LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9785
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 6 May 2015
The Council met at Eleven o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
9786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9787
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
9788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
MEMBER ABSENT:
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9789
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
PROF THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TANG KWOK-WAI, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE
MR JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
9790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
TABLING OF PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
Subsidiary Legislation/Instrument L.N. No.
Merchant Shipping (Limitation of Shipowners Liability) (Amendment) Ordinance 2005 (Commencement) Notice ...... 81/2015
Other Papers
No. 92 ─ Quality Education Fund Financial statements for the year ended 31 August 2014
No. 93 ─ Education Development Fund Financial statements for the year ended 31 August 2014
Report No. 18/14-15 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Effectiveness of Charging Requirement on Reduction of Disposal of Plastic Shopping Bags
1. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, following the launch of the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags (PSBs) (the first phase) (the First Phase Scheme) in July 2009, the Government has fully implemented the PSB charging requirement at the retail level (the fully implemented PSB charging requirement) since 1 April this year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council: LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9791
(1) of the amount of PSB charges handed over to the Government by shop operators during the period when the First Phase Scheme was implemented;
(2) of the number of inspections conducted by the authorities on shop operators' collection of PSB charges since last month;
(3) of the number of complaints received by the authorities about the fully implemented PSB charging requirement since last month (such as overcharging by shop operators and their refusal to give out exempted PSBs free of charge);
(4) whether the authorities have estimated the extent by which the disposal of PSBs can be reduced as a result of the fully implemented PSB charging requirement; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; when the authorities will review the effectiveness of the fully implemented PSB charging requirement;
(5) given that the number of PSBs distributed in the first quarter upon the implementation of the First Phase Scheme was 13 462 899, but there was a reversal of the decline in the number after about two years and such number rose to 17 959 779 in the 22nd quarter, whether the authorities have looked into the reasons for such a trend and of the authorities' measures to ensure that a reversal of the decline in the number of PSBs distributed will not recur;
(6) as the survey on disposal of PSBs conducted by the authorities showed that the disposal of "PSBs from unknown sources" accounted for almost 80% of total disposal, whether the authorities have new methods to identify the sources of such PSBs so as to adopt measures to reduce the disposal of such PSBs; if they do, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(7) as I have learnt that at present, there are a number of countries requiring that retailers may only use degradable PSBs, whether the Government will consider implementing such practice in Hong Kong?
9792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President,
(1) The first phase of the Environmental Levy Scheme on Plastic Shopping Bags (PSBs) was implemented between 7 July 2009 and 31 March 2015. As at 30 April 2015, the registered retailers paid environmental levy of about $172 million in total to the Government.
(2) and (3)
PSB charging has been fully implemented since 1 April 2015. As at 4 May 2015, officers of the Environmental Protection Department inspected 9 778 retail outlets and received 5 188 enquiries or complaints. These enquiries/complaints were mainly about the scope of regulation, exemption arrangements and charging level under the new initiative, whereas a small number were reports of suspected contravention cases.
(4) to (6)
As we have indicated when the bill was introduced, overseas experiences suggest that the application of an economic disincentive at the retail end could effectively reduce PSB distribution. In Hong Kong, landfill disposal of PSBs distributed by the regulated retail sectors declined by over 75% in one year after implementation of the PSB Levy Scheme. That said, as revealed in the disposal surveys conducted in the past few years, over 95% of the PSBs found in the landfills were attributable to retail sectors not being regulated; the total disposal figure was also on the rise. Therefore, excessive use of PSB remains a problem in Hong Kong which should be tackled by extending the charging initiative.
It would however run the risk of over-estimation by simplistically assuming that the overall PSB disposal figure could be cut down by a similar magnitude as in the first phase upon full implementation of PSB charging. On one hand the registered retailers in the first phase might not be able to achieve further reduction in PSB distribution. On the other hand the law has provided for exemption LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9793
to cater for food hygiene considerations and we do not expect the relevant sectors to sharply reduce the amount of PSBs that they distribute.
Close to 80% of the PSBs disposed of at the landfills are from unidentifiable sources as they do not bear any signs or special design. Such PSBs are commonly used by small and medium enterprises, including retailers who sell goods that are entitled to exemption (such as those in wet markets). But irrespective of the sources of PSBs, we consider that there is still considerable scope for waste reduction. We will continue with publicity and public education and couple such efforts with enforcement with a view to maximizing the waste reduction benefits.
(7) The main objective of fully implementing PSB charging is to encourage reduction in the use of PSBs and to promote the Bring Your Own Bag (BYOB) habit, thereby reducing waste at source. The use of degradable PSBs is unable to address the problem of excessive distribution and abusive use of PSBs. As a matter of fact, the "degradable" plastic bags available in the market could only degrade under specific background environment in relation to airflow, moisture, and so on. As our landfills are constructed as a secure containment facility, it might not provide the necessary environment for the degrade process to take place. It remains our current priority to promote the BYOB habit for waste reduction at source.
Growth Enterprise Market
2. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that in recent years, the responsible persons of quite a number of companies, at the time when they applied for listing their companies on the Growth Enterprise Market (GEM), had already planned for reselling their companies for profit after raising capital. There are views that the current operating situation of GEM is running contrary to the initial concept of establishing GEM, which was that it would become a channel for companies with growth potential (especially 9794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 emerging enterprises) to raise capital, and the authorities should therefore conduct a review of the roles, functions and market positioning of GEM. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of newly-listed companies on GEM in each of the past five years, and the percentage of such number in the total number of newly-listed companies in Hong Kong in that year;
(2) whether it knows the number of companies which transferred their listings from GEM to the Main Board in the past five years; and
(3) whether the authorities have, since the establishment of GEM, conducted any detailed study on the roles, functions and market positioning of GEM; it they have, of the results?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,
(1) The number of newly-listed companies on the Growth Enterprise Market (GEM) in each of the past five years, and the percentage of such number in the total number of newly-listed companies in Hong Kong in that year, are as follows:
Number of new Total number of new listings on GEM as Number of listings (including a percentage of Year new listings transfer of listings total number of on GEM from GEM to the newly-listed Main Board) companies 2010 7 113 6.2% 2011 13 101 12.9% 2012 12 64 18.8% 2013 23 110 20.9% 2014 19 122 15.6% 2015 (up to 9 33 27.3% 31 March)
Source of information: The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (SEHK) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9795
(2) The number of companies which transferred their listings from GEM to the Main Board in the past five years is as follows:
Number of transfer of listings from GEM to Year the Main Board 2010 12 2011 12 2012 2 2013 8 2014 7 2015 (up to 31 March) 3
Source of information: SEHK
(3) The SEHK launched GEM in November 1999. In January 2006, it published a discussion paper setting out, for discussion and comment by the market, options for further development of GEM. As a result of this consultation exercise and its discussion with the Securities and Futures Commission, the SEHK considered that the proper way forward was to reposition GEM as a second board, under which GEM would largely retain its existing structure and be positioned as a stepping stone towards the Main Board.
In order to implement the plans to develop GEM as a second board, the SEHK published in July 2007 a consultation paper on GEM setting out a number of proposed changes to the Rules Governing the Listing of Securities on GEM (GEM Listing Rules). The changes mainly aimed to codify the existing practice on GEM and streamline procedures so as to make listing on GEM more attractive to smaller issuers. Consultation conclusions were published in May 2008 and the revamped GEM Listing Rules came into effect on 1 July 2008.
The SEHK conducted a review of the procedural matters of the listing process for GEM applications in 2014 and published the details in the Listing Committee Report 2014. Together with the regulator, it will continue to monitor the operation and development of GEM.
9796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Support for Patients of Rare Diseases and Their Families
3. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that last month, a patient suffering from hereditary spinocerebellar ataxia killed himself allegedly because he was increasingly sick and he worried that he could not afford the medical expenses. The incident has aroused concern whether the medical services for patients suffering from rare diseases (rare disease patients) and support for their families are inadequate, as well as whether the authorities have formulated the relevant policies. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether public healthcare institutions have adopted any criteria for determining "rare diseases"; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) whether public healthcare institutions have any plan to set up a centralized database on rare diseases for storage of information on experience obtained in treating such diseases, with a view to enhancing the efficacy of the relevant diagnoses and treatments; if they do, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) of the current number of healthcare personnel who have received training on clinical genetic service, and whether the authorities have assessed if such healthcare manpower is sufficient to cope with the demand; as many rare diseases are hereditary, whether the authorities will allocate more resources to train more healthcare personnel specialized in clinical genetic service; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; of the authorities' measures to attract more medical students to study this specialty;
(4) as some patients' organizations have relayed to me that in Hong Kong, there is a lack of healthcare personnel experienced in treating rare diseases, whether the authorities will allocate more resources to strengthen the on-the-job training for the relevant healthcare personnel; if they will, of the details of their specific plans and resource allocations; if not, the reasons for that;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9797
(5) given that early diagnoses may help control certain rare diseases, whether the authorities have plans to step up screening of children with family history of rare diseases; if they do, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(6) as currently quite a number of countries and regions have enacted legislation and put in place policies regarding rare diseases, whether the authorities will expeditiously enact legislation and draw up policies on rare diseases so as to improve the support for rare disease patients; if they will, of the timetable and specific direction of such work; if not, the reasons for that;
(7) whether the authorities will provide financial incentives to encourage pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for treating rare diseases so that rare disease patients can obtain needed medications; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(8) whether the authorities will allocate more resources to provide financial assistance for rare disease patients and their families; and
(9) as family members of rare disease patients are under enormous psychological pressure due to the prolonged period of time in taking care of the patients, of the support measures taken by the authorities to help alleviate their pressure?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, regarding the various parts of the question, my consolidated reply is as follows:
(1), (2) and (6)
There is currently no common definition of rare diseases worldwide. The definition of rare diseases in different countries varies depending on their healthcare systems and situations. It is not easy to get hold of the full picture about information and data of rare diseases. Many treatment plans are still under development and the clinical responses of individual patients can be diverse. We need to acquire more local experience before a treatment strategy can be formulated.
9798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Currently, there is no definition of or comprehensive database on rare diseases in Hong Kong. The Clinical Genetic Service of the Department of Health (DH) provides clinical diagnosis, counselling and prevention services for those families possibly affected by genetic-related diseases. The Hospital Authority (HA) also provides medical services for patients suffering from genetic diseases and maintains the relevant records.
To fully understand the needs of patients suffering from uncommon disorders and provide them with the appropriate medical care and supportive services, the HA will continue to liaise with patient groups and pay close attention to international medical research and healthcare policies on uncommon disorders in other regions.
(3) and (4)
In the medical professional framework of Hong Kong, Clinical Genetics is not an individual specialty. Services related to Clinic Genetics can be provided by different specialties, such as Paediatrics. We do not possess comprehensive data on the number of healthcare professionals of different specialties that have received relevant training in Clinical Genetics or are providing such services.
The HA will, having regard to such factors as service demand and medical development, formulate human resource measures (for example, provision of necessary training to healthcare professionals) to provide appropriate healthcare services for the public.
(5) The Clinical Genetic Service of the DH has provided clinical diagnosis and counselling services for over 30 years for families possibly affected by genetic-related diseases. The DH and the HA have also set up a working group to study the possible options for screening for errors of metabolism for newborns in Hong Kong, including trying out a pilot scheme in the public healthcare system. The working group will study various issues such as the types of disease to be screened, scientific evidence for the effectiveness of screening and implementation logistics.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9799
The Government will continue to keep in view the medical development of genetic diseases and study, when appropriate, the introduction of relevant screening methods and technologies.
(7) Being the major public healthcare service provider in Hong Kong, the HA places high importance on providing optimal care for all patients and ensuring fair and efficient use of public resources.
The HA holds discussions with relevant pharmaceutical companies on individual diseases from time to time, with a view to working out a sustainable long-term plan to benefit more patients in terms of drug prices and drug subsidies. The HA will continue to maintain communication with stakeholders and keep all sectors abreast of the latest development of the Drug Formulary and drug subsidies.
(8) The HA has been very concerned about the needs of patients with uncommon disorders. The HA currently provides enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) for patients suffering from six types of lysosomal storage disorders, including Gaucher disease, Pompe disease, Mucopolysaccharidosis Type I/Type II/Type VI and Fabry disease. These ERT drugs are now Special Drugs in the HA Drug Formulary.
From 2008-2009 to 2014-2015, the Government allocated in stages a total of $55 million recurrent expenditure to subsidize the expenses of the above six types of patients on the expensive drugs. The HA has put in place an independent expert panel (comprising specialist physicians, paediatricians, clinical pharmacologists and pharmacists) to regularly assess the suitability of individual patients to receive ERT based on their clinical conditions. For applications considered and approved by the expert panel, the HA will provide ERT for the concerned patients at standard fees and charges.
Due to the complexity of uncommon disorders, in addition to the appropriate drugs, the HA provides various treatments other than drug therapy as necessary for patients with uncommon disorders, including rehabilitation care, pain alleviation and surgical treatment.
9800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
The HA has put in place a mechanism to regularly evaluate new drugs and review the current list of drugs in the Drug Formulary. In evaluating new drugs for listing and reviewing the existing drugs in the Drug Formulary, the HA would make reference to the latest developments in clinical research and scientific evidence. It would also uphold the core values of evidence-based medicine, rational use of public resources, targeted subsidy and opportunity cost, and take into account various factors, including the efficacy and safety of the drugs, international recommendations and practices, and views of professionals and patient groups.
The HA will continue monitoring the situation, and make appropriate adjustment to the treatment options where necessary, in order to provide holistic care for patients with uncommon disorders.
(9) The HA has been actively establishing extensive network with patients and patients' self-help groups, strengthening the psychological and social support for patients and their carers, and providing patients and their carers with empowerment and education activities, psychosocial and other necessary support.
Furthermore, to help patients and their families address or tackle emotional problems and difficulties in daily living caused by uncommon disorders, medical social workers, who are knowledgeable of community resources, may assist the patients and families in need to make use of community resources, or arrange referrals or applications for them where appropriate. For example, medical social workers may refer them to the appropriate community support services, or help them apply for charitable funds and use of rehabilitative appliances, and so on.
Policies and Measures to Promote Green Buildings
4. MR MARTIN LIAO (in Chinese): President, in connection with the Government's policies and measures to promote green buildings, will the Government inform this Council:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9801
(1) whether it knows the number, percentage and types of buildings completed within the past five years which meet the definition of "green building"; whether the authorities have quantified the contribution of these green buildings to the reduction of electricity consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;
(2) whether the authorities have set targets on the number, percentage, types, as well as the rate of reduction in electricity consumption and GHG emissions of new green buildings to be built in Hong Kong in future; if they have, of the details, and how such targets compare with those in other countries;
(3) given that the Government set up the "Steering Committee on the Promotion of Green Building" in 2013 to coordinate the joint efforts of various policy bureaux and departments in reviewing the energy saving performance of old and new buildings of the Government and those all over Hong Kong, gauge the views of the industry and study overseas experience in order to further promote the green building policy, of the work achievements of the Steering Committee;
(4) given that the authorities will put forward a blueprint on energy saving and green buildings in the first half of this year, of the relevant objectives and propositions; whether the authorities will examine the provision of various incentives to further promote green buildings; if they will, of the relevant propositions;
(5) given that since 2011, the authorities have required all new private buildings to register for "BEAM Plus" certification for the granting of gross floor area (GFA) concessions for green and amenity features, whether the authorities will consider optimizing the requirement, including granting different levels of GFA concessions according to the ratings of the "BEAM Plus" assessment attained by the buildings; and
(6) whether the authorities will consider providing incentives for building owners to encourage them to carry out maintenance works for their completed buildings in order to enhance energy efficiency of the buildings?
9802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President,
(1) Buildings account for some 90% of electricity consumption and 60% of greenhouse gas emissions in Hong Kong. Raising the environmental performance of buildings will have a huge synergetic impact on the sustainability of our built environment. The Government has been taking the lead in promoting green building in the some 8 000 government buildings. The Government has since 2009 adopted a target-based green performance framework for government buildings. The Government has completed the review of the environmental performance targets and measures of government buildings, and has enhanced these environmental objectives and requirements. New government buildings with a construction floor area of more than 5 000 sq m will aim to attain "Gold" rating or above under BEAM Plus. Thirty-three government buildings have now registered under BEAM Plus, of which the temporary office accommodation for the Energizing Kowloon East Office has been rated "Platinum" under BEAM Plus. The Cruise Terminal Building in Kai Tak Development Area and the Fire Station cum Ambulance Facility at Cheung Yip Street in Kowloon Bay, the Sports Centre, Community Hall cum Public Library in Area 14B, Sha Tin, and the Trade and Industry Tower in Kai Tak Development Area have obtained "Provisional Platinum" rating. Also, in 2009, we set a target of 5% saving in the total electricity consumption in government buildings within five years under comparable operating conditions, using the electricity consumption in 2007-2008 as the baseline. The Government had already met the 5% electricity saving target in 2013-2014. We have set a new target of 5% saving in the electricity consumption of government buildings in the next five years from 2015-2016 to 2019-2020 under comparable operating conditions, using the electricity consumption in 2013-2014 as the baseline.
As for private developments, to foster a quality and sustainable built environment, the Government has since April 2011 implemented a package of measures, including setting an overall cap on gross floor area (GFA) concessions for new building developments and the prerequisites for obtaining the GFA concessions. These prerequisites include compliance with the Sustainable Building LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9803
Design (SBD) Guidelines on building separation, building setback and site coverage of greenery where site conditions permit; the tightened criteria for green and amenity features; as well as completion of registration for BEAM Plus certification of the Hong Kong Green Building Council (but not mandating the rating to be obtained). Since the implementation of the measures in April 2011 and up to 31 December 2014, a total of 261 new development proposals approved by the Buildings Department (BD) had completed registration for BEAM Plus certification, including 84 domestic, 106 composite and 71 non-domestic building projects. Among these proposals, about 220 development proposals had to concurrently adhere to the SBD Guidelines. As these measures have been implemented for a short period only, the number of projects that have been completed in accordance with these measures is limited. We have yet to be able to assess the effectiveness of the measures, and will review the arrangements in the light of the experience gained after a reasonable number of projects have been completed.
(2) The Government has not set any target for the number of new green buildings to be completed in the future. Nevertheless, to enhance building energy efficiency performance in Hong Kong, the Government implemented in 2012 the Buildings Energy Efficiency Ordinance which mandates compliance with the minimum energy efficiency standards for the key building service installations of newly constructed buildings, as well as existing buildings which undergo major retrofitting works. This Ordinance also obliges owners of commercial buildings to carry out energy audits once every 10 years, and to publish the audit results. We expect that for new buildings, the implementation of this Ordinance will result in an energy saving of 2.8 billion kWh in the first decade, or a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of about 2 million tonnes.
Further, to save electricity consumption on air-conditioning for commercial buildings and hotels, legislation and guidelines have been in place since 1995 to require external walls and roofs of these buildings to be designed and constructed with suitable Overall Thermal Transfer Value (OTTV). Since April 2011, the BD has tightened the OTTV standard of the building envelope of these 9804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
buildings by 20%. The energy saved from this measure is estimated to be 2.4% to 4.4%. In September 2014, the BD took another step forward by promulgating a new Residential Thermal Transfer Value (RTTV) standard for residential buildings which took effect in April 2015.
(3) The inter-departmental Steering Committee on the Promotion of Green Building (Steering Committee) was set up in January 2013 under the chairmanship of the Secretary for the Environment. It comprises standing members from more than 10 bureaux and departments, including the Environment Bureau, the Development Bureau and the Transport and Housing Bureau as well as the departments under their purview. The Steering Committee acts as the central co-ordinating body to co-ordinate efforts by various bureaux and departments in promoting green building in Hong Kong in a holistic manner. So far, the Steering Committee has held four meetings with the participation of representatives from the relevant departments. Apart from discussions at the meetings, the Environment Bureau has also discussed with individual bureaux and departments on specific issues relevant to green buildings. In addition, the Steering Committee has organized an engagement forum for stakeholders to seek views and suggestions from relevant professional groups, trades, academic organizations and environmental groups on the promotion of green building. The Steering Committee has reviewed and enhanced the environmental performance targets and measures for government buildings. The Steering Committee will continue to consider ways to promote green building in the private sectors.
(4) To promote energy savings and to reduce the demand for electricity consumption, we have reviewed Hong Kong's energy intensity target and have planned to enhance our efforts to promote energy saving through tightening regulatory tools, enhancing public education and mobilizing stakeholders. Details of these measures will be set out in a document on energy saving to be released shortly.
(5) To enhance the energy efficiency of residential buildings, the BD implemented new guidelines in April 2015, which require the building envelope of residential buildings to comply with a new LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9805
RTTV standard as a prerequisite for obtaining GFA concessions. As regards the measures implemented since April 2011 (including the requirement of registration for BEAM Plus certification) mentioned in the reply to part (1) of this question, given that these measures have been implemented for a short time only, the number of projects that have been completed in accordance with these requirements is limited. We have yet to be able to assess the effectiveness of the measures and have no plan to introduce changes for the time being. We will review the measure in the light of the experience gained after a reasonable number of projects have been completed.
(6) In 2009, the Government launched the three-year Buildings Energy Efficiency Funding Schemes (BEEFS) to subsidize building owners to conduct energy-cum-carbon audits and to carry out energy efficiency improvement works. The total funding allocation was about $450 million. Over 6 400 buildings, or more than one seventh of the total building stock in Hong Kong, have received subsidies under the Schemes. It is estimated that the total energy saving achieved by the approved project would amount to around 180 million kWh per annum, or about 120 000 tonnes reduction in carbon dioxide emission. The BEEFS were closed in 2012 as scheduled. We consider that the BEEFS have achieved their intended purposes, namely, promoting the building owner's awareness of the benefits of building energy efficiency and encouraging them to take concrete action to seek improvements. We will continue to promote the enhancement of building energy efficiency, including the full operation of the Buildings Energy Efficiency Ordinance. We will also review regularly the minimum energy efficiency standards prescribed in the Building Energy Code every three years.
In addition, during the Mid-term Review of the Scheme of Control Agreements in 2013, the two power companies agreed to set up energy efficiency funds out of shareholders' earnings to help the public enhance the energy efficiency of their buildings. In June 2014, the two power companies allocated about $100 million in total to set up two energy efficiency funds to subsidize building owners to carry out improvement works to enhance the energy efficiency of 9806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
residential buildings. The two funds provide, subject to a ceiling, subsidies on a matching basis to non-commercial building owners to carry out improvement works to enhance the energy efficiency of their buildings, with priority given to single residential blocks.
Reception of Television Broadcast Signals in Remote Areas
5. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, some residents in remote areas in the New Territories West have relayed to me that they have all along been unable to receive analogue television and digital terrestrial television (DTT) broadcast signals (TV signals) and have repeatedly lodged complaints with the Communications Authority (CA) but to no avail. A spokesman of CA told the media that the transmission networks for delivering domestic free television programme services (free TV) were built and operated by the Asia Television Limited and the Television Broadcasts Limited (the two TV broadcasters), and CA would make arrangements as appropriate to take on-site signal measurements or refer the complaints to the two TV broadcasters for follow-up. Moreover, according to the information cited by the Government from the two TV broadcasters, the DTT network coverage has reached 99% of the Hong Kong population. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the villages and areas which are currently not covered by the DTT network, with indication of the locations of such villages and areas on a map; the number of residents in these villages and areas;
(2) whether it knows the methods and criteria adopted by the two TV broadcasters for calculating the DTT network coverage; whether locations encircled by coverage areas but in which TV signals cannot be received due to geographical features (e.g. blockage of signals by hilly terrains) have been excluded from the calculation of the coverage;
(3) as it has been reported that some residents in remote areas can only receive TV signals after they have built signal receiving stations in their villages by raising funds, whether these areas have been included in the calculation of the TV network coverage;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9807
(4) of the number of complaints received by the authorities in the past three years about reception of free TV broadcast signals and, among them, the number of cases referred to the two TV broadcasters for handling, with a breakdown by District Council district;
(5) how the authorities ensure the proper handling of the cases referred to the two TV broadcasters; and
(6) given that the residents in some areas have been unable to receive TV signals for over a decade or so, of the authorities' measures to help resolve the problem; whether the authorities will provide subsidies or loans for residents in these areas and other remote areas for installing facilities for receiving TV signals; if they will not, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, my reply to the six parts of the question is as follows:
(1) to (3)
At present, the construction and operation of the transmission network of the free television (TV) service in Hong Kong are the responsibility of the two domestic free television programme (free TV) service licensees, namely Asia Television Limited (ATV) and Television Broadcasts Limited (TVB). By end 2013, the coverage rate of the digital terrestrial television (DTT) service has reached at least 99% of the Hong Kong population.
The coverage rate has already taken into account the distribution of the population in Hong Kong, the blockage of TV signals due to hilly terrains and buildings, and the transmission pattern of TV broadcast signals as simulated by computer, and is calculated after sample site checks of the computer simulated assessment data.
The assessment of the computer simulation can only demonstrate that poor TV reception may be experienced in certain individual areas owing to geographical and other environmental factors. Such 9808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
areas are mostly located at remote areas where population is more sparsely distributed; for example, the areas at the south of the Lantau Island, the northeast of the New Territories near the border, and the remote areas in Yuen Long and Sai Kung. Nevertheless, the actual reception situation of individual households in the abovementioned areas may vary according to the exact location of the premises and other environmental factors (that is, individual households may experience normal or poor TV reception). Accordingly, the Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA) does not have any information on the exact number of residents who experience poor reception of TV broadcast signals in individual areas. The residents who are unable to receive DTT broadcast signals are not included in the calculation of the coverage rate mentioned above.
DTT fill-in stations (fill-in stations) have been constructed in certain areas on a self-financed basis to improve the TV reception situation of the area. The number of residents covered by such fill-in stations is not included in the calculation of coverage rate mentioned above.
(4) and (5)
In the three years between January 2012 to December 2014, in response to complaints received from residents on the reception of TV broadcast signals, the OFCA conducted a total of 1 052 site checks (442 site checks in 2012, 339 site checks in 2013 and 271 site checks in 2014) in order to provide to the residents concerned technical advice on improving TV reception. During the three years mentioned above, the OFCA has referred a total of 681 cases to ATV and TVB for follow-up (374 cases in 2012, 265 cases in 2013 and 42 cases in 2014). The OFCA does not have a breakdown of the figures by district.
The OFCA will pay attention to the progress of the follow-up actions taken by the free TV licensees, and will contact the relevant complainants if necessary to monitor the follow-up actions taken by the free TV licensees.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9809
(6) As mentioned in parts (1) to (3) above, the construction and operation of the transmission network of free TV service in Hong Kong is at present the responsibility of the two free TV licensees.
Should viewers experience difficulties in TV reception, they can call the hotline of the OFCA (2961 6333) for assistance. The OFCA will be pleased to follow up and will arrange for site checking of TV broadcast signals as necessary; or refer the cases to the free TV licensees for follow-up and for provision of technical advice to assist the viewers to improve TV reception. We have no plans of providing subsidies or loans for the construction of the relevant network.
Low Auto-fuel Prices and Fares of Public Transport Services
6. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, it is noted that with the continuous drop in the international prices of oil and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) last year, local auto-fuel prices have seen corresponding downward adjustments, including the LPG ceiling price at dedicated LPG filling stations having dropped from over $6 per litre early last year to about $3 per litre recently and the retail price of motor diesel from about $13 per litre last year to about $11 per litre recently. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities have regularly assessed the impacts of the rises and falls of auto-fuel prices on the operating costs of those public transport services (including franchised buses, green minibuses and taxis) which are subject to fare regulation; if they have assessed, of the latest findings; and
(2) as public transport operators had, for many times in the past, applied for fare increases on grounds of rising fuel prices and were granted approval by the authorities, whether the authorities have assessed if there is any room for lowering the fares of various public transport services in view of the persistently low auto-fuel prices at present; whether the authorities will reject, on grounds of low 9810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
auto-fuel prices, any application for fare increase put forward by public transport operators in the coming year; if they will not, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government has been closely monitoring the impact of the fluctuation of oil price on public transport fares. Public transport modes fuelled by oil products with regulated fares include franchised buses, green minibuses, taxis and ferries. There is no fuel surcharge for them. Fare adjustments have all along been made with reference to changes in costs and revenue in overall terms (instead of changes in fuel price alone) and do not have retrospective effect.
My reply to Mr Frederick FUNG's question is as follows.
According to the established arrangement for franchised buses, the Government would take into account a basket of factors, including:
(i) outcome of a fare adjustment formula. The formula is (0.5 x Change in Nominal Wage Index for the Transportation Section) + (0.5 x Change in Composite Consumer Price Index) - (0.5 x Productivity Gain);
(ii) changes in operating costs and revenue since the last fare adjustment;
(iii) forecasts of future costs, revenue and return;
(iv) the need to provide the bus operators with a reasonable rate of return;
(v) public acceptability and affordability; and
(vi) quality and quantity of service provided, in considering the need of any fare adjustment and the rate of the adjustment, upon receipt of fare increase applications from bus operators.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9811
Moreover, the adjustment formula would be applied on a quarterly basis. If the formula outcome reaches -2%, the Government would proactively initiate a fare review to decide whether fares should be adjusted downwards. The same basket of factors would be taken into account in such a review. Because of inflation, the outcomes have been staying at the positive level since the formula was introduced in 2006. Hence, there has been no need to initiate a fare review.
There is also a passenger reward arrangement under the fare adjustment arrangement for franchised buses. When the rate of return for an operator reaches or exceeds the threshold of 9.7% as a result of changes in the overall costs and revenue, the operator has to share the profit above the threshold as fare concessions with the passengers on an equal basis. Some operators have been offering fare concessions to passengers under this arrangement over the past few years(1).
As regards green minibuses, taxis and ferries, their fare adjustments would also be made with reference to changes in the overall costs and revenue. Changes in fuel price would inevitably affect their operating costs. However, apart from fuel cost, their operating costs are made up of various components, such as wage expense or rental, and maintenance and insurance. As the expenditure on various cost components (particularly the labour cost) have basically been increasing in recent years due to an inflationary environment, the impact of the drop in fuel cost alone on overall costs, depending on the actual situation, is insignificant. The drop therefore does not necessarily provide any room for downward adjustment of fares.
The Government will continue to keep in view the fluctuation of oil price, and will handle fare increase applications submitted by public transport operators in accordance with the established mechanisms. In handling such applications, the Government will not only consider changes in overall costs and revenue, but will also take into account factors such as public acceptability and affordability. This is to ensure that fares would be set at a reasonable level, so that public can continue to enjoy efficient services with reasonable modal choices, while the public transport operators can enjoy long-term financial sustainability.
