated to be worth over $100 billion or even as much as $250 billion to $300 billion, which should be put to use even more expeditiously at this time. The Court of Final Appeal ruled five years ago that the Foundation shall be supervised by the Hong Kong Government and the Department of Justice. Yet, it has not been put to use over the past five years. I hope the Foundation can be put to use as soon as possible at this critical moment (The buzzer sounded) … Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TSE, please stop.

MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, the emphasis of the Budget is "support enterprises, safeguard jobs, stimulate the economy and relieve people's burden". Such objectives are clear, definite, concise and intelligible. But I believe it was more difficult for the Financial Secretary to draft the Budget this year than last year. Rightly as he mentioned in the Budget speech, we are going through an unsettling year. First, there were social incidents spanning half a year, to be followed by the outbreak of the novel coronavirus that has swept the 5714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 whole world and has dealt a heavy blow to both people's livelihood and the economy. Amid such harsh times, Hong Kong is in desperate need of the Government's efforts to rescue the market so as to prevent a total meltdown of the economy, which will inflict greater harm to people's livelihood.

In fact, I think the Government has taken actions on several occasions, including the four rounds of relief measures introduced since August last year involving over $30 billion. One week before the presentation of the Budget, the Government announced the first round measures of AEF that involve $30 billion. It is also the very reason for my earlier remark that this year's Budget was especially difficult to draft, i.e. many people need help and many sectors need support. The Government has previously introduced many measures. However, in the face of the epidemic that has further struck a blow to us, what else can the Government do to help people? Previously, I have been wondering what magic tricks the Financial Secretary can play. Eventually, the Budget proposes counter-cyclical measures of over $120 billion. Among these measures, I believe many people would consider the universal cash handout of $10,000 the most attention drawing.

As a matter of fact, the Financial Secretary has taken heed of public opinions. In such an utterly grim situation, I consider it desirable to provide a universal cash handout, which is the simplest and the most direct way to offer help to people. Now, two newly appointed public officers happen to be present. I hope they will learn from the Financial Secretary to heed people's opinions seriously, particularly in the area of economy. In the days to come, they truly need to directly heed people's aspirations and contemplate how to effectively help them, because we will be facing five years or even a longer period of economic adjustment. In such extraordinary times, I find the extraordinary way of a universal cash handout understandable.

Of course, more importantly, can the authorities tell us when the $10,000 handout will reach the hands of the grass roots? Because the $10,000 is indeed their life-saving money. Regrettably, over these two days, I have heard many Members say they would oppose the Budget. Indeed, have they thought that, while they can still receive remunerations every month, many grass-roots people in society are anxiously awaiting the $10,000 to help their own families? All these Members can do is making impressive, "invincible" remarks and expressing criticisms regardless of whether there will be a cash handout or not. In other words, heads I will, tails you lose. It seems that the Financial Secretary is at fault no matter what measures he has introduced. Then he may as well not do LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5715 anything. That would be the best. Let us all "burn together". Is it the best? I wish to point out that, to many people, the cash handout of $10,000 by the Financial Secretary is rather important. I hope the Secretary can tell people clearly in his reply later how to get the money the soonest or when they can expect to do so. I even hope the Secretary's speech can make some cold-hearted Members come around and regard the grass roots as their primary consideration.

At the same time, I also want to point out that, as I have just mentioned, given the numerous relief measures introduced by Government in the past year, combined with the $120 billion earmarked in the Budget to this end and the second round measures of AEF involving $137.5 billion which were just passed last Saturday, nearly $300 billion out of the treasury has been spent for the purpose of hardship relief in the past half a year. In this connection, I opine that the Government's mere efforts to "give away candies" for hardship relief are inadequate. Comparatively, the Government should target the problems and difficulties the Hong Kong society is facing or will face and draw up plans as early as possible to get well-prepared. This is the importance of resource commitment I have oft-mentioned. More importantly, the Government needs to formulate policies to support various measures. Taking health care, which I am most concerned about, as an example, long-standing problems do exist in many areas which are yet to be tackled. And such problems cannot be solved solely by increasing resources.

I would like to first discuss the elderly health care voucher. I had repeatedly mentioned on various occasions that the voucher amount has not been adjusted since 2014. I believe Honourable colleagues also remember that, in the budget two years ago―I wish to thank the Financial Secretary again because he had acted on our advice for two consecutive years and agreed to effect a one-off increase of $1,000 in the voucher amount, so that elderly persons had $3,000 to use in each of the past two years. However, the Budget this year does not contain similar measures. I understand that it has nothing to do with the Financial Secretary because it is a policy under the purview of a Policy Bureau. Accordingly, to the Policy Bureau, what exactly is the objective of the health care voucher? Is it merely a kind of welfare fund to show respect for the elderly? I believe this is certainly not its original intention. How exactly do the authorities gauge whether the voucher amount should be adjusted? It has seen no adjustment since 2014. Come to think about it, have consultation fees charged by private clinics been increased over these few years? I believe Honourable colleagues all know the answer. In this connection, should the Government have a set of criteria in place? The Policy Bureau should carry out an 5716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 assessment on the basis of relevant criteria. What exactly are the criteria used by the Government in deciding whether the voucher amount should be increased this year and next year, or just be given a one-off increase? I have not seen the Government put forth the relevant criteria. Why would the Government consider that the voucher amount this year can be $1,000 less than that last year?

As a matter of fact, since taking office, I have already requested the authorities to expeditiously conduct a comprehensive review on the effectiveness of the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme. The reason is that the Elderly Health Care Voucher Pilot Scheme has been in operation for over 10 years since its inception in 2009, but has it achieved its initial goals, i.e. strengthening primary health care services and making optimal use of private health care resources, etc.? The scheme needs a complete and comprehensive review, instead of imposing restrictions on the amount of individual service categories, as per the Government's existing way of doing things. It will only mingle the problem of professional regulation with that of the Health Care Voucher. It is absolutely not conducive to enhancing the effectiveness of the Health Care Voucher Scheme.

Moreover, another fairly typical example is the manpower issue of medical practitioners. Last year, I spoke of the persistent problem of the similar numbers of new recruits and wastage of medical practitioners in some clusters of the Hospital Authority ("HA"). It means that HA has been hiring medical practitioners but experienced medical practitioners have been leaving. In the special meeting of the Finance Committee this year, I had followed up on it and my comment made just now had been further proven correct. First of all, Honourable colleagues should take a look at the numbers. The number of specialists dropped from 3 422 in 2017-2018 to 3 305 in 2018-2019, and further to 3 280 in 2019-2020. The number of specialists has been declining every year. Normally, medical practitioners in public hospitals have to complete an internship of six to seven years on average before they can become specialists. Therefore, the drop in the number of specialists, to a certain extent, represents wastage of experienced medical practitioners climbing at a speed that the training of new medical practitioners cannot catch up with. This has given rise to HA's lasting failure, as I have oft-mentioned, to deal with the problems of severe service pressure on frontline staff and their low morale. The Government's appropriation to HA―let us take a look―has been on the rise yearly. Ten years ago, HA was granted only some $30 billion of funding, whereas the Government will provide close to $76.6 billion for HA this year, doubling the amount over 10 years. I still remember that, in the Budget last year, the Financial Secretary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5717 provided an extra $700 million for HA to deal with manpower issues. And how exactly is the effectiveness? Judging solely by the number of wastage of medical practitioners, I utterly cannot see HA use the provision properly to improve the manpower situation of hospitals. The results remain to be seen.

In fact, manpower shortage in public hospitals has been an age-old problem. A myriad of suggestions have been made inside and outside the Council. For example, I myself have repeatedly proposed public-private partnerships to triage patients with mild symptoms and send them to private hospitals so that beds can be vacated and service capacity released. Of course, the relevant cost and fees will be covered by the Government. This can improve the working environment of frontline medical workers. However, has the Policy Bureau heeded such advice seriously or reviewed the relevant practices? Or, the authorities consider the current situation still acceptable. Waiting time for specialist services is bound to be long given the ageing population in Hong Kong, and so be it. Pardon me, I absolutely cannot accept such a view. It is particularly worth mentioning that, recently amid the epidemic, some confirmed patients actually had to wait at home for two to three days for admission to hospitals. Such a situation bears full testimony to the manpower and service problems in the public and private health care systems.

Citing such examples, I want to point out that the problems found in many policy areas do not concern resources per se and cannot be resolved solely by the Financial Secretary's funding provision. These are policy issues. For policies to be taken forward, public officers have to listen to opinions more and rack their brains more to make planning in advance. Problems will not be solved merely by funding provision or immediate funding provision. On the one hand, without the policies formulated by the Government, the funding provision cannot yield any results, but on the other hand government policies are not going to work without funding. For example, the Government introduced the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme but has not increased the voucher amount, then why did it introduce the scheme?

In the face of the current plight, it is important for the Government to "give away candies" to relieve hardship, but it is even more important to make proper preparations for the future during the period of economic adjustment. Financial Secretary, another aspect that requires long-term commitment by the Government is the housing problem of Hong Kong citizens. Given the current economic turmoil and that the novel coronavirus pneumonia has affected Hong Kong for 5718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 several months, progress of public housing construction will definitely be disrupted, affecting not only the livelihood of construction workers, but also the waiting time for public housing. Nonetheless, I am more worried about the present economic situation and the rising unemployment rate. We know that, nowadays, each housing estate is indeed a small community. There are shops in the housing estates that provide residents with daily necessities and also create a lot of job opportunities within the districts. Therefore, slowing down or obstructing the progress of housing construction will actually, at the same time, have a bearing on the future job opportunities for grass-roots residents. The Government is duty-bound to monitor the progress of public housing construction. Meanwhile, we firmly believe that Hong Kong will get through the epidemic one day. Hence, the Government should all the more consider my proposal, i.e. setting up a designated department to support the community in organizing bazaars with special features for the promotion of economic development in the community. I opine that the Government must make good use of the available land to provide a start-up platform for ordinary citizens and young people, including making good use of public space in housing estates to organize bazaars and markets, so as to create some job opportunities within the districts for residents and a start-up platform for young people after the epidemic.

I also want to especially discuss the creation of job and entrepreneurial opportunities for young people, as they, particularly fresh graduates, are now facing unemployment upon graduation. Earlier, human resources consultants have even pointed out that the novel coronavirus pneumonia will have a greater impact on graduates than SARS in 2003. Why? Hong Kong has experienced social incidents in the past half a year, which rendered the economy unable to recover within a short period of time. Thus, graduates in the year of SARS did not encounter difficulties as insurmountable as graduates this year. Many Hongkongers strongly believe that when there are crises, there are opportunities. Behind such economic adversities, there are ubiquitous signs of vitality. To give an example, now many people will not go out and rely on food delivery platforms and online shopping platforms to satisfy their daily needs. A large number of such platforms have thus emerged. Many young entrepreneurs have eyed and accurately seized this business opportunity to conduct distance business with good use of technology. For food and beverages, people use delivery applications. To purchase fashion, there are online video presentations and shopping platforms. Young people can capitalize on such technological advantages and blaze a trail through the epidemic.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5719

In fact, many people used to say that, during economic turmoil, such as the economic tsunami in the past, information technology personnel in the back office would be the first ones to be laid off. But, regarding the epidemic this time, it is the contrary, because various trades, such as banking, commerce, health care and retail, have all incorporated information technology to deal with market competition, such as using big data for network security analysis and utilizing cloud computing. Young graduates can meet such manpower demand. Therefore, the authorities must formulate a policy on talent training expeditiously to support the sustainable development of relevant trades.

Moreover, the land problem of Hong Kong is not simply a housing problem, but also one of the obstacles impeding entrepreneurialism among young people. They lack office space of reasonable rentals and support in the initial stages of start-ups. Many aspiring young people who are eager to give full play to their strengths learn their ropes step by step. Therefore, apart from organizing regular bazaars and markets for them to try their hand at start-ups, it is more crucial to make good use of the existing vacant school campuses, old factories buildings, etc., which can be converted into workshops, small exhibition venues etc., so as to provide young entrepreneurs with hardware support and help them minimize the start-up cost. A platform provided by the Government allows the young people to continuously bring their creativity into play and put their ideas into action, creating another way out beside employment.

Financial Secretary, despite the two rounds of measures of AEF introduced by the Government, which are expected to help relieve people's hardship shortly, the Government, with hundreds of billions in surplus in the treasury and in possession of the most available resources amid adversity, should make greater commitment, other than relieving people's hardship in the short run, and expeditiously make long-term planning for people's livelihood and the development of various sectors and industries. After all, having experienced social incidents in the past year, coupled with the current novel coronavirus outbreak, Hong Kong has suffered damages to its economic structure. It is imperative that the Government supports the overall economy with more innovative and groundbreaking thinking. I hope the Government can think out of the box to help the young generation develop, and bring about a better tomorrow for Hong Kong.

I support the Appropriation Bill 2020 (The buzzer sounded) … Thank you, President.

5720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN, please stop speaking.

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank the Financial Secretary for his hard work in listening to the views of many Members in these two days. I also welcome the two new Directors of Bureaux. I hope that they can listen more to the public views and sense the urgency of the people.

President, my speech today is divided into four parts. In the first part I will give a general response to this Budget with a cover in an earth tone colour just published at the end of February. I recall that the Financial Secretary had said that this colour stands for our land, and he hoped to provide good, fertile soil for Hong Kong to thrive continuously. We must not allow our land to be ruined.

In this Budget the Financial Secretary has injected $120 billion for taking forward counter-cyclical measures. Certainly, judging from the impact currently posed by novel coronavirus pneumonia, the relief measures proposed in February may not be adequate but the series of proposals made in the Budget to support enterprises and safeguard jobs do warrant support. For example, as many colleagues also mentioned today, the disbursement of a $10,000 cash payout to permanent residents aged 18 or above can address the public sentiments. Besides, such measures as the tax and rates concessions, an extra month of payment to recipients of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") and other welfare benefits, and rent waiver for tenants of public rental units, can also respond to the needs of the public in a timely manner. Coupled with the two rounds of measures under the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF"), a total of $280 billion has been injected by the Government. These three initiatives, though not being most comprehensive, are indispensable. Some people may say that the two rounds of measures under AEF and the Budget are different and should be considered separately because the measures under AEF offer short-term support on an ad hoc basis whereas the Budget is expected to provide more forward-looking planning in the short to medium term so as to assist the public.

I noticed that after the release of the Budget, the rating of the Budget was not bad as shown in opinion surveys, for it had a satisfaction rate of close to 46%, which doubled that of last year and represented a new high since 2010. I believe this is absolutely the result of hard work by the Financial Secretary and his colleagues. Of course, many members of the public are still worried. They asked us whether the $10,000 cash payout, for which registration is said to start in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5721

June, can really be disbursed to them in July. As for the monthly subsidies of $9,000 for which they are eligible under AEF, is it possible to speed up the processing of the applications? Therefore, it is most important that the resources can go into the people's pockets.

President, the unemployment rate has reached 4.2% now. A few days ago it was announced that 160 000 people are out of job and in particular, the tourism and catering industries are hard hit. I think there is a time-lag in the unemployment rate. I can feel it very strongly in the districts as many people from the catering and hotel industries told us that they had lost their job. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") has a Caring Fund and when we handed out subsidies, many middle-aged men told us that they used to work as dim sum cooks in restaurants or be engaged in the catering industry but they had lost their job, and despite attending a dozen or 20 job interviews, they still could not land a job. But they are really of noble character as they said that they really did not wish to apply for CSSA and asked us what they could do. Besides, as Members can see, in several large shopping arcades, especially those patronized mainly by tourists, if we do some counting, we will find that probably a dozen or 20 shops have already closed down in each of these shopping arcades. Therefore, various trades and industries are greatly affected now, and the employees do not have income or have to take no-pay leave. As we can see from the press reports yesterday, a media corporation had asked its employees to take annual leave. So, whether it be $10,000 or $9,000, we really hope that the Financial Secretary can disburse the money expeditiously. The handing out of $10,000 can benefit 7 million people. We hope that the Government really will not let down the public.

DAB has suggested that the $10,000 cash payout be first disbursed to the current recipients of social welfare payments as the Government already has their account information, so as to enable some people to have priority in receiving this benefit. I hope that the Government, in making announcements in future, can give us an answer and let us know the arrangements. President, whether for singletons or people who need to support their family, all the people are really suffering badly now. In this great era, many people have not expected that they would be caught in these woes or become jobless or underemployed. Some time ago we visited a restaurant. The owner said that their restaurant had been operated for several decades and they first thought that they could ride out the storm. He said that had they been hit only by this epidemic, they should have been able to get through it. But those violent incidents that occurred 5722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 continuously last year had made them shut down for several months and so, there is no way for them to make it now. This, I think, also speaks the mind of many business operators in the catering industry. So, for these reasons, I support the Appropriation Bill 2020. I hope that the Bill can be passed as soon as possible to enable the relief measures to take effect early.