(1) For instance, Citybus Limited (Franchise for the Hong Kong Island and Cross-Harbour Bus Network) and the New World First Bus Services Limited have introduced same day $2 discount for every second trip and same day return fare discount on solely-operated cross-harbour routes for a period of 16 weeks from January 2015 onwards. The Long Win Bus Company Limited has introduced same day return fare discount on its airport routes and North Lantau external bus routes for the period from 31 January to 1 May 2015. 9812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Monitoring of Intermediaries for Foreign Domestic Helpers and Temporary Hostels Provided by Them
7. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that on 11 March this year, an Indonesian domestic helper awaiting her new employment visa was hit by a concrete slab fallen from heights while sleeping under a canvas canopy erected on the podium of a flat, and she died several days later. The flat where the incident occurred is a temporary hostel provided for foreign domestic helpers (FDHs) by an FDH intermediary. In connection with the monitoring of such intermediaries and the temporary hostels provided by them, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as it has been reported that the FDH concerned had entered into an employment contract with her new employer before the incident, but lived temporarily in the hostel at the employer's request, whether the authorities have conducted investigations in this respect, including whether the employer has breached the law; if they have, of the results;
(2) whether it knows the respective numbers of temporary hostels and bedspaces provided for FDHs by intermediaries in each of the past five years;
(3) whether the authorities have monitored the provision of temporary hostels for FDHs by intermediaries; if they have, of the number of inspections on such hostels conducted by the relevant departments in each of the past five years; if not, whether the authorities will monitor the provision of such hostels;
(4) as it has recently been reported that the hygiene conditions of some temporary hostels are poor, whether the authorities have conducted investigations in this respect; if they have, whether cases of contravention of the law have been found; if such cases have been found, of the legislation and penalties concerned;
(5) whether the authorities have conducted investigations into the charging of fees by intermediaries on FDHs temporarily living in their hostels; if they have, whether cases of contravention of the law have been found; if such cases have been found, of the legislation and penalties concerned; and
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9813
(6) of the respective numbers of regular and surprise inspections on the operation of intermediaries conducted by the Labour Department and the respective numbers of cases in which investigations were conducted and prosecutions were instituted in response to complaints, in each of the past five years, as well as the respective numbers of intermediaries involved in such cases?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, having consulted relevant bureaux and departments, I set out below my consolidated reply to the question raised by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan:
Under the prevailing policy, any employer who wishes to employ a foreign domestic helper (FDH) must enter into a Standard Employment Contract (SEC) with the FDH. Clause 3 of the SEC provides that an FDH shall work and reside in the employer's residence in Hong Kong as stated in the SEC throughout the employment period. Moreover, the employer and FDH are required to undertake in the relevant employment visa application forms that the FDH will reside in the employer's residence as stated in the SEC.
If employers and/or FDHs are in breach of any of their undertakings in the SEC and the relevant application forms (for example, the FDH resides in an address other than the one specified in SEC during the employment), the Immigration Department (ImmD) will take such conduct into consideration when assessing the employer's future applications for employing FDHs and the FDH's future employment visa or extension of stay applications, and may refuse such applications. Employers and/or FDHs who furnish false information in the course of an application may contravene the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115). Under the prevailing laws, a person who makes false statement to an immigration officer commits an offence and is liable to prosecution and, upon conviction, to a maximum fine of $150,000 and imprisonment for 14 years. Aiders and abettors may also be prosecuted.
According to Part XII of the Employment Ordinance (EO) (Cap. 57) and the Employment Agency Regulations (EAR) (Cap. 57A), anyone who wishes to run an employment agency (EA) must first apply for a licence or a certificate of exemption. The EO and EAR have not provided for the regulation of the boarding houses or other facilities operated by the licensee. There is no requirement under the prevailing laws for the EAs to provide boarding houses to 9814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 job-seekers (including FDHs). The Labour Department (LD) does not have information regarding the boarding houses or bedspaces for FDHs provided by the EAs.
An occupier, proprietor or tenant of any premises who provides sleeping accommodation at a fee for a person presenting himself or herself shall obtain a hotel and guesthouse licence under the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation Ordinance (HAGAO) (Cap. 349) unless all accommodation in the premises is provided with a tenancy period of 28 consecutive days or more for each letting. Any flat in which there are 12 or more bedspaces used or intended to be used as sleeping accommodation for individuals under rental agreements shall obtain a bedspace apartment licence under the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance (BAO) (Cap. 447). The purpose of the HAGAO and BAO is to ensure that premises intended to be used as hotels, guesthouses or bedspace apartments meet the prescribed standards in respect of building structure, fire safety as well as health and hygiene specified in the Buildings Ordinance and the Fire Services Ordinance.
Whether individual premises fall within the ambit of the HAGAO or BAO depends on the mode of operation and the actual circumstances of each case and cannot be generalized. According to the record of the Office of the Licensing Authority (OLA) under the Home Affairs Department, the OLA has not received any related complaints or reports. If any such complaints or reports are received, the OLA will investigate and follow up the cases in accordance with the established procedures, and instigate prosecution should there be sufficient evidence. Operating an unlicensed hotel or guesthouse or an unlicensed bedspace apartment is a criminal offence, and is liable, on conviction, to a maximum fine of $200,000 and $100,000 respectively and imprisonment for two years, as well as imposition of a criminal record.
As regards the fees that the EAs may charge job-seekers (including the FDHs), the EO and EAR provide that the EAs shall not, directly or indirectly, receive from the job-seeker (including the FDH) on account of having obtained, or in connection with obtaining or seeking to obtain, employment for him/her any reward of any kind; or any payment or other advantage in respect of expenses or otherwise, except the prescribed commission. At present, the prescribed commission is an amount not exceeding a sum equal to 10% of the first month's wages received by the job-seeker (including the FDH) after he/she has been placed in employment by the EA. Should an FDH be charged by an EA for a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9815 fee over the aforementioned amount, he/she may report the case to the LD. The LD will initiate investigation promptly upon receipt of any such complaint, and will take out prosecution where there is sufficient evidence. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of $50,000. The Commissioner for Labour will also consider to revoke, or to refuse to renew, the licence of the convicted EA.
In the past five years, the number of inspections conducted by the LD each year for enforcing the EO and EAR (including regular and surprise inspections), the number of complaint investigations conducted, and the number of EAs that were successfully prosecuted are tabulated below:
Number of inspections Number of Number of EAs that to the EAs investigations Year were successfully (including regular and conducted upon prosecuted Note surprise inspections) receipt of complaint 2010 1 329 73 cases 6 2011 1 330 78 cases 5 2012 1 328 93 cases 2 2013 1 341 218 cases 5 2014 1 806 182 cases 4
Note:
Those convicted EAs could have been involved in one or more complaint cases.
Young People's Attitude Towards Rule of Law
8. MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the Hong Kong Ideas Centre carried out a study on the situations and aspirations of young people in Hong Kong, and conducted a random telephone survey between January and March this year with a sample of 1 505 young people aged between 15 and 39. As shown by the findings of the study, over 80% of the respondents considered that abiding by the law was an obligation of every member of the public. However, nearly 40% of the respondents considered that there was nothing wrong to adopt civil disobedience as a means of fighting for justice. In the group of young people aged between 9816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
20 and 24, the percentage of respondents agreeing to this view was as high as 47.1%. When asked whether they would take part in a movement similar to the occupation movement should it occur, 25.4% of the respondents indicated that they would. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities have studied the impact of the occupation movement on the rule of law in Hong Kong after its conclusion; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) as the findings of the aforesaid study showed that the core values to which the respondents attached importance were in the order of freedom from corruption, freedom, justice and the rule of law, with the rule of law receiving the lowest ranking, whether the authorities have studied why young people nowadays attach relatively less importance to the rule of law; and
(3) as nearly 40% of the respondents agreed to fighting for justice by confrontational means, whether the authorities have assessed the impact of this view on the overall development of Hong Kong; how the authorities will enhance the law-abiding awareness of young people?
SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Chinese): President, the rule of law is a fundamental core value of the Hong Kong society underpinning its success as well as an important and indispensable pillar of its competitiveness. It is a treasure of our community. Every citizen, including young people, the Government and the entire community, irrespective of their position and role, should make every effort to uphold and defend the rule of law, including respecting and complying with court decisions.
Our consolidated reply to the question raised by Mr WONG Ting-kwong is as follows:
Since the Occupy movement had begun, different members of the community have made remarks concerning the rule of law, some of which have distorted the spirit of the rule of law and may have a negative impact on the citizens, including young people. The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government has been paying attention to such a situation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9817
On the other hand, the Hong Kong and the international communities generally considered that Hong Kong's rule of law and judicial independence were functioning well during the Occupy movement, effectively withstanding various challenges and impacts, while their foundations remained unshaken. Indeed, as clearly provided for in the Basic Law, the legal system practised and the independent judicial power and the power of final adjudication enjoyed in Hong Kong are fully protected at the constitutional level.
On 10 November 2014, the Honourable Mr Justice AU of the Court of First Instance of the High Court ruled on the applications for interim injunction concerning the Occupy movement. The relevant judgment contained a clear exposition of the concept of the rule of law. The key points include:
(i) The concept of the rule of law must include the notion that every citizen and the government alike should obey and comply with the law.
(ii) Even if the defendants are of the view that a court order is wrongly granted, instead of simply disobeying it, they should first comply with it and then seek to challenge that order pursuant to the judicial process. The law cannot allow obedience of its orders to be a matter of individual choice.
(iii) It is wrong for any suggestions that the rule of law is not undermined or under challenged if people can freely or intentionally disobey the law first and then accept the legal consequences. The rule of law cannot realistically and effectively operate in a civilized and orderly society on this basis.
(iv) The upholding of the rule of law must be built upon, among others, the due administration of justice for the enforcement of court orders and the law.
(v) Worryingly, there have been repeated open suggestions by a number of public figures (including some legally trained individuals) to the public and the protestors and demonstrators en masse to the effect that ex parte injunctions need not to be complied with until they had 9818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
been determined after an inter partes hearing, and that there is no challenge to the rule of law from merely disobeying civil orders, and that the rule of law is only threatened when there is disobedience of an actual order of committal for contempt of court. These suggestions are wrong and incorrect and would cause the public and the defendants an unwarranted misunderstanding on the concept of the rule of law.
Moreover, when the Court of Appeal dealt with the relevant applications for leave to appeal, it clearly stated that it echoed the above observations made by the Honourable Mr Justice AU.
The Department of Justice (DoJ) welcomes the Courts' exposition of the concept of the rule of law. While respecting citizens' rights of peaceful expression of views, the HKSAR Government has been advising citizens, including young people, to abide by the laws of Hong Kong and court orders and respect others' rights when expressing their aspirations. They are also advised to express their views in a rational, peaceful and law abiding manner, or else there would be profound negative impact on Hong Kong.
At the same time, the HKSAR Government has been promoting and publicizing the concept of the rule of law to the citizens, including young people, through various channels. These works include:
(i) Apart from actively participating in the "Law Week" organized by The Law Society of Hong Kong on an annual basis, the DoJ also organizes the "Prosecution Week" event and "Meet the Community" programme to further enhance citizens' understanding, in particular that of young people, of the criminal justice system, their role therein and their appreciation of the importance of the rule of law through activities such as visits, talks, mock court as well as different types of competitions.
(ii) The Government has been working with the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education to promote civic education outside schools with the focus on the core civic value of "respect and inclusiveness". This seeks to promote the importance of mutual LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9819
respect and accommodating people with diverse cultural background, different views and perspectives with a view to enhancing social harmony and promoting messages concerning the upholding of the rule of law.
For instance, the Youth Community Legal Information Centre (CLIC) website
(iii) For the purposes of upholding the rule of law and maintaining law and order, the Police are committed to raising citizens' law abiding and crime prevention awareness through various channels. Specifically for young people, with the introduction of the Junior Police Call and the Police School Liaison Programme, the Police strengthen communication with young people and students so as to give them an understanding of the role of the Police and the importance of respecting law and order, as well as to help them develop a sense of discipline and positive values. In the light of the development of the Internet and social media in recent years, the Police actively disseminate updated information through the Internet and social media platforms, such as the Police Public Page, Hong Kong Police Mobile Application and Hong Kong Police YouTube Channel, to enhance interaction with young people and raise their awareness in law abiding and crime prevention.
(iv) The Education Bureau has strived to promote the spirit of the rule of law among students. To deepen students' understanding of the spirit of the rule of law, the related learning contents are covered in various Key Learning Areas/subjects, including General Studies for primary schools, Life and Society at junior secondary levels and Liberal Studies at senior secondary levels.
9820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
In addition, "recognizing the importance of the rule of law and respect for human rights" has been accorded as one of the major expected learning outcomes at Key Stage 4 in the Revised Moral and Civic Education Curriculum Framework (2008). Furthermore, in the Basic Education Curriculum Guide (P1-P6) 2014, schools have been recommended to strengthen their Moral and Civic Education through developing students' positive values, including the spirit of the rule of law.
The Education Bureau has also placed great emphasis on enhancing students' understanding of core values and developing their positive values. The Bureau has recommended that schools adopt daily life events and topics as learning materials to help students hold onto such core values as the rule of law, integrity, freedom and justice in a fast-changing social environment. The Bureau will continue to place emphasis on students' whole person development and offer teachers suitable professional support (for example, developing learning and teaching resources, organizing professional development programmes and creating teachers' networks) to enable them to instil positive values in students through suitable learning experiences that are relevant to their daily lives and can help them cope with the changes they face.
The HKSAR Government will continue with the above work, and is proactively considering ways to enhance this area of work. The DoJ will also continue to steadfastly uphold the rule of law and safeguard judicial independence in Hong Kong.
Regulation of Households in PRH Retaining Regular and Continuous Residence in Their Units
9. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, recently, a number of persons from one-person households of public rental housing (PRH) have sought my assistance, saying that the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) demanded the termination of their tenancies under the relevant provisions of the Housing Ordinance (Cap. 283) on the grounds that they had failed to retain LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9821 regular and continuous residence in their units (non-regular residence). It is learnt that some assistance seekers, who need to frequently leave Hong Kong for work or cannot return home from work until midnight, were unable to meet the HA staff conducting flat inspections and were therefore alleged to have committed non-regular residence. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) regarding the cases of alleged non-regular residence involving one-person households and non-one person households respectively, of the respective numbers of cases in each of the past three years, in which (i) HA demanded termination of tenancies, (ii) the Central Team upheld the demand after in-depth investigations, (iii) reviews by the Appeal Panel were sought by the households concerned, and (iv) appeals by the households concerned were allowed after review (set out such information in a table);
(2) as I have learnt that HA conducts flat inspections to detect abuse of PRH units, but over 90% of such inspections take place before 8 pm when very often the persons from one-person households living in PRH units in remote areas but working in the urban areas have not yet returned home, whether HA will adjust the timing for flat inspections, so that inspection staff can contact such households; if it will not, of the reasons for that;
(3) whether the methods and procedures adopted by HA for handling suspected cases of non-regular residence involving one-person households are different to those adopted for handling similar cases involving non-one person households; if they are, of the details;
(4) as I have learnt that HA will not demand the transfer of a non-one person household to a unit of a smaller area or the recovery of the unit on the grounds that some of the members of the households have left Hong Kong for work, but one-person households may have their units recovered for leaving Hong Kong for work, whether HA has assessed if this practice is unfair to one-person households, and whether this practice will in effect force one-person households to give up leaving Hong Kong for work; and
9822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
(5) whether the authorities will consider reviewing and enhancing the policies and procedures for handling cases of suspected non-regular residence involving one-person households in PRH units?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to the questions raised by Mr LEUNG Che-cheung is as follows:
The Tenancy Agreement (TA) signed between the Hong Kong Housing Authority (HA) and public rental housing (PRH) tenant stipulates that the tenant and all family members listed in the TA shall move into the PRH flat within one month after the commencement of the tenancy and maintain regular continuous residence in the PRH flat. In addition, in July 2008, the HA reaffirmed the administrative arrangements to deal with tenancy abuse, including termination of tenancy against cases of proven subletting of PRH flats (with or without rental income); non-occupation cases under which tenants are staying in proven alternative accommodations or cases of not retaining regular and continuous residence in PRH flats for a continuous period of up to three months. The HA adopts the same standard in handling tenancy abuse by any PRH tenants. For serious breaches, no matter by one-person household or non-one-person household, the HA will terminate the tenancy without giving prior warning. If tenants cannot retain regular and continuous residence in the PRH flats due to short-term employment, the HA will exercise discretion in the consideration for individual cases.
In handling suspected tenancy abuse cases, Housing Department (HD) staff will adopt appropriate approach and conduct surprise flat visits according to the circumstances of the case, such as during morning, daytime, nighttime or other time slots (including Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays). However, if tenants cannot be reached by the HD staff when they are working outside, they can provide proof to show that they are residing in their PRH flats and therefore have not breached the clause of maintaining regular and continuous residence in PRH flats.
Some tenants need to work outside Hong Kong and cannot retain regular and continuous residence in the PRH flats. In order to fully utilize housing resources and taking into account the needs of tenants, the HA will issue Letters of Assurance (LA) to tenants who surrender their PRH flats voluntarily. If LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9823 housing needs arise in the future, LA holders can submit applications to the original estate offices for redemption of LA. If LA holders can fulfil the prevailing eligibility criteria for PRH application and other conditions, they may be reallocated PRH flats in the district where they originally resided, subject to availability of resources.
In the past three years, the Central Team of the HD conducted about 8 000 investigations of randomly selected or suspected tenancy abuse cases per year, amongst which non-occupation of flat was the most common type of tenancy abuse. In the course of investigation, the nature of the case may change. For example, some PRH households might voluntarily surrender their flats, after knowing that they were under investigation. Others might cease to pay rent intentionally because they knew that their flats would be recovered due to tenancy abuse. Such flats would be recovered by the HA due to rent-arrears eventually. On average, there were about 650 confirmed cases of tenancy abuse per year, including non-occupation of flat, unauthorized use of flat, letting or subletting of flats or making false declaration, and so on. The HD does not keep detailed breakdown of these cases by categories of one-person households or non-one-person households. The HD recovered about 400 PRH flats per year on average through the issue of notice-to-quits (NTQ) as a result of tenancy abuse. In the past three years, some 250 cases per year on average were heard by Appeal Panel against the NTQs issued on grounds of not retaining regular and continuous residence in PRH flats. The average number of NTQs being confirmed, revised or cancelled after appeal hearings were 160, 50 and 40 per year respectively.
The HA spares no efforts in combating tenancy abuse and the relevant measures have been effective. We will continue to monitor the implementation of the measures and review the measures when appropriate.
Provision of Medical Services for Hong Kong Residents Residing on the Mainland
10. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that quite a number of Hong Kong residents (especially retired elderly persons) reside on the Mainland at present, and some of them prefer to return to Hong Kong for medical treatment because the healthcare system on the Mainland is different from that in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
9824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
(1) whether it has grasped the current number of and the situation concerning those Hong Kong residents residing on the Mainland seeking consultation at the medical institutions on the Mainland; if it has, of the details;
(2) given that the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital (Shenzhen Hospital), which is operated by the University of Hong Kong in collaboration with the Shenzhen Municipal Government, commenced operation in 2012 and brought in Hong Kong-style hospital management models and medical technologies, whether the Government knows the situation since 2012 concerning those Hong Kong residents residing on the Mainland seeking consultation at the Shenzhen Hospital;
(3) whether it knows the number of Hong Kong residents residing on the Mainland who returned to Hong Kong to seek consultation at the accident and emergency departments of public hospitals or public general out-patient clinics in the past three years;
(4) given that the Government plans to extend the coverage of the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme to the Mainland and use the Shenzhen Hospital as the pilot institution, of the details of the pilot scheme, including the technical issues to be resolved; and
(5) whether the authorities have explored ways to apply the experience of implementing the pilot scheme mentioned in (4) for extending the coverage of the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme on the Mainland; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr CHAN Han-pan is as follows:
(1) We do not have any statistics on the number and situation of Hong Kong residents residing in the Mainland who seek medical consultations at healthcare institutions in the Mainland.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9825
(2), (4) and (5)
To allow Hong Kong elders who choose to reside in the Mainland to use their elderly healthcare vouchers at designated Mainland hospitals or clinics, we are discussing with the University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital (Shenzhen Hospital) to launch a pilot scheme. Under the pilot, eligible elders will be able to use their healthcare vouchers to pay for the primary care services provided by the Shenzhen Hospital. The pilot will operate on the electronic platform developed for the healthcare vouchers, and is expected to be launched this year. We are now working on the specific details of the pilot including workflow and administrative arrangements. At present, we do not have any detailed information about the number of Hong Kong people residing in the Mainland who seek medical consultations at the Shenzhen Hospital.
After the pilot at the Shenzhen Hospital has been operating for some time, the Government will conduct a review and consider the appropriate scope of extending the use of elderly healthcare vouchers in the Mainland.
(3) Under the existing policy, all eligible Hong Kong residents, whether they live in the Mainland or not, may use public healthcare services subsidized by the Government. As eligible persons are not required to declare whether they live in the Mainland when they seek medical consultations, the Hospital Authority does not have the figures concerning Hong Kong people residing in the Mainland who return to Hong Kong for medical treatment.
Provision of Information in Ethnic Minority Languages on Public Services
11. DR HELENA WONG (in Chinese): President, some concern groups have relayed to me that although in recent years, some government departments and statutory bodies have printed, in ethnic minority languages, namely Indonesian, Hindi, Nepali, Tagalog, Thai and Urdu, (ethnic languages), leaflets/brochures outlining various public services, the majority of the people from the ethnic minorities (EMs) still are unaware of the availability of such services (e.g. 9826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 interpretation services provided by non-profit-making organizations and employment support services of the Labour Department). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) which government departments/statutory bodies have printed in ethnic languages leaflets/brochures on their services, and set out the titles and publication/reprint dates of such leaflets/brochures, as well as the number of copies printed this year in a table by name of department/body;
(2) which government departments/statutory bodies provide, in ethnic languages on their web sites, information on their services;
(3) whether the various government departments/statutory bodies have adopted uniform criteria for determining the need for providing, in ethnic languages, printed and/or online information on their services; if they have, of the details; and
(4) given that the recorded messages of the telephone enquiry services currently provided by various government departments are in Cantonese, Putonghua or English only, and it is difficult for those EMs who do not speak such dialects or languages to use such services, whether the authorities will require various government departments and recommend various statutory bodies to improve their telephone enquiry services by providing recorded messages in ethnic languages or an option for connecting the callers to interpreters proficient in ethnic languages, so as to ensure that EMs can obtain timely information on public services?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, various government bureaux/departments and public organizations have been providing public services to meet the needs of ethnic minorities and to facilitate their early integration into the community according to their respective policy purview and service area. The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau is responsible for the overall policy on the promotion of racial equality and the Race Discrimination Ordinance. The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau also promulgates the Administrative Guidelines on Promotion of Racial Equality (the Guidelines) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9827 to provide policy guidance to government bureaux/departments and public organizations to promote racial equality and ensure equal access by ethnic minorities to public services.
The Guidelines cover the key public services which are particularly relevant to meeting the special needs of ethnic minorities and facilitating their integration into the community, including medical, education, vocational training, employment and major community services. The Guidelines cover 22 government bureaux/departments and public organizations, such as the Education Bureau, Social Welfare Department (SWD), Labour Department (LD), Home Affairs Department (HAD), Employees Retraining Board (ERB), Department of Health (DH), Hospital Authority (HA), Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, Housing Department (HD), Legal Aid Department, Hong Kong Police Force, Correctional Services Department, Fire Services Department, and so on. The Administration will keep the scope of the Guidelines under review and update where necessary.
(1) According to information collected, a list of service leaflets/brochures published by government bureaux/departments and public organizations in ethnic minority languages is at Annex 1;
(2) According to information collected, a list of government bureaux/departments and public organizations which set out their services in ethnic minority languages in their websites is at Annex 2;
(3) In line with the guiding principles of the Guidelines, government bureaux/departments and public organizations should take steps to eliminate racial discrimination arising from the policies and measures of the relevant public authorities, and take into account equal access to public services for ethnic minorities during the formulation, implementation and review of relevant policies and measures. Hence, the relevant government bureaux/departments and public organizations, from time to time, review the respective policies and measures, and provide interpretation services or other assistance for ethnic minorities to meet their needs. For example, the HA has engaged a contractor to provide interpretation services in hospitals to ethnic minority patients, and the HD has employed ethnic minority staff to assist ethnic minority applicants at its customer service centre.
9828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Apart from interpretation services, government bureaux/departments and public organizations may also implement other appropriate measures to facilitate access of ethnic minorities to public services having regard to their respective circumstances. For example, the LD's checklist sets out that its job centres operate special counters and organize tailor-made employment briefings for ethnic minority job seekers. Checklists of the relevant government bureaux/departments and public organizations are available on Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau's webpage.
(4) At present, recorded messages in Cantonese, Putonghua and English are available at the 1823 hotline. When ethnic minorities call 1823 and are transferred to customer service officers, the latter will, having regard to the needs of the callers, activate a recorded message in seven ethnic minority languages (that is, Indonesia, Hindi, Nepali, Punjabi, Tagalog, Thai or Urdu). The callers may be advised to dial the interpretation hotline of the Centre for Harmony and Enhancement of Ethnic Minority Residents (CHEER Centre) funded by the HAD. Upon receipt of an ethnic minority call, the interpreter of the CHEER Centre will approach 1823 for a three-way conference call to help the caller obtain the necessary information.
Ethnic minorities may also dial the free interpretation and enquiry hotline of the CHEER Centre directly. The interpreter of the CHEER Centre will arrange a three-way conference call with the ethnic minorities and the relevant department staff to handle the enquiries.
Moreover, individual government departments and public organizations provide recorded messages in different ethnic minority languages according to needs. For example, under the DH's Special Preventive Programme, recorded messages in seven languages (that is, Tagalog, Vietnamese, Thai, Hindi, Indonesia, Nepali and Urdu) other than Cantonese, Putonghua and English are available at the hotline on disease information.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9829
Annex 1
Service leaflets/brochures in ethnic minority languages
Based on information collected, service leaflets/brochures published by government bureaux/departments and public organizations in ethnic minority languages are set out below. Such leaflets/brochures are published and reprinted and the numbers of copies are determined according to actual needs.
Title of leaflets/brochures on Bureau/Department/ Date of publication/ public services in ethnic minority Public organization reprint languages Education Bureau Non-Chinese Speaking Parent March 2015 Information Package: Your Guide to Education in Hong Kong Education Support Measures for December 2014 Non-Chinese Speaking Students Parent booklet on "Helping Your 2012 Children of Kindergarten Age" Leaflet on "Application for June 2014 Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme & K1 Admission Arrangements" Primary One Admission ― Notes on To update on a How to Complete the "Application yearly basis Form for Admission to Primary One" Information Note on Primary One To update on a Admission System Specifically for yearly basis Non-Chinese Speaking Students Primary One Admission ― Notes to To update on a Parents on Central Allocation yearly basis Secondary School Places Allocation To update on a System ― Notes Specifically for yearly basis Non-Chinese Speaking Students in the Form of Frequently Asked Questions Secondary School Places Allocation To update on a System ― Notes for Parents on yearly basis Application for Secondary 1 Discretionary Places 9830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Title of leaflets/brochures on Bureau/Department/ Date of publication/ public services in ethnic minority Public organization reprint languages Secondary School Places Allocation To update on a System ― Notes for Parents on yearly basis Central Allocation Tips on Learning Chinese for Parents August 2015 of Non-Chinese Speaking Students Pamphlet on "Early Identification and August 2011 Intervention of Learning Difficulties Programme for Primary One Pupils" Education Bureau ― A Brief Introduction on Kindergarten July 2014 Student Finance and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Office of the Scheme 2014-2015 Working Family 2014-2015 Financial Assistance for May 2014 and Student Primary and Secondary Students Financial Assistance 2015-2016 Household Application May 2015 Agency for Student Financial Assistance Schemes(1) Social Welfare Child Abuse It Matters You 2012 Department Support Services to 2013 Spouse/Cohabitant Battering Cases Seek Early Assistant Stop 2013 Spouse/Cohabitant Battering ― Services for Battered men Safety Card 2013 Having an Unplanned Pregnancy! 2013 What Can I Do? Family and Child Protective Services 2013 Unit Pamphlet on Integrated Family 2013 Service Centre Information on Compassionate 2010 Rehousing and Other Housing Assistance Leaflets on Day Child Care Services October 2014 Considering Adoption November 2008 Adversity is not a dead end, but February 2012 giving up on life is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9831
Title of leaflets/brochures on Bureau/Department/ Date of publication/ public services in ethnic minority Public organization reprint languages Elderly Services December 2009 Protecting Elderly Persons Against January 2015 Abuse Rehabilitation Services February 2009 Medical Social Services August 2009 Probation Service(2) February 2015 Community Service Orders Scheme(2) September 2014 Young Offender Assessment Panel(2) September 2014 Post-Release Supervision of September 2014 Prisoners Scheme(2) Correctional/Residential Homes(2) September 2014 Social Security Allowance Scheme May 2014 Guangdong Scheme August 2013 Traffic Accident Victims Assistance June 2010 Scheme Criminal and Law-enforcement June 2010 Injuries Compensation Scheme Comprehensive Social Security May 2009 Assistance Scheme Labour Department Work Incentive Transport Subsidy March 2015 Scheme (reprint) Statutory Minimum Wage: Latest April 2015 Revision Concise Guide to Statutory Minimum August 2014 Wage Concise Guide to Productivity September 2014 Assessment for Employees with Disabilities under the Statutory Minimum Wage Regime Easy-to-use Employment Services of 2005 the Labour Department An Employment Services Guide for July 2013 Ethnic Minority Job Seekers Service of the Selective Placement April 2011 Division Youth Employment and Training Q3 2015 Programme (tentative) 9832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Title of leaflets/brochures on Bureau/Department/ Date of publication/ public services in ethnic minority Public organization reprint languages A Concise Guide to the Employment October 2009 of Children Regulations A Guide to the Employment of Child October 2009 Entertainers A Concise Guide to the Employment October 2009 of Young Persons (Industry) Regulations A Guide on Civil and Criminal January 2010 Proceedings Related to the Employment Ordinance Fact Sheet on Employment Claims January 2010 Investigation Division, Labour Department How to Apply for Employees' March 2013 Compensation for Death Important Information for Employers September 2009 and Employees on Compensation for Work Injuries and Occupational Diseases Employment Ordinance at a Glance 2014 A Concise Guide to the Employment 2011 (Amendment) Ordinance 2010 Part-time Employment ― Know 2012 More About Labour Legislation Notes for Construction Workers 2013 Common Unsafe Conditions when November 2013 working at Height on Construction Sites (1) Common Unsafe Conditions when November 2013 working at Height on Construction Sites (2) Falling a Few Feet Can Be Fatal Use November 2013 Suitable Working Platform A Casebook of Fatal Accidents March 2014 Related to Work-at-Height Fatal Accidents Related to March 2014 Work-at-height ― Case 1 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9833
Title of leaflets/brochures on Bureau/Department/ Date of publication/ public services in ethnic minority Public organization reprint languages Fatal Accidents Related to March 2014 Work-at-height ― Case 3 Fatal Accidents Related to March 2014 Work-at-height ― Case 7 Decompression Illness May 2014 Common Unsafe Electrical Facilities June 2014 on Construction Sites ― Exposed Live Conductors Common Unsafe Electrical Facilities June 2014 on Construction Sites ― Exposed Live Conductors on Switchboards Fatal Accidents Related to Electrical July 2014 Work ― Case 1 Fatal Accidents Related to Electrical July 2014 Work ― Case 4 Fatal Accidents Related to Electrical July 2014 Work ― Case 6 A Casebook of Fatal Accidents July 2014 Related to Electrical Work Volume 2 They Hold a Family's Fortunes September 2014 It Can Save a Life September 2014 Occupational Health Clinic Expected to be published in 2015 Occupational Safety & Health Centre Expected to be and Occupational Health Clinic published in 2015 Safety at Work ― A Guide to Expected to be Ladders and Elevated Working published in 2015 Platforms Compliance with Occupational Expected to be Safety & Health Laws is a Shared published in 2015 Responsibility Safe Lifting ― example Expected to be published in 2015 Never mix cleansing agents Expected to be haphazardly published in 2015 3 steps to electrical work safety Expected to be published in 2015 9834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Title of leaflets/brochures on Bureau/Department/ Date of publication/ public services in ethnic minority Public organization reprint languages Do You Know Tenosynovitis? Expected to be published in 2015 Prevention of Heat Stroke in Hot Expected to be Weather published in 2015 Safe use of chemicals by cleansing Expected to be workers published in 2015 To Play Safe, Lift Heavy Objects March 2009 Properly Prevent Heat Stroke When Working March 2009 in Hot Weather Protect your Hearing (High Noise March 2009 Jobs can Cause Permanent Damage) Make Every Step Safe When May 2009 Working At Heights Guard Your Eyes ― Use Proper Eye June 2009 Protection at Work Industrial Safety (General Duties of January 2010 Persons Employed) Safety at Work ― A Guide to January 2010 Personal Protective Equipment Guidance Notes for the Safe Isolation January 2010 of Electricity Source at Work Work-related Neck and Back Pain February 2010 Prevention of Heat Stroke at Work in March 2010 a Hot Environment Dangerous Parts of Machinery or October 2011 Plant Operational Guide for Air Receivers September 2012 Prevention Against Fall From Height November 2012 Home Affairs Your Guide to Services in Hong Department Kong - Thai (4th edition) June 2012 - Hindi (4th edition) February 2013 - Nepali (5th edition) May 2013 - Urdu (4th edition) March 2014 - Tagalog (6th edition) February 2015 - Indonesia (8th edition) March 2015 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9835
Title of leaflets/brochures on Bureau/Department/ Date of publication/ public services in ethnic minority Public organization reprint languages Guide to Living in Hong Kong January 2013 (revised edition) Support Services for Ethnic September 2014 Minorities (leaflet) (revised edition) Employees Training for Ethnic Minorities April 2014 Retraining Board (April-September 2014)(3) Training for Ethnic Minorities October 2014 (October 2014-March 2015)(3) Training for Ethnic Minorities April 2015 (April-September 2015)(3) Training for Ethnic Minorities October 2015 (October 2015-March 2016)(3) Department of Family Health Service November 2011 Health Information on Antenatal Service August 1998 Information on Postnatal Service October 2010 Information on Family Planning October 2010 Service Information on Woman Health January 2012 Service Information Booklet on Methadone June 2014 Treatment Programme Fact Sheet on Cervical Screening 2008 Programme HIV Clinical Service at Integrated 2010 Treatment Centre Universal Antenatal HIV Testing ― May 2008 the Concern of an Expectant Mother Rapid HIV Test for Delivering January 2008 Women Break the needle habit ― Methadone July 2009 does it Hotline card 2112 9980/2359 9112 December 2002 I need? You need? The HIV August 2000 antibody test He needs? She needs? 9836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Title of leaflets/brochures on Bureau/Department/ Date of publication/ public services in ethnic minority Public organization reprint languages Prevent Sexually Transmitted May 2008 Infections and AIDS ― Practise Safe Sex Knowing AIDS September 2009 Health advice for Tuberculosis 2010 Patients Poster of "This is a designated no March 2010 smoking area. The fixed penalty for (published) smoking offence is $1500" March 2013 (reprint) Newsletter of smoking cessation April 2014, services for ethnic minorities and June 2014, new immigrants(4) September 2014, January 2015 Hospital Authority Interpretation Service in Hospitals September 2014 (Poster) Office of the Booklet on Internet Learning Support June 2012 Government Chief Programme Introduction Information Officer Leaflet on Internet Learning Support August 2014 Programme Introduction Housing Support Service Centres for Ethnic December 2013 Department Minorities (published) Q4, 2015 (reprint) Legal Aid Legal Aid Services In Hong Kong Department - Indonesian, Hindi, Nepali, Tagalog, June 2008 Thai, Urdu, Bengali (published) July 2009 (reprint) - Punjabi, Vietnamese October 2009 - Tamil May 2010 Need an Interpreter? (poster) January 2011 Hong Kong Police Forms and notices for persons in - Force custody(5) A Language Identifier poster(6) - LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9837
Title of leaflets/brochures on Bureau/Department/ Date of publication/ public services in ethnic minority Public organization reprint languages Correctional Information for Person in Custody(7) December 2012 Services (published) Department February 2014 (reprint) Self-harm Prevention leaflet(8) - Fire Services What to do in case of fire(9) 2008 (published) Department 2014 (reprint) Fire Prevention in the Home(9) 2008 (published) 2014 (reprint) Fire safety in old buildings(9) 2014 Fire safety for waste recycling 2014 sites(10)
Notes:
(1) Starting from the 2015-2016 school year, the SFO introduces the family-based "Household Application for Student Financial Assistance Schemes" to facilitate families with child(ren) attending primary and secondary school(s) or kindergarten(s)/child care centre(s) to apply for student financial assistance. The leaflet concerned covers details of application for student financial assistance by primary and secondary students and under the Kindergarten and Child Care Centre Fee Remission Scheme.
(2) These service leaflets have only soft copy version available on the SWD Homepage which can be downloaded as when necessary. Service recipients of these services are referred by the Court/other government departments.
(3) Available in English and ethnic minority languages only.
(4) The DH's Tobacco Control Office subvents the United Christian Nethersole Community Health Service to provide centre-based and outreach counselling as well as smoking cessation services for ethnic minorities and new arrivals.
(5) Forms and notices provided by the Hong Kong Police Force for persons in custody (including "Custody Search Form", "Notice to Persons in Police Custody or Involved in Police Enquiries", "Arrest and Detention Policy" and "Treatment and Conditions in Police Detention Facilities") have been translated into 15 ethnic minority languages in both written and audio forms to ensure that ethnic minorities in custody understand the police arrest and detention policies that may affect them.
(6) A Language Identifier poster, which contains 25 ethnic languages including Sinhala, Tagalog, Tamil, Urdu and Bengali, is provided at all police report rooms in order to help identify the language spoken by ethnic minorities in contact with the Police. 9838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
(7) Available in 28 languages, with 25 ethnic languages (that is, Arabic, Bengali, Burmese, Dutch, French, German, Hindi, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Malay, Nepali, Outer Mongolian, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Spanish, Swahili, Tagalog, Tamil, Thai, Turkish, Urdu and Vietnamese), for inmates of different ethnicities.
(8) Available in eight languages, that is, Hindi, Indonesian, Outer Mongolian, Punjabi, Spanish, Swahili, Thai and Vietnamese.
(9) Available in some foreign languages, that is, Tagalog, Indonesian, Urdu, Hindi, Thai, Nepali, Japanese and Korean.
(10) Available in some foreign languages, that is, Tagalog, Indonesian, Urdu, Hindi and Nepali.
Annex 2
Websites with information on services in ethnic minority languages
Based on information collected, the government bureaux/departments and public organizations which set out their services in ethnic minority languages on their websites are listed below.
Education Bureau
Education Bureau ― website of Student Finance Office of the Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency
Social Welfare Department
Labour Department
Home Affairs Department ― website of Race Relations Unit
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9839
Employees Retraining Board
Department of Health ― website of Centre for Health Protection
Office of the Communications Authority
Housing Department
Legal Aid Department
Fire Services Department
Fitting of Seat Belts in Rear Seats of Van-type Light Goods Vehicles
12. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Chinese): President, recently, some members of the public have relayed to me that the rear seats of some van-type light goods vehicles (LGVs) are not fitted with seat belts, and in the past few years, a number of passengers in such seats were seriously injured or killed in traffic accidents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the numbers of traffic accidents involving van-type LGVs in each of the past five years, and the respective numbers of rear seat passengers injured and killed in these accidents because such seats were not fitted with seat belts;
(2) whether it knows the current number of van-type LGVs the rear seats of which are not fitted with seat belts;
9840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
(3) whether measures are in place to ensure that all the rear seats of van-type LGVs are fitted with seat belts to protect passenger safety; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(4) whether the authorities will consider enacting legislation to require all the rear seats of van-type LGVs to be fitted with seat belts; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of Mr Albert CHAN's question is as follows:
(1) The number of traffic accidents involving van-type light goods vehicles (LGVs) and the number of casualties of rear seat passengers of van-type LGVs in the past five years are at Annex.
(2) As there is no provision under the existing legislation requiring van-type LGVs to be fitted with seat belts on the rear seats, the Transport Department (TD) has not kept any record on whether rear seats of van-type LGVs have been fitted with seat belts.
(3) and (4)
The TD has been closely monitoring the safety of passengers of all types of vehicles. As a sub-category of LGVs, van-type LGVs are mainly used for carrying goods rather than passengers. At present, there is no unified practice in overseas jurisdictions with regard to the fitting of seat belts on the rear seats of LGVs. For example, the United Kingdom and Singapore do not require the rear seats of LGVs to be fitted with seat belts. The TD will continue to keep in view overseas practices as well as traffic accident figures involving van-type LGVs and their contributory factors, and will conduct reviews and take follow-up actions having regard to the circumstances. The TD will also continue to communicate with the LGV trade and encourage them to procure LGVs with seat belts fitted on rear seats.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9841
Annex
Number of traffic accidents involving van-type LGVs and number of casualties of rear seat passengers of van-type LGVs in the past five years
Number of casualties of rear seat passengers of Number of van-type LGVs Year traffic Seriously Slightly accidents Killed Total injured injured 2010 1 652 0 (0) 9 (1) 123 (13) 132 (14) 2011 1 616 0 (0) 2 (0) 97 (10) 99 (10) 2012 1 620 0 (0) 7 (3) 120 (19) 127 (22) 2013 1 671 1 (1) 13 (2) 138 (16) 152 (19) 2014 1 673 0 (0) 16 (3) 100 (8) 116 (11)
Notes:
(1) For traffic accidents involving casualties of rear seat passengers of van-type LGVs, the Police only record whether the victims concerned have worn seat belts, but not whether the rear seats of the van-type LGVs involved have been fitted with seat belts.
(2) The figures in brackets indicate the number of victims who have not worn seat belts.
(3) Traffic accidents may involve a wide range of contributory factors. The above figures do not necessarily imply any direct relationship between rear seat passengers of van-type LGVs not wearing seat belts and their casualties.
Measures to Protect and Enhance Telecommunications Infrastructures
13. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that incidents of works contractors damaging underground optical fibre cables or telecommunications devices when carrying out excavation or underground works have occurred from time to time. Such incidents often affect telecommunications services, causing inconvenience and losses to telecommunications service users. In addition, the Electricity Supply Lines (Protection) Regulation (Cap. 406 sub. leg. H) and the Gas Safety (Gas Supply) Regulations (Cap. 51 sub. leg. B) respectively provide that a person who carries out any works shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the occurrence of an electrical accident or an interruption to the supply of electricity arising from those works and to protect the gas pipe from damage, while telecommunications 9842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 devices, networks and lines (collectively referred to as "telecommunications infrastructures") are not protected by similar legislation. On the other hand, some residents in remote areas have relayed to me that the speed of Internet access in these areas is unsatisfactory. They have pointed out that since telecommunications infrastructures are closely related to industrial and commercial activities, the daily lives of members of the public as well as competitiveness of society, the Government should endeavour to assist telecommunications service providers in protecting and enhancing telecommunications infrastructures. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of cases in each of the past three years in which underground telecommunications infrastructures were damaged due to the carrying out of works and, among these cases, the number of those in which telecommunications services were affected, with a tabulated breakdown by type of works project (i.e. railway projects, public works projects and other works projects);
(2) of the details of the measures currently taken by the authorities to protect various infrastructures (including water supply, electricity supply and town gas) from damage; the differences between such measures and the measures to protect telecommunications infrastructures; whether the authorities will enact legislation as well as formulate penalty mechanisms and measures to require works contractors to take all reasonable measures to prevent telecommunications infrastructures from damage arising from the carrying out of works; if they will, of the details; and
(3) how the authorities assist telecommunications service providers in enhancing telecommunications infrastructures in remote areas with a view to increasing the connection speed of the Internet; whether they have plans to set the lowest acceptable connection speed of the Internet and formulate specific plans and timetable for making the connection speeds of the Internet in various districts in Hong Kong attaining that level?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9843
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President,
(1) According to the statistics of the Highways Department, the numbers of cases of damage to underground telecommunications infrastructure caused by the carrying out of works in the past three years are as follows:
Number of Cases of Damage to Telecommunications InfrastructureNote Type of Works Projects 2012 2013 2014 Railway Works 4 9 0 Public Works 12 8 7 Other Works 3 5 4 Total 19 22 11
Note:
The above statistics are records of damage cases received by the Highways Department. Relevant organizations (including organizations that employ the contractors for carrying out works and telecommunications operators) involved in cases of damage to underground utilities infrastructure are not required by the law to report all cases.
The Office of the Communications Authority (OFCA) requires, under the "Guidelines for Local Fixed, Mobile, and Services-Based Operators for Reporting Network and Service Outage", telecommunications operators to report network and service outage cases to the OFCA under specified circumstances, including where the 999 emergency routes to the Police centre have been affected for more than 15 minutes and where any fixed network failure has affected the normal operation of the airport for more than 15 minutes, and so on. According to the OFCA's records, in the past three years, there was only one case of damage to telecommunications infrastructure caused by the carrying out of works in 2012 where reporting of such case to the OFCA was required under the above Guidelines.
9844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
(2) At present, there is already relevant legislation in place to protect underground infrastructure, including telecommunications cables, from being damaged. In accordance with the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 28), the respective works promoter is required to obtain an Excavation Permit (XP) from the Highways Department or Lands Department for excavations on unleased Government land including streets maintained by the Highways Department. To prevent damage to existing underground services, including telecommunication cables, specific requirements are included under the Conditions of Excavation Permit to mandate the Permittee to take appropriate precautionary measures. For excavation work carried out on streets, such measures include making all reasonable effort to obtain relevant utility record plans from utility undertakings; using suitable non-destructive underground services detectors to locate existing underground services before excavation; using hand-digging method for excavation close to or around existing underground services; and taking all reasonable precautions to protect the existing underground services in the vicinity from the effects of vibration, undermining, or other earth movements caused by the Permittee's work. Under the Ordinance, violation of a permit condition is an offence and shall be liable to a fine.
Apart from being protected by the Conditions of Excavation Permit under the abovementioned legislation, telecommunications infrastructure, waterworks, electricity supply lines and town gas pipes are also protected by other legislation.
In respect of telecommunications infrastructure, pursuant to section 18 of the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106), any person who proposes to carry out work on any land shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent damage to any telecommunications line or radiocommunications installation in or near the land. The affected telecommunications licensee may under the abovementioned section recover from the person any expenses incurred in making good any damage to a telecommunications line or radiocommunications installation caused by a failure to take such precautions.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9845
For waterworks, pursuant to the Waterworks Ordinance (Cap. 102), any person who, without permission in writing of the Water Authority, damages or destroys any part of the waterworks shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to a fine. The Water Authority may also recover the cost of repair and other works, and damage or loss from such person. In addition, the Water Supplies Department (WSD) requires contractors to comply with the requirements in the "Conditions of Working in vicinity of Waterworks Installations" and to take all necessary steps to avoid any damage to water mains and installations by excavation works. The WSD has deployed a number of dedicated inspection teams as a proactive measure to carry out surveillance of road works which may affect water mains and to give advice and/or warning to the concerned contractors for proper protection of the water mains against damage. Moreover, a polyethylene identification tape on top of the water mains is used to serve as a prior warning to trench diggers of water mains underground.
For electricity supply lines, the Electricity Supply Lines (Protection) Regulation (Cap. 406H) stipulates that works should not be carried out in the vicinity of electricity supply lines (including underground electricity cables and overhead electricity lines), unless all reasonable steps have been taken to ascertain the existence of any such electricity supply lines and their alignments before the works begin. The Regulation also requires that when conducting works in the vicinity of electricity supply lines, all reasonable measures must be taken to prevent interruption of electricity supply caused by the works. Violation of the relevant regulations is an offence and shall be liable to imprisonment and to a fine.
In respect of gas pipes, any person who carries out works in the vicinity of a gas pipe shall comply with the requirements of Regulation 23A of the Gas Safety (Gas Supply) Regulations (Cap. 51B). The person shall take all reasonable steps to ascertain the location and position of the gas pipe before commencing the works and protect the gas pipe from damage arising out of the works that would be likely to prejudice safety during the course of works. Violation of the relevant regulations is an offence and shall be liable to a fine and imprisonment. The Electrical and Mechanical 9846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Services Department (EMSD) has also issued a "Code of Practice ― Avoiding Danger from Gas Pipes" to provide practical guidance of preventive measures required for any works in the vicinity of gas pipes, including: (1) collection of plans, (2) underground utility survey, (3) digging of trial holes, and (4) safe digging practices, in order to avoid damage to gas pipes from construction works. The Code of Practice and associated booklets are available on the EMSD's website. Moreover, the EMSD promotes the gas pipe safety by conducting safety talks and carrying out site inspections to the construction and building management industries regularly, especially for the construction site management and the front-line staff the ways in taking reasonable steps to avoid damage to gas pipes from construction works.
Since relevant legislation is already in place to protect telecommunications infrastructure, the Government has no plan to formulate another set of legislation to require works contractors to take all reasonable steps to prevent damage to telecommunications infrastructure caused by the carrying out of works.
(3) With the full liberalization of the telecommunications market in Hong Kong, the provision of Internet access service, the network coverage and the adoption of access technologies and speed are primarily based on the commercial considerations of operators. The Communications Authority considers it inappropriate to set a standard for Internet connection speed.
In fact, Hong Kong has been ranked among the top in the world in Internet access capabilities. Our broadband networks cover nearly all commercial and residential buildings in the territory; our average peak Internet connection speed at 84.6 Mbps is the fastest in the world, and our average Internet connection speed at 16.3 Mbps is the second fastest in the world; and our telecommunications charges are among the lowest in the world. All these demonstrate the success of our pro-market approach.
With a view to encouraging and assisting operators in network expansion and thus enhancing Internet coverage in remote areas, the OFCA has all along been offering facilitation measures, including LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9847
assisting operators in rolling out network across public streets, government-owned bridges and tunnels, and explaining to property management companies and owners' corporations the responsibilities and duties of operators and the advantages that would bring to the residents in respect of network rollout in private premises so as to improve network coverage and connection speed.
Regulation of Electric Unicycle
14. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have relayed to me that on a number of occasions recently, they saw people riding electric unicycles on pavements and cycle tracks. It is learnt that some electric unicycles, after being charged for an hour, can travel 25 kilometres at a maximum speed of 16 kilometres per hour, and members of the public can purchase electric unicycles at certain shopping malls and online shopping web sites. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the interpretation of a "motor vehicle" under the Road Traffic Ordinance (Cap. 374) is "any mechanically propelled vehicle", whether an electric unicycle is a motor vehicle as defined by the Ordinance;
(2) of the respective numbers of cases in which the authorities issued verbal warnings to and instituted prosecutions against people who had contravened the relevant legislation for riding electric unicycles, as well as the number of traffic accidents involving electric unicycles, in the past two years;
(3) whether, in the past two years, the authorities looked into the sales situation of electric unicycles on the Internet and in the market, and whether the relevant government departments took any law enforcement actions; and
(4) whether it has found out which major world cities where it is legal to ride electric unicycles on the roads at present; given that due to their increasingly good quality and reasonable prices, light and convenient means of transport such as electric unicycles have become more popular worldwide, whether the authorities will make 9848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
reference to the experience of the transport authorities overseas and consider amending the legislation to permit the use of light and convenient means of transport such as electric unicycles on the roads in Hong Kong subject to compliance with conditions such as specified safety requirements and speed restrictions; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of Mr Frederick FUNG's question is as follows:
(1) and (4)
Electric unicycles are mechanically propelled. According to the Road Traffic Ordinance (Chapter 374) (the Ordinance), "motor vehicles" are defined as any mechanically propelled vehicles. As such, electric unicycles could belong to the category of "motor vehicles".
In order to be registered and licensed in Hong Kong, any motor vehicle must belong to a class of vehicles specified in Schedule 1 to the Ordinance. At present, electric unicycles do not belong to any of the classes of vehicles specified in Schedule 1, hence they cannot be registered and licensed.
Since the construction and operation of electric unicycles could pose danger to the users themselves and other road users, the Government has no plan at this stage to amend Schedule 1 to the Ordinance to permit the registration and licensing of electric unicycles.
As for the regulation of electric unicycles in other cities, generally speaking, overseas cities do not allow unregistered and unlicensed vehicles to be driven on roads. According to the preliminary information gathered by the Transport Department, the Department has not found any overseas cities specifying that electric unicycles can be used on roads.
(2) The Police do not keep any record on the number of verbal warnings issued and prosecutions made against driving electric unicycles on roads, nor traffic accident figures involving electric unicycles. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9849
(3) There is currently no legislation in Hong Kong prohibiting the sale of electric unicycles on the Internet and in the market. Although electric unicycles cannot be registered and licensed (see the reply to parts 1 and 4) and hence cannot be driven on roads, the Government is aware that electric unicycles can be used indoor or on other non-road places.
Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination
15. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that some candidates who sat for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSEE) this year complained respectively that during the Chinese Language and English Language listening tests, there was interference with the sound broadcast of the content of the tests by the Radio Television Hong Kong, and that Chinese translation was not provided for the abbreviations of English proper nouns in the Chinese examination papers on the Biology subject. In connection with the arrangements for HKDSEE, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) if it knows whether the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA) has conducted comprehensive investigations into the aforesaid complaints; if HKEAA has, of the details of the investigations, the latest progress and follow-up actions; if not, whether HKEAA will conduct investigations immediately; if HKEAA will not, of the reasons for that;
(2) whether it knows the number of candidates, in each of the past three years, requesting to take the listening tests of the Chinese Language or English Language subjects in the "Special Room" in the examination centres before or during the tests, with a breakdown by subject and the time gap between the candidate entering the "Special Room" and the commencement of the test concerned;
(3) whether it knows the number of complaints about HKDSEE received by HKEAA from candidates in each of the past three years, with a breakdown by subject; of the details of the investigation results of such complaints and the follow-up actions; and
9850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
(4) as it has been reported that Chinese translation was provided for the abbreviations of English proper nouns in last year's Chinese examination papers on the Biology subject but there was no such an arrangement this year, if it knows the criteria based on which HKEAA determines whether Chinese translation of English terms needs to be provided in Chinese examination papers, and whether consistent criteria are adopted for various subjects; if they are not adopted, of the respective criteria for various subjects?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Dr Kenneth CHAN is as follows:
(1) According to the established mechanism of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority (HKEAA), cases brought to the attention of the HKEAA will be thoroughly investigated and considered. The HKEAA will contact the candidates concerned, invigilation staff as well as other candidates for further relevant information. Video recordings of the examinations will also be studied as appropriate for more background information in relation to the cases. All the information will be considered in detail by a Standing Committee of the HKEAA (Standing Committee) which comprises a team of senior assessment staff of the HKEAA. For general cases, the Standing Committee will process the cases with reference to a set of established guidelines and make recommendations to the Public Examinations Board (PEB) on the actions to be taken. After the PEB has approved the recommendations, the candidates will be informed of the outcomes. For cases involving special considerations, the Standing Committee will submit reports with recommendations to the PEB for its consideration. The PEB will examine the information of the cases carefully and make a decision. The decision of the PEB will be conveyed to the candidates concerned before the release of examination results.
Regarding the overlapping voices which occurred in the Chinese Language (Papers 3 and 5) Listening and Integrated Skills examination, upon thorough investigation by the HKEAA and the Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK), it is confirmed that there was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9851
no irregularity on the original sound track. According to the investigation of RTHK, some technical problems did occur during the live broadcast. Thus, the HKEAA has continued to follow up on the case of overlapping of voices in this subject and has obtained further information from RTHK to evaluate the impact of the incident on candidates. The case will be submitted to the Standing Committee for its handling and consideration so as to ensure that candidates are fairly assessed.
For the English Language (Paper 3) Listening and Integrated Skills examination, the HKEAA has promptly taken follow-up actions. It has deployed additional personnel in the said examination and also strengthened the monitoring during the broadcast so as to uphold the broadcast quality. On the examination day, there was no overlapping of voices during the broadcast.
Regarding the use of English abbreviations in the Chinese version of Biology Paper 2 (with details in the reply to Part (4)), relevant comments on the examination paper will be presented to and discussed by the Biology Subject Committee in the post-examination review.
The HKEAA is committed to the continuous improvement of the quality of its examination and assessment services. Each year, after the examination, a post-examination review will be held to review the conduct of the examination as well as to identify areas for further improvement in the quality of the examination papers, marking as well as administration of the examination. As far as examination papers and marking are concerned, the subject committees of respective subjects will also meet after the examination to review the relevant question papers and candidates' performance. These subject committees comprise subject experts and teachers, who will scrutinize the question papers and marking schemes, and make recommendations for further improvements as appropriate.
(2) Candidates sitting the listening examinations of the two language subjects are given at least 15 minutes to test whether the reception quality of their radios/earphones/receivers is satisfactory prior to the start of the examinations. In the events that the reception is poor, 9852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
candidates can request to take the examinations in the Special Room. If the reception problem occurs after the start of the examinations, candidates can also make the request to the invigilation staff of taking the examinations in the Special Room at once.
According to the current arrangements, candidates will be arranged to take the examinations in the Special Room under the following situations:
Mark penalty will not be imposed Mark penalty will be imposed on candidates going to the on candidates going to the Special Room under the Special Room under the following situations following situations - Radio/earphones not working; - Not bringing a radio to a - Unable to tune the radio to the radio-broadcast centre; correct channel or radio with - Having forgotten to bring or poor reception. lost earphones/batteries; - Arriving 30 minutes or more after the reporting time; - Bringing an oversized radio (exceeding 18 inches x 6 inches x 6 inches) or an electronic device other than radios, Walkmans, Discmans or radio-cassette players.
Candidates going to the Special Room are required to write down the entering time and reasons on the "Special Room Sessional Report" (the Report) so that the HKEAA can verify if mark penalty is applicable. As the HKEAA has destroyed all the Reports completed by individual candidates after the release of results, data on the times at which candidates entered the Special Room are not available. The HKEAA has recorded the following data of the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination (HKDSEE) with regard to the reasons for going to the Special Room in the past three years:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9853
Chinese Language: Number of candidates Number of candidates Total going to the going to the number of Special Room because Special Room because of Year candidates of reception problem being late or not bringing going to the (non-mark penalty listening equipment Special Room categories) (mark penalty categories) 2012 3 908 205 4 113 2013 4 402 319 4 721 2014 4 362 297 4 659
English Language: Number of candidates Number of candidates going to the going to the Total number Special Room because Special Room because of of candidates Year of reception problem being late or not bringing going to the (non-mark penalty listening equipment Special Room categories) (mark penalty categories) 2012 5 183 174 5 357 2013 6 088 275 6 363 2014 5 019 252 5 271
(3) The numbers of irregularity reports or complaints received from the candidates of the HKDSEE in the past three years are tabulated below. The cases are classified according to their nature (rather than subjects), for example, reception problems in listening tests, centre environment/noise/invigilation staff and irregularities in speaking examinations, and so on.
Reception Centre Irregularities Total Year problems in environment/noise/ in speaking number of listening tests invigilation staff examinations complaints 2012 157 202 129 488 2013 360 604 340 1 304 2014 192 249 210 651
Regarding the follow-up action taken by the HKEAA in handling examination irregularity cases, please refer to the reply to Part (1).
9854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
(4) Question 1 of 2015 HKDSEE Biology Paper 2 involves two biological terms: 促卵泡激素 (Follicle Stimulating Hormone, FSH) and 促黃體激素 (Luteinizing Hormone, LH). According to the "Biology Curriculum and Assessment Guide (S4-S6)", students are expected to understand the significance of hormonal control of the menstrual cycle, thus what the question requires is knowledge within the curriculum.
Following the practice adopted in previous Biology examinations, the English abbreviations of biological terms that are commonly used and found within the curriculum have been adopted in both the Chinese and English versions of the examination papers to facilitate candidates' reading and writing of such terms in the examination. Examples of these include using DNA to denote Deoxyribonucleic Acid (脫氧核糖核酸), ATP for Adenosine Triphosphate (腺苷三 磷 酸), and NADP for Nicotinamide Adenine Dinucleotide Phosphate ( 菸酰胺腺嘌呤二核苷酸磷 酸). These English abbreviations are published in "An English-Chinese Glossary of Terms Commonly Used in the Teaching of Biological Sciences in Secondary Schools"
During question-setting, if the question involves terms that fall beyond the curriculum, the moderation committee will adopt appropriate presentation of the terms based on the requirement of the questions. The common ways of presentation include providing the full name, the abbreviation, or providing relevant information of the term in the question, and so on. This requires the exercise of professional judgment based on the requirement of the individual questions and the impact of the presentation on candidates' understanding and writing during the examination. Taking the use of HCG (the full name is Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (人絨毛 膜促性腺激 素)) in the Biology Paper 2 Question 1(a)(iii) of this year as an example, the question has clearly stated the related function of HCG and candidates only need to apply the information LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9855
when answering the question. On the other hand, if the full names of the terms or explanatory notes are essential for candidates to understand the question, the relevant information will certainly be provided in the examination papers to facilitate candidates in answering the question.
In conclusion, in setting the questions, the moderation committee of each subject will adopt the above principles and take into account the curriculum coverage, the context and requirement of the questions, and the impact on candidates' understanding and writing in adopting the most appropriate terms and ways of presentation. Under all circumstances, the English and Chinese versions of the papers are consistent with one another so as to ensure fairness to candidates attempting either version.
Abuse in Use of Trade Plates
16. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, trade licences and trade plates (T plates) are issued to vehicle manufacturers for delivery of vehicles, motor dealers for presale demonstration of vehicles to potential customers, and vehicle repairers for testing of serviced vehicles. In reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council in March 2013 on the Estimates of Expenditure 2013-2014, the Government pointed out that it had amended the relevant legislation in July 2012 to strengthen the monitoring mechanism for preventing abuse in the use of T plates. However, early last month, a traffic accident happened in which a works vehicle with the T plate lost control and caused the death of a pedestrian. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the progress of the Police's investigation into whether illegal use of the T plate was involved in the aforesaid traffic accident;
(2) of the respective numbers of reports and convictions relating to illegal use of T plates in each of the past three years; among such convictions, of the respective numbers of cases involving attempts to evade payments for the vehicle first registration tax or vehicle licence fees, and driving vehicles not yet tested by the authorities on compliance with safety and environmental protection requirements;
9856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
(3) of the number of vehicles with T plates that the Police intercepted (among such vehicles, the respective numbers of trucks and works vehicles), as well as the number of cases involving illegal use of T plates uncovered during such law enforcement operations, in each of the past three years;
(4) as it has been reported that insurance companies generally provide T plate holders with third party risk insurance coverage only, and they may refuse to pay compensations for traffic accidents which occurred while T plates were used illegally, of the average amount of damages awarded in respect of traffic accidents involving illegal use of T plates, as well as the highest amount of awarded damages, in each of the past three years; whether it knows if there were cases in which the convicted persons could not pay the full amount of awarded damages; if there were, of the details; and
(5) whether it has conducted any study on further amending the relevant legislation and stepping up law enforcement, so as to curb the abuse in the use of T plates?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my replies to the following parts of the question raised by Mr Paul TSE are as follows:
(1) In respect of the traffic accident mentioned in the question in which a works vehicle under a trade licence allegedly had lost control and caused the death of a pedestrian, as the Police is conducting an investigation into the case, we are not in a position to make any comments at this stage.