President, in the second part of my speech, I wish to talk about policies in support of workers. There are really not many such policies. The two rounds of measures under AEF proposed previously and even the Budget have only proposed some "love upgrading" services or subsidies for workers, and so on, and very often, not much is given to workers as the subsidies amount to only $2,000 to some $5,000 or $6,000. Some of these measures were already endorsed by the Finance Committee on 21 February. While the first round of measures under AEF has been passed, the subsidies have not yet been disbursed. I hope that the authorities can make an announcement as soon as possible. In fact, as repeatedly suggested by DAB when putting forward views on the Budget, given the rising unemployment rate, the Government should look into whether support can be provided in two directions which include, firstly, creating more jobs and providing training by drawing reference from the practices adopted during the SARS outbreak, and providing unemployment assistance. Many Members have already made this point today. President, the Government has indeed adopted some measures, but it has only done something and left something undone. On the provision of 30 000 jobs, the Financial Secretary said last week that there are 10 000 jobs now, and as for the other 20 000 jobs, cooperation and negotiation with the private sector would be required. But actually those 10 000 jobs have not been made available yet. Where exactly will these jobs be created? People are waiting and they are in urgent need of these jobs. I hope that the Government can do this as soon as possible.

Moreover, on the issue of unemployment assistance, many Members have talked about it today. Earlier on I said that some people are of noble character as they do not wish to rely on CSSA. We have talked about these cases but now, all that the Financial Secretary has said is that a CSSA version of short-term unemployment assistance scheme will be put in place. Although the name of it is changed, actually it is still within the CSSA system. This is undesirable all the same, and what is more, not much is handed out under the scheme. For example, an able-bodied, childless singleton applicant can receive $2,500, and even if other allowances are counted, he can receive only some $4,000 to $5,000, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5723 which falls short of $6,000 as consistently proposed by DAB, and compared to the wage subsidies of $9,000, the difference is even bigger. This is, therefore, far from ideal.

In the third part of my speech, I would like to talk about housing. In the Budget it is mentioned that according to the Government's forecast, the total public housing production in the next five years is about 100 000 units. But actually this level of production is just making up the shortfall, and many people are living in subdivided units. Financial Secretary, at first I planned to put questions to you to follow up the issue of tenancy control on subdivided units. Unexpectedly, the Chief Executive was one jump ahead of you in saying that such control would be imposed and yet, this seems to be all words but no action. It is learned that the Government established the Task Force for the Study on Tenancy Control of Subdivided Units last week and this seems to be some slight progress. But Members can refer to the membership list of the Task Force. Only one of the members represents the grass roots, whereas the rest are all scholars. Scholars are certainly knowledgeable, and competent too, but we are concerned about whether the Task Force would start from looking into whether or not there was tenancy control in Hong Kong in 1935 and then it would all turn out to be just empty talk two years down the line. President, Mrs IP made a point yesterday to which I very much agree. We should be talking about how and when this should be done, as well as how we should determine what would require tenancy control and otherwise. We hope that it would not be just empty talk again after rounds and rounds of discussion.

President, in the fourth part of my speech, I wish to talk about the economy. Every year's budget is actually a chance for redistribution of resources, such as looking into how resources can be redistributed from the angle of the wealth gap, particularly for the purpose of providing assistance to the grass-roots people. What is more, some new growth points can be identified in order to provide new opportunities. I think when he prepared the Budget back in February the Financial Secretary did not have a crystal ball to predict a global epidemic outbreak. We said at the time that we hoped that this $10,000 cash payout could stimulate the economy and spending. But as things have developed to the present state, I always think that after the disbursement of this $10,000 by the Financial Secretary, many families will prefer keeping it in their pockets and using it mainly to ease their financial pressure. Therefore, it may not serve the purpose of stimulating spending at the end of the day. Then how can this $10,000 be utilized to stimulate consumer spending or encourage the 5724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 people to spend money? I understand that the Government may consider it difficult to follow the practice of Macao in giving the people a consumption card. But are there some ideas or new options to encourage consumer spending or boost the economy by providing some types of subsidies in addition to the $10,000 cash payout? This is no easy task for the Financial Secretary.

As some colleagues have said today, it seems not to be that easy to follow the approach adopted during the SARS outbreak of relying on visitors coming to Hong Kong under the Individual Visit Scheme ("IVS") to boost the economy after the epidemic subsided, not to mention that people are concerned about the impact of visitor movements on the outbreak situation. What is more, I think the Mainlanders, having seen the violent incidents last year, would not dare to come to Hong Kong anymore. For these reasons, the number of IVS visitors is bound to drop and in that case, what new points of growth do we have in the economy? We have a new Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury now. Are there new ideas to enable us to do better whether in the financial and economic aspects on which we have all along relied or innovation and technology?

The Secretary for Innovation and Technology was in the Chamber just now. I wish to tell him that in respect of innovation and technology, we are still just laymen, and we have waited for many years. Despite the provision of plenty of resources by the Financial Secretary annually, what actual achievements have the public seen in the end? We expected that innovation and technology would make people's lives more convenient, boost consumer spending and make industries thrive but practically nothing has been achieved, and meanwhile, we have seen that the quarantine wristbands have appeared to be somewhat faulty. Therefore, I would like to say to the Secretary that the smart car park system that he implemented in the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department some time ago can be considered quite up to scratch, and it can also be said to have taken shape. In this connection, I hope that there will be emerging industries. Earlier on some colleagues said that currently there are indeed a lot of innovative … What happened in recent months has brought changes to the culture and living habits of many people. Can the Government think about the ways to stimulate consumer spending along these lines?

Lastly, President, I wish to take this opportunity to respond to the remarks made by some colleagues today. I heard many people say yesterday and today that they opposed the Appropriation Bill 2020 because the Government's provisions are used to meet the expenditure of the Police Force and this, in their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5725 view, is unreasonable. While they had spoken at great length, they were merely dwelling on these few points. But all in all, I can see three characteristics in them. First, they are infected by the "mutual destruction" virus. Their logic is that for all things that happen in Hong Kong, big or small, the Government invariably has to be blamed. They are all the Government's faults, and the Government is always wrong, and therefore, they have to move motions of adjournment, or propose the ideas of mutual destruction and bringing this Council to a standstill, and so on. These are the means to serve their purpose. Mr KWONG Chun-yu spoke very loudly just now, and he kept criticizing the Government. I have no idea how smart he is. I often hear him shout and yell vociferously, and he has described himself as if he is invincible but I wonder how hard he works when he goes about things. They only kept suggesting that these actions be taken to plunge society into the state of mutual destruction. Have they not done enough in taking these courses of actions?

Second, they attempted to divert attention. Honestly speaking, Mr Dennis KWOK has clearly abused his power and filibustered, thus causing the work of the entire Legislative Council to be held up and brought to a standstill but he, on the contrary, accused us of exerting pressure on him and said that he would be disqualified or "DQ". This is again an attempt to divert attention. President, I would call this pseudo-heroism, as he thinks that he himself is a great hero. He is just too engrossed in heroism, thinking that he is the saviour of the world and what he has done is so great that he considers it a great honour. He said that he feels honoured and this is so enraging indeed, President. He said that he feels honoured because as a result of his filibustering, women cannot enjoy 14 weeks of maternity leave, residents who are waiting to improve fire safety in industrial buildings cannot proceed with the improvement works, and the proposed tax concessions cannot take effect. If he really feels so honoured, he should go to the expectant mothers and tell them so in person. I think they will simply throw baby bottles right into his face.

Third, President, they are indulged in self-delusion. Yesterday Ms Claudia MO made impassioned remarks that she was particularly concerned about welfare and that she was even more sincere than the pro-establishment camp in caring about the people's livelihood. I found these remarks of Ms MO disgusting. I wanted to throw up on hearing these remarks which were more unpleasant to the ears than swear words, President. If she is genuinely concerned about the people's livelihood, tell me for how many times she has shown to be genuinely concerned about the people's livelihood for the past two years? She has talked about politics all the time, scolding the Government every 5726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 day and badmouthing Hong Kong every day. When did she ever care about the people's livelihood? Actually they all seek to plunge Hong Kong into the state of "mutual destruction". Therefore, President, if these people in the opposition camp will go on wreaking havoc like this, Hong Kong would really be doomed to the fate of "mutual destruction" on all fronts.

President, I think Hong Kong is indeed faced with great difficulties and in a most critical moment now. I am very concerned about the ensuing implementation of the measures under AEF and all the other projects or schemes. Words cannot be used to substitute actions, and words are not invincible, for there are many details, and every one of us, including officials and Members, are all making great efforts to follow them up. Therefore, I very much hope that the Budget can be passed expeditiously.

President, with these remarks, I support the Budget.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, it must have been very difficult to prepare the Budget this year, for "black terror" has been wreaking havoc in Hong Kong for half a year, the "mutual destruction camp" has been paralysing the House Committee for half a year, and an epidemic has been raging recently. The recurrent expenditure in the Budget has increased from around $150 billion in 1997 to nearly $500 billion this year. The total government expenditure of $731 billion this year together with the funding allocated under the two rounds of the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF") amounts to nearly $900 billion, and this sum together with other expenses equals over $1 trillion. At this moment, we must safeguard the economy, safeguard livelihoods and safeguard jobs. Though there are still inadequacies with certain details, the Budget is very important at this juncture, and we must not casually speak of vetoing the Budget by way of mutual destruction.

According to paragraph 29 of the Budget, an additional annual funding of $30 million will be provided to enhance the employment programmes of the Labour Department for encouraging the employment of the elderly. Encouraging the employment of the elderly is a consistent policy of the Government, and the commitment in the Budget of more resources in this regard is certainly good. However, on the one hand the Government says it encourages the employment of the elderly, but on the other hand the arrangement under the AEF to safeguard jobs just does not cover them. It is a policy of the Government that people aged 65 or above do not need to make contributions to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5727 the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF"), but the arrangement to safeguard jobs does not cover them. When employers are going to lay off an employee, will they choose an employee eligible for the subsidy or an employee ineligible for it? The employee ineligible for the subsidy may be made a scapegoat.

I once put a question to the "Secretary with high IQ" of the Government. He replied that an employee eligible for the subsidy can share it with an elderly employee ineligible for it, and thus both of them can keep their jobs. I can only say that he is very naïve and very silly. Will an employer do so? As the Financial Secretary has likewise made such a remark, is not the Government divorced from reality? When the "Secretary with high IQ", being further pressed by me for a reply, did not know how to respond, he could only say that elderly persons can apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") and the Old Age Living Allowance, and benefit from the employment programmes, for which more resources have been committed this time around, to help elderly persons seek jobs. However, elderly persons must be unemployed and have applied for jobs at the Labour Department before they can apply for the subsidy. That way, how can elderly persons in employment get such subsidy? How can jobs be safeguarded? The "Secretary with high IQ" has said that it will be difficult to provide the subsidy to people who make no MPF contributions. I would like to take this opportunity to tell financial officials that I hope they will expeditiously formulate certain measures to address this absurd situation, and prevent the "Secretary with high IQ" from doing such stupid things, so as not to affect people's perceptions of the Budget.

On the other hand, paragraph 48 of the Budget points out that Chinese medicine has been incorporated into our health care system, and a Chinese medicine hospital will be developed. A notice posted at the entrance of the quarantine centre at Chun Yeung Estate says that Chinese medicines are prohibited items that must not be brought into the quarantine centre. Why are Chinese medicines listed as prohibited items that must not be brought into the quarantine centre? After rounds of complaints lodged by us and two or three revisions made by the Government, Chinese medicine has ultimately been vindicated and prescriptions of registered Chinese medicine practitioners can be brought into the quarantine centre. However, as some proprietary Chinese medicines have been registered in Hong Kong, why can such medicines not be brought into the quarantine centre? Why must they be listed as prohibited items? In the entire anti-epidemic process, the Chinese medicine sector has mentioned time and again that they can help with the anti-epidemic work, but the 5728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Government has remained nonchalant. We recall that at the time of SARS, Chinese medicine achieved an impressive accomplishment. While the Budget this year states that Chinese medicine has been incorporated into our health care system, Chinese medicine is surprisingly not allowed to participate in the anti-epidemic work. Some proprietary Chinese medicines, which have been registered in Hong Kong, are very precious on the Mainland, but the Central Government has still sent them to Hong Kong as gifts. While the Central Government has sent us proprietary Chinese medicines, the Government has not been courageous enough to distribute them and instead requested the Chinese medicine sector to help with the distribution. This situation is preposterous.

In fact, so many absurd things are commonplace in Hong Kong these days. Members from the "mutual destruction camp", such as Mr Jeremy TAM, have queried why there is a big increase in the expenditure of the Police, and why other departments need to bear the costs of security services provided by the Police. Instead of querying this aspect, why do they not query what made it necessary for those departments to increase security costs? Street lamps were damaged, the Legislative Council Complex was damaged, and money has been spent in vain on all the maintenance costs involved. Due to "black terror" or the instigation on the part of Members from the "mutual destruction camp", money has been spent in vain on all such costs. If our facilities had not been damaged, and such money had not needed to be spent, would our unemployment rate have risen to such a high level? We now need to spend so much money to safeguard jobs, and money is spent in vain on so many expenditure items in the Budget. Over the past half a year, "black terror" has further aggravated the plight of Hong Kong enterprises, and no tourists dare to come to Hong Kong. One will know the conditions of all industries of Hong Kong if he takes a look at the passenger throughput of the Express Rail Link in the summer.

How absurd these things are! How absurd their queries are! How self-contradictory their arguments are! Today none of them are present to listen to my speech, but they have made so many absurd remarks, and a culture in which fallacious arguments and false reasoning prevail does much more profound harm to Hong Kong than the outbreak of a disease. They claim that mutual destruction will make Hong Kong happier, that a criminal record will make one's life more exhilarating, that one will be rest assured when he is arrested, and even that the disqualification of a Member from office is the glory of a lifetime. Those who make such claims are not just any Tom, Dick, and Harry, but rather people with prestige, or barristers. A criminal record will make one's life more LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5729 exhilarating? Has he had a criminal record? It is your criminal record that fattens his pocket, silly boy.

They say today that Hong Kong will be safer if the Budget is vetoed, as no policemen can be recruited. I wonder whether we are fools or they themselves are insane. They ask us to refuse the $10,000 to be handed out by the Government as funding will be allocated to the Police following the passage of the Budget, so we should support them to veto the Budget by way of mutual destruction. On the other hand, however, have they told us that if the Budget is vetoed by way of mutual destruction, sick persons will possibly not be able to get medical treatment? If there is no public expenditure, unemployed persons cannot get assistance, students cannot go to school, and elderly persons cannot get CSSA. Their pockets will be fattened, but can ordinary people make it through? As such, how absurd their arguments are!

Many people can recollect that as we were able to engage in negotiations in Hong Kong, we succeeded in doing many things in the past. For example, prior to Hong Kong's return to the Motherland, China and Britain negotiated a plan for Hong Kong's return, and signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration. "One country, two systems" is also a product of negotiations and consultations. The success of the first constitutional reform of Hong Kong hinged on the willingness of the Members of the Democratic Party to discuss with the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. However, the second constitutional reform ended in Occupy Central and mutual destruction. The pace of democratization has since stalled, and we have been unable to go any further.

As some people have resorted to confrontational or mutually destructive means, Hong Kong has been turned into its current state. Pan-democrats or the opposition used to say that the core values of Hong Kong were democracy, freedom, rule of law and human rights. Until the emergence of "black terror" in June last year, all these had possibly been the core values recognized by the general public. However, if a question is put to people as to what the core values of Hong Kong are these days, people may say that they hope Hong Kong can become a safe place. If when we go out, we would encounter road blockage, be killed in a car accident due to the destruction of traffic lights, be splashed paint or set ablaze due to differing political views, or even be hit with a drain cover, is this still the Hong Kong that we would like to see?

5730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Regarding the saying that mutual destruction will make Hong Kong happier, I very much hope that people will consider whether they will really allow the "mutual destruction camp" to destroy all the achievements of Hong Kong today by way of mutual destruction in the upcoming legislature. They have avowed that they will veto all Budgets in the future. Regardless of what proposals are put forward in the Budgets, regardless of how the Budgets will benefit people's livelihoods, they will veto them one after another. What society this is! What an absurd legislature! What Members they are! In this day and age, these people can sit in the legislature as leaders of political parties, and do such things with public money. For this reason, I hope members of the public will no longer sit on the fence. The way forward and future of Hong Kong are closely related to each and every member of the public. While you might feel politics had nothing to do with you in the past, you should no longer look on with cold indifference today. Please register as an elector by 2 May. Thank you.

MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, recently, the telephone in my office keeps ringing. There are many calls from members of the public every day. Two days ago, someone who said he was engaged in the freight industry called and said he wanted to commit suicide. He has been out of work since January. Neither has he made any Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contribution. He is actually waiting for the $10,000 from the Government to meet his pressing need. Apart from this $10,000, he is not entitled to any other subsidies. Earlier on, the Government said that people in need may apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"), adding that extra funding has been provided for CSSA. However, his family of three has assets not lower than the limit of $66,000. For this reason, he cannot apply for CSSA. He asked us what else can help him and when the $10,000 will be received.

We also received a call from a man who resided with his wife on the Mainland but worked in Hong Kong. Owing to the epidemic, he has returned to Hong Kong, but he actually does not have a home here. He is currently staying at his friend's home. He and his wife have lived separately for two months. Having insufficient work in Hong Kong, now he has to lodge under other people's roof. Encountering problems in both his career and his family, he asked with what the Government can help him.