(2) and (3)
According to the information of the Police, the prosecution figures for illegal use of trade licences for the past three years from 2012 to 2014 are 21, six and six respectively. The Police does not keep any record of the number of reports and convictions relating to illegal use of trade licences and the number of vehicles under trade licences among the suspicious vehicles searched during routine enforcement operations. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9857
(4) The claims relating to traffic accidents are civil litigation cases. The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance does not collect any statistics on damages awards in respect of traffic accidents involving the use of trade licences.
(5) Under the Road Traffic (Registration and Licensing of Vehicles) Regulations (Cap. 374E) (the Regulations), trade licences and trade plates are issued by the Transport Department (TD) to a manufacturer or a repairer of, or a dealer in, vehicles for use in the course of his/her business. They are valid for a maximum of one year. A trade licence contains information including the name and address of the holder, the number of the trade licence and its validity period. Trade plates are a pair of metal plates with the number of the trade licence printed on them. Trade licences and trade plates must be displayed on the vehicles in use under trade licences.
By way of legislative amendment in July 2012, the Government further strengthened the monitoring mechanism to prevent the abuse of use of trade licences. The amended Regulations stipulate that a holder of a trade licence must maintain a register of journeys recording the particulars of each journey (not less than 30 latest journeys). A duplicate copy of the register must also be kept on board the vehicle in use under the trade licence to facilitate enforcement action by the Police. Licence holders may only authorize their employees engaged in the relevant business to use the trade licences. To ensure that a trade licence will only be used by the licence holder or his/her authorized persons, all trade licence holders are required to maintain detailed authorization records containing information on the particulars of the users authorized by the licence holders. The users authorized by the licence holders are also required to carry on board the written authorizations for checking upon request by the TD or any police officers.
The Police will carry out enforcement action to search suspicious vehicles (including vehicles under trade licences) on the road. The TD will also conduct random checks on the registers of journeys, written authorizations and authorization records on a regular basis to ensure the proper use of trade licences. Any non-compliance with the provisions on trade licences in the Regulations constitutes an 9858 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
offence. Apart from penalty imposed by courts, the TD will normally cancel the trade licences concerned as an enhanced measure in combating abuses.
The TD and the Police will continue to monitor the use of trade licences and will review the operation of the law from time to time to ensure that the use of trade licences will not be abused.
BILLS
First Reading of Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: First Reading.
PEAK TRAMWAY (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015
CLERK (in Cantonese): Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2015.
Bill read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
Second Reading of Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Second Reading.
PEAK TRAMWAY (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2015 (the Bill).
We explained to the Legislative Council in 2013 that as the Peak Tramway Ordinance (the Ordinance) did not provide for any post-2013 arrangements at that time, the Government would adopt a two-stage approach to handle the long-term arrangements of the peak tramway operation and the necessary legislative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9859 amendment exercises. We completed the work in the first stage in 2013. After making an amendment to the Ordinance in December 2013, we granted a two-year interim operating right to the Peak Tramways Company Limited (PTC) which will expire by the end of this year (that is, 2015). We are now proceeding with the tasks in the second stage as planned, which means we will further amend the Ordinance to provide for the long-term arrangements for the peak tramway operation so as to facilitate its continued operation after the expiry of the interim operating right by the end of this year.
The Bill seeks to amend the Ordinance in order to empower the Chief Executive in Council to grant post-2015 operating right of the peak tramway to any suitable operator and to establish a legal framework for an exit mechanism. The existing Ordinance does not provide for an exit mechanism for the transfer of operating right.
Specifically, the Bill stipulates that the Chief Executive in Council may grant future operating right commencing on or after 1 January 2016 to any suitable operator in a manner as the Chief Executive in Council thinks fit. Each new operating right should be granted for a period not exceeding 10 years. Moreover, if the incumbent operator makes an application and submits evidence on its upgrading plan which satisfies the Chief Executive in Council that it is committed to and has the ability to undertake the upgrading plan to enhance the facilities and improve the peak tramway service, the Chief Executive in Council will grant an operating right for a further period not exceeding 10 years to the same operator before the expiry of the current operating right. In other words, an operating right can be granted in a "10-plus-10-year" manner and the power of granting an operating right can be exercised repeatedly.
Since the 1980s of the last century, the operating right of the peak tramway was granted and extended on a 10-year basis on each occasion. Such a practice not only gives the operator some business and financial certainty, it also allows the Government to update the terms of the operating right on each occasion of granting or extending an operating right, having regard to the circumstances at the time. Whilst a 10-year operating right is generally sufficient from an operator's point of view, if an operator plans to make a major investment to upgrade its facilities and services, an operating right for a longer period may be needed to ensure the viability of its planned investment. Therefore, the Bill stipulates that the Chief Executive in Council may grant an operating right in a "10-plus-10-year" manner as and when necessary.
9860 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
The terms on which the operating right is to be granted will be subject to approval by the Chief Executive in Council, having regard to the proposed terms put to the Chief Executive in Council following discussion between the Government and the operator.
Currently, the track of the peak tramway is situated on Government land while the sites in which the termini at both ends of the track are located, the relevant premises, tramcars, tracks, plant rooms, and so on, are private assets. The Bill stipulates that the exit mechanism will be activated once the operating right is transferred to another operator. Under the exit mechanism, if the incumbent operator is going to leave the business, the Chief Executive in Council can make it mandatory for the asset owner to lease the sites and relevant premises and to sell the essential equipment which are vital to the operation of the peak tramway (including tramcars) so as to ensure that the exit of the operator and transfer of the operating right can be conducted orderly on a legal basis and minimize the risk of disrupting the peak tramway service. A reasonable compensation will be provided to the owner of private assets. Any dispute over the sum of compensation may be referred to the Lands Tribunal or resolved by arbitration with mutual consent. When the dispute is being resolved by legal means, sections 11B(5) and 11C(4) of the Bill stipulate that the new operator may take possession of the assets first so as to ensure a smooth handover and avoid disruption to the peak tramway service. The Department of Justice has confirmed that the arrangements for mandatory lease and sale of assets, as stipulated in the Bill, are consistent with the requirements for protection of private property as enshrined in Articles 6 and 105 of the Basic Law.
An operator may leave the business upon expiry of the operating right. Such a situation may occur if the incumbent operator does not have the intention to continue its business. It may also occur if the Chief Executive in Council did not further grant an operating right to the incumbent operator or the Government and the operator cannot reach an agreement on the terms of the new operating right
The exit mechanism may be activated before the expiry of the current operating right. The Bill provides for a mechanism for the Chief Executive in Council to terminate the operating right before its expiry on grounds of safety of the peak tramway operation, the incumbent operator's failure to comply with the terms on which an operating right is granted, or possible liquidation of the incumbent operator on account of evidence shown. Before the Chief Executive LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9861 in Council makes a termination order, the operator can make a written representation to the Chief Executive in Council to convey its views and provide an explanation.
The peak tramway was constructed by a private company and it has been in operation since 1888. Its original purpose was to serve the hotel operated by the same company on the Peak and subsequently it became a means of public transport serving the residents in the Mid-Levels area. However, with the development of road networks and provision of public transport services between the Victoria Peak and Mid-Levels, the peak tramway has basically become a tourism and recreational facility since the 1980s. In view of the above, the Bill amends the definition of "Secretary" to "Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development" in order to transfer the original power and policy responsibility of the Secretary for Transport and Housing to the former.
With regard to the 10-year operating right commencing January 2016, the Government plans to discuss with the PTC, on a without prejudice basis, the possibility of granting it a new 10-year operating right as per the legal framework stipulated in the Bill. This 10-year operating right would be granted to the PTC, subject to the basic agreement between the Government and the PTC on its terms, the Legislative Council's passage of the Bill and the Chief Executive in Council's agreement on the Bill. The Government considers that granting the operating right for the next 10 years to the PTC can avoid the risk of disrupting the peak tramway service which may arise from a lengthy tendering process.
As a matter of fact, the PTC has a good track record on operating the peak tramway in terms of service quality and safety performance over the years. It also intends to invest around $600 million in an upgrading plan to increase the tramcar capacity and improve the queuing and waiting arrangements. The relevant government departments consider the preliminary proposals of the plan desirable and do not envisage any insurmountable difficulties in implementation.
Upon granting of the 10-year operating right commencing 2016, the PTC can formally apply for a 10-year extension of it (that is, 10-plus-10 years) alongside the submission of the upgrading plan with proven feasibility. If the Chief Executive in Council is satisfied that the PTC is committed to undertaking the upgrading plan and has the capability to do so, the operating right will then be extended by 10 years.
9862 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
If it turns out that the Government and the PTC cannot agree on the terms of the 10-year operating right commencing 2016, the Government will grant the operating right through tendering upon the Legislative Council's passage of the Bill.
The major proposals of the Bill have responded to the main concerns expressed by Members previously. We consulted the Panel on Economic Development in March 2015 and the Panel basically supported these major proposals and the Government's plan to discuss with the PTC the possibility of granting it a 10-year operating right commencing January 2016.
We sincerely hope that the Legislative Council can pass the Bill in time so that the Government can make specific arrangements for the operating right commencing 2016 under the new legal framework to ensure smooth continuation of the peak tramway service. The Government will spare no effort to assist the scrutiny work of the Legislative Council.
President, I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2015 be read the Second time.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.
Council went into Committee.
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council is now in Committee to continue to consider the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2015. The Committee now continues the third debate.
According to the time allocation arrangement which has been indicated to Members, this debate will come to a close at around 2.30 pm today. As I will give Members who wish to speak in this debate an opportunity to speak by all LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9863 means, will Members who wish to speak press the "Request to speak" button expeditiously. I will allow other Members to speak before calling upon Members who wish to move amendments to make their concluding speeches.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2015
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move Amendment No 599 under Rule 60(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), which reads, "Resolved that head 170 be reduced by $89,244,000 in respect of subhead 700".
Although this sum of money is provision to finance the Short-term Food Assistance Service Projects (the Projects) administered by the Social Welfare Department (SWD), I think the Projects should long since be scrutinized by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. To me, the use of the Budget by the Government to deliberately circumvent this Council this time around is an act of disrespect. Although the Projects, which have been in operation since 2009, have assisted more than 160 000 people in meeting their urgent needs, the Government still refuses to regularize the services. Instead, the Projects remain to be planned and operated by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with the additional provisions provided by the Government every several years, such that the services are adversely affected, and this is unacceptable to me.
It has been six years since the commissioning by the Government of five NGOs to launch the Projects in 2009. Following the additional provisions of $100 million and another $200 million in 2011-2012 and July 2013, the Government has again announced in this year's Budget the allocation of an additional $200 million to extend the services for two years until 2017. What plan does the Government have to deal with the relevant services after 2017? When will the services be regularized? Actually, the implementation of short-term projects illustrates that the Government does not wish to come up with a long-term solution to resolve Hong Kong's poverty problem. According to the Government, the ratio of low-income households to the overall number of recipients rose from 46% in 2011-2012 to 54%, or more than half, in end-January 2014. Furthermore, the number of the unemployed accounted for 15% of the overall number of recipients. On the other hand, in its reply in March 2013, the 9864 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Government indicated that more than 36% of the recipients had used the services for more than once during the 50-month service period. Obviously, these Projects are targeted at households living in a state of structural poverty.
Over the past 50 years, we have seen the "pie" of Hong Kong economy grown bigger and bigger but the disparity between the rich and the poor has also turned more serious. With the economic wealth generated by social development concentrated in the hands of a small number of rich people, the reward received by the low-income people has continued to shrink. Some people even have to do two jobs to make ends meet. With the Government's policy being tilted to the rich, the costs of development have to be borne mainly by the grassroots. For instance, urban redevelopment has made their living far worse than before, thereby resulting in the phenomenon of "the better the economy, the more impoverished the poor people become".
HUI Po-keung, an Associate Professor of the Department of Cultural Studies of the Lingnan University, pointed out in his book Rescuing the Poor from the Rich that the major problems caused by polarization in society have nothing to do with whether or not there is a decrease in the actual income of households in poverty, but with the low-income people, who make up the vast majority of the population, finding it increasingly difficult to share the resources which can prevent their standard of living from deteriorating. Hence, should the Government refrain from changing the current redistribution of social resources and reducing the "free meals" offered to major enterprises and businessmen, poverty will continue to exist under the unfair social system and policy. It is disappointing that not only has the Government evaded its responsibility of carrying out a tax reform to achieve justice in wealth, but it also lacks commitment to eliminating the wealth gap and setting a target for eradicating poverty. As a result, poverty-stricken households and individuals have to rely on assistance provided by the Projects long term. The Government's refusal to regularize the relevant services and implementation of the Projects with an improvisation mindset reflects that it is contributing to the unfair social system and lacking commitment to helping the poor.
In fact, the significance of these Projects lies not only in distributing food for a short period of time to ensure the needy will not starve to death on the streets, but also in serving as a major point of intervention for social capital to be built to enable NGOs to learn more about those people caught in a perpetual state of poverty as well as the underlying causes, with a view to assisting them in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9865 dealing with their problems in relation to their lives, families and work while serving the low-income groups. Nevertheless, the Government is now taking advantage of short-term projects to require by agreement the operators, district units, enterprises, shops and community canteens to set up networks of services, as well as providing a large number of data while shirking its own responsibility of policy formulation. Actually, the Government should regularize the food assistance services immediately to enable social welfare organizations to provide sustainable services and help promote mutual assistance in communities, with a view to assisting the poor in getting rid of poverty in the long run.
The spiralling of property prices and rentals in recent years is partly caused by the inflow of hot money from various parts of the world into Hong Kong in search for profit-reaping opportunities from investments and partly because the abolition of the rent control policy by the Government in 1998 has caused owners to increase rents steeply, thus pushing both property prices and rentals far beyond the affordability of the public. These problems have further aggravated the burden of the grassroots. Even though people may eat less, they must have a shelter. Since most of their income has to be spent on meeting their housing expenses, low-income households can only save on food and clothes, or even give up preparing their own meals due to the exorbitant fuel charges and opt for cheap and less nutritious food instead. As a result, the Projects have to indirectly address the social problems faced by the grassroots who have difficulty making ends meet due to the spiraling property prices. Although it appears that the Government will still be unable to lower property prices in the foreseeable future, it has indicated clearly that it is reluctant to reinstate the rent control policy. Given that the Government has no long-term initiatives to alleviate the financial burden on low-income households, why is it reluctant to regularize the Projects? Can it really repudiate the significance of the Projects and people's needs for the services provided and suddenly bring the Projects to an abrupt end?
Another reason for the need to regularize the Projects is that the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme has failed to function as a safety net. It has been more than 20 years since the Government last reviewed the basic needs of CSSA recipients. Furthermore, CSSA can no longer meet the basic needs of the poor due to the initiatives implemented by the Government to, for instance, reduce CSSA payments in 1999 and 2003, require using family as a unit of application, and so on. In recent years, the wealth gap problem has become very serious. With more and more members of the community joining the call on the Government to resolve the poverty problem, the Government eventually seeks to overwhelm the voices calling for adjusting 9866 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
CSSA payments with the granting of double pay or triple pay in subsidy payments. Though these extra subsidy payments may temporarily alleviate the people's problem of getting enough food, this is, after all, just a one-off short-term initiative. Moreover, the cash assistance system has lost its desired effectiveness because the cash assistance payment can simply not meet essential needs.
On the other hand, incidents involving the dependence of single mothers who are ineligible to apply for CSSA on the CSSA payment of their children have occurred from time to time. This has given rise to a social policy of offering assistance in kind or food assistance to the poor and the starving. The Government should originally be responsible for reforming the CSSA system and making commitment to the poor. Unfortunately, it is reluctant to make any commitment to adjusting the basic needs of CSSA recipients and has no policy objectives for reducing the poverty population. I can really not see any possibilities of the Projects being terminated.
The operation of the Projects on a short-term basis affects not only the long-term planning of the organizations involved and manpower providing the services, but also the allocation of resources for the provision of services. The service providers face a variety of problems, including an unstable food supply and difficulties in finding enough space for the storage of fresh food and meeting the Government's requirement on food quality, which means that food without an expiration date, such as vegetables, fruits, and so on, cannot be provided. For this reason, in addition to adjusting the funding arrangement, the Government should also enhance communication with the sector regarding the regulation of food and storage, so that joint efforts can be made to improve the services to benefit more needy people.
Chairman, this amendment, which seeks to reduce by way of resolution the funding allocated to the Projects under the SWD, is proposed by me in the hope that the Government can include the Projects in its recurrent expenditure. What is more, I hope to take this opportunity to point out that, although food assistance can meet the urgent needs of the poor, it is by no means a long-term solution to poverty eradication. Hence, apart from setting a poverty line to collect data of the poverty population, the Government should also set goals for poverty eradication and make commitment to reducing the poverty population. What is more, a universal retirement protection scheme should be introduced immediately to enable elderly people who are barred from joining the labour market to lead a dignified life with adequate food and clothing in their twilight years.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9867
When sharing the efforts made by the NGOs in Hong Kong in eradicating hunger faced by the poor in a symposium of NGOs in the world in 2008, Prof WONG Hung of the Social Work Department of The Chinese University of Hong Kong quoted the Chief Executive Officer of a food bank network in the United States as saying it was impossible to address or respond to the long-term and fundamental causes of hunger by setting up more or bigger food banks because the grassroots were faced with hunger mainly because they were poor, unemployed, homeless or lacked healthcare.
Hoarding more than $800 billion of fiscal reserves, the SAR Government should indeed respond to the public's queries and aspiration by sensing the people's urgency, making more effective use of the coffers, and changing the political and economic and social structure. In order to tackle thoroughly the state of hunger faced by the poverty population, the Government should revamp the tax regime by, for instance, introducing an asset appreciation tax or a tax on dividend income of significant amounts, using the Future Fund to satisfy the livelihood needs in society, implementing 15-year free education, building additional public rental housing flats, reinstating rent control to enable the grassroots to live in peace and work with contentment, ameliorating the wealth gap, and tackling the problems at root.
Chairman, I so submit.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will now speak on heads 141, 140 and 139, which are about food and health. In the Budget this year, healthcare expenditure has been increased, yet it is more of a nominal nature, for the actual increase is less than 1%. In fact, the Government is quietly changing the direction for provision of healthcare services. However, many members of the public and grassroots are still kept in the dark. The consultation on the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme has just completed. We notice from the consultation that there is an apparent change in direction of the Government, for it now intends to shift more of the responsibility on healthcare expenditure to the public. Unfortunately, society is now dogged by the problems of imbalanced income distribution and disparity between the rich and the poor. Hence, the group which the Government considers can afford the healthcare expenses is facing a scenario precisely contrary to the expectation of the Government. In other words, an increasing number of people find healthcare expenses unaffordable.
9868 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
In the Budget this year, the Government introduces a new direction, which includes the establishment of the Future Fund to cope with future needs. However, we are disappointed and worried about this practice. For the Future Fund established by the authorities is not used for addressing the various problems, particularly healthcare problems, arising from the ageing population as other regions or countries with such a fund do. On the contrary, under the present design of the Future Fund, part of the reserve available for use will be set aside, which will reduce the amount of capital the Government can spend on relative terms. We are most dissatisfied with the Government for not stating explicitly that the Future Fund will be used for addressing problems arising from an ageing population, including the needs for social services and healthcare services. It is evident in the remarks made by the Government in the past that the most important objective of establishing the Future Fund is to ensure the smooth commencement of certain infrastructure projects. This is definitely bad news to the majority of people living below the poverty line and the grassroots.
Chairman, the development of healthcare services in Hong Kong appears to be good on the surface, and we often brag about the low death rate of the newborn and in obstetrics and gynaecology, which standard is regarded as one of the best worldwide. However, the performance of Hong Kong is rather poor in many other healthcare services, including elderly healthcare services like dental service needed by them. Take dental service as an example. It is only in this year that the Government proposes extending dental service to people aged 80 through the Community Care Fund (CCF). Chairman, we all know that the average life expectancy of Hong Kong people is less than 82 years for men and around 84 years and 85 years for women. However, they will only be entitled to dental care services subsidized by the CCF when they reach 80, which means they can at most enjoy the services for five years. This arrangement will inevitably give us the impression that the Government is forcing its will, it is mean and neglects public sentiment, will it not? Given the adequate resources of Hong Kong, why can the Government not allocate more resources to the provision of services needed by the public?
In the past, the Department of Health had conducted a survey on the health condition of the elderly. The results indicated that among people aged 80 or over, a great majority of them were toothless. Since then, the Government has not conducted any other survey on dental health. The reason is obvious. I think the Government dares not face the severity of the problem. When Members chat with doctors in geriatric, they will know that the health condition LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9869 of the elderly will deteriorate if they lose the fundamental ability to eat. However, according to the present situation, the Government has not yet made any suitable adjustments and deployment for the healthcare needs of Hong Kong people in the future. We are very disappointed with this.
Moreover, over the years, we have been urging the Government to improve elderly care services, particularly by increasing the quota for elderly health services, but the Government has simply turned a deaf ear to these needs. At present, the waiting time for a place in elderly health centres in various districts is as long as six years or even longer. Members can thus imagine the situation. For a person aged 65 or above, he will reach 70 after waiting for a number years. By then, he may have missed the golden opportunity of doing suitable body checks and follow-ups.
The Government may claim that the provision of healthcare vouchers now has already enabled the elderly to make adjustments themselves. Yet we all know that the amount provided under the Health Care Voucher Scheme is inadequate for the elderly to meet all kinds of healthcare expenses, including general consultation fees and dental care fees, as well as the fees for necessary check-ups. If they are to undergo those check-ups through the out-patient services of the Department of Health, they will have to wait, and the waiting time is quite long currently. Even if they can get the referral to receive treatment from specialist out-patient services, the situation is not much better, for the waiting time for specialist out-patient services is also long and there has been no significant improvement either. Take the orthopaedic services in Kowloon East as an example. The waiting time now is over a few years. To the elderly tortured by illnesses, one day is already too long. If their health problems are not treated as soon as possible, their functional capacity will deteriorate, bringing the onset of many diseases.
Besides, the Government has failed to do the least it can. Recently, the Government announced that the flu season had ended. We all know that there has been a significant increase in the number of patients dying of seasonal influenza since early this year in comparison with the figures for the previous years. We surely understand that it is deal to the wrong prediction about the strains of seasonal influenza prevailing worldwide. Yet a more important point is the seriously inadequate coverage of flu vaccination in Hong Kong, and we must admit this. Even for such high-risk groups as the elderly and children, the 9870 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 coverage rate is far from satisfactory. We have urged the Government to adopt various approaches to deal with the problem, which include sending mobile inoculation teams to schools, kindergartens and certain housing estates to administer injections, but the Government has simply turned a deaf ear to our request and insisted on using vouchers to subsidize vaccination. Honestly, the healthcare vouchers for vaccination scheme may prevent certain elder people from contracting seasonal influenza, yet some elderly people cannot cope with the use of healthcare vouchers easily. In fact, it is a great headache to many elderly people to understand the entire procedure of healthcare vouchers and how to use the vouchers. Hence, there is definitely room and capacity for the Government to improve the service. I certainly hope that when the Government gives its reply on healthcare services later, it will give us some satisfactory answers.
Furthermore, we are quite disappointed with the poverty alleviation work of the Government this year, particularly on retirement protection. The Commission on Poverty commissioned Prof Nelson CHOW to conduct a study and the relevant report has been announced. However, the Government still refuses to address the need to make retirement protection arrangements to solve the elderly care problem in Hong Kong long term. The Government even rehatched the subject of whether retirement protection should be universal or non-universal again. This is obviously an act to make further procrastination, or even an attempt to provoke endless disputes to make the implementation of the scheme impossible.
Had the Government decided to implement the scheme two years ago, we definitely would not have to bring up this subject again today. Actually, according to a number of studies, including the study by Prof Nelson CHOW, if an activation fund of an adequate amount is provided, say $50 billion as proposed by the community, adding to this the tripartite contributions from the Government, the public and employers, the scheme will definitely be feasible and it will deal with the problem at root. Regrettably, the Government again resorts to other tactics to address the issue. Once again, it raised the subject of whether retirement protection should be universal or non-universal, a subject which has aroused controversy repeatedly. It is thus evident that the Government is not determined to set a practicable timetable for the implementation of such a scheme. I worry that the Government's act of rehatching this kind of subject again will tear society further apart.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9871
We all know that one of the reasons for the filibuster this time around is the Government's refusal to face and solve the problem of retirement protection over the years. If the Government once again shatters the hope of the public, particularly the grassroots and the elderly, does it want the controversy to persist and to tear society further apart? Are we lacking the required resources to address the problem? Definitely not. The fiscal reserves held by the Government, together with the foreign exchange reserve, exceed $3,000 billion. We definitely have no intention to spend all the money, but if the resources are used effectively, they will help address this long-term thorny issue faced by society.
There is an interactive relationship between poverty alleviation and retirement protection. If we cannot address the problem at root, I think not only Members of the Legislative Council but also government officials will find it difficult to respond whenever we face the Gini Coefficient and problems involving disparity between the rich and the poor. I must express my extreme disappointment with the Government as I see it procrastinate time and again in implementing a retirement protection scheme and refusing to face the issue even when we have adequate financial capacity.
Regarding the healthcare service development now proposed by the Government, Chairman, I still think that it is some sort of procrastination. We have done some projections on the healthcare needs of elderly over 65 years of age, including the demand for hospital beds. Results indicate that the demand of elderly over 65 is greatly different from that of patients below 65. In fact, we had made it clear repeatedly to the authorities in the past few years that Hong Kong would be facing the problem of multiplication in elderly population by 2041 and there would be a significant increase in the demand for hospital beds as a result. The Hospital Authority has also made the projection, which indicates that the ratio of the demand for accident and emergency beds between patients aged over 65 and those below 65 is 8:1. It is evident that the demand can hardly be met by the existing supply of in-patient beds, even with additional new beds to be provided by the Government in the next 10 years.
As early as the 1980s, the Health and Medical Advisory Committee at the time had introduced the target of 4.2 beds for every 1 000 persons. Regrettably, to date, we are nowhere closer to this target. We are on the contrary falling further behind. At present, the ratio of the overall number of beds has dropped to less than 4%. However, when the issue was discussed in the 1980s, the 9872 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 elderly population in Hong Kong was definitely far smaller than the one we are facing now. At that time, Hong Kong was still in the post-War baby boom era. The labour force available and the young population were adequate to mitigate the demand for healthcare services. But since we are now facing an ageing population, the requirement and needs of the public for healthcare services are different. However, the Government does the opposite and fails to do a proper job of making projections and construction to provide adequate beds. I think these problems will surface gradually in the next 10 to 20 years, and the elderly and the grassroots will suffer particularly.
I understand that the Government needs to save for a rainy day, and the public very much agree with this approach. However, if this is carried to a degree comparable to a skinflint, failing to address the needs of society, this finance management approach will be too radical to be acceptable. After all, all the financial resources come from the general public and the Government is only a butler but not a rich man. In the face of the various needs for social services and healthcare services, the Government still uses the excuse that "financial resource is projected to be inadequate and there will be deficit 10 years later" and even through the setting up of the Future Fund to shirk its responsibilities. I am strongly dissatisfied with the Budget this year and the performance of the Government.
I so submit. I will speak on other items later. Thank you, Chairman.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury is in the Chamber now. Although I already explained on a previous occasion why the Labour Party has proposed an amendment and I do not wish to make too much repetition, I still wish to make two points as the Secretary is here in the Chamber. First, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Dr Fernando CHEUNG have proposed a total of three amendments today, all of which are proposed in the hope that further discussions can be conducted on those items which previously bypassed the Finance Committee and were then submitted for debate in the Budget. It is because the Government should supposedly table these items to the Finance Committee for discussion but instead, they were tabled for discussion in the Budget. Therefore, with regard to these items, including the short-term food assistance service, Partnership Fund for the Disadvantaged, and so on, we support them but we hold that they should be discussed in the Finance Committee.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9873
Second, Chairman, I would like to spend some time making one point ― this is not what I mainly wish to say today, but since the Secretary is in the Chamber, I wish to point out that our amendment has been stolen. What does it mean? The Rules of Procedure (RoP) of this Council has the concept of "子 目" (item) but this Budget has changed the Chinese term "子 目" used all along into "項 目". We said that we wished to delete "子 目" and in its reply the Legislative Council Secretariat said that we could not propose the deletion of "子 目" because the Government no longer used the term "子 目" which is now replaced by "項 目". Therefore, I cannot propose to delete "子 目". I do not know if it was a deliberate attempt by the Secretary to steal our amendment. He may say that it was not. But why is it that "子 目" was used before whereas "項 目" is used now?
I have discussed this with the Legal Adviser and asked whether there is a need to discuss our RoP but he saw no reason for us to discuss the RoP because it was the Government itself which moved the "goalposts". The Government all along used the term "子 目" in the past but it has now changed it to "項 目". I hope that this problem can truly be resolved. Therefore, since the Secretary is in the Chamber now, I hope he can … They certainly will not give a response. While they are in the Chamber, it is like they are absent as they will not speak even though they are present. Yet, I hope they will give a response because the purpose of a debate is to seek a response from the Government.
Today, I wish to mainly talk about why the salary of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has to be deducted. I already discussed this point during another debate session conducted previously and I made arguments mainly from the angle of workers at the time. In respect of workers, certainly, one of the issues over which we have been urging the Government to "repay its debts" ― the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, who is in the Chamber now, has a part to play in defaulting on repayment of these debts ― is the offsetting of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) benefits against severance payments. I found it most disappointing that since David WONG has taken up the office of Chairman of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority, he has not stood on the side of retirees or wage earners but has started to be skewed in favour of the employers.
On a previous occasion Mr James TIEN also mentioned this issue. The business sector presents the unanimous line that it was because of the offsetting mechanism that they agreed to setting up the MPF back in 1995. However, I 9874 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 must make clear one point; I have said this before and I am still saying it now; and it is also a point over which David WONG has misled the public, for he has described the MPF and severance payment in a way as if they are of the same nature. I must reiterate that the nature of the MPF is different from that of severance payment and long service payment. Severance payment and long service payment are meant to provide protection to employees dismissed (excluding those who resign of their own accord) for reasons of closure of business or redundancy by the employer. Only under these circumstances is an employee entitled to receiving severance payments and therefore, their purposes are very much different. Long service payment is meant for employees who have worked for a long time of more than five years. It is a kind of compensation to which employees with five years of service or more are entitled when they become unemployed and has nothing to do with their retirement. In other words, the MPF cannot be lumped together with severance payments and retirement. The only payment that can be lumped together with it is the pension receivable by an employee who resigned at 65 years of age. This, I think, may have some similarities in nature. However, Chairman, most of the people receiving long service payments and severance payments are not people who resigned at 65.
Therefore, when Mr James TIEN mentioned this issue last time, I said to him that it is actually unfair to the workers because the two are basically different in nature and yet, they are lumped together. Back then I had proposed an amendment and I remember very well that Mr James TIEN said that if my amendment were passed, the Liberal Party or the business sector would even oppose the setting up of the MPF in its entirety. Then I said, "Let it be." I said that they could oppose the MPF by all means as we considered it a "rip-off" for the MPF to be managed by the private sector anyway. Now that we are proven to be ripped off by it. The administrative fees of MPF schemes have eaten up 40% of our MPF benefits. Some people have made some calculations and found that an employee who has worked for 40 years can eventually receive 60% of the benefits upon his retirement with the MPF operator taking away 40%. What is the purpose of this whole thing? We proposed centralized management back then and they rejected our proposal; we proposed universal retirement protection and they rejected our proposal. Therefore, I must reiterate this very basic concept, and David WONG has misled the public. Severance payment and long service payment are different from the MPF in nature.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9875
On this point, I certainly must urge the Government to "repay its debts". We have "recovered debts" in respect of the 1 May Labour Day, and what the Government still owes us is the abolition of the mechanism for offsetting MPF benefits against severance payments, but the Government has not taken any step to this end so far. The Secretary does not need to give a response later because I know what he is going to say. He will say that this is a complicated issue and studies are being carried out, but he will fall short of telling us what is being studied now. I think they have not carried out any study because it is actually unnecessary to do so. The reason is simple. It is because of opposition from the business sector that the Government has not taken any step.
Both Matthew CHEUNG and the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury must be held responsible. I mean both the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau must be held responsible. They have always vowed to improve the MPF and yet, they have never resolved the very core of the problem. In this connection, I do feel weary about the deliberations on improvement of the MPF over the past decade or so because we have kept on examining only some fragmented proposals for making improvements. The portability scheme is only half-baked and full portability remains out of the question. Why is it impossible to implement full portability for MPF schemes? Because if the MPF schemes are fully portable, the bosses would be worried about what would happen to that part of money for offsetting. It is because half of the benefits could have been used for offsetting and if workers can decide all by themselves the arrangements for their MPF benefits, there is probably not enough for the employers to offset the severance payments and that would not be fun.
So, Chairman, the problem is, after all, still caught in a stalemate, and this has been depriving employees of their actual retirement benefits but the Government has kept on procrastinating. Of course, this is not the only issue over which the Government has procrastinated, Chairman, and so, we support a full deduction of the salary of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare because he has really done nothing. He does only one thing every time, that is, he procrastinates over whatever issue. Chairman, he has invented a new way of procrastination now, which is unimaginably weird indeed. How did the Secretary for Labour and Welfare procrastinate over the issue of universal retirement protection? In fact, this issue can brook no further delay because Nelson CHOW has published a report suggesting that universal retirement 9876 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 protection be implemented by increasing both employers' and employees' contributions in the hope that all the elderly can receive more than $3,000. Nelson CHOW has published this report, and what does the Government think? Honestly, the Government is opposed to this report of Nelson CHOW. The Government is currently thinking about ways to deal with it and looking into how Nelson CHOW's report can be rejected. This actually shows that the Government can say whatever it likes. Nelson CHOW was appointed by them and yet, they do not respect his report and are thinking about ways to reject it. Worse still, it is even thinking about ways to procrastinate over it.
Chairman, recently, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has come up with a way to put it off by saying that they need to compile statistics. Chairman, what statistics do they need to compile? I think the Labour and Welfare Bureau has really gone too far in putting off this matter in such a way. They said that they need to make a population projection for 2064, which is 50 years from now and then based on this population projection, they will further study the implementation of universal retirement projection. Chairman, he was talking about 2064 or things that will happen after 2047. There are two major problems here. The first is that if he is talking about post-2047 developments, even the promise of "remaining unchanged for 50 years" would have lapsed then. I think Secretary Matthew CHEUNG is more awesome than DENG Xiaoping as he can be sure of what will happen 50 years down the line. How do I know what will happen after 2047? The social security system may have become applicable to Hong Kong by then. This is unpredictable, and what meaning is there to talk about things that will happen 50 years later?
The second problem is that population ageing will reach its peak in 2041. Since the year 2041 will see the peak of population ageing, if universal retirement protection will be discussed only thereafter, the financing problem expected to arise during the peak period would have a non-event then. The problem would have been resolved by then. If we can smoothly tide over the year 2041, we will be able to go through the subsequent years, for 2041 is the peak of population ageing. So, what is the use of talking about 2064? There is a gap of more than two decades between 2041 and 2064, and he has gone so far as to use this to stall on this issue and then tell us that consultation would be conducted subject to the situation in 2064.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9877
Chairman, the Government said that they need the statistics before proceeding to consultation, and it would be the end of the year when they complete all this. After completing the consultation at the end of the year, the beginning of next year would be around the corner. Then, early next year, there will be the Legislative Council Election and then the election of the Chief Executive will follow. As such, how will the entire issue be handled? It is pointless to set any direction unless Matthew CHEUNG plans to seek re-appointment or Matthew CHEUNG predicts that LEUNG Chun-ying would be re-elected and this would bring even more serious troubles, for the Government would then continue to default on its pledges, and particularly, Mr James TIEN considers it most important to ensure that it is "anyone but CY" in 2017. Are they trying to stall on this issue on purpose? If they can put it off to beyond 2017, they could default on all the pledges previously made if he were not be re-elected in 2017. But if he were re-elected in 2017, there would be even more serious troubles, for he would be continuously urged to "repay his debts". Of course, we do not wish to see his re-election in 2017 and actually we all the more wish that he steps down right now because he has wasted a few years' time, having done nothing.
Therefore, Chairman, the crux of the whole issue is that Matthew CHEUNG has failed to produce any results in respect of issues under his purview, including the protection of standard working hours, universal retirement protection, and so on. The wealth gap has become increasingly serious in Hong Kong, and it has become increasingly difficult for wage earners to feed their families. Chairman, the situation of the elderly is even more miserable as one particular elder had to work as a security guard but ended up in jail for four months after being found guilty of a criminal offence. It is all because the elderly lied about his age in order to be employed as a security guard. As we all know, living in this society can be very miserable and likened to a tragedy. A worker who wishes to remain in employment and refuses to live on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance can only resort to deceiving people, so to speak. What kind of a society is this? It is precisely because this is a society without retirement protection. These accusations have all along existed but the Government, being callous and unsympathetic, has continued to stall on the problem. Chairman, this is clearly how the Government is like and so, I have no confidence in the entire consultation exercise.
9878 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Secretary Matthew CHEUNG came here to say that the Government actually has no plan to implement universal retirement protection and that it only plans to implement it on a non-universal basis. But since you said that consultation would be conducted, you should consult the public's views on whether it should be implemented on a universal or non-universal basis. Chairman, if this Government has really taken a position as such, the consultation would only serve to rip us off, just as we have been ripped off by you on the issue of the constitutional reform. It is because the Government has long had an established position of insisting on screening the nominees and after completing the five-month consultation and kicking up a big fuss over it, the Government said that the matter can come to a close with an interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress and that no further amendment can be made. Likewise, if the Government's position is to implement non-universal retirement protection, insisting that a group of people must be screened out by a means test, the consultation to be carried out would be underpinned by inclinations. Another example is the APIs on the constitutional reform. I have always considered these APIs grossly unfair to us because their position is to "pocket it first" ― Let me do some explaining here. API means the advertisements put up by the Government on television, that is, those advertisements that we are seeing every day. If the Government has the means to put up advertisements but we cannot put up any advertisement because of the Broadcasting Ordinance, this is already unfair. If, on the issue of universal retirement protection in the future, the Government takes charge of the overall situation and acts as the referee, saying that consultation will be conducted but if it eventually turns out that the referee actually plays on the pitch, expressing opposition to the implementation of universal retirement protection and then putting up a series of political advertisements to publicize the Government's opposition to a universal scheme, that would again serve to rip us off.
Therefore, Chairman, the entire Government is actually most hypocritical and it does not practise what it preaches. Chairman, what the Government has done is different. The Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury has all along stressed the need to set up the Future Fund because the population is ageing and so, he said that it is necessary to set up this Fund. However, they remain unwilling to resolve the real problems relating to population ageing, and they have not addressed the problems in respect of healthcare, universal retirement protection, and so on, but then they vaguely suggest that the Future Fund will be set up in the future. The situation now is like writing science fiction as one can write anything about what will happen in the future, but the problems in reality LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9879 have not in the least been addressed. Therefore, we support deducting the salary of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare and express regrets at the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau for not submitting the funding applications to the Finance Committee for scrutiny but tabling them instead to this Council and forcing us to endorse them. Thank you, Chairman.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will first talk about Amendment No 52 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to reduce head 22 by $1 million in respect of subhead 000. This concerns the annual estimated expenditure for the subvention provided by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
Chairman, we certainly need to support animal care, but while we care for animals, first, we need to note whether the financial accounts of the organization are open to the public and whether the relevant information is reasonable, and second, we need to pay attention to whether its actions are consistent with the principle of animal care. The reason is that in many cases, love and care will end up in regret despite its good name. For example, the universal suffrage currently under discussion is actually bogus universal suffrage. Everyone knows that the universal suffrage currently proposed in the 2017 constitutional reform package is 100% bogus. So we cannot be deceived by names.
Chairman, we have checked its website and found that the SPCA still refuses to disclose its financial statements. The following sentence is extracted from its statements: "The Audited Financial Statements of year 2013-2014 is available for SPCA(HK) members' reference. Please input the following details for membership verification. Any enquiry, please contact …". The relevant information is there only for inspection by its members. I am not its member. I do not know if I will be able to read the relevant information after signing in. Neither do I know if I will be able to read all the information. Anyway, basically, a society which receives $1 million funding support from public coffers has no reason to flatly refuse to disclose its information. If an organization which receives funding support from the Government operates covertly like a black box, there is no reason to continue to give it any funding support. However, Hong Kong is a strange place. Many of this type of organizations, such as the national sports associations and some cultural groups, will be provided with funding support no matter how large the amount is, as long as the Government regards them as trusted followers or friendly groups. The 9880 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
$50 million for LEUNG Chun-ying himself was also completely concealed, right? Hence, under the manipulation of LEUNG's fans ― I certainly will not accuse the SPCA as a LEUNG's fan because it has existed for years. However, given the present black-box operation of the Government, its primarily covert approach of governance and a complete lack of transparency, we absolutely should not connive at and encourage such a practice. We should not tolerate this kind of black-box operation any further. For this reason, I totally support Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's proposal for removing this item. In fact, Chairman, this is not the first year that such a view is expressed. We have also criticized the SPCA for its lack of transparency in this regard in the past.
Another point is about whether the operation of the organization in question is cost-effective. We do not have access to the independent financial reports of this organization, but as corroborated by other information ― on other websites there are comments on the fund-raising situation of certain organizations. Some of the information shows that the SPCA's efficiency in fund-raising is extremely low because for every $100 raised, its cost is $48. That means $48 of every $100 of donation will be spent on the organization or persons concerned. Only $52 will serve the purpose of the Society. We have no idea where the Society has spent the money because it is not reported. Members who are familiar with charitable organizations will know that the one with the highest efficiency is definitely the Red Cross. Its expenditure on fund-raising only accounts for a small proportion of the donation, which seems to be just 1% to 2%. Hence, the administrative costs, expenses and financial control of these organizations must be handled seriously and required to reach a certain standard.
Chairman, another question is whether the animals are taken care of. As I have just mentioned, in many cases, love and care will end up in regrets. In some cases, it even ends up in deaths. There are many cases where animals were put down in the name of love and care. Chairman, the most obvious example is the AFCD, which culls thousands of cats and dogs every year. Let us look at the figures of cats and dogs that were so-called euthanized by the Government. I believe in terms of the population ratio, Hong Kong is likely to become "the city of culling cats and dogs". It became famous for culling chickens before, but since too many chickens were killed, there were overwhelming grievances, and later, the financial turmoil and financial tsunami broke out, Chairman. Actually, the culling of cats and dogs is extremely serious.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9881
In 2011, the number of dogs euthanized was 6 000-odd. The total number of cats and dogs euthanized was 8 983. The figures in 2012 were not very much different. The number of dogs euthanized was 5 000-odd whereas the number of cats was 7 000-odd. Hence, as we could see, 5 000 to 6 000 cats and dogs were put down every year. The SPCA also participates in culling cats and dogs, Chairman. Of course, I am not entirely against each and every culling because some cats and dogs might be suffering from pain, diseases or injuries, so euthanasia might be the most appropriate action then. However, owing to the lack of information, it is difficult for us to compile statistics on whether such action should be taken. Nevertheless, looking at the overall figures, we find that in many cases of so-called euthanasia, the animals were euthanized probably because there was no adopter, since the organization would incur substantial administrative costs if it continued to look after them. This is a matter of money. For this reason, I absolutely object to culling animals on the grounds of money and the need to look after them.
The number of cats euthanized by the SPCA in 2014 was 1 609, while the number of dogs put down was 701. That means the number of cats and dogs culled by the SPCA in the name of animal care was 1 410. Divided by 360 days, five or six cats and dogs were culled on average every day. These figures are astonishing, Chairman. Six or seven cats and dogs, sorry. There were 2 000-odd a year. Six or seven cats and dogs were culled every day. For this reason, in my view, we absolutely should not connive at such a situation. Chairman, we have mentioned a number of times that the Government should carry out a comprehensive reform on animal care, whether it be in the AFCD or its policies and administrative measures. Its position on the treatment of cats and dogs should also be changed both in terms of theory and attitude. As a matter of fact, Northern Europe and many other places in Europe have already changed their practice to refrain from euthanasia and set up a lot of centres to look after the animals until their death. This certainly involves various issues such as finance and neutering services, yet Hong Kong is way behind on this count. That is why I must point out the existence of this problem through my proposal on deducting the expenditure.
Chairman, another issue I would like to talk about is the problem with the Lump Sum Grant Subvention System (LSGSS). It is Amendment No 359 proposed by me to resolve that head 141 be reduced by $3.58 million, equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the salaries of the Secretary for Labour 9882 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 and Welfare. Last time I already expressed certain views on Matthew CHEUNG's performance, but today I need to add a point about the LSGSS. Matthew CHEUNG deserves dismissal for the LSGSS alone, right? Because the LSGSS has brought disasters to the whole social welfare sector ― not only to social workers but also to the whole social welfare sector. In fact, over the past decade, I have requested the Government to abolish the Lump Sum Grant Subvention policy and resume the past practice of subsidizing the relevant services on the basis of the median wage, with a view to stabilizing the quality of social welfare services and maintaining staff morale.
Let me briefly enumerate the disasters brought by the LSGSS. Firstly, it causes the salaries of social workers to substantially decline. Secondly, it causes job insecurity which leads to a high turnover rate and low staff morale. Thirdly, it causes an upsurge in the wastage of front-line staff. Fourthly, the organizations "fatten the top and thin the bottom". The organizations fatten up themselves with a great increase in reserves, while the salaries of front-line staff keep dwindling, particularly the starting salary point of new recruits. Since the implementation of the LSGSS, the salaries for newly created posts are relatively low. They are also low when compared to the past. Fifthly, there is misuse of public coffers. As pointed out by the report of the Audit Commission, many organizations which hold tens of million dollars of reserves have squandered money on decorating the offices of the senior management but cut the salaries of their staff or sacked them on various pretexts. This series of problems indicate the disasters brought by the LSGSS.
After years of disputes, the Government formulated the Best Practice Manual. When I was the Chairman of the Panel on Welfare Services of the Legislative Council, I had dealt with this issue and held a number of public hearings. However, I absolutely have no confidence in this so-called Best Practice Manual because basically, this kind of manual can be manipulated by the senior staff. Moreover, although a policy is in place, they have their ways of getting around it. After all, the disasters brought by the LSGSS remain to be rectified. It does not make the slightest improvement to the morale and situation of the front-line staff, and it is also extremely unfair to social workers. That is why I have to express my strong discontent with the LSGSS again through my proposal for cutting the Secretary's salaries.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9883
Moreover, Chairman, I would like to talk about Amendment No 349. This amendment was also proposed by me to reduce head 140 by $3,855,000, equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the personal emoluments of two directorate posts in the Healthcare Planning and Development Office under the Food and Health Bureau.
Chairman, these two posts were created with the approval of the Finance Committee in 2011. Then in 2015, funding was granted again to extend the posts for a few years. I have objected to the extension of a number of relevant posts before, since the Government has from time to time set up supernumerary posts which are temporary in nature. In the last two years, supernumerary posts have been continuously extended, which seldom took place in the past, right? In particular, in this couple of years since LEUNG Chun-ying took office, perhaps he needed to placate the public by extending these posts, making the senior civil servants feel good as they could keep their jobs. However, actually the Audit Commission should further study in detail whether it is necessary and cost-effective. Very often, after we have criticized an issue in the relevant committees of the Legislative Council, the Government will still turn a blind eye, and the problem will not be disclosed until a couple of years later through the report of the Audit Commission. The Civil Aviation Department (CAD) is an obvious example.
We had repeatedly criticized the CAD and requested the Panel on Economic Development of the Legislative Council to deal with my complaint and hold meetings for discussion, but the matter was stalled all along. Not much was done to handle it, and no official meeting was held for discussion either. Eventually, the Audit Commission released its report, exposing all the problems. It turned out that the Audit Commission had finished investigating the problems for which I demanded explanation and which I requested to be handled at the panel meetings. There was sufficient evidence to prove the mistakes made by the CAD in its management and utilization of resources.
Hence, I propose to delete the posts involved in the relevant head because in my opinion, the main duty of these two posts is to implement healthcare reform, but the Financial Secretary has already allocated $50 billion to healthcare reform. When the Government continues to talk about the need to do such an amount of work and conduct such a number of studies and consultations, basically it is continuously hiding the $50 billion in the Hospital Authority without using it to satisfy the people's healthcare needs. Despite its possession 9884 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 of resources, it just accumulates them. Efforts on members of the public who are facing miseries, especially insufficient healthcare, continue to be stalled. The Government causes the public to continue to suffer on the pretext of formulation of policies and consultation. I still have a host of reasons, but I do not have enough time to talk about them. Basically, I propose to delete the posts because of the poor use of public coffers. Moreover, I do not agree to the overall direction of healthcare services.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to speak)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, please do a headcount under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO, please speak.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak in response to the amendments proposed by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che in relation to the fund allocation for the Short-term Food Assistance Service Projects. Chairman, in fact, how possibly could we in the Labour Party oppose short-term food assistance? Although Hong Kong is nowadays such an affluent society, instances of starvation still exist and this is already a big disgrace. For this reason, we in the Labour Party would not voice any opposition to it. However, why do we still want to propose an amendment here? If we get to the root of the problem, this is because the Government wants to incorporate into the Budget even such funding applications with little controversy and have them dealt with in a bundled up manner, so as to circumvent the Finance Committee, thus making it impossible for Members to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9885 level further criticisms and take follow-up actions with regard to this policy or even force the Government to conduct a review of this policy even if they want to. For this reason, we are compelled to propose this amendment to the Budget. Unfortunately, the Rules of Procedure only permits us to make deductions to this sum of money. Therefore, Chairman, we in the Labour Party must state clearly here that we, in proposing this amendment, actually and absolutely do not wish to deduct this sum of money that is already pitiably small. Rather, it is because the Government has compromised the rules and procedures and circumvented the Finance Committee that we are compelled to turn the Council meeting into an occasion for raising queries, which should have arisen only at meetings of the Finance Committee.
Meanwhile, I know that last week, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan made and the Chairman also agreed to a request, that is, at the end of the relevant session, government officials should reply to our queries but I have looked at today's papers and found that Secretary Matthew CHEUNG would not attend the meeting and now, only Secretary Prof K C CHAN is present. I wonder how he is going to respond later on. For this reason, I call on Secretary Matthew CHEUNG to respond to the call of our times and come back to the meeting as soon as possible, so as to respond to our queries later on.
Chairman, within the structure of the SAR Government, food banks do not form part of social security but in terms of compassion and reason, no matter which academic or social work officer you ask, they will all confirm that the short-term food assistance service projects are intended to make up for the inadequacies of social security assistance. However, interestingly, in the official information found in the introduction to social security services, it is said that "The financially vulnerable would suffer extreme hardship without government's social security support. A single parent with young children to look after or the temporarily unemployed may need short-term help.". This passage in the introduction is very interesting. The elderly and persons with disabilities are not mentioned therein. It only cites a single parent with young children to look after and the temporarily unemployed as examples and it only stresses the temporary nature. When this Government provides social welfare, it does so only from a temporary point of view, so the shorter the duration the better. When the Government initially introduced the short-term food assistance service projects, the original intent was not to help people receiving payments under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme but migrants and people seeking political asylum as well as people who are temporarily 9886 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 unemployed, that is, people who cannot receive or are not eligible for CSSA payments for the time being. However, after the scheme was introduced, what is the actual situation? Even families on CSSA have to make applications. Why? Because the amount of CSSA payment is too small and rents are too high. Families on CSSA must allocate 20% to 30% of their monthly expenditures on clothing, food and transport to the payment of rent. As a result, the amount of money for food cannot meet their monthly needs.
In fact, in the past, CSSA payments were broken down into various items. About eight years ago, that is, before the practice of itemization ended, a social worker told me that the expenditure for food only amounted to $760. The amount of CSSA payment for each person at that time was $1,820, whereas the amount of CSSA payment nowadays has increased to $2,200. However, part of this sum has to be used to pay rents. As a result, the amount of money for buying food can only get smaller. Social workers and members of the social welfare sector told me that the amount of money for buying food was probably between $1,400 and $1,500 monthly, that is, $50 daily. If there are several members in a family, the amount of money would add up to some $100 to $200 in total. So long as the housewives concerned are healthy and plan carefully, for example, if they go to the market later in the day and wait until the fresh food has been sold during daytime before going there, they can buy cheaper food in the evening. If they plan carefully and think of a way, they can scrape by. However, if CSSA recipients have health problems, they have to spend money on drugs, or if men in their prime want to find jobs, they have to make themselves look neater or have a haircut. Nowadays, even having a hair cut (excluding having a shampoo) costs $60, and if someone has only $50 as the expenditure for food each day but in order to find a job, he has to have a haircut each month, then he has to go hungry for one day each month. What kind of social security is this?
Regarding the policy on healthcare, there is this claim: The Hong Kong Government would not let anyone be denied adequate healthcare through lack of means. However, in respect of social security and hunger, there is no such claim. There is no claim that says: The SAR Government would not let anyone in Hong Kong be subjected to starvation through lack of means. Therefore, in the entire CSSA system, there are many inadequacies in respect of food. All right, the authorities introduced food banks to provide short-term assistance and this ought to be very helpful. Unfortunately, when the projects were initially implemented, CSSA recipients were not included. Subsequently, after lobbying LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9887 by all parties, they were included but recommendation by social workers is required and the period of assistance, lasting only one month, is also very short and assistance will cease after one month. However, who can solve his problems within one month if he is so poor that he has to receive CSSA and apply for food assistance? Only unemployed people can do so. However, for single-parents bringing up small children, their children would not grow up within a month, nor could their children go out to work to earn money and support their families after one month. In view of this, the needs of many people receiving assistance or requiring short-term food assistance are not short-term. Only a small number of unemployed people can cease to receive assistance after a couple of months but the needs of the great majority of these people are definitely not short-term but long-term. In that case, what can be done? In that case, it is necessary to trouble social workers. Each month, social workers have to spend their time originally intended for following up cases and providing counselling on writing reports and giving explanations in relation to recipients who still need short-term food assistance services, so as to extend the periods and in this way, resources are wasted. The Government has to "keep the goal" but in fact, the goal is extremely small, yet the Government still has to find people to keep it, thus wasting the time of many social workers on government payroll. This is another kind of imperceptible waste of resources.
Chairman, in fact, food prices have soared in recent years but the overall increase in the rate of CSSA payment is not determined by the increase in food prices alone, rather, it is determined according to the Composite Consumer Price Index. However, as we all know, for grass-roots families, the largest share of their expenditure goes to food and transport. There can be little change in transport expenses, so they cannot cut back on transport because if they have to go to work or school, apart from receiving financial assistance in transport, the amount of money they have to spend is fixed. However, our CSSA system does not take this into account in any way. As a result, when it is no longer possible to cut back on such expenditures, food price increases will lead to instances of starvation.
Chairman, in fact, a couple of years ago, I seldom bought lunch boxes myself, so when I bought a lunch box two years ago although I only bought a lunch box, I was still a little bit extravagant I bought a lunch box with chicken drumsticks, that is, rice with chicken drumsticks. When I was going to pay for it, the cashier charged me $70 and it looked as though I were out of touch with the world as I was very astonished. I told her I was only buying one lunch box, 9888 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 not two. It turned out that the price of a lunch box could be as high as $70. However, since the amount of money for food under CSSA provided by the Government amounts to only $50 daily, if an unemployed person is looking for a job everywhere and attending interviews outside, he has to buy lunch boxes outside, so how is he supposed to use this sum of $1,400 to $1,500 to support his job hunt? If he does not go out to look for work, he can only stay at home and think about how to buy and eat cheap food. In this way, it will be impossible for him to get out of the CSSA net. I am talking about people in their prime who are temporarily unemployed. In the case of single-parents or elderly people, they actually need long-term assistance.
Chairman, recently, a government API was aired on the television and the last part consists of the comments made by "Brother Ming", who actively cares for the elderly in his individual capacity and runs a cafeteria in Sham Shui Po. He said that when society no longer needs him, that means society has changed for the better. Indeed, "Brother Ming", the owner of a cafeteria in Sham Shui Po, together with many friends who are not social workers, have made a lot of effort in equal sharing and each day, they give away many lunch boxes to frail elderly people and poor families in Sham Shui Po. However, in such an affluent society, why can we not enhance social security but have to rely on an owner operating a small cafeteria to do this kind of work? In fact, all along, the Government has not put in place any sound safety net and we have pointed out frequently that there are holes in the Government's safety net which cannot serve its functions.
However, at the same time, the Government paints CSSA recipients in an unfavourable light. For example, the former Director of Social Service, Mr Andrew LEUNG, once made a notorious comment, that is, "CSSA nurtures lazybones". Unfortunately, in economic terms, society as a whole has a rightist tilt. Even the grassroots, who are impoverished and exploited, also readily accept this comment of "CSSA nurtures lazybones". For this reason, nowadays, there was still an elderly man surnamed SZE who chose to violate the law by making a false representation of his age and using a fake identity card to look for work rather than receive CSSA. The Government's propaganda and tactics to oppress the public are most successful. As a result, poor people who are oppressed by the Government also accept the Government's viewpoint and dare not apply for social welfare. Poor people in Hong Kong cannot see the contribution made by them to society, thinking that only taxpayers have made contribution. They cannot see that all along, they have been working as cheap LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9889 labour and have actually made great contribution. They cannot see that all along, they have been paying high rents and that this is also a great contribution. Instead, when they are old but have to go on working, they would rather flout the law. What kind of situation can Members see here?
Chairman, for this reason, when we say we want to change the policy and criticize the short-term food bank, in fact, we must also change the understanding of poverty in society. We want to help the general public gain a better understanding of the causes of poverty, that is, poverty is to a great extent created by the Government and it is the Government that created it by condoning high land prices and tolerating exorbitant housing and rental expenses. We hope all the more that the public, be they members of the middle class or the poor grassroots, will understand better that given the present economic situation, which is in a state of flux, the general public should share risks equally and let the rich assume greater responsibility in taking care of the socially disadvantaged groups by demanding that the Government abandon its indifferent attitude of "at any rate, no one will be starved to death". Only in this way can we make improvements to the living of the grassroots and narrow the wealth gap.
Thank you, Chairman.
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, the third debate on the Budget involves issues which are closely related to the people's livelihood, including welfare, medical services and public health. Amendments in this part seek to drastically reduce the emoluments of departmental officials and the expenditure on services. This makes me reflect that: Does it mean all problems will be solved and all rights upheld, if all fundings are cut across the board such that the government departments do not even have a penny of funding for operation? It is just like Mr YIP Man, the Grandmaster of the martial art "Wing Chun", who might not bring his strength into full play if he had nothing for his stomach. Even though he was such a master of immense strength in martial art, he would not be able to propagate his skills around. Therefore, this sweeping approach or full-scale cut actually cannot solve the problems for the masses.
Amendment Nos 112 to 129 propose reduction of the expenditure of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) on street cleansing, waste collection service and management of public markets, which will deny allocation 9890 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 of fundings to FEHD and cause it a manpower shortage. Should the amendments be passed, it will not only cause those FHED workers who are working so hard every day to lose their jobs, but also leave the refuse and waste to nobody's clearance. Is it the way to solve problems?
The current community hygiene service is unsatisfactory or inadequate. We have the responsibility to supervise the authorities to do a good job of this, and provide them with additional resources and manpower when necessary, such as increasing the frequency of street sweeping by cleansing workers and mechanical street sweepers, urging the authorities to strengthen the monitoring of service contractors, and changing the current tendering mechanism of "the lowest bidder wins".
The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has also made suggestions in the past for improving environmental hygiene, such as organizing the "territory-wide hygiene black spot reporting campaign" for the public to report hygiene black spots to the FEHD, with the Department being required to formulate a performance pledge that the problems must be solved within a specified period of time upon receipt of reports; and compiling a community environmental hygiene index for each of the 18 districts to facilitate the public in keeping a close watch on the hygiene conditions of each district. In fact, the DAB hopes that the authorities may allocate sufficient resources to the implementation of the suggestions.
Apart from demanding to reduce the expenditure of the Food and Health Bureau, Members have also proposed amendments in this session to reduce the expenditure of the Labour and Welfare Bureau. Regarding universal retirement protection, the Government has allocated $50 billion to a retirement protection fund, and prepared to conduct a comprehensive consultation on universal retirement protection. Retirement protection is an issue with wide involvement and far-reaching implications, which may concern contributions from the Government, members of the public and even enterprises. As such, we consider that the Government should deal with it carefully. However, reducing the expenditure of the Labour and Welfare Bureau does not mean that benefits and retirement protection will then be falling from heaven, yet it will even create instant problems that will affect the disadvantaged groups genuinely in need of welfare measures.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9891
Let me reiterate that money should be spent where it is worth, such that the public could be benefited genuinely. As we proposed in 2011, the Retirement Protection Old Age Pension Scheme provides an additional tier of cash allowance at a higher amount on top of the existing Old Age Allowance (OAA) and Old Age Living Allowance (OALA), so as to support those elders who are even poorer. The greatest merit of this proposal of three-tier protection is that adjustments can be made according to the existing welfare mechanism. Since the public already has some knowledge about the policy, the Government can thus be spared the enormous effort of explaining the policy. Also, it will obviate the need to spend time and strength on conducting endless studies. The goal of implementing the universal retirement protection scheme may thus be reached early.