The Government has launched two rounds of the Anti-epidemic Fund. People engaged in the laundry industry and dishwashing trade, as well as many people who already lost their jobs before January, asked us why the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5731 still has not thought of them and helped them. Why did the Government help the catering industry but not practitioners in the laundry industry and dishwashing trade serving the catering industry, as well as employees in the catering industry who have been dismissed? Many small, medium and micro enterprises said the Government stated that now it can help them to raise loans, but actually, they have already mortgaged their properties to support themselves over these several months. President, it is not that their business worsened only in these several months. Since June last year, some black-clad rioters have stirred up troubles outside, damaging Hong Kong day and night, hurling petrol bombs everywhere. Since June last year, these enterprises have had difficulties in operation and suffered a drastic fall in business. They thought if they could hang on until this Lunar New Year, they would turn round for the better. Therefore, earlier on, they mortgaged their properties to pay the rent. Yet the epidemic came out of the blue. Now what can they do? They cannot raise more loans, can they? Loans have to be repaid. Already debt-ridden, they wonder if they can pull through these several months. What can they do?

I hope the government officials will notice that currently, almost every household in Hong Kong has got less income. Apart from reduction in income, lots of friction have emerged in many families because people are often stuck at home. They bicker more and hurt each other's feelings over such questions as money, unemployment, how they can pay the rent, where they can get money to pay the school fee next month, how they can settle mortgage instalments for their properties, so on and so forth. Many people start to have emotional problems. Some people also told me that they have suffered from depression before, and now they have relapsed. Hence, during this period, the Government must provide further assistance as much as possible. If the first and second rounds of measures and those in the Budget are not enough, the Government should consider launching the third round of measures. Do not tell us that the Government will give no consideration. The Government must do so. Having saved so much money, when will we ever use it if not now? In the coming days, 6 000 to 10 000 shops will close down. In the next two months, practitioners in the tourism industry will remain out of work. The catering industry told us that several hundred more restaurants may fold in the future. More practitioners may become jobless, leading to a further increase in the unemployment rate. Now it is already 4.2%. If it keeps rising, our economy will face a serious predicament.

For this reason, we in the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong keep asking the Government to make more efforts. It should do more work for more people. In fact, now the Government really has 5732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 not rendered any assistance to people aged over 65 and employees who do not make any MPF contribution. Why did it not try to help them too? We hope the $10,000 can be disbursed expeditiously. We understand that difficulties will arise during the establishment of the system, but this is not the first time of handing out cash. Why not set up a reusable system so that when sharing the fruit of success with the public or helping the people, the Government can reuse the system? We have pointed out many times that if elderly people aged 60 to 64 can enjoy the $2 fare concession, it can help many members of the public. But Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong said it has to wait until next year. What a prolonged wait! Now that the Elder Octopus Card is available, why can it not be used? He should give us a clear explanation, but he just failed to make it clear. The authorities said that they know many people are now jobless and really need help. But then they said they cannot do anything without this system. In that case, they should sort out a solution. If the work is so easy, for what do we still need the officials?

An unemployment assistance fund can really help those people. The Government said that the CSSA measure can be renamed as something like unemployment assistance scheme. However, the threshold remains the same. Only the asset limit has been raised. It is still implemented on a household basis. If it is not revised to be implemented on an individual basis, it will be unable to help them. Distant water will not put out a fire nearby. We are in dire straits. Now members of the public cannot manage to pull through these several months. Can the Government render more help and find ways to provide assistance more promptly?

President, what is most infuriating is that in these two days, we heard Members of the opposition and "mutual destruction camp" brag here how they care about the people, claiming that they fight for this and that. They would only slam the Government or the Police, considering themselves perfectly right. They forgot that since June last year, they have condoned violence and connived at black-clad people's vandalism of shops and road blockades in Hong Kong. Consequently, shops cannot do business. Members of the public dare not go out to spend money. All tourists are driven away. That is why Hong Kong has run into such a miserable state today, and that is why small and medium enterprises are unable to hold up. They added that the Police need not increase manpower or buy more equipment because they are at fault. Why did they not mention that those people who vandalized shops, launched vigilante attacks on members of the public, killed an old man Mr LUO by hurling bricks at him on 13 November and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5733 injured another old man Mr LEE in Ma On Shan by setting fire on him on 11 November have problems? They made no mention of these at all. They opine that only the Police have problems whereas rioters absolutely have no problem. Currently, there are bombs everywhere. Young people are making bombs. They do not make bombs for fun, do they? They intend to use them to bomb out Hong Kong. What does it mean? It means the emergence of local terrorism. To protect the lives and properties of the people of Hong Kong, on whom do we rely if not our Police? If they do not have more equipment and manpower, how can they protect the people of Hong Kong? They said that since they do not support any increase in manpower and equipment for the Police, they will oppose the Budget. But did they not say just now that they fight for more support for the people? Did they not say that they want the Government to pay out $10,000 as soon as possible? But now they oppose the Budget. Saying one thing and doing another, they are extremely hypocritical.

President, every time Members of the opposition and "mutual destruction camp" speak, they would stand on high moral grounds. Chanting fairness and justice, they are in fact exploiting the sense of justice of members of the public and young people in Hong Kong. They keep carrying on their lips how terrible the Communist Party of China and the Central Government are and how horrible the Police are, but actually, they themselves are the most horrible. Because what do they sell? They sell fears and do the scaremongering with the purpose of opposing China and upsetting order in Hong Kong.

How unscrupulous can people of the Democratic Party be? They have made such a laughing stock of themselves as in the case of "stapler Kin", with the attempt to deceive Hongkongers. The Civic Party is even more outrageous. President, now there is a saying outside which describes the Civic Party. I wonder if you have heard it. It says to this effect: "The Civic Party harms Hong Kong." How does the Civic Party do harm to Hong Kong? It distorts everything in ideology and values. What did Alan LEONG say? He said violence can resolve problems. What did Alvin YEUNG say? He said a criminal record can make one's life more wonderful. They encouraged young people to break the law and be valiant, but where on earth were they? Why did we not see them charging in the front line? They merely talked and did nothing, always sparing themselves from action.

These political parties call themselves pan-democratic. In fact, they are in the "mutual destruction camp", taking advantage of bloodshed. They asked 5734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 other people to charge and shed blood, letting other people get arrested, imprisoned and lead a "wonderful" life. Then they could secure seats in the District Council and stay at ease. They even want to do it again in September with the same old trick. Now they are thinking how they can kick up a fuss. They ask people not to give up, to keep striving for the five demands and to come out to charge again, letting more people get arrested. They call on people to continue to oppose the Government and vote for them in September. However, for what should people vote for them? The purpose is to seek "35+", to win the majority seats. Then they will be able to "burn together" with the Legislative Council. They have made it clear that if people vote for them, they will oppose every Budget and motion proposed by the Government in the future. What did they say about the future if that is the case? Ms Claudia MO said there will be a better Hong Kong. What a flat lie! How can anyone believe it? President, what is the hard truth? "35+" means "mutual destruction" in Hong Kong, turning Hong Kong into a dead, irreparable city in ruins. This is so-called a better Hong Kong.

President, what is the most saddening? The most saddening is that some people do believe them. Thus they have come out to be the valiant, break the law and "burn together" with Hong Kong. Believing in the "mutual destruction camp" and strifing for the democracy, freedom and justice carried on their lips, what did the young people actually give up? They gave up humanity. After killing someone by hurling bricks, they blatantly cheered. After burning someone alive, they blatantly said he deserved it. To strive for freedom, democracy and justice, they would even discard humanity. What is the most important thing they have given up in their lives? President, it is conscience and kindness. What have they abandoned? They have abandoned their own future and relinquish their most invaluable family members and families. They have gone so far as to give up these things. How seriously they have been brainwashed! This bunch of pan-democrats in the opposition and "mutual destruction camp" have thoroughly deceived members of the public. To secure votes, they have abandoned their conscience. Being immoral in words and deeds, they have ruined Hong Kong, which should have had very bright prospects, and done harm to our entire generation of young people.

Today, I very much hope that they will listen carefully―though only Mr Andrew WAN is present now―the aspirations of the masses in Hong Kong are quite clear. We just wish to live in peace and work with contentment in Hong Kong, which used to be free with bright prospects. We wish to have a job, lead a contented life and enjoy freedom from fear. We hope we need not worry LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5735 where in the street the black-clad people will be found, and can continue to exert ourselves for our small business. Our request is very simple. It is not that kind of demands mentioned by them because people who truly love Hong Kong will not seek "mutual destruction" in Hong Kong. Neither will they ask other people to do so. Hong Kong does not need their "mutual destruction" because we simply do not agree with anything like this.

After "mutual destruction", can Hong Kong be saved by them? After "mutual destruction", the situation will be irreparable. In fact, they do not have such capability. They are just obsessed with the seats in the Council. What are they trying to get? Perhaps something from the United States and Europe? After our country made a few comments, they said it could not make any interference, but they could go to the United States to request the Americans to interfere in Hong Kong's affairs. Not only interference. Do Members remember? Today they mentioned that the Hong Kong Government has made Hong Kong miserable. However, looking back, do Members recall what they asked the American Government and Members of the Congress to do when they visited the United States? How many times have they visited the United States? They are actually endangering Hong Kong, are they not? What else can they do? Hence, will people who truly love Hong Kong please call on all relatives and friends who cherish this place to register as electors before 2 May, and remember to stay in Hong Kong to vote on 6 September. We should each use our two votes to refuse "mutual destruction".

President, I so submit.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): My speech will mainly include three parts. First, I would like to refute some fallacies presented by colleagues from the pro-establishment camp. President, I urge you to be more accommodating and refrain from accusing me of digression, for I am merely responding to their remarks. Moreover, I will explain why we are so dissatisfied with the Budget.

Just now, I heard a few colleagues from the pro-establishment camp―actually more than a few―many colleagues have made a Freudian slip in the past couple of days. President, why do I say so? They have made many groundless accusations that colleagues from the pan-democratic camp care very much about their seats in this Council without offering any evidence. Sorry, they are wrong. We do not care about the seats, at least I do not.

5736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

It seems that they are the ones who care. President, have you noticed the conclusion they have made in their speeches? President, your goodself, you are chairing the meeting right through, so you must have heard that. They have called on the public to vote, to register as electors and to vote for them. They are gripped by deep fear with their hearts miss a beat. Had this not been the case, they would not have done so many things and would not have to play the parrot. When the two offices, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") and the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council ("HKMAO"), make such fallacies, they jump to the forefront at once to display their loyalty. Really, their hearts miss a beat. Their legs are shivering with fear. If they are scared, admit it. They should not wrong others.

President, I will refute their points one by one. They accuse that the pro-democracy camp have publicized in advance that we will oppose everything. Sorry, this is not the case. For anything that is wrong, we will oppose it. If it is right, we will give our support. A number of Directors of Bureaux of the Government of the current term have stolen our ideas without giving us the due credits. We do not mind that as long as it is for the good of society. There are many examples of this kind. Let me cite a recent case. The meeting of the Finance Committee was held last week. It was actually straightforward. We made an offer by moving a motion under paragraph 37A, had they agreed with that, the deal would have been concluded. All the proposals in the motion are issues they had expressed support throughout last week. For instance, they have expressed support for an unemployment assistance, they have pointed out that many trades are being left out and that they have to speak for the laundry trade. We have voiced out for the laundry trade and hair salons. In fact, there are many inadequacies with the relevant arrangements, as self-employed persons and trainers are not eligible for the subsidies. Since Members of the pro-establishment camp agree with these proposals, why did they not give their support when we put forth the amendments? Had they supported the motion, the Government would have "knelt down" and made amendments. Then the amount of provision we got would have been higher than the $130 billion provision passed last week. During the debate of the Budget, they rebuke the Government for the problems with the distribution of the $10,000 handout. In this connection, Mr James TO has long since proposed the approach of advance scrutiny. "Moustache TSANG" had set a precedent the year when he was in office. Why does the Government not unbundle this item from other items, so that it can be considered at a special meeting of the Finance Committee? They LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5737 may support this proposal and claim credits for doing so. Why do they not do so?

President, who is saying one thing but doing another? This is outrageous. We moved a motion seeking to have the $10,000 handout being distributed as soon as possible and the subsidy amount increased. Members of the pro-establishment camp also agree that if the $10,000 handout is not distributed in a timely manner, it will not be helpful to the public. Had they supported that motion last week, the distribution would have been sped up. During the live broadcast, we said in front of everyone in Hong Kong―we can hardly go back on our words―that if the pro-establishment camp agreed with the 20 items listed in our motion proposed under paragraph 37A, all of which are items they have expressed support, and only if they agreed, we would not ask any more questions and there would not be the question of wasting the time in "filibuster" as they claim. Yet, they disagreed. What are they actually thinking about?

They keep mumbling every day that we are "filibustering" and causing "mutual destruction". Do they not find this annoying? Buddy, you have to do your homework even though you are "all-powerful". Who is actually filibustering? During the meeting yesterday and today, which side has spoken more? If we are filibustering when we speak, what are they doing when they speak? At the special meeting of the Finance Committee held last week, did they not speak more than us? They say they have to help the trade, yet they are merely paying lip service, and we cannot verify if they will really walk their talk.

According to the common stance they state, which is similar to ours, that is, to plug the gaps and increase resources to assist the trade. They criticize the Government's logic as leaving "the people in poverty bearing the brunt", for the unemployed are not offered any assistance and are even advised to apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance. As for those in employment, their employers will be granted $9,000 for six months to retain their jobs. The monthly subsidy of $9,000 for a period of six months would mean $54,000. In that case, it is unreasonable that self-employed persons are merely granted a one-off subsidy of $7,500. Mr HO Kai-ming, please tell me the rationale behind later. They consider that such logic does not make sense. If so, they should support our motion. This is straightforward. Why are they unwilling to do so? Could it be that they are merely putting up a show to prove that they are speaking for the trade, yet they will not allow these things to happen? This is what they are doing now. Why would they not allow these things to happen?

5738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Last time, the Chairman of the Finance Committee told me: "What you are doing is of no help at all". Sorry, I disagree, this really helps. President, come to think about that. When all the 70 Members of the Legislative Council vote for the amendments to the Government's proposal, what would the Government do? When the ruling league of the pro-establishment camp also makes such a request, what will happen? Would the Government "kneel down"? I think amendments will somehow be made as a counter-offer. They are asked to do so little yet they are unwilling to do so, and they are pointing accusing fingers at us for filibustering. In fact, in terms of speaking time, they have spoken more than us, which means they are also filibustering.

President, I am really angry. I have to take a deep breath. They keep blaming us for advocating "mutual destruction", yet they are those who give no regard to the people of Hong Kong. They are merely paying lip service. I have jotted down the remarks made by Mr CHAN Hak-kan just now. He said, "You say that some of the measures in the Budget are proposed by you and you agree with such measures, then why do you not vote for the Budget?" Mr CHAN, do you think in this way? The Budget is a package. It depends on whether or not one can swallow the package as a whole. Those who can swallow it will vote for the Budget, whereas those who cannot will vote against it and those who cannot decide will abstain. I cannot swallow it. A speck of rat feces spoils the whole pot of porridge. The Budget increases the funding for the Police Force drastically and the estimate for the procurement of equipment for beating the people of Hong Kong is outrageously large.

Hong Kong is now experiencing an economic downturn. The Financial Secretary has pointed out that a financial great wave, or financial tsunami, will sweep over soon. Yet, at this critical moment, the authorities take a big gamble by implementing the Lantau Tomorrow project. I definitely disagree with this. It is only natural. Are they saying that we cannot oppose it? Do they want to intimidate us? Is this what they mean? President, are they telling us on behalf of LOCPG that we cannot vote against the Budget? This group of people is really outrageous. According to the logic of Mr CHAN Hak-kan, as the pro-establishment camp have expressed much dissatisfaction in their speeches earlier and rebuked the Government more severely than we have, why do they not vote against the Budget? It is ridiculous. When we state that we agree with certain measures in the Budget but are not satisfied with certain aspects and will thus vote against the Budget, they say this is unacceptable. Yet, after stating that the Budget is so bad and criticizing it for more than 10 minutes, they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5739 eventually conclude that they will vote for the Budget. Mr CHAN, what are you actually saying? When you are lashing out at others, you should know that a mirror reflects and a boomerang backfires.

President, Dr Priscilla LEUNG's remarks are similar. She is also saying that we have not given any regard to the overall situation and advocated "mutual destruction". It is really annoying. After all, the veto of the Budget is merely a "disregard of the Mainland". President, why do I say so? Buddy, let us look at the provision. I will not move too far away from the topic, lest the President says that I have digressed from the subject. I will return to the contents of the Budget and talk about the Lantau Tomorrow project costing $1,000 billion. Who will eventually submit tender for the project? Who will eventually be the beneficiary? Is this a conspiracy? Is it because the industrial chains and capital chains of China have broken and there is a shortage of foreign exchange so that these projects have to be passed as soon as possible in order to open the coffers of Hong Kong to save the country? Shall we let them win the tender of all these projects so that the money will go to their pockets? Is this the case? President, this is not merely my personal point of view. I am told these words of wisdom by a group of friends from the rural sector and the pro-establishment camp. They also think that this is the case. As they are also from the engineering sector and they consider that this is the case, they will not to bury their conscience. Some people in the pro-establishment camp will tell the truth.