Chairman, on poverty alleviation, according to the poverty line announced in September last year, the poor population in Hong Kong dropped from 1 020 000 in 2012 to 970 000 in 2013 after recurrent cash policy intervention. That is to say, the poverty rate dropped from 15.2% to 14.5%. While "candies" targeting at the poor will be handed out each year in the Budget, this year is no exception. Additional OAA and OALA payments, as well as rental waiver for tenants of public rental housing are proposed. It is the wish of many grass-roots people that the Government can take forward the proposals as early as possible and let the money fall into their pockets. Whenever it came to this point of time in the past few years, my colleagues and I would receive a lot of enquiries from members of the public on when the "candies will be handed out" during our visits to the districts. Therefore, I also hope Members from the opposition will cease the filibustering in order not to hold things off, and let the various measures benefitting the public in the Budget of this year be implemented as soon as possible.
As the saying goes, "it is better to teach someone how to fish than to give him a fish", I think the fundamental solution to poverty problem lies in figuring out a way for the grassroots to become self-reliant. We trust every Hongkonger does not like doing nothing but to live like a parasite ― only if they have the chance. Our Government is in a robust financial condition, so it is indeed obliged to create job opportunities for the disadvantaged, such that they could be able to become strong and self-reliant and lift themselves out of poverty.
9892 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Amendment No 364 proposed by a Member proposes reduction of the operational expenditure of the Women's Commission, which concerns, inter alia, the work relevant to the Funding Scheme for Women's Development and encouraging women employment. I will not support it for sure. We not only need to keep the funding for the Women's Commission to do its work, but also ask the Government for allocation of additional resources in this regard. All along, many women have lost their opportunities for additional earnings because they have to take care of their family members. The DAB has been advocating all along that the Government should strengthen child care services, so that such women could go out to work with pence of mind and increase their income. We thus welcome the strengthening of child care services as proposed in the Budget of this year, and expect the authorities to organize additional training programmes to upgrade the skills of women and better equip them with skills in joining the labour market.
Last of all, Amendment No 52 proposed by a Member even requests reduction of the subvention for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) (HKSPCA). The HKSPCA has introduced the Cat Colony Care Programme in recent years to control the number of stray cats in a humane way. The work of this programme includes trapping stray cats to give them injections, neutering and subsequently returning them to their habitat. This programme is very important in the animal policy. I understand that the HKSPCA, owing to the resource constraints, might not have done its work to everyone's satisfaction. However, its contribution made to protecting animal welfare is beyond doubt. Some Members claim themselves animal lovers, yet they think the problem with animal rights can be solved by cutting the HKSPCA's funding. I am indeed puzzled by it.
The Government has all along adopted a conservative mindset and remained reluctant to put in adequate resources for suiting the remedy to the case as regards treatment of animal. The proposals for an "animal-friendly policy", Animal Police and increasing animal keepers' responsibilities made by the DAB have all along been taken lightly by the Government which refuses to commit resources for implementation. Now those Members are even demanding a reduction of its expenditure. Are they in effect encouraging the Government to ignore animal rights?
I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9893
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would speak on the work of food safety under "Head 49 ― Food and Environmental Hygiene Department" and "Head 139 ― Government Secretariat: Food and Health Bureau (Food Branch)", to which Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung have respectively proposed amendments. Chairman, I know that the amendments proposed by the three Members involve reducing the full-year estimated expenditure, salaries for staff or departmental expenditure, and so on. Chairman, I would like to speak in response to the relevant amendments, but this does not mean that I support their call for cutting the resources. However, I understand that the purpose of the three Members' amendments is to make this Council and the public care about the work of food safety under the Food and Health Bureau as well as the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD).
Chairman, I would focus on food safety in my speech, particularly on two issues. The first one is about our safety check on food imported by sea, and also the tea leaf incident in Taiwan. Let me first talk about the tests conducted on food imported into Hong Kong.
Just now I said I would be speaking in response to the amendments. In my opinion, the FEHD and the Food and Health Bureau actually need to have access to more appropriate resources and take effective measures in order to ensure Hong Kong's food safety. I think the key lies in not cutting their resources, but given our limitation, we cannot ask for more government resources in this regard; in fact, we need to have more resources to get the job done, and there are of course issues to address in terms of policy and legislation.
Let me first talk about the loopholes in the tests conducted on food imported into Hong Kong. There has been concern about the nuclear incident in Fukushima, Japan in March 2011. At that time, people were worried about whether radiation-contaminated food products from Japan were imported into Hong Kong. In view of the hazards of nuclear radiation, starting from the end of March 2011, the FEHD prohibited the import and supply of five major food products harvested, manufactured, processed or packed in five prefectures in Japan, including vegetables, fruits, milk, milk beverages and formula milk; also prohibited was the import and supply of chilled or frozen game, meat, poultry, poultry eggs, chilled or frozen aquatic products, namely seafood, unless accompanied by a certificate issued by the competent authority of Japan 9894 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 certifying that the radiation levels do not exceed the standards laid down by the Codex Alimentarius Commission in the Guideline Levels. The five prefectures include Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma and Chiba, and the order is still in force.
Chairman, during discussions on the subject in numerous meetings of the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene of this Council, Secretary for Food and Health Dr KO Wing-man and public officers stressed how food safety was assured and how radiation-contaminated food products from Japan would never make their way into Hong Kong under the Bureau's initiatives. The Secretary and public officers pledged to Members that each batch of Japanese food products, be it imported by air or sea, would be tested to see if their radiation levels exceeded the standards. During my chairmanship of the Panel last year, I also asked government officials to arrange for a visit to the food testing office at the airport, where we were shown how radiation tests were conducted on food using portable devices.
The Government has repeatedly said that a test is conducted batch by batch and Members have seen how they do it, but we have found a small oversight which gives rise to some really big loopholes. On 7 March this year, as an investigation by the Centre for Food Safety found out ― this was reportedly an action taken on a tip-off ― an importer in Hong Kong violated the order by importing 10 boxes of carrots from Chiba, Japan for sale in Hong Kong. Despite the negative radiation test results for the same batch of carrots, I immediately questioned the public officers from the Food and Health Bureau as to why food products from Chiba, on which an import ban covering fruits and vegetables was imposed, were able to enter Hong Kong and go all the way to the Yau Ma Tei Fruit Market? Shocking was the public officers' reply that they had no idea how they gained entry into Hong Kong. Was it not scary? It really was.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
When I pressed it further at a special meeting of the Finance Committee in March, Dr Gloria TAM, Controller, Centre for Food Safety (CFS) revealed that those carrots from Chiba were shipped to Hong Kong by sea in a container. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9895
Public officers pointed out that the importer concerned had not placed any order at all, and that it was the Japanese exporter who put the 10 boxes of carrots into the Hong Kong-bound container because there was still room. Deputy Chairman, is that explanation not ridiculous? Is it a credible account? Anything, even food products from prohibited areas, can be shipped to Hong Kong as long as there is room.
Casting aside whether the reason is fabricated, given the import of prohibited food products from Japan and public officers' claim that a test is conducted batch by batch, how is the test conducted? Does the FEHD test every batch of food shipped to Hong Kong by sea via the container terminals, and how? After some investigation, we found that there is no food testing station of the FEHD at the Kwai Chung container terminals, nor are there any FEHD officers who would instantly test the food taken out of containers. With no staff there, how is the test conducted batch by batch? If they waited until importers lodged a declaration in accordance with the Customs and Excise Service Ordinance 14 days after the arrival of the food products, all of them would have already been sold. Should the authorities carry out the check in the warehouse before the food products can be put on the market for sale? Many fruits and vegetables are shipped to the market for sale once they arrive in Hong Kong.
Therefore, it is either the case that the Secretary for Food and Health and public officers have cheated Members, or that they do not realize it is practically impossible to conduct the test batch by batch. If they are not being ignorant, it is obvious that they have cheated Members and the public by projecting a false image that Hong Kong is very strict in terms of food safety, but the reality is that no one will check the imported food at container terminals on a daily basis. It is totally impossible to conduct sampling tests to tell if the radiation levels of food products imported from Japan exceed the standards or whether those coming from other parts of the world are safe. Samples can be obtained only when the products are sent to the warehouse, fortunately pending shipment down the chain.
Deputy Chairman, I am greatly disappointed about the FEHD's current work in this regard. If such a big loophole is not exposed by media reports or Members, we basically have no way to check that many tonnes of seaborne containers from around the world every day. The gravest problem is that public officers project a false image of safety. They either see no loophole at all, or they do not follow up any one they see. Hence, Deputy Chairman, as I pointed 9896 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 out just now, it is absolutely impossible for us to carry out instant tests on each batch of food imported by sea. I have written to Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Chairman of the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene of this Council, to call for a special meeting the soonest possible for public officers from the Food and Health Bureau as well as the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene to explain to Members and the public why that happened and what remedial measures may be taken.
Hence, Deputy Chairman, I do not agree to cutting the resources. In fact, we should increase or redeploy the resources in order to enable the proper undertaking of such tasks. However, what is the biggest problem of the Food and Health Bureau? Every time such issues are raised in this Council, Members would express concern about whether the FEHD or the CFS has enough resources to do a proper job of gate-keeping for food, and whether more funding is needed, and so on. I have asked public officers these questions directly, as did other Members, but public officers from the Food and Health Bureau and the FEHD dismissed such need, saying that the matter can be sorted out through internal redeployment of resources. If the authorities now tell me that the absence of both manpower and an office there at Kwai Chung is attributed to inadequate resources, this is actually an indication that they have not seriously done the job expected of them. In case resources are inadequate, they should reflect it to the Financial Secretary and ask for more resources through the Budget in advance regarding the tests conducted on food imported by sea.
In Hong Kong, food imported by air is now examined at the Airport Food Inspection Office, a small office dedicated to the sampling procedure and rapid tests. As for food imported on land, all Hong Kong-bound vehicles carrying food from the Mainland have to travel through the Man Kam To Control Point, where FEHD officers are stationed in a tiny food control centre to carry out checks and the public is assured. However, given Hong Kong's status as a famous logistics hub which receives a large number of incoming containers from vessels daily, Members may think about this. If we have such a large loophole in this aspect, we may have taken more than one or 10 boxes of carrots over the past four years, and we will never know we have taken how much food coming from radiation-affected areas in Japan. We have no idea if the radiation levels of food products exceed the standards, and yet we may have already taken them. Is the Food and Health Bureau answerable to Hong Kong people?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9897
Deputy Chairman, next I would like to talk about the furore caused by Taiwanese tea leaves. The Food and Drug Administration under Taiwan's Ministry of Health and Welfare recently joined forces with local health offices in an investigation into chain operators selling various types of instantly made drinks, like flower tea. It was discovered that excessive pesticides were found in different Taiwanese brands of tea leaves, flower tea and related drinks one after another. The latest development was that the jasmine tea of Coffee Alley was found to contain excessive insecticides, and the tea was no longer available at its Hong Kong branches; yesterday, the red tea leaves at the Taichung branch of Ten Ren's Tea was found to contain excessive pesticides. Ten Ren's Tea has 11 branches in Hong Kong, and it remains to be seen as to whether the tea leaves concerned have entered Hong Kong and are made into drinks for sale. The SAR Government should not be lethargic by merely saying that they will first liaise with Taiwan and gain an idea of what is going on. I hope the FEHD will expeditiously take samples from the Hong Kong branches of Ten Ren's Tea as well as supermarkets selling tea leaf products, and make an immediate public announcement on whether any problem is found in such drinks and tea leaves. Moreover, in view of the problems found in Taiwanese tea leaves one after another, I call for more enhanced sampling of the tea leaves imported from Taiwan. I hope that the FEHD will get it done soon.
However, we learn from the follow-up reports in today's newspapers that legislation is also worrying. The Pesticide Residues in Food Regulation was passed by us last August. Yet upon a closer look, one would still see loopholes in the Regulation, because as for the three pesticides found to have been excessively used in Taiwan, including DDT, fipronil and triazophos, it is either the case that the regulation under Hong Kong law is laxer than Taiwan, or that the ceilings of the pesticides found in tea leaves are not provided for in the law. Therefore, when we asked the authorities if the pesticides were in excess of the standards, we found that there was no standard at all. Yet, standards have been set in Taiwan, or our standards are laxer than theirs. Hence, we are worried about the absence of a standard for the drinks and tea leaves currently available for sale in Hong Kong, regardless of whether they come from Taiwan, the Mainland or other places.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I am going to speak on "Head 141 ― Government Secretariat: Labour and Welfare Bureau". I have proposed several amendments to reduce the emoluments for the Secretary for 9898 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Labour and Welfare, the Deputy Secretary for Labour and Welfare and the Political Assistant to Secretary for Labour and Welfare because of the Secretary's poor performance in issues related directly to the people's livelihood, which is also our greatest concern at the policy level, such as minimum wage, standard working hours, disability allowance, and so on.
Let us begin with minimum wage. In 2008, I advocated in a distinct manner that the minimum wage should be set at $33 per hour and subject to an annual review. Nevertheless, not only was the Legislative Council comprised of predominately pro-business Members, but the Minimum Wage Commission (MWC) was also biased heavily in favour of the business sector. Even the academics were rightists. Of course, the labour sector, which had only three seats, had no say. As a result, the minimum wage was eventually set at $28 per hour and subject to review every two years. Now, seven years down the line, property prices in urban areas have nearly doubled and the cost of a lunch served at a fast food shop has risen from $30 to more than $40, but the minimum wage has only risen at an average rate of $0.6 per annum, from $28 to $32.5. This rate of increase was indeed an insult to elementary employees. Haggling over such a petty sum of $0.5, the business sector has even refused to raise the hourly minimum wage from $32.5 to $33. This is why I once gave Secretary Matthew CHEUNG a good dressing down in this Chamber over the legislative amendment on the minimum wage. What is the difference between $32.5 and $33? Does $0.5 really matter so much? Will business operators wind up their operations as a result of increasing the hourly minimum wage by $0.5? Will the unemployment rate in Hong Kong be thus pushed up? I cannot find the Secretary for Labour and Welfare among the Bureau Directors present here. I might have to repeat the speech I am going to deliver. The two speeches will be targeted at the Secretary, OK? That $32.5 is absolutely joking, is it not? Who can tell me the difference between $32.5 and $33?
According to the statistics provided by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), 60% of the young people in Hong Kong worked in offices and the services and marketing sectors. In the fourth quarter of 2013, the median income of full-time employed young people aged between 15 and 24 was only $10,000, which lagged behind the rate of increase in the cost of a lunch served at a fast food shop. To the political bigwigs and rich people, the rise in the cost of a lunchbox from $30 to $40 does not mean anything because they simply will not eat such meals. However, the burden of living on the grassroots has become even heavier. The Government's firm stance of not budging an inch over a review of the minimum wage rate once in every two years is particularly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9899 annoying. The Government has kept saying that since it has only been a few years since the implementation of the statutory minimum wage (SMW) and the experience accumulated is limited, a flexible arrangement of reviewing the SMW level once every two years should be maintained. How flexible can such an arrangement be? I have pointed out in this Chamber time and again that "flexibility" does not necessarily mean a two-year review cycle. An annual review can be conducted instead, right? Can the Government's proposed two-year review cycle be replaced by an annual review cycle? The Government is playing on words again. If the experience accumulated so far is limited, will it not be better to have a one-year review cycle? I really do not understand its logic.
Having this all, I would like to cite A Theory of Justice, which was written by John RAWLS, a professor from the Harvard University, in 1971 and revised in 1999 after drawing reference from the views of different people. Advocating leftist liberalism, it is a popular book on political philosophy. One of the viewpoints advanced in it can be used for reference in the formulation of the minimum wage policy. According to RAWLS, society is a co-operative regime established through consultation. However, due to their selfishness, people making rules will definitely opt for terms and conditions beneficial to themselves or exploit their powers to coerce the weak into agreeing to unfavourable terms and conditions. Were such remarks not a perfect reflection of the MWC at present? The membership of the MWC is precisely like this. With the business, academic and labour sectors each having three seats, the labour sector is in a weak position whereas the Government, the business sector and academics are in a strong position. The strong side, with a three-quarter membership, is oppressing the weak side, which has only a one-quarter membership. As a result, the latter has been coerced into agreeing to unfavourable terms and conditions. Can you consult the three MWC members who are representatives of the labour sector of their views? There is nothing they can do. But the worst thing is that being pro-establishment Members, they have no choice but to "swallow" everything.
In order to ensure the justice of the systems set up by the co-operative regime, RAWLS advocates that everyone has to be subject to "a veil of ignorance" in consultation and making rules, and social principles made in such a state will be just. But what does "a veil of ignorance" mean? Everyone is assumed to be in a world concealed by "a veil of ignorance" in which no one knows the status, skills and fortune of himself and others in society and, through intellectual analyses of concepts related to justice, interests and morals, 9900 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 eventually comes up with fair treaties on social co-operation and have them applied in the real world. It is believed that human beings in such a state will not make rules unfair to the weak. For instance, we will not make social principles to discriminate against workers because, in a world concealed by "a veil of ignorance", we do not know whether we are or will become the weakest workers. It is because we do not know our place in society because of the presence of "a veil of ignorance". Hence, no one will suffer in the real world.
Have the Secretary for Labour and Welfare and the business representatives of the MWC put themselves in the shoes of workers when setting the minimum wage? What I mean is: Have they pretended themselves to be workers? No, they have not. They have considered the matter entirely from the perspective of the business sector. I have no idea if the Secretary has read this book because he is not present at the moment. If he has not read it, he should "step down" and stop getting paid $200,000 to $300,000 a month. How can he as the Secretary for Labour and Welfare formulate labour and social welfare policies without reading A Theory of Justice, a classic in political philosophy? Although all these principles are basic, mere talking without action is futile. Nevertheless, it is not at all easy to fight for the weak who are neither powerful nor influential and prevent them from being oppressed through a reasonable and fair system.
According to a survey, the average rent per square foot of a "sub-divided unit" in Sham Shui Po is more than $30. This means that the rent of a 100 sq ft "sub-divided unit", which is even smaller than a toilet in Secretary Matthew CHEUNG's home, can reach $5,000 to $6,000. Even the rent of a 30 sq ft "sub-divided unit" inside a toilet in Kwun Tong asks for $2,000, but it is still sought after by tenants. If an hourly SMW rate of $32.5 is used as the basis for calculation, a person can only earn less than $10,000 a month even if he works 30 days a month. Our calculation method is to multiply $32.5 with 10 hours and 25 days, thereby arriving at $8,125. However, the rent would have taken up nearly two thirds of the monthly income. Should the SMW rate be regarded as an insult to and poor treatment of elementary employees?
While Hong Kong's per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is close to US$40,000, Taiwan's per capita GDP is only around US$23,000. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the GDP of Hong Kong is almost two times that of Taiwan. However, the minimum wage rate in Taiwan is NT$120, or HK$30. This means that Hong Kong's minimum wage is only higher than that in Taiwan by HK$2.5. Although the GDP of Taiwan is less than that of Hong Kong by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9901 nearly US$10,000, Taiwan is on a par with Hong Kong in terms of the minimum wage. Moreover, property prices in Taiwan are much lower than those in Hong Kong. This is the biggest difference between places with or without democracy.
Although Japan's per capita Gross National Product is on a par with Hong Kong's GDP, the average weighted minimum wage in Japan is ¥780, or HK$55, which is $20 more than the minimum wage in Hong Kong. Although Japan's economy fared better than Hong Kong economy in the past, Japan has experienced almost two decades of economic recession. Over the past decade, Hong Kong economy can be considered as enjoying stable growth. Moreover, Hong Kong is often said to be leveraging on the Motherland with special attention given by the Mainland. Such being the case, have we got rich? Given the Mainland's special attention, why is the minimum wage set at $32.5 only? These people have no idea what they are talking about. Buddy, the Communist Party is still practising socialism, right?
Although Hong Kong has become one of the world's advanced places due to its actual economic power, it is on a par with the Third World countries in Africa in terms of the disparity between the rich and the poor. Is this not very ridiculous? Despite being labelled as an advanced city, Hong Kong is ranked first among the world's advanced places in terms of the wealth gap, with its situation being on a par with that in Third World countries. Not only has the Government failed to come up with solutions to the wealth gap problem, but it has continued to make the situation worse and, what is more, collude with the businessmen who exploit the value of labour production for their own benefit.
Since I speak on the minimum wage issue almost every year, I can use the same script again and again as the minimum wage increase in Hong Kong can never catch up with the rate of increase in commodity prices. When a Member encounters such a situation, he can only feel very helpless and shameful for making no progress. Why do Members make the same remarks every year? Why has there been no progress in society? Why do Members repeat the same words and express the same views every year? Do Members not find it "meaningless" to behave in this manner? I really have great sympathy for Miss CHAN. How could she have served the Legislative Council for decades? I have been a Legislative Council Member for only six years or so, but I already wish to "kill myself" for repeating the same words every year. Am I right? With the same words repeated year after year, I have made no progress or change at all.
9902 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Of course, the Secretary, the rich and the powerful who oppose a substantial increase in minimum wage do not have RAWLS' concept of "a veil of ignorance", as I pointed out just now, not to mention the concept of justice and righteousness, as discussed in A Theory of Justice. Emphasizing merely material gains and benefits, they will do nothing but say that the setting of a minimum wage will affect the business competitiveness and environment and advocate moving up the value chain and enhancing the competitiveness of enterprises. As such, the minimum wage cannot be set at too high a level. Moreover, costs have to be compressed and employees have to be exploited to maintain the annual profit growth, right? In theory, should the Special Administrative Region Government uphold the legitimate rights and interests of elementary employees at large instead of protecting the interest of businessmen to enable them to earn more ill-gotten money? Why do Hong Kong people have anti-rich emotions and hatred towards the rich? Come to think about this. The Government is the accomplice, right?
According to the findings of a survey conducted by the C&SD, about 30% of the labour force, or close to 1.5 million people, earn a monthly salary of below $14,000. In the words of "689", these people are not entitled to vote. Although the Government often brags about having 5 million people taking part in the selection of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote", only 1.5 million to 1.6 million out of the 3 million or so registered electors in Hong Kong will cast their votes in each election. If 1 million blank ballots are cast, it will mean that the selected Chief Executive will probably get only 200 000 ballots, the number of which is even smaller than that of the ballots secured by Miss CHAN Yuen-han when she ran in the District Council constituency. Although Hong Kong's labour force sacrifices everything for work, including time, labour, health and family lives, there is no guarantee that it can have a living standard on a par with that of the labour force in advanced places. Some people even have problems with having enough food. My amendment clearly seeks to reduce the emoluments for the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, the Deputy Secretary for Labour and Welfare and the Political Assistant to Secretary for Labour and Welfare.
As I have only one minute left, I will discuss standard working hours in detail in the second session. After fighting for a minimum wage for so many years, we have only ended up with a fragmented Minimum Wage Ordinance, but the situation of standard working hours is even worse. According to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9903 consensus reached by the Standard Working Hours Committee last month, it was agreed that legislation would be enacted to stipulate that working hours, rest periods, meal hours and compensation for overtime work must be specified in future employment agreements to be applicable to all trades, industries and occupations. Nevertheless, the details are subject to subsequent discussions, and the working hours cannot be regulated across the board. We will vow to oppose all this. I think even Miss CHAN will disagree, right? Should the "game" goes on like this, the situation will be even worse than that of the minimum wage ― the minimum wage rate is now set at a mere $32.5 after all these years.
Deputy Chairman (The buzzer sounded) … I will continue discussing this issue next time … in the next session.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, speaking time is up. Please sit down.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to speak)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure, so that more Members can listen to the speech to be delivered by Miss CHAN.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han, please speak.
9904 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, actually I have spoken on what I am going to say at a number of Legislative Council meetings before. However, when it comes to a certain perspective, I think I need to add a few points, especially Mr WONG Yuk-man has just asked the following question: Having dealt with labour issues for more than 30 years, CHAN Yuen-han is still engaged in such work. How can she do it for such a long time? Having done it for six years, he already feels tired.
Sometimes, like Mr WONG Yuk-man, I also feel tired. I feel tired because each subject may warrant hard argument and plenty of efforts, which include organizing campaigns and having heated debates with the Government. Standard working hours is a typical example. So is the minimum wage. Nevertheless, I hold that without this kind of tenacity, it will be difficult to change the mindset of supporters of free economy, like Secretary Prof K C CHAN. It will be difficult to change the mindset of John TSANG too. During this process, I have won over Donald TSANG before. Although he was not in favour of the minimum wage, he accepted our reasons. If the statutory minimum wage was not put into effect at that time, the future burden of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) would be borne by all the taxpayers in Hong Kong. The situation of retirement protection is the same. If the problem is not resolved today, it will be shouldered by all the young people in Hong Kong in the future.
For each issue over the past few decades, such as the long service payment, severance payment and the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund in the 1980s, we have fought for our cause with this kind of tenacity. Some people have criticized us and asked why it took us such a long time to achieve it, but we cannot help it. How can we revoke or overturn the Government's decision? This is a capitalist society. During the reunification, people asked if our society would still practise capitalism. Old people have a lot of ideas, but after all, this is the reality. Under the principle of "one country, two systems", we have to take this path. Facing this situation, I accept the attitude which the labour sector has always maintained, which is to insist on fighting with reasons. The Secretary has just arrived. The part which I am talking about now falls under his purview. I have been asked a few times, so I give my reply now. This is how I feel.
Why did I say these words to Secretary Prof K C CHAN? Just now I was very angry. I have written a number of articles in my column to scold David WONG. The reason is that before Anna WU retired from office last month, she LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9905 said something which gave me lots of deep feelings. Why did I say these words to Secretary Prof K C CHAN? He has just come in, but I have planned to talk about this issue long ago. At first when David WONG was appointed, I already thought there might be trouble. The labour and business sectors were caught in continuous arguments over the offsetting arrangement. Why did the Government appoint someone from the business sector? It has always been my habit to think positive. Last year, the problem of the offsetting arrangement was clearly about to be settled, but opposed by the four major chambers of commerce, LEUNG Chun-ying surrendered in the end and cease to mention the offsetting arrangement. Now David WONG has been appointed. He is a talkative person from the business sector. I once met him at a seminar at the University of Hong Kong. He could be regarded as someone easy to communicate with. I thought he was OK, but it turned out he was not. When he met with the media, he said he did not take any stand on the matter. He said he did not take any stand, but Henry FAN, Anna WU's predecessor, took a stand on the offsetting arrangement. He considered that in the light of technicalities and future development, it is necessary to abolish the offsetting arrangement. Before the last Chairperson Anna WU left office, she remarked that at present, of the Mandatory Provident Fund benefits withdrawn by employees, on average 94% of the employers' contributions was used to offset ― as reported in the newspapers ― severance payments and long service payments for the employees. Most of them are low-income workers who do not have any personal savings. According to Anna WU, retirement protection in the future is almost equal to zero. This is a warning.
In other words, if the Government does not deal with the offsetting issue today, there will be a grave problem in the future. That is why Anna WU's predecessor Henry FAN considered that it should be abolished. So did Anna WU, who made those remarks I have just cited. In my view, even if the Government does not side with the labour sector and speak from CHAN Yuen-han's angle, it can speak from the social perspective. I am very grateful that Mr SHEK has attached importance to my remarks. The reason is, if we do not deal with this problem today, when the population drops, the working population becomes smaller and the elderly have to rely on CSSA or other allowances in the future, where will the money come from? It will be borne by the whole society. For this reason, all along, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) regards universal retirement protection or comprehensive retirement protection as preparation for a rainy day.
9906 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Another point is, it is necessary to resolve the present problem with the MPF offsetting arrangement. The figures mentioned by Anna WU were not made up by me. Some 94% of the employers' contributions was drawn for offsetting. Many of those people are low-income workers who do not have any savings. How are they going to live upon retirement? We have clearly spelt out the problem, but surprisingly, David WONG said he did not take any stand, which immediately changed my view on him. I thought we could talk with him, but it turned out that he held such an attitude. Recently, I have written a number of articles about David WONG in different columns, so he has approached me for a meeting. I told him that in my opinion, it will be desirable if the conflict between the Government and the business sector can be settled through his communications, but if he only stands on the side of the bosses, what problems can be solved? It will only have an adverse impact on Hong Kong society. I have a strong view on this point. I think this is obviously not in the best interest of Hong Kong, and the problem has not really been solved. Recently, in the television programme "On the Record" …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, I have to remind you, this Council is now having a debate on the amendments rather than policies. Please focus your speech on the amendments.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): I know. Regarding the Budget, this person is too important. He is closely related to the estimated expenditures for welfare ― I will talk about welfare in the second part in a while ― they are intertwined. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
I said, if he does not solve the problem and continues to shelve it, young people will have to bear this liability in the future. We do not wish to see the elderly people unable to get back their pensions with dignity in their twilight years. Why not deal with the problem of the offsetting arrangement? Deputy Chairman, the two Directors of Bureaux shirk the responsibility to each other. Secretary Prof K C CHAN said this is under Secretary Matthew CHEUNG's purview, whereas Secretary Matthew CHEUNG said this is under Secretary Prof K C CHAN's purview. Here comes my criticism of the Government. We have mentioned this problem to the Chief Executive a number of times. As I have said today, if it is not handled now, it will be shouldered by the whole Hong Kong society in the future. So why not deal with it? We are prepared to discuss it. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9907
During the election campaign, the Chief Executive said that the relevant part would be handled step by step, which means working in phases. It would not be abolished at one go. Instead, it would be handled in phases. During our discussion, we also thought about the feasibility of dealing with the severance payment first if priority was to be set between long service payment and severance payment. We could discuss it further.
However, now he refuses to discuss it and refrains from stating his attitude, retreating from the original stand of the two former Chairmen. How can he do that? If the business sector wishes to make any deal with the Government, it can negotiate with the Government, but this will clearly lead to losses of money of all the taxpayers and a great impact on the grassroots in Hong Kong. Hence, I wish to take this opportunity to talk about this problem today. I hope either Director, whether it be Secretary Prof K C CHAN or Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, will take the responsibility and face us. Do not evade us. Frankly speaking, they cannot solve the problem by evading us. It will only make us denounce them in the districts on each occasion. This is the first point.
The second point I would like to talk about is the wealth gap. The two issues are in fact closely related. The present Gini Coefficient of Hong Kong is 0.537. There are 1 million people living below the poverty line. As we can see, the poor exist in various age groups, particularly the elderly. Faced with this group of people, how did the Government respond? On this point, I would also like to say that the current-term Government has made some efforts to alleviate poverty, such as the Old Age Living Allowance and subsidies for low-income persons, but regrettably, its approach still follows the mentality of the British Hong Kong Government or the Administrative Officers (AOs). That means it adopts a piecemeal approach, dealing with a problem only when it comes to its attention. Strictly speaking, it does not work in a comprehensive manner, responding only when members of the public are having bitter disputes over certain issues. It has set up the Community Care Fund to settle the problems step by step, and the effectiveness of this policy may be seen only during the implementation process. This way of working is feasible, but it should not deal with social problems in a fragmented manner.
I heard Honourable colleagues mention food banks. In 2000, I visited the United States, which is a good example in this aspect. We have noted that the United States has employed many tactics in the overall poverty alleviation work, including employment. It has adopted a "dual economy", providing the poor with new horizons when they cannot find employment in the mainstream 9908 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 economy. For this reason, after my return to Hong Kong from the United States, I wrote a number of articles in my column about "a new horizon for employment". Does Hong Kong have any? In respect of land planning, so far the discussion is still about using the space under flyovers if land is not available and using vacant parking spaces in factory buildings if no more land can be found.