Ms Elizabeth QUAT has repeatedly mentioned the "acts of vigilantism", economic downturn and all the "black violence" and so on. Buddy, is she a new arrival in Hong Kong or was she born yesterday? Should the current miserable state of economy be attributed to the movement last year? Is the prevailing situation caused by the movement last year? No. China's cover-up of the epidemic is the reason! The world is now pursuing the issue! Is she an idiot? Even if the situation last year has a bearing on the present situation, when has it stopped? Yet, she is now shifting all the blame to the movement. Is it acceptable? All economic analysts have advised that the impact brought about by the prevailing epidemic exceeds that of the social movement last year. These views are supported by figures. Besides, the impact has not yet been fully reflected. The Financial Secretary definitely knows that the impact of the epidemic has not yet been fully reflected. First, it is about the severity of the epidemic and whether it will go on. Second, it is about the blow suffered by various trades and industries and the sweep of the tsunami, which call for immediate follow-up actions. They are outrageous. They do nothing but 5740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 smearing, shifting all the blame to the movement. If she is concerned about the acts of vigilantism, why does she not mention the vigilante attacks of "blue ribbons" against us, and why does she not mention cases where police officers help "blue ribbons" in launching vigilante attacks? How about the "21 July" incident, police brutality, the 1 million people and the 2 million people who took to the streets? She dares not mention these things, does she? It makes me furious!

Mr LUK Chung-hung is right about one point, that is, his saying that what we are doing is tantamount to bombing out Hong Kong―they are experts in killing with bombs, the FTU is qualified to say so―this point has caught my ear in particular, I heard him saying that when I passed by the lift. Buddy, stop deceiving people. Mr LUK Chung-hung is right about another point. What is it? It is another Freudian slip. He said that the pan-democratic camp kept scaring people, saying that people were beaten at San Uk Ling and suffered bone fracture and that there was the "31 August" incident. He said all these were lies. He has mentioned many incidents, yet on what grounds can he say that all these are lies? There is a lot of evidence and ironclad proof concerning police brutality. This is a more important point. However, I have to commend Mr LUK Chung-hung. Why? He also has a slip of the tongue, and like Dr Elizabeth QUAT, he has not mentioned the "21 July" incident. In reverse thinking, he also knows that the "21 July" incident is a screw-up supported by irrefutable evidence, so they dare not mention that incident.

The "21 July" incident alone warrants the impeachment of the Police Force. Chris TANG has to assume accountability. The Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") has stated openly that the case is under investigation. We do not know whose heads will roll eventually, President, am I right? Why can we not oppose the provision for the Police Force? Is their performance satisfactory? It is ridiculous. They dare not mention the "21 July" incident. They are the last to speak and they are playing the final gatekeeper. Had they had the guts, they should have said that those who stirred up the "21 July" incident were right and the beating was well done, and even LI Hon-man's remarks about the late arrival and lack of knowledge of the case were well said―if they have such boldness, they should say so.

President, they often say that we are causing "mutual destruction" to Hong Kong, yet it is the pro-establishment camp which is causing "mutual destruction" to Hong Kong in reality. Why do I think so? What did Hong Kong look like LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5741 when the unification took place 23 years ago? Back then, Hong Kong made its name in the world as "the Pearl of the Orient". Our economic prospects, social systems and legal systems outshone most of the places around the world and are the best in Asia. Regrettably, this group of people from the pro-Government camp and the pro-establishment camp have been destroying the foundation of Hong Kong, "one county, two systems", the Basic Law, the democratic progress and the rule of law over the past 23 years. Not long after the reunification, they proposed enacting legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law, stirring widespread anxiety in the community. Last year, they supported the Government―the DAB was the first to come forward to say that they advocated the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO"), the public should go after them to "settle the score". They joined hands with Carrie LAM in introducing amendments to FOO, throwing Hong Kong into the abyss. Yet, when it comes to the cross-border law enforcement activities, they have not uttered a word. No matter what the departments of China say, they will merely ditto and play the "yes-man".

As for Article 22 of the Basic Law, can they not read, are they illiterate or did not receive schooling at all? Anyone of average intelligence would understand the meaning of "the departments of the Central People's Government" at reading the provision. After 22 years, they slap their own faces. President, I do not have to quote what Mrs Regina IP, Carrie LAM or Directors of Bureaux have said, for the community have had thorough discussion about this during the week. We all know that they realize now that they have been wrong in the past―I will not say that they lie lest giving you a chance to remove me from the Chamber. I still have several minutes to speak, so I will merely say they realize now that they have been wrong in the past. This group of people is destroying "one country, two systems" and getting Hong Kong into such a plight. How would they not be ashamed to speak?

President, I would like to change the subject. Just now, I talked about police brutality. Truly, the provision for the Police Force is the main reason that we oppose the Budget, which is also the main reason I have mentioned. Another factor is the Lantau Tomorrow project. I will spend one minute to illustrate my point briefly. The economy of Hong Kong is really gloomy, and the Financial Secretary knows this clearly. In fact, Paul CHAN has issued a warning well in advance. I have to commend him in this regard for he has kept reminding us of the risk of economic downturn for a year or two. The downturn comes eventually. Yet, we are going to pour $1,000 billion into the sea. It is very unreasonable and unwise, and it is a big political gamble, is it not? He is going 5742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 to play all-in on behalf of the people of Hong Kong, betting with all the money of Hong Kong. So far, the Government has already given out $300 billion, reducing the amount of fiscal reserve from $1,100 billion to $800-odd billion. For how long will the Government continue to gamble? Besides, all of us are still striving for the Anti-epidemic Fund 3.0 currently. Hence, I consider such move very unwise.

Finally, I would like to respond to Members from the pro-establishment camp with one line. They keep questioning the use of voting against the Budget for it would not carry any implications. First, there is not only one speck of "rat feces" but a pile of "rat feces" in that pot of porridge, we cannot swallow that. Hence, we have to oppose it. What is the result of the opposition? I will refer to Article 50 of the Basic Law and I hope they have read that. Everyone knows it. By then, the Government has to initiate negotiation and address the problems so as to arrive at a consensus. Hence, if we could come together to oppose the Government, the Financial Secretary would have to put forth a reasonable proposal which can meet the aspirations of Members and the public. Otherwise, the Legislative Council has to be dissolved and a new Legislative Council has to be elected. We do not mind. I am not worried about my seat in the Legislative Council. They are the ones who worry the most. Why can we not veto the Budget? We veto the Budget to force the Government to "kneel down". Then the Government will have to respond. If the Government fails to offer a proposal which can bring about a consensus, this is the problem of the Government.

President, I so submit.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, I did not intend to act as the final gatekeeper initially, but now I happen to be the last one to speak. After listening to such remarks by Mr Andrew WAN, I really think those "black-clad" Members of the Legislative Council are all trained up by Donald TRUMP indeed. Those Members of the Legislative Council are all the same as Donald TRUMP nowadays, they just lie through their teeth. Let us look at the Democratic Party, they would seek help from the Police whenever they encounter any problems. Ramon YUEN seeks help from the Police after receiving a bunch of complaints on mask scams every day, but he would accuse the Police of committing "black violence" after a short while. They also talk about "law enforcement across the boundary". President, I have no idea whether Howard LAM is the most authoritative when it comes to "law enforcement across the boundary". Howard LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5743

LAM accused Mainland officials of carrying out "law enforcement across the boundary" by walking from the West Kowloon Station to Portland Street, but it turned out that he had punched himself with a stapler.

In addition, Mr Andrew WAN asked me to talk about the "21 July" incident. May I ask him, has he explained the role of Mr LAM Cheuk-ting on that day? Has he ever talked about this himself? Just now the Democratic Party has claimed that they would affirm what is right and condemn what is wrong, who will believe that they would affirm what is right and condemn what is wrong? The President? No, President, you can, but he cannot. He said we did it for the seats, but who is now engaging in vote-rigging for the various functional constituencies? It is Mr Andrew WAN. Are the entire group of "black-clad" Members engaging in vote-rigging incessantly? All of them are engaging in vote-rigging for constituencies including the Catering Functional Constituency and the Labour Functional Constituency. But then he claims that they would affirm what is right and condemn what is wrong here, and they are not doing so for the seats, who will believe him?