Recently, the office of the Water Supplies Department in Sai Yee Street is going to be relocated. This move is commendable. There are two pieces of land there. The office of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department is also situated there. That piece of land at the back is neither fish nor fowl. It is located at the back of Grand Century Place and opposite to the train station. Going up the slope, one will see a lot of big banyan trees there. Recently, I have asked the government officials if this piece of land can serve a multitude of purposes. We do not object to the development of land for the construction of buildings. The question is, can the other piece of land be made available to people with creativity?
Deputy Chairman, why did I say so? Mong Kok is a bustling place which attracts many young people because there are a lot of small shops in the buildings which support a number of people. I have interviewed them. The rent is $10 000-odd. However, in the last two years, these shops from King Wah Centre to Gala Place have gradually disappeared. Where can the operators go? Does the Government have any policy to support these people who are not in the mainstream economy …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, let me remind you once again, this Council is having a debate on the amendments rather than policies. You have spoken for a long time, but your remarks are still irrelevant to the amendments. Please focus your speech on the amendments.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): I know. They are relevant. If the Budget has taken into account the poor people who can hardly get a job, the Government should provide them with a way out. Now it does not give them a possible way out, which makes the oppressed, including me, more and more indignant. This is the situation we face right now. Apart from this part, I need to talk about CSSA.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9909
The authorities have never conducted any review of CSSA since 1995. They will only treat the part which hurts. Hearing that the food banks in the United States are good, they use food banks, but they do not commit any recurrent expenditure to it. Instead, they adopt a piecemeal approach. That means where there is a problem, money will be allocated there from the Community Care Fund. We have asked the Government why it did not review whether the CSSA rate is sufficient. Take the rental problem as an example. Basically, the money provided by the Government is not enough for the poor people to rent a flat. What can they do?
Regrettably, this problem which I am talking about is not related to Secretary Prof K C CHAN. It is related to his partner, Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, who is not present at the moment. I do not know which official is in charge. I would like to say, concerning the existing social welfare policy, in the 1990s we had the White Paper on Social Welfare into the 1990s and Beyond (the White Paper). Mrs Elizabeth WONG was the then Secretary of the Policy Bureau. I still remember the whole White Paper from cover to cover, including family policies, and so on, but now no such work has been done. Is there any White Paper now? Where can we see it?
I asked Secretary Matthew CHEUNG if he realized the problem when he faced the poor. For instance, we have noticed that the wages in the Hong Kong labour market are actually getting lower and lower. One of the reasons is that the Government has taken the lead in outsourcing and reducing the wages of Hong Kong workers, making them even poorer. Many companies follow suit and outsource their work. Those workers do not have any bargaining power at all. What can they do? Has the Government ever thought about how to solve the problem when these people cannot make a living? The Government has got to have a comprehensive policy. After the reunification, I already raised this question with the relevant officials in the Labour and Welfare Bureau, and I have talked about it for a long time. Does the Government have a whole set of policies to deal with this matter? No, because there is not any White Paper on a so-called social welfare policy.
Not a single word was mentioned in this Budget. The FTU proposes a comprehensive social protection scheme, whereas the Financial Secretary proposes to withdraw $220 billion from the Land Fund to set up his Future Fund. How ridiculous! When he needs money, he will get a large sum of money. The Government is currently "flooded with money". That is the present situation of the Government. 9910 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
What is the only explanation then? I have criticized the business sector earlier. Now let me talk about the mentality of the AOs in the Government. In respect of the previous debate topics, they stick to the policy of positive non-intervention and free economy. I think the Government should have realized from numerous examples that this does not work.
It was very kind of the Financial Secretary to propose food trucks in the Budget, but it is unclear who will be responsible for the work. It was said that the work was assigned to Gregory SO. At first, Gregory SO said it was not his business, but later, it turned out to be his business. What proposal did he put forward then? He said the trucks need not travel anywhere. They will stay at the same spot to sell tasty food. In that case, would it not be better to work as a hawker? It has lost all the special characteristics of the food trucks in the United States, Taiwan or Japan. Those food trucks can travel to other places. They will go to bustling places to do business and travel to places with a high visitor flow. That is the way they should work. What he has proposed is entirely different. If that is the case, I would rather operate a food stall.
Hence, in my view, among the three Secretaries of Departments, even the Financial Secretary who holds rein on the financial situation of Hong Kong has a big headache in addressing this issue. Last month I organized a bazaar and invited the Financial Secretary to pay a visit. If he wishes to do such work, there is a lot of folk wisdom ready for him to draw reference. Many people are willing to co-operate with the Government, but first of all, the Government needs to co-ordinate the various Policy Bureaux under the three Secretaries of Departments. The offsetting arrangement is a major issue. How to deal with the Financial Secretary's proposal on food trucks is another.
So, if people ask my view on the Budget, I think overall, it has made some patchy responses. Many of them are fragmentary without coherence. If I were allowed to continue to speak today if the Deputy Chairman does not stop me there would be many other things I could talk about. Over the past decade since the reunification, the Government has not given thorough consideration to the problems of poverty, the underprivileged and the need to prepare for a rainy day in Hong Kong. Someone asked me if the officials are short-sighted because the remaining term of this Government is limited. No, I said, the officials in Hong Kong have always worked in this way (The buzzer sounded) … Thank you, Deputy Chairman. I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9911
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, speaking time is up. Please sit down.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you wish to speak?
(The Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury shook his head to indicate that he did not wish to speak)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, do you wish to speak again?
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I had some misunderstanding because I found it was shown on the screen that there were three Members waiting to speak, so I thought there were still some other people who wanted to speak and for that reason, I could not clip the mic on in time.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Do you want to speak now?
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Yes.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please do.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): There is no need to explain? Never mind then.
Each year, I would propose an amendment to seek deletion of the estimated expenditure for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), standing at $1.4 million this year. Earmarked for carrying out euthanasia on animals as well as another $100,000 this year for hunting boars. These sums are not much compared to the costs of large-scale projects which can easily reach hundred billions of dollars, and they almost seem like nothing. However, they are very important to the spiritual aspect of society. Just now, an animal welfare 9912 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 group held a press conference calling on Hong Kong to also introduce a zero-euthanasia policy. What do I mean by "also"? It means to follow the practice of Taiwan or Taipei. They also particularly demanded that the AFCD stop using animal traps.
In that case, what is the relationship between animal traps and animal euthanasia? Because, on the hills, there are many stray cats and dogs, which we call community cats and dogs. On receipt of complaints, officers of the AFCD would go and catch them. In the past, if they found that there were dogs, they would use force and pull them over with loops. However, according to the research information of this animal group, those animal traps coming from Australia are very terrible. They are not attached to place, for example, looped around a pole, so in sum, after animals are caught, they either run away or … why does the Government use animal traps? It is to capture animals and take them away. Why is it necessary to capture animals and take them away? Basically, the aim is to carry out euthanasia. You make them go through a bout of suffering by catching them and taking them away and this sum of $1.4 million is precisely intended for, among other things, taking this sort of actions. Members, please look at this again: This was given to me by the animal group concerned just now. Look at this: This is a dog's foot, which was sliced off neatly. It was a rope that had caused this by cutting through the foot and apparently, this foot could not be saved.
Deputy Chairman, if we say once and for all that we really do not want this sum of $1.4 million for carrying out euthanasia on animals and that we will cease spending money on this aspect, we can invest the same sum of money in the introduction of the so-called TNVR, that is, trap, neuter, vaccinate and release, in the local communities. You may say the Government has also said frequently in reply that it wants to do so but the local communities do not agree. As a result, it can only continue with the existing practice and at the same time, carry out further lobbying with regard to the problems at the community level.
At the end of this year, the Food and Health Bureau will introduce an amendment bill on animal breeding and you may say that this matter at the policy level is not at all relevant to the matters under discussion now. However, it is actually absolutely relevant. It involves permitting private breeding and amendments that justify and legalize such a practice. This will result in more stray cats and dogs in the local communities. Members may not have noticed and may have thought that cats and dogs in streets breed on their own due to the lack of control. However, if you ask just the volunteer animal workers, they will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9913 tell you that pedigree dogs are found on the hills they have come across many, so even though they are not veterinary surgeons, they can tell on seeing a pedigree that this one is a pedigree husky and that one is also a pedigree dog. Why can such animals be found all over the hills? They are the results of private breeding. Since pet shops cannot sell them or have closed down because of unsuccessful operation, there are some 20 or 30 animals that they do not know how to dispose of. Moreover, there are even more in the workshop, yet no one dares take them to the AFCD or the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for fear of being accused of improprieties, so they are all simply abandoned on the hills.
Perhaps Members would say that since this piece of legislation will regulate such an activity, is this not desirable? However, the most terrible thing is that the Government will permit many forms of breeding, as well as breeding and operation on various scales, for which there will be different licences. In that case, one will become concerned: If there is a new piece of legislation but it is not possible to exercise regulation, in the future, one may find many lovely Chow Chows on one hill and some other animals on another, and one may also wonder why they can be found in streets and alleys and on hills everywhere? Precisely because of the Government. Let me assume that the Government is well-intentioned. Nevertheless, it has done a disservice out of good intentions. For this reason, we are very concerned about the whole matter.
Today, no official from the Food and Health Bureau is present. When it comes to animal rights and welfare, they fall within the ambit of the Food and Health Bureau but its Secretary is a doctor, so one cannot blame him. He can talk with you about Ebola or many public health and food safety issues but if you suddenly talk with him about animal rights and welfare, he has to make enquiries with the AFCD on our behalf and in the end, this matter will again end up in the hands of the AFCD. The full name of the AFCD is the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. Apart from "fisheries" and "agriculture", "conservation" generally refers to trees, streams, and so on, so it is not related to animals. Even though the amount of money spent each year is not large, what is the significance of this sum of $1.4 million to our lives, the whole world and the principles of the human-animal relationship?
Today, an article on animal rights was published and the author is Mr Mark MAK, a person in charge of a non-profit-making veterinarian group. He said he hoped Hong Kong could follow the example of Taipei by introducing zero-euthanasia for animals. Here, I will quote him. He said, to this effect, 9914 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
"Let me ask a simple question: In Hong Kong, which government department is dedicated to the protection of animals? I believe some would say that there is none but many people would say it is the AFCD, even though its full name, 'Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department', does not include animals. Generally speaking, animals are part of nature, so perhaps they can also 'hitch a ride' and the AFCD can perhaps 'make some room' and manage them as well! Unfortunately, the mindset of the AFCD has remained that of 'management' and it has never thought about truly protecting them. Of course, they have not even done a good job of management!"
I will continue to quote the comments of Mr Mark MAK. He wrote, to this effect, "Throughout many years, the survival of animals in Hong Kong has been precarious. In the countryside, and even in the local communities, animal traps can often be found. These devices injure wild lives as well as stray cats and dogs in the local communities, and they also injure human beings accidentally. Last year, a case involving a bomb baited with duck skin for catching animals arose and the fingers of a member of the public were almost blown off" and the person concerned is still recuperating and at that time, "it caused a furore but it has not woken up the AFCD in the slightest way. Now, the use of animal traps is still rampant, so this has necessitated the formation of an alliance against animal traps by the public. That means since the Police do not catch thieves, we have no alternative but to form a civil self-defence team. The scandal does not stop here. The most disgraceful thing is that the AFCD is taking the lead in using animal traps to catch dogs, so is this not tantamount to a custodian turning into a thief? Even as volunteers from the civil society guard against animal poachers, they also have to guard against the AFCD because the latter possesses more animal traps than anyone else."
Some people may raise the query that whilst it is certainly common knowledge that any member of the public poaching animals is a violation of the law, the animal traps owned by the AFCD are legal, so why is he making such a fuss? However, the subject of debate now is the spiritual aspect. Indeed, even killing can be classified into lawful and unlawful and there is such a thing as lawful killing, for example, if you act on self-defence or police officers take out criminals when maintaining law and order. However, this so-called lawful capture of community animals not just cats and dogs but also boars by the AFCD is also unnecessary.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9915
The scene that happened in Aberdeen yesterday has really become a joke in the international community. What were they doing? It was just a boar but the impression is … in the pictures, particularly, in the footage on television, it looked as though some international terrorists from the IS had come and all equipment, such as shields, was deployed. Then, Members can imagine this: If a mother happens to pass by with her child, on finding that the Police are acting as though they were confronted by a formidable enemy, the immediate reaction of the child would be: This is very terrible and it is really necessary to keep a wide berth on seeing any wild animal. Really, not just a distance, as animals are most scary, and human beings must distance themselves miles from animals before they are safe. The approach adopted by government departments in Hong Kong really gives one the impression of being utterly lousy.
I will quote here. Mr Mark MAK continues to query, to this effect, "What does the AFCD catch these healthy community animals for? To carry out health checks on them?" Take the boar yesterday as an example, apparently, it will not fare well after being captured. I am somewhat worried, so I hope the AFCD can give us an account as soon as possible. Mr MAK asked if they would be offered for adoption. Of course not. It is really unimaginable that after these community animals have been captured for no good reason, they will be put down. If they were to know that the people who killed them were the ones who were supposed to protect them, they would rather die. There is no need to give them injections and they would rather die from indignation.
He asked, to this effect, "Why take their lives when all is well?" The claim of the AFCD is that there are complaints. It is from someone of whom there are no records and it is not clear if it was a man, woman or child. All in all, there is no evidence whatsoever and so long as there is a complaint or they have received a phone call, they will scurry to the scene, catch all the animals and take them back to the department. All in all, the reason is some inconsequential complaints. For example, someone may complain, "I saw a dog" and apparently, they will mobilize immediately. Such is the policy. Since someone has lodged a complaint, they will mobilize immediately. After an animal has been caught, if no one adopts it within four days, it will be killed immediately.
He said that in the last couple of years, the numbers of animals culled by the AFCD had declined steadily apparently, this is a cause for celebration but this is either attributable to the rise in the quality of the public, since all of them know that they must not lodge any complaints lightly because as soon as 9916 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 they do so, particularly given that a complainant has to specify the hills in question, this would do harm to all the animals on those hills as the AFCD officers would be mobilized en masse to catch all the animals, then euthanize them by giving them injections; or this can be attributed to the considerable success of the campaign launched by the civil groups on their own to trap, neuter and return animals. He pointed out that if the number of community animals is controlled, naturally, the number of complaints would drop as a result. After the number of complaints has decreased, naturally, it is not necessary for the AFCD to use animal traps to catch animals. With the passage of time, naturally, it will no longer be necessary to practise euthanasia.
Mr Mark MAK also said that recently, he found a home-made animal trap in the urban area and just now, on the fifth floor, we also showed it to the mass media. This device is very terrible and it is really handmade. Such devices are illegal in Hong Kong and this one is surely illegal. Even the possession of it is illegal. When we called the Police to make a report, saying that we had found such an animal trap, the Police said that this kind of cases had nothing to do with them and told us to make a report to the AFCD it is the AFCD again and what was the response of the AFCD? The AFCD said it had to look at the situation and would collect this thing to have a look at it.
Mr Mark MAK said that this was an impasse. He said that in the entire Government, there was no department truly concerned about animal lives. He said he hoped Hong Kong is a civilized society that loves animals, in which human beings and animals truly co-exist. Since we could establish the Tree Management Office and by virtue of its name, we know that it only manages trees we hope that similarly, an animal protection office can be established in Hong Kong. Thank you.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you wish to speak again?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, before I come to my speech, I wish to raise a simple question about the procedure. Will you not handle Members' requests anymore? Does it mean that other Members may not speak anymore, or Members who have not spoken may not request to speak in this session, and only those who have proposed amendments may speak for one last time?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9917
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Chairman made it clear earlier that the current debate would come to a close around 2.30 pm. He had also asked Members who wished to speak to press the "Request to speak" button. As none of the Members who had not spoken was waiting to speak just now, and I have also asked public officers if they wish to speak, I now invite Members who have proposed amendments to speak one by one. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, it is your turn to speak now.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Fine, Deputy Chairman, I am not challenging you.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I just make it clear to you.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I only wish to ask about the procedure in order to give Members a clear picture. In other words, Members who have proposed amendments will have one last chance to speak. So, before I proceed to making my speech, I wish to invoke Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure for a headcount.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please speak.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I know you are just executing the time frame arrangement set down by Chairman Jasper TSANG earlier. However, I have to make it clear to everyone here that Chairman Jasper TSANG's arrangement is utterly unreasonable. I have proposed 11 amendments to the heads under the current debate, including those for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD), Labour and Welfare Bureau as well as Food and 9918 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Health Bureau, but I have spoken once only. Should making one speech be counted as filibustering? I pressed the button early on to request speaking for a second time, but I was placed behind Members who had not spoken all the way until I was at the very end of the queue. After you imposed a "cut-off" just now, I would have no more chance to speak except this one last time as a round-up speech.
I have proposed 11 amendments, but I have spoken once only. How can I do all the explanation to win Members' support? I could only talk about euthanasia on animals in my previous speech, which constitutes merely half of what I have got to say. I planned to use my second speech to throw weight behind Ms Claudia MO's proposal to reduce the expenditure on wild pig hunting. As for two key items under the FEHD, significant problems have been observed in its hawker management; as for the management of public markets, especially cooked food centres, I planned to speak once on each of the items; as for Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew CHEUNG, I could speak at least 10 times just to condemn him, but I planned to speak once only.
My query is that, as regard these 11 amendments, I should at least be allowed to speak on each of the heads once, not to mention the need to speak on each of the amendments once. Next year, you may claim that Members have not discussed the amendments proposed, hence it is meaningless to do so, and they are vetoed as a matter of formality. In fact, I have not spoken and have no chance to do so, how are they going to have any debate with me? Is it not unreasonable? Deputy Chairman, you will not answer me. I am just recounting what is going on to let everyone judge if it is unreasonable. Come next year, you may say that I will not be allowed to propose amendments because I merely procrastinated without speaking on them. However, I have spoken once only, and this is the second time I speak.
In this session, I would speak as arranged. President TSANG has said that a capable speaker would be able to put all the things together into a 15-minute speech. I would really like to invite him to show us if he is able to speak so fast as to cover all the 11 amendments in 15 minutes, as does the female anchor who reports financial news on television.
For the time being, I would like to speak on Ms Claudia MO's amendment No 53, which resolves that head 22 be reduced by $100,000 in respect of subhead 000 to reduce an amount approximately equivalent to the AFCD's annual expenditure estimate for arranging for wild pig hunting. A wild pig incident has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9919 happened very lately. Yesterday morning, a little wild pig four feet long was spotted wandering in Aberdeen Promenade on Aberdeen Praya Road ― it being big or small is subject to one's perspective ― and the Police were called to the scene. Then, the wild pig and the Police … Available online are highlights of their encounter, which make one wonder if it was a recurrence of the Occupation movement. They erected seven-foot shields and imposed cordon lines. The wild pig was so scared that it ran for its life and stormed to the park as well as a six-foot traffic lane on the road, and dangerous scenes ensued one after another. Should the wild pig or its captors be blamed for the incident? More than 10 police officers erected the shields in great hustle and surrounded the wild pig with rubbish bins and their lids for an hour or so. The incident came to a close when a female AFCD veterinarian arrived and shot three doses of anaesthetic to the animal. The "big show" was staged because the AFCD officers arrived late. On being shot, the wild pig fell down soon due to the drug's effect, and it was then trapped in a cage.
An AFCD spokesperson said that the wild pig caught was female weighing 70 kg, and that it would be released back to the nature if it was found to be physically fit after examination. Yet, the prerequisite is that it is found to be physically fit after examination. Why were many of the previously caught wild pigs euthanized eventually? It was because their heads and bodies were injured in the course of capture. I am not sure if Members have any feeling for this or not, and yet I am sad. The authorities may claim that the wild pigs concerned cannot be saved and that euthanasia is for their own good, but all of these were caused in the course of capture actually.
At present, wild pigs like to wander everywhere in general, and this happens in various districts. Ordinary residents may not call the Police or the AFCD for any of the wild pigs they see, and the animals will go back to where they live on their own. The wild pig was filmed to have been acting fiercely and running all over the place because it was scared by the Police. This actually conforms to the principle of suppression and violence, according to which one will not resort to violence unless he is being suppressed. When an animal is suppressed, it will resort to violence and run wild, and it will be described as emotionally unstable and then subject to euthanasia. In the face of such a large round-up operation, even a meek wild pig may turn wild. Wild pigs are not protected animals, yet it is illegal for anyone other than the AFCD to catch them with tools or traps.
9920 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Anyway, if what the AFCD spokesperson said is true and the little wild pig will eventually be released back to the nature, everyone should be happy with this praiseworthy action. However, wild pigs showing up in the New Territories may meet a totally different fate. They may have been shot to death by the wild pig hunting teams.
There are two civilian wild pig hunting teams in Hong Kong nowadays, both established in the 1970s, namely the Tai Po Wild Pig Hunting Team and the Sai Kung Wild Pig Hunting Team. Captains of both teams are granted special permits for wild pig hunting issued by the AFCD, and all team members have to pass the written tests as well as practical examinations on the use of firearms held by the Police and hold the licences issued by the Police for the use of firearms before they join the operations. Under the prevalent law, on-scene monitoring by the Police is not required during the hunting teams' operations. At present, wild pigs in Hong Kong scatter across the districts, and they are more commonly found in the North East New Territories. Over the past five years, the AFCD has received more than 1 500 complaints on nuisance caused by wild pigs, or six cases a week on average, and about 20% of them have been transferred to the two civilian hunting teams. The percentage is not high, yet it is quite frequent for the hunting teams have to take action every three days.
According to the AFCD's reply to a question raised in this Council last year, over the past five years, the annual expenditure on wild pig hunting amounts to $100,000, and the hunting teams have killed 281 wild pigs in the New Territories, Kowloon, Hong Kong and Islands, with the New Territories accounting for 80%. However, in its reply, the Government explains the need to hunt wild pigs on the ground that they are pests, and offers no direct response as to whether consideration will be given to the devising of concrete codes of operation to stipulate the degree of property damage or personal threat caused to people by wild pigs which warrants approval of hunting operations by the teams.
The Hong Kong Wild Boar Concern Group said that the AFCD's monitoring of the hunting teams is inadequate, and that the hunting itself has inflicted unnecessary harm on wild pigs and posed dangers to the people living there. It also pointed out that wild pigs in Hong Kong do not hurt people in general and seldom pose dangers to people's personal safety, crop and properties. An example cited by the group is a case referred by the AFCD earlier for a hunting team's operation in Lung Hang Estate, Sha Tin. Some lovely little wild LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9921 pigs were widely known to be living there and regarded as community partners by the residents. The operation was taken because they had eaten the fruit offered to people's late relatives, but not because of any loss in human life or property. The wild pigs surely had no idea if the fruit placed on the roadside was given to them or dedicated to people's late relatives. Moreover, wild pigs would take defensive or even charging actions only when they were scared ― as in the case of members of the public, if I am not provoked by the Police, I will not charge at the Police with no reason ― there has never been any report of physical injuries caused by wild pigs' attack at all. Wild pigs usually like to frequent woodlands, meadows, farmlands and the countryside, which are their habitats, but there are calls to kill them on the claim that the grassland has been spoiled by them. The reason cited is really paltry, but at stake is the life of wild pigs. This is precisely why I support Ms Claudia MO's amendment of reducing the said expenditure estimate.
Members of the hunting teams are good in the sense that they may possess firearms, but I see it as an issue of public safety. As regards the criticism that the AFCD's monitoring over the hunting teams is inadequate and that the reports on the teams' operations are neither carefully written nor transparent enough, the Government's reply is just endorsement of the existing policies because they surely need to support their own policies, but they are being mum or evasive as to the various groups' criticisms and suggestions. For example, in response to a question on the authorities' initiatives to address the multiple errors committed by the hunting teams in their operations, they only stated how proven the policies are ― pet phrase of the Government ― as well as the need to retain the teams for addressing the current situation, but not a word was said on any improvement initiative. They only said that a review would be conducted and a reminder would be issued where necessary, so it is a suggestion that there is no such need right now.
The hunting teams form a group neither official nor civilian in nature. Each year, they use our money to kill the wild pigs deemed part of the community by the public and released by the AFCD. Do Members see the contradiction here? At present, captured wild pigs will be released if they are fit, but the hunting teams may kill and catch them. The most shocking point is that these members of the public, who do not belong to any disciplined service, may store their own arms and ammunition at home and take them out anytime for their wild pig hunting operations in the urban areas. The most important thing is not just 9922 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 that their hunting operations cannot continue without the said $100,000, but that there is a group of privileged people in Hong Kong behind the whole mechanism who may possess arms legally with the support of public funds. Will the weapons be misused or made available to others either intentionally or not? This is questionable, in my view.
In fact, apart from this amendment, I surely have to restate the need to reduce the AFCD's funding on euthanasia. Significant problems have been seen in the AFCD's formulation of animal-friendly policies. Our call for establishing an animal police over the years is not entertained; cruelty to animals is not uncommon, but the Department has no hand on it; and the problem of pet breeding in pet shops is not addressed at all. What animal welfare and animal rights are there to speak of? I also need to raise an issue about cats here. The AFCD has yet to require cats to be implanted with a microchip as in the case of dogs, so abandoning cats is in theory not unlawful because there is no way to trace their owners.
In addition, in a meeting of the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene, I once asked the Government to look into a code of practice on pet food safety, and the Government's reply was that there was no such need. Do Members know that the factory which makes the cat food we have been using has been relocated to Shanghai? We do not dare buy it because there is no way to tell if food produced on the Mainland is contaminated. Even Mr Tommy CHEUNG has admitted that a friend of his is considering moving back to Hong Kong for such production. Like the formula milk sold in Hong Kong, dog food and cat food may spur another buying spree by Mainlanders because the quality of Hong Kong-made products is assured. Nevertheless, there is no law on pet food safety in Hong Kong, and the Government has no intention to look into it, so there is no way out. If one does not buy those pet food from Shanghai … some overseas brand-name cat food and dog food are currently produced in Shanghai. If cats and dogs die after eating them, no one will be held accountable. Despite the repeated occurrence of these problems, Dr KO will not be held accountable.
Moreover, there are also problems in the management of hospice services for pets, and the Food and Health Bureau needs to tackle it. That includes the handling of ash after dogs are cremated as well as related environmental issues.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9923
At the community level, there is also great confusion in many of the policies on animal rights. For example, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department has designated some areas in its venues as pet parks as a way to open up part of the community facilities and public space, but cats and dogs are denied access to the roads leading to the pet parks, so members of the public have no idea how to get to the parks. This demonstrates an absence of a holistic plan by the SAR Government with regard to the policies on pet welfare.
Lastly, I wish to talk about Taipei, where animal-friendly policies are in place. They include an initiative in which a person will be issued an order barring him from keeping pets for the rest of his life if he is found to have abandoned animals. Other initiatives include a mobile application which facilitates the reporting of animal abandonment as well as the rewards for reporting so, and I wish that the AFCD may make reference to them. To reduce the number of animals being subject to euthanasia, there is a need to stop animal abandonment and propose relevant policies, rather than just sit and wait.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, do you wish to speak again?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes. Deputy Chairman, I think President Jasper TSANG's arrangement for the debate is totally unreasonable. Certainly, this has got nothing to do with you. I have originally planned to address this issue when he returns. But as we have to wait for his return, we may as well invoke Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure to do a headcount first.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
9924 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue with your speech.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, finally you have come back. Although you are so powerful that you have limited the debate to 100 hours, meaning that you have "tailored the filibuster", I consider this practice extremely unreasonable. And its unreasonableness has now surfaced. Frankly speaking, it has actually got nothing much to do with you because after the filibuster has been tailored, those who remained silent out of fear in the past are trying to have the floor before others, thus taking up much time. As a result, a large part of the scripts prepared by me in respect of my own amendments and those proposed by others has to be abandoned. I wish to use a phrase to describe those Members who have suddenly become proactive in speaking, and that is "being entrenched in the position doing nothing useful". Once they realize there is no risk involved, they try to have the floor before others. I am deeply disappointed about it. I cannot defeat you not because I lack the ability to do so. Rather, it is because others are incapable and useless. Certainly, this remark also applies to the pan-democratic Members.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing has left. First, I request that the emoluments of Secretary Matthew CHEUNG be reduced. Why do I have to reduce the emoluments of Secretary Matthew CHEUNG? Because the big liar LEUNG Chun-ying has undertaken to legislate for standard working hours, and Miss CHAN Yuen-han has also publicly asked him about it. As everyone knows, he is the "Chief Executive who lives on his smile", knowing nothing but putting on a stupid or sinister smile, attempting to muddle things through. Mr WONG Kwok-hing likes it best to criticize my filibuster for doing harm to others, saying that even though I have not killed them, it is because of me that they die. I would like Mr WONG Kwok-hing to enlighten me. On the fifth day of the Lunar New Year, a retired worker aged 68 leaped to death holding his grandson, and the reason was the absence of retirement protection. I wish to tell everyone who resists me because I fight for universal retirement protection by launching a filibuster. Those victims of their act all died because of their reluctance to do their part. The elderly SHI Kau-yan requires no further elaboration as it is a recent case. Hence, my conclusion is that those who condemn me should at least be like Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, who knows how to reflect on himself. Matthew CHEUNG is actually a person who restrains his tongue as he will not condemn me. I do not understand why a legislator will be condemned by his own colleagues for duly discharging his duties. This is the first point. I have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9925 this question for Mr WONG Kwok-hing. He condemns my filibuster and criticizes me on behalf of the Government. Does he care about those elderly who suffer from the absence of retirement protection? This is the first point.
Second, let me come back to standard working hours. Standard working hours is a very important item of the platform of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU). As we all know, the fight for standard working hours started from the 19th century, but it has yet to succeed. Now I have to do some calculations with Mr WONG Kwok-hing or other Members who criticize me. At present, the weekly working hours of Hong Kong workers number 52 on average, while that of their counterparts in the United States are 40. I will leave aside this point and assume that we cannot enjoy the weekly working hours of 40 of the United States. I assume that the standard is 44 hours because it is the target claimed by the FTU and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB). In other words, while I am filibustering to fight for legislation for standard working hours, some people, including the Chairman, condemn me and ask me to stop my action. This year, the Chairman has done such a shameful thing only because he is under enormous pressure. If we deduct 44 hours from the weekly working hours of 52, we get eight hours. If we multiply it by 52, and then further multiply it by the minimum wage, Hong Kong workers will lose the pay for ― each hour equals one hour, not 1.5 hours ― 13 520 hours as a result. Assume that the hourly rate of a worker is $40, he will suffer a loss of $16,640. Assume that contractual working hours are set, so based on the overtime pay rate at 1.5 times, workers paid the minimum wage should probably suffer a loss of $27,000. If the hourly rate is $40, they will suffer a loss of $33,000. I wish to ask Mr WONG Kwok-hing or those who condemn me now. How are they going to compensate these workers? This is another point.