President, he also talked about our discussion on the Anti-epidemic Fund last week. I wish to say that it is the best if he would really affirm what is right and condemn what is wrong, but what we can see is that they are not doing so at all. The examples cited by him just now and many of their practices are untrustworthy, especially when they make use of our stance on the voting of a motion moved under paragraph 37A of the Finance Committee Procedure to smear us as posing objection. President, I believe that the Chairman of the Finance Committee ("FC") Mr CHAN Kin-por made it crystal clear that we opposed to deal with the motion moved under paragraph 37A of the Finance Committee Procedure because they would definitely stage a filibuster, whereas we hoped that the Government's policies could be implemented more expeditiously in order to benefit the public. This also applies to the Budget which is under debate today. In particular, the motion moved under paragraph 37A back on that day in fact had an embedded meaning. They put something irrelevant or beneficial to the public at the front part, and then put something to discredit and bring injustice to us in the latter part. This is the same as their usual practice of having some "peaceful, rational and non-violent" protesters ("the PRNVs") walk at the front, and then arranging other people to set fire to and vandalize the shops every time after the PRNVs have finished the procession. Are they "passing off fish eyes as pearls"? Can we trust them?

5744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

Meanwhile, I would also like to advise Mr Andrew WAN not to speak so blatantly as he would vote against the Budget after fighting for the others. Would he please do not tell the public all the good deeds that the Government has done in the Budget as a piece of good news after voting against the Budget. This is not his credit, it has nothing to do with him. Dr CHENG Chung-tai is the only person in this Chamber that I would appreciate. Whilst he abstained from voting, he also informed members of the public of the benefits that they could get. Such being the case, I would appreciate him instead, because he only abstained from voting but did not cast a negative vote, at least he does not oppose to what the Government does.

President, frankly speaking, indeed a lot of Hong Kong people will soon starve to death under the current economic environment of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") disbursed the $15 million that we had raised to 5 000 people last week. Many of them had tears in their eyes at the moment when we passed the cheque to them. The Financial Secretary is now present here, I would like to tell him that I really seldom see a man with tears in his eyes. This has proven that the current predicament faced by Hong Kong, be it the cashflow or the economy, really exerts a great impact on the ordinary public. Mr Andrew WAN kept lying just now in an attempt to shift the relevant responsibilities onto China, which is exactly the same as what Donald TRUMP of the United States did. At this juncture, if he still said that Hong Kong did all these for the economy of Mainland China, I would think he really has no conscience. I just want to tell him―Secretary HUI is also present here―the future economy of Hong Kong really relies heavily on the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the Mainland. Not so many countries in the world have a positive economic growth this year, but China still records a positive growth of more than 1%, whereas others register a negative growth. Among those countries with a positive growth next year, the positive growth of China will reach 9.2%. If Mr Andrew WAN or the Democratic Party keeps lying, telling the public that the "yellow economic circle" can resolve the economic problems, suggesting that it can resolve the economic problems even without China, how will they resolve the problems then? Could it be that the economy can be driven merely by purchasing masks from Mr Andrew WAN? Buddy, please do not cheat me. Hong Kong must definitely cooperate and develop together with the China economy, only through this will Hong Kong bring momentum to its economic development in the future. If Hong Kong's neighbouring economies have a growth rate of 5%, whereas Hong Kong refuses to develop in collaboration with them but cuts off the ties with them instead, does LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5745 he really wish to see Hong Kong people starve to death? We shall really starve to death if we count on him.

Therefore, President, I think their approach is basically the same as that of the United States. The entire approach is to assist the United States to do harm to China, the logic is exactly the same. President, I will digress a little bit, but will soon return to the subject. The United States has now shifted all the responsibilities of the epidemic onto China, but who suggested in February that the novel coronavirus pneumonia was "just a flu"? It was Donald TRUMP. Who said at the end of February that the novel coronavirus pneumonia would magically disappear? It was also Donald TRUMP. Now that the situation has indeed turned into a mishap, they then swarm to put the blame on China. Just now Mr Andrew WAN accused China of having covered up its epidemic situation. May I ask him, would he please explain it to me? The logic of covering up the epidemic situation is just the same as that of the "31 August" incident. Which six persons died in the "31 August" incident? I still cannot figure it out up to now, which six persons died actually? He said China had covered up its epidemic situation, but when had China done so? All information is available on Wikipedia, and everything has been reported in the news. When has China covered up its epidemic situation? During which period of time has it covered up its epidemic situation? It is true if it is said that China might not be doing well enough, but when has it covered up the facts? The logic is exactly the same, I also wish to know which six persons died in the "31 August" incident. I still cannot figure it out up to this moment.

President, in fact, I really wish to raise two issues with the Secretary after responding to Mr Andrew WAN, but it is such a pity that the new Secretary for Innovation and Technology is not present here. The first issue is related to re-industrialization, as there is a part on re-industrialization in the Budget, and the epidemic has also prompted me to have a new understanding of this matter. I believe the President is also aware that FTU has recently started to manufacture masks―I understand that Mr Jeffrey LAM is also manufacturing masks, but we are not as awesome as him―what inspiration has the manufacturing of masks brought to me? That is, Hong Kong really needs more people with knowledge in different aspects to assist its development. As simple as the masks that we are wearing, it turns out that no one in Hong Kong really knows how to install that machine. President, I tell you, there is only one master-level technician in Hong Kong who knows how to install and repair that machine. There is only one because this industry has never existed in Hong Kong. Whilst there are currently so many production lines in Hong Kong, I have no idea how many of 5746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 them are actually supplying their products to the Government. I have heard that almost none of them can supply any products, since no one can handle that machine.

Fortunately, FTU is composed of workers from various trades. Therefore, we manage to find some technicians originally engaged in repairing escalators, vessels and even the MTR who also know how to handle machines. These technicians can look after the mask production lines. We can produce at least tens of thousands of masks every day for distribution to the grass roots. Nevertheless, if we really have to supply masks for Hong Kong, how can we find talents with the relevant knowledge who are engaged in this specific profession? This is a very crucial element of re-industrialization.

Financial Secretary, I am not opposed to the re-industrialization policy implemented in the past, but when Secretary Nicholas YANG proposed re-industrialization a few years ago, I have already pointed out that when we were talking about re-industrialization, we were actually talking about something in a very macro sense. Re-industrialization would only contribute to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) but not job opportunities, and could bring us money but do nothing to promote the development of the manufacturing industry or our economy as a whole. Therefore, as the new Secretary has assumed office, I hope he would take this opportunity to implement some adjustments. Certainly, we can continue with the existing policies that contribute to GDP, but insofar as the industries of Hong Kong are concerned, it is evident during the epidemic outbreak that if a city or country has the secondary industry―i.e. the manufacturing industry―in place, it will set people's mind at ease.

China possesses the most comprehensive industry chain in the world, so it can manufacture everything that the people need by itself. Now we can see that even though the United States has many tertiary industries, those very high-end industries that can contribute to GDP, they can hardly produce any masks or even ventilators. From this we can tell how important the industry chain is. Why can Hong Kong not do so? Why can we not complement each other's edges? Why can we not retain some industries in Hong Kong? Speaking of the production of masks in particular, why can the Hospital Authority purchase masks from foreign countries by tender during procurement? Why can we not add a clause to require that the masks must be made in Hong Kong when inviting tenders? That is very simple, the cost will be higher, but we can support an industry to supply masks for use by the people of Hong Kong in an emergency. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020 5747

Why can we not do so? We think this is what we can do, and it will not occupy a lot of space. I find it very important.

President, I am not going to use up my speaking time, and I just wish to add two more points. First, I am aware that some of the policies put forward earlier by the Chief Executive, such as offering the $2 transport fare concession to elderly persons aged over 60 or relaxing the asset limit for applicants of Old Age Living Allowance aged over 65, can be implemented upon passage of the Budget. Nevertheless, I hope the Democratic Party or those "black-clad" Members will not claim credit for successfully fighting for these benefits at this time, or that they have taught people how to fight for these, because they oppose to these measures, they do not want to fight for these.

Second, what a French professor said to me―because my wife is studying in France―has evoked a lot of feelings in me. He said that there would be no problem if people have many different opinions and divergent views towards the whole world. However, we are living in a real world, and there is only one real world. We cannot destroy it because we live in this world, what we can do is to keep on improving it. Therefore, if someone still believes or hopes that "mutual destruction" can save Hong Kong, it is tantamount to seeking to overturn the bills proposed by the Government on one hand, while wishing to obtain resources from the Government on the other. This amounts to seeking "mutual destruction" to drag down the Hong Kong economy on one hand, but wishing to get relief continuously from the Government on the other. If they continue to apply this logic in the real world, where can we get so many resources? Therefore, I hope the people of Hong Kong will really see clearly who are actually serving Hong Kong, as no one would throw the rice away while cooking a meal for us.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will continue with the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2020 at the meeting of 29 April 2020. In the debate, only public officers will respond to Members' views. Afterwards, the motion for Second Reading of the Bill will be voted upon.

If the motion for Second Reading is passed, this Council will forthwith go into committee of the whole Council to consider the Bill.

5748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 23 April 2020

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 29 April 2020.

Adjourned accordingly at 7:36 pm.