Secondly, without standard working hours, even if workers accept "overtime pay for overtime work", that is, they accept the overtime pay rate at 1.5 times, do they have the right to reject their employers who, over a long period of time, have been paying them to work in a life-threatening manner? Probably they do. If they are dismissed as a result of this, they can certainly seek redress through methods of resolving unfair dismissal. If standard working hours are set, surely there should be corresponding enactment of legislation to deal with injuries or deaths due to fatigue from work. In that case, as long as those workers who roll with the punches for livelihood can prove that they have developed long-term strains or chronic diseases or even die due to overtime work for their employers on a long-term basis, they can file proceedings to seek justice. 9926 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Honourable Members, who do I hurt in my fight for these? Here I am applying the methods of filibuster, "getting more by requesting a reduction" and bringing the evil to justice. I believe all of you will understand the meaning of "getting more by requesting a reduction". In respect of government funding, we cannot increase it by even a single penny, so we can only ask for a reduction. Even if we wish to get an additional $50 billion or $70 billion to implement universal retirement protection, we must put forward a proposal for reducing its funding in order to force the Government to come to terms with us. If an amendment is made to any item of the Budget proposed by the Government, it has to be returned to the Legislative Council, being threatened by Article 50 of the Basic Law. Only in so doing will it sit down for a discussion with us. Many people think that LEUNG Kwok-hung is stirring up trouble. Yes, I admit that I am stirring up trouble. Given our system, only by stirring up trouble can I speak, let alone doing solid work.
The FTU or DAB has been fighting for standard working hours in a filibustering manner for some two decades, but nothing has been achieved so far. With their increasing power in the Council, the evil force has also been growing, wilfully slandering those Members who struggle for their own principles.
Let me talk about universal retirement protection further. I again recall those days when Mr TAM Yiu-chung, wearing the hat of the FTU, acted as its representative. In 1995, he did neither speak nor vote. I do not know what he was doing, whether he was having rice or faeces …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have strayed from the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, I have strayed from the question.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please speak on the question under debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Mr TAM Yiu-chung spoke in 1994. What did he say at that time? He said "the Government should inject $10 billion to launch the OPS. Certainly, this would be a gesture to indicate its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9927 willingness to assume the necessary financial responsibility, however, this is not enough. For the OPS to be viable and for obtaining more support from the community, the Government, the employers, and the employees should jointly contribute monthly to the OPS at the rates of 2.5%, 1.5% and 1% of the monthly salary respectively. Contributions from employees earning less than $6,000 a month should be exempted."
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, on which amendment are you speaking on?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Amendment Nos 358 to 360 in relation to Matthew CHEUNG. Why? It is because although Matthew CHEUNG is not present, his soul is here. A number of Members are defending him and attacking me. Hence, if I request that his emoluments be reduced, I must rebuke those Members defending him.
In 2006, Mr TAM Yiu-chung suddenly turned into …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have mentioned Mr TAM Yiu-chung. But according to the record, he has not spoken in this debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): This is related to his party, and he represents his party. The whole DAB is attacking me.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please speak on the relevant amendments.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It is known to all. In 2006, Mr TAM Yiu-chung voted for the universal retirement protection option proposed by another Member. But since you do not find it good for me to read out what he said in the past, I will just leave it. This means that in the decade between 1995 and 2006, he was in favour of it. Now it is 2015. Another decade has passed, and he is still attacking me.
9928 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Another one is Mr WONG Kwok-hing. Certainly, he is a junior. Chairman, in 2012, while you were the Honourable President of the Legislative Council, he said something. First, he condemned the Old Age Living Allowance proposed by LEUNG Chun-ying as "exchanging a leopard cat for a prince" and a departure from the original intention in CY's election platform. This is also the purpose of my filibuster at meetings of the Finance Committee. I hope to accomplish something proposed by Mr WONG Kwok-hing. Secondly …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing has not spoken in this debate either. Please do not stray from the question. If you wish to talk about any one of the amendments, please speak on that particular amendment.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The FTU is also involved. Let me read out to you what a Member said. "We in the FTU already proposed to the Government 31 years ago the setting up of an integrated retirement protection system. In 1986, we proposed the establishment of a central provident fund, and we further proposed in 1994 an integrated retirement system to ensure a secure old age for the elderly, but the Government has all along dragged its feet", and then it reads "The buzzer sounded", indicating that he could not finish what he wished to say. But today, he remains silent. This person is Mr WONG Kwok-hing.
Chairman, as there has been some new development in a universal retirement protection system, I have to think about it. In fact, during my past filibusters, the Government initially did not earmark any funding. But later on, it allocated and unfroze the $50 billion from the unsuccessful mandatory health insurance as contingency provision. But last time, when my filibuster was in full swing, he appointed Prof Nelson CHOW to prepare a report. Prof Nelson CHOW has finished the report, pointing out that a universal retirement protection system should, in any event, be implemented in Hong Kong, and proposed six options. Since the Government has discharged its functions by appointing others to act and identified such a need, its responsibility is to come up with a six-in-one proposal, choose one out of six, or choose three out of six and group LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9929 them together, that is, combining three of the options into one, and then lose no time in submitting it to the Legislative Council. If this step is omitted, LEUNG Chun-yung can always default on honouring his pledges.
In fact, in a last-ditch attempt to fight for universal retirement protection, I continue to filibuster this time around. But in return, I have received such treatment. At the final stage last year, you gave me 15 minutes to speak. I said it did not matter because we were approaching the finish line, and we would make it next year as long as Members could try harder. But this year, Members are even more indifferent, including the pan-democratic Members. I can assert sure that no matter whether the constitutional reform package is passed or not, if Members only rolls with the punches, this Legislative Council will not have any future. I also express deep regret because to my surprise, I heard that the "full-scale non-cooperation movement" is against me instead of the Government.
Chairman, he who laughs last laughs best. You are smiling with joy today. I think the reason for your happiness is not that you can impose sanctions on me. Rather, it is because you see that many who are supposed to side with me to oppose your sanctions on me have given tacit approval to your sanctions on me. Chairman, following your bold move to cut short the filibuster, even if the Legislative Council has yet to become a lame duck, it has already become a bamboo duck, or bamboo lame duck, which has no heart nor limbs. This is what I wish to say.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have proposed three amendments in respect of Head 141 ― Government Secretariat: Labour and Welfare Bureau, and I continue to speak on these amendments now. This is the second time I am speaking, or this can be said as my concluding speech because, insofar as your handling of this so-called filibuster is concerned, your name will be recorded in history. In this connection, I have to say something in digression. We cannot understand your handling approach; nor do we wish to start a debate with you; and after all, Chairman, it is impossible for you to debate with us anyway. All I wish to say is that we have made preparations for our speech on each amendment very seriously. We have prepared a lot of materials but you have deprived us of our time, not allowing us to speak, right?
9930 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Your handling approach this time around has made me think about publishing a book. I hope that it can be published in time for the book fair this year. It is about how the Legislative Council has been stripped of all of its dignity. Just now I was thinking about the name of this book. The materials that I have collected are even enough for me to publish three books on the same topic. How can this be a legislature? It is actually destroying what it has built up, forsaking its own position and castrating itself.
We have fought for the minimum wage for many years and all we have got in the end is a crippled Minimum Wage Ordinance. The case of standard working hours is even worse. The Standard Working Hours Committee (SWHC) reached a consensus last month, agreeing that legislation should be enacted to require the inclusion of working hours, rest periods and meal breaks, whether overtime compensation is provided, and so on, in an employment contract in future while expressing opposition to a broad-brush approach. This is utterly infuriating. The SWHC was set up in April 2013 and after two years of discussion, the statutory standard working hours have turned into working hours agreed between employers and employees, and the provision of overtime compensation also has to be further studied. Such being the case, what is the use of setting up this SWHC? This proposed approach for handling standard working hours is totally different from that adopted worldwide. What is most incredible is that a SWHC member representing the labour sector, Stanley NG of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU), outrageously remarked that the labour sector should gradually convince the employers with patience. I really want to swear. How are you going to convince the employers with patience? You should make the employers agree to your demands with justifications, rather than persuading them gradually ― I wonder if Miss CHAN Yuen-han has highlighted this point earlier ― he is a leader of the FTU and how dare he, in his capacity as a SWHC member representing the employees, has the nerve to make those remarks. When the SWHC has put forth such a view and reached such a consensus, it means that he has a part to play in it, right? He is a member representing the employees. Did he express a different view at the time? We do not know. But he has gone so far as to tell the labour sector to gradually convince the employers with patience. No wonder Miss CHAN Yuen-han cannot put up with him, saying that he is inexperienced and far from smart.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9931
Another SWHC member representing the labour sector, CHAU Siu-chung of the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions, criticized that regulating contracts is not really tantamount to regulating working hours ― this is the right thing to say ― he said that wage earners have not yet been provided with protection and criticized the Government for only stating that a majority of people supported the specification of the working hours in employment contracts, but the fact is that 67% of employers and 56% of employees supported the setting of standard working hours. He considered that the Government has misled the public in the analysis of the statistics. The pro-business SAR Government has indeed misled the public on purpose, and this comes as no surprise to us, for they are basically birds of a feather and are colluding with each other to do evils.
The capitalist United States enacted the Fair Labour Standards Act in 1938 when its economy was still very much in the doldrums. The then President, Franklin ROOSEVELT, signed the bill to bring it into practice. Apart from setting the minimum hourly wage, the Act also stipulated the maximum workweek at 40 hours, that is, five days of work a week and eight hours a day.
From 24 to 28 July 2011 I went with a delegation of the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower to the Republic of Korea (Korea) to study their experience in the implementation of standard working hours. As there are a lot of similarities between Korea and Hong Kong in respect of working hours and workers in both places traditionally have to work longer hours, the successful experience in Korea is worthy reference for us. In 2010, the average annual working hours of employees in Korea were 2 193 hours. Although this figure is still extremely undesirable, it represented a decrease of 400 hours when compared to that in 1997, showing that a significant improvement has been made. Today, the SAR Government has invariably refused to start making legislation on the pretext that great controversies are involved. This is why many workers are still forced by their employers to work overtime nowadays, especially elementary workers who do not have bargaining power and whose wages are not high. The situation in Hong Kong is indeed different from those in the United States and Korea, because Hong Kong practises extreme right-wing capitalism. While the capitalists in other places dare not exploit workers blatantly, our capitalists in Hong Kong nevertheless resort to brazen exploitation in broad daylight as a major means to reap exorbitant profits and yet, the SAR Government has done nothing to restrain them. I believe these pro-business representatives in the SWHC would say that standard working hours would undermine the business environment and competitiveness, right? However, in our last visit to Korea we 9932 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 found that the Gross Domestic Product at purchasing power parity per capita in Korea had persistently increased since the implementation of the 40-hour working week in 2004 from US$21,630 then to US$29,000 in 2010.
Moreover, whether it be minimum wage or standard working hours, the business sector has always put up opposition on the ground that the unemployment rate would hence be pushed up, which is but cliché. Let us look at the situation in Korea again. The Korean Tripartite Commission, which is the presidential advisory body established as the official social communication channel among employers, the Government, labour and public interest groups, published the Basic Agreement on Reduction of Working Hours on 23 October 2000. One of the points made therein has explicitly stated that "The issue of reducing work hours shall be promoted in such a way as to ensure mutual prosperity for both workers and employers by enhancing the quality of life and creativity and giving broader chances for employment and education/training for workers, and enhancing industrial competitiveness through higher productivity." What is the advantage of a reduction of working hours or the setting of standard working hours according to studies jointly conducted by the government, the business sector and the labour sector in other countries? The advantage is "enhancing the quality of life and creativity and giving broader chances for employment and education/training for workers". Is this not diametrically opposed to what our business sector and Government have said? What is the use of our visit to Korea? We have compiled a report after the visit, but nobody has paid any attention to it. Has the SAR Government (including the last-term Government and the current-term Government) read this report? With regard to the remarks made by LEUNG Chun-ying and the pledges that he made during his election campaign, he has obviously defaulted on honouring them now. It is useless even though Miss CHAN Yuen-han is enraged. Buddy, you are the ones who have condoned him, are you not? What did you say, Stanley NG? I do not want to call you people traitors of the workers. But you are clearly traitors of the workers.
Chairman, in respect of head 141, I planned to speak for at least four times today. I have already prepared the information, and I have yet spoken on elderly care service, the disability allowance, and so on. On the question of standard working hours, I have spoken for eight minutes now. These three amendments seek to reduce the salary of Matthew CHEUNG, the salary of the Under Secretary, and the salary of the Political Assistant, because the policies formulated by them are fraught with problems.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9933
According to the report of "Prices and Earnings" published by an international financial institution, UBS, in 2012, the working hours per year in Hong Kong were 2 296 hours, which were higher than the average of 1 915 hours worldwide and 2 154 hours in Asian cities, ranking among the five places with the highest working hours in the world. The grassroots in Hong Kong are forced to work in a situation where they lead inhuman lives, unable to make ends meet, and where they do not only lack bargaining power but also live from to hand to mouth. Overtime work is not only detrimental to the physical and psychological well-being of employees but also makes it impossible for them to spend time with their family and take care of their children, which will in turn bring about all sorts of family problems. With regard to the Family Council or whatever, the family-friendly policy, and so on, introduced by the SAR Government, other than serving some window-dressing purposes, these really show that the Government is all lies and far from practical, and what is the use of putting in place a Family Council or whatever or a family-friendly policy afterwards?
We are discussing the Budget today and of course, we can try to explore the issue of standard working hours from the angle of public finance. Excessively long working hours are certainly harmful to the employees' health in the long term, and this will precisely add to the pressure on public healthcare service and the financial burden on the Government. Is this not a manifestation that the profit of major corporations is more important than the stability of our public finance? In order to meet the interests of major corporations, the Government has refused to implement these policies to the benefit of elementary workers and what use is there to subsequently introduce other initiatives? Other expenditures, such as that on public healthcare service, social welfare, and so on, will only increase. Have Members seen a government like the Hong Kong Government?
Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew CHEUNG is an ex-officio member of the SWHC. A few days after the SWHC had announced its conclusion, he said only on one occasion that they had no intention to replace standard working hours by contractual working hours. It was not because the Secretary was aware that contractual working hours would enrage the public that he dared not give a response. Honestly, they must have thought about this already. Be it about minimum wage or standard working hours, Matthew CHEUNG's attitude cannot be clearer. He is clearly biased in favour of the business sector and he is even in charge of the Labour and Welfare Bureau. He might as well be transferred to a Policy Bureau responsible for industrial and business affairs or the economy! 9934 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Another criticism that we have always made of Secretary Matthew CHEUNG is that it is faster to go to Heaven than being allocated a place in a residential care home for the elderly (RCHE). The Audit Commission has made this very clear in its recent report and provided a most detailed account of the situation. In the report it is pointed out that the waiting time is long, that there is an acute shortfall in the provision of RCHE places, that there are problems in the distribution of resources, and so on. All of these are stated expressly in the report of the Audit Commission. Then the Public Accounts Committee held a number of public hearings and compiled a report. But concerning the problems highlighted in the report, the Government has invariably taken a perfunctory approach in response over the years.
Chairman, more than 5 000 elderly people on the waiting list for RCHE places would pass away each year. Chairman, you and I are perhaps the lucky ones for we do not need to queue up for these places. You are over 65 years of age and you are an elderly, though it is not going to be long before we become elderly too. We still have a humble abode of our own for the time being; we are not elderly people who live alone and we have children. But many elderly people who live alone are not taken care of by anyone, and in our constituency there are a large number of such elderly. These elderly are the people whom we face in the birthday party that we organize once a month. Some of them had not been allocated a RCHE place even on the day they passed away. Tell me how can this be reasonable? It is argued that resources are inadequate, that funds are lacking, and that there is no intention to do anything in order not to create a burden for the Government in the long run. The Government always says that population ageing can give rise to a host of problems in terms of healthcare, welfare, and housing and keeps on mumbling these clichés, but you got to resolve the problems. Who does not know that the population is ageing now? Population ageing is set to happen but what should we do? A person dies when he gets old. Is this what you are trying to say?
A few days ago I had a body check-up and then I also had a gastroscopy. I asked the doctor if a poor man will die sooner. This turns out to be true. But is it not even more miserable for a person to be old and poor? The Hong Kong Government has such an abundant reserve, and what is it used for? Is it used for the stewing of "vinegar"? Even the blind can see it, buddy. This is but common sense. Is it really that difficult to identify land for developing new residential homes for the elderly? Some places are left vacant by you. For example, under the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department some cooked LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9935 food markets have been left vacant for more than a decade and this is downright crazy. These lands are so precious, Chairman, and this is the problem of the entire Government.
Lastly, I still have several tens of seconds, and I originally wished to talk about the incompetence of the Labour and Welfare Bureau. For instance, when it comes to the travel subsidy for persons with disabilities, I certainly have a lot to say but now, I have no alternative except to save my comments for other occasions. In this session, Chairman, you only allow us to speak up to this point and we cannot speak any further. Tell me how unfair this is to Members who wish to speak. This is so simple. I have no idea how you set these rules. I am not asking you to allow me to speak for 15 minutes on each and every amendment which may otherwise pose some difficulties to you, buddy. If I have put forward 100 amendments and requested your permission for me to speak for 100 times and give a 15-minute speech each time, you simply would not let me do it. But at least I should be given the opportunity to speak on the more important heads like this one. This is such an important head, but you only let me speak twice. Tell me, what can I do if I do not publish a book to level criticisms at the legislature?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): After we have dealt with all the amendments later, we will proceed to a debate on the questions that the heads with amendments stand part of the Schedule. Apart from the views on the amendments, Members who still wish to express views on the relevant heads may rise to speak during that debate.
(Mr WU Chi-wai indicated his wish to speak)
Mr WU Chi-wai, as the Deputy Chairman had, at an earlier time, already given an opportunity for Members who had yet spoken to speak but you did not make a request back then, therefore, he had already called upon Members who have proposed amendments to make their concluding speeches. Similarly, if you, Mr WU Chi-wai, would wish to speak on the heads covered in this debate, you may speak in that debate on the questions that the relevant heads stand part of the Schedule.
Mr Albert CHAN, please speak.
9936 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have proposed nine amendments in total in this part, but I have got only two opportunities to speak, and now I have to conclude. Basically, there are a number of amendments on which I am unable to speak freely.
Chairman, I will make use of this opportunity to talk about Amendment No 349 again. I have already started talking about it earlier. This amendment is about deducting the annual expenditure on the personal emoluments for two directorate posts relating to the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme (VHIS).
I am strongly against and opposed to the VHIS because in my view, the VHIS is exactly like a central provident fund scheme in the healthcare sector. It is another kind of transfer of benefits. Through the so-called contribution plan, only the managers and senior staff for the relevant services, plutocrats or groups with vested interests will stand to benefit. I cannot say that members of the public will get no benefit at all. Under any protection plan or contribution plan, some people will certainly obtain certain benefits, but is it fair, reasonable, cost-effective and impartial, and will those who are the most in need of the services receive such services? The answer is always a question mark. As shown by a lot of subsequent analyses and cases, there are always numerous problems after the implementation of such a scheme. Take the central provident fund as an example. Over the years, many people have suffered losses in their contributions year after year, while the management companies gain hundreds of millions and even billions of dollars each year.
So, speaking of the VHIS, Chairman, the Government has talked eloquently about it and the Secretary has also given various explanations, while the consultancy has pointed out its merits, but many people hold that the VHIS will create a bottomless pit for the Government. It is similar to many of our schemes on which the Government has spoken eloquently. Whether it be the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, other works projects or the West Kowloon Cultural District which was proposed back then, after eloquent speeches were made, funds were allocated incessantly, and senior staff obtained remunerations time after time. It was like Mrs TUNG's advice on washing one's hands repeatedly. They were benefited repeatedly. However, members of the public just kept waiting, while public coffers were allocated one time after another. Hence, as we can see, there are a series of problems. The VHIS will probably become a bottomless pit for the Government.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9937
More importantly, I find it inappropriate to break up and cause the healthcare expenditure to thin out. The reason is, if this $50 billion is now injected into public healthcare, public healthcare will be benefited immediately. If the contribution plans or expenses for this so-called VHIS are converted to medical expenses to share or pay the healthcare expenditure, and then the management fees for the insurance staff managing the health insurance scheme are injected into healthcare management, the benefits to be received by patients and the relevant healthcare staff will surely be greater.
I often consider that setting up a financial centre is tantamount to setting up an international fraudsters centre. The financial business can be a big fraud. Through some skills, methods and transfer of funds ― many people here are conversant with this. Our Chief Executive knows it best. So does Paul CHAN ― an organization can be registered overseas, for example, the Virgin Islands. In this way, it can never be traced. Through these so-called financial management techniques and transfers, assets and business operations are completely concealed in a deceptive manner, leading to secret dealings and profiteering under black-box operation, or some covert interests are transferred so that the relevant interests cannot be disclosed or other people will be unable to find any solid evidence.
As mentioned just now, firstly, the VHIS will create a bottomless pit for the Government. Secondly, it will cause the healthcare expenditure to thin out. Thirdly, the grassroots may not receive any benefit direct. They may not benefit from the scheme. The beneficiaries will be some high-income persons, such as senior doctors, medical consultants and executives who may swell their pockets with hefty incomes. This has been fully illustrated by the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System.
Fourthly, abuse of services may arise in public and private healthcare sectors. Actually I have raised certain questions at the committee meetings before. For example, some people may be waiting on three lists. That is, if the scheme is implemented, some people may go to the public sector. Some may go to the private sector, while some may go to the special medical institutions. Through certain relationships, some people may simultaneously stay on three waiting lists, whereas those who are not well-off can queue on only one waiting list. It is because under the VHIS, we cannot forbid a person to continue to use 9938 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 the public healthcare services. Under certain circumstances, he may wait for public services, and he may also wait for the services of private hospitals participating in the VHIS. As such, he will enjoy a special advantage. When some other new medical facilities are established, he may simultaneously queue on three waiting lists. This will create a privileged class which is unfair to people with less means.
The fifth point, which is also the last point, is that this so-called VHIS will probably become a new channel or special avenue for transfer of benefits to the private sector. The MPF is an obvious example. Who expressed support for it at that time? With what consortiums were they connected? In retrospect, those who are familiar with the situation back then have come to understand why certain senior officials strongly supported the MPF System at that time.
I certainly will not conjecture whether Dr KO Wing-man has any special avenues, special connections or special reasons. I trust his personality. However, apart from him, there are a lot of people behind the scene, especially some senior executives. Do they have any special interests? Perhaps it is not until 10 or 20 years later that we will learn there was such and such a case through investigations by the ICAC or owing to some special issues or news reports. Paul CHAN strongly supported the development of the North East New Territories. It turned out that he held some agricultural land himself. That means many issues are not as simple as what we see on the surface.
Chairman, I would like to talk about the amendment which seeks to reduce head 139 and Amendment No 123 again. Both of them are about cutting the expenditures for the Food and Health Bureau. The justifications I have raised in support of these two items of reduction ― I have mentioned some other justifications for the reduction earlier, but in this final conclusion, the justifications which I would like to advance in support of cutting the expenditures in these two aspects concern the problems with the agriculture and fisheries policy.
As a matter of fact, the first time I met with Secretary Dr KO Wing-man after he had assumed office, I already told him … actually, every time a new Director of Bureau has assumed office, I will speak on the same topic, that is, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9939
Hong Kong must formulate afresh an agriculture and fisheries policy. The Government needs to formulate an agriculture and fisheries policy for Hong Kong.
Basically, the Hong Kong Government must set a percentage for locally produced agricultural and fishery products, including such daily necessities as vegetables, pork, beef and fish catch. For example, it may set that 10% to 20% of chickens, geese, ducks and pork must be locally produced. This percentage will be determined subject to the Government's plan. That means Hong Kong must put in place a policy ― perhaps to the Central Government, this is known as the national policy. Do not mispronounce it as the national "thief"1 ― this is important because, firstly, prices can be controlled through basic agricultural production under a local policy in Hong Kong. In the event of excessive fluctuation in external factors, an acute shortage of food imports, poor harvests in Guangdong due to sudden torrential rain, or incidence of a swine fever in northern Guangdong causing problems to the pigs in farms, there will not be too much fluctuation in prices if Hong Kong has a fixed output which can supply the products within a short time. Secondly, the economy can be diversified. If there is an agricultural industry with a considerable output and the agricultural production accounts for a certain percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, Hong Kong's economy will not be excessively tilted to one or two industries, for example, the financial or tourist industry. Thirdly, the establishment of an agricultural industry ― Chairman, could you deal with the phone call first? OK ― the establishment of an agricultural industry will provide additional employment opportunities, and when Hong Kong people choose their trades, they will have one more option. In TUNG Chee-hwa's era, the Government already talked about the need to develop the service industry, but very often, the jobs created in the service industry are low-income openings. Except for a small bunch of people in the financial sector, those engaged in the service industry, ranging from tour guides, drivers, receptionists to cleaners in hotels, are actually low-income, semi-skilled or non-skilled workers. However, engaged in the agricultural industry, many people can be their own boss.
1 In Cantonese, the pronunciations of "policy" ("策": caak3) and "thief" ("賊": caak6) are similar. 9940 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
I have recently visited a fish farm which makes fish feed from food waste. The selling price of its products is high. In a fish pond measuring 20 to 30 sq m, there are hundreds and even thousands of fish fry. After being cultured for six months, these fishery products will be sold at a certain price. Recently, a number of members of the agriculture and fisheries industry have expressed their views to me, especially those who used to raise pigs. After surrendering their pig farm licences to the Government, they went to northern Guangdong to raise pigs. They told me that given the present prices of pigs, Hong Kong can redevelop pig farming. Chicken farming will have no problem either. Hence, in respect of the North East New Territories development project, if the Government can develop a livestock farming centre, I propose that the Government should develop the North East New Territories into a high-tech and top-notch central breeding farm in Hong Kong. In fact, some Hong Kong investors have invested over $100 million in northern Guangdong to develop breeding farms with "zero pollution" and "zero waste".
As a matter of fact, many places abroad have started to develop breeding farms vertically or on vast lots of land. They will not generate any waste because all the agricultural waste will be reused. For example, it will be used for generating electricity and composting, and it will even be used as fodder. This practice has been widely implemented in a number of places abroad. The development of a central breeding farm in Hong Kong requires support of the Government and the development of the relevant infrastructure by the Government. This will only bring benefits but no harm to the economy, people's livelihood and society. Only a foolish and backward government will refuse to develop in this direction.
In terms of logic and theory, Secretary Dr KO Wing-man concurred with my view, but on putting it into practice, he stalled and advanced the pretext that there were all kinds of problems, so it might not be feasible. I told him that even if the Government would not pay a dime, it should still formulate a policy to support it or provide land for it. In that case, there may be someone willing to launch such a venture. So, very often, the senior government officials may be rather ignorant or short of knowledge in this aspect. They also suffer from some sort of cowardice. For those things which everyone does, such as speculation in shares and properties, they will rush to do it. Some Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux who are not responsible for the economic or housing policy possess unbelievably large amounts of assets. They will crazily engage in what they know to make money.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9941
With regard to the Policy Address, we have also proposed that the Government should inject $20 billion into the Sustainable Agricultural Development Fund to provide financial assistance not only to fishermen but also to farmers, since the latest allocation of funds was made for fishermen only. In our view, this kind of services should be developed on various fronts, including the livestock industry and cultivation of vegetables, so that the economy and society will be more stable, and matters relating to prices and employment will be appropriately addressed in Hong Kong. Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This debate has now come to a close.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 25, 33, 39, 42, 44, 60, 62, 82, 91, 118, 137, 138, 158, 159 and 186.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee now proceeds to the fourth debate. The debate themes are "Land, Housing, Transportation, Environment and Conservation".
The respective policy areas covered in this debate are: Housing; Development (planning, land and works); Building Safety; Transport; Economic Development (energy); Environmental Affairs; and Conservation.
Seven Members, including Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Gary FAN, Ms Cyd HO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr WONG Yuk-man, have respectively given notice to move a total of 106 amendments to reduce the various sums for 15 heads, including the heads read out just now. The contents of their amendments are all relevant to the areas of this debate.
I will first call upon Mr Albert CHAN to speak and move Amendment No 58 as set out in Appendix 1C to the Script, to be followed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Gary FAN, Ms Cyd HO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr WONG Yuk-man to speak respectively; but they may not move amendments at this stage.
9942 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am going to officially move the amendment as set out in Appendix 1C to the Script, but I am afraid Members have no idea of what is going on. Hence, I hope the Chairman will summon Members back under Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure so that they will not doze off with a muddled mind here.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please speak and move your amendment.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move the amendments set out in Appendix IC to the Script.
Chairman, I have proposed in Appendix IC more than 50 amendments which involve a number of Policy Bureaux and government departments, including the Architectural Services Department (ASD), Civil Engineering and Development Department, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, Drainage Services Department, Environmental Protection Department, Highways Department, Buildings Department, Central Government Offices, which are involved in a number of amendments, as well as the Environment Bureau, Development Bureau, Transport Department and the Transport and Housing Bureau.
Chairman, as a large number of Policy Bureaux are involved, I have to explain my arguments and views step by step because numerous issues are involved. Some of these issues have existed for a long period of time. Over the past two decades or so, I have been following up development and major infrastructure issues and have gradually turned from having no knowledge of certain matters to a semi-expert. I have relayed quite many views on certain issues to a number of Bureau Directors and Permanent Secretaries. Sometimes, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9943
I was able to give advance warnings of possible problems or policy blunders before the problems actually occurred. Certainly, we might change from initially supporting certain proposals to opposing them after careful examination.
The Liantang Boundary Control Point (BCP) is one such example. When we mentioned Liantang on numerous occasions in the past, the Government proposed that a two-lane road should be built. However, I pointed out at that time that a three-lane road should be built instead because a two-lane road would not be enough. Furthermore, during the early phase of the Liantang development, we considered that adequate land could not be provided by relying solely on land resumption. Hence, I proposed that the Government should build the so-called satellite towns which could accommodate 50 000 to 70 000 residents at numerous locations in the North East New Territories, so as to boost Hong Kong's overall land supply while developing Liantang. Meanwhile, we proposed that Liantang, located in North East New Territories, should complement the railway development plan. According to the proposal raised by me at that time, the North East New Territories should be developed into a new town as a key solution to Hong Kong's overall housing problem. But unfortunately, the entire development concept of Liantang was distorted by LEUNG Chun-ying after taking office. As a result, some areas will be developed into the backyards of Mainland tycoons who will reside in Hong Kong.
As such, the same plan may experience changes due to different notions. I have spent quite some time since witnessing the development of the Liantang BCP. I now oppose the development of the Liantang BCP in a distinct manner because of the significant changes in the objectives and contents of the entire development project. Unlike my initial expectation, Liantang can no longer complement the development of the North East New Territories and resolve the housing problems faced by Hong Kong people.
Given the change in the objectives of the development plan, Chairman, I have proposed Amendment No 58 in relation to the Liantang development plan and seek to reduce head 25 by $1,054,278,000, that is, the estimated annual expenditure on the personal emoluments for the staff members of the ASD. To a certain extent, the proposed reduction may be regarded as radical and sweeping. I am not disapproving of the contribution made by civil servants as well as the independence of professionals. However, due to policy blunders (civil servants can normally maintain political neutrality or exploit their respective strengths in performing tasks from the perspective of principle, legal basis and practical 9944 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 action), civil servants will be turned into political tools or manipulated by the Hong Kong communists or the Central Authorities when the interest of Hong Kong is undermined by certain politically accountable public officers ― particularly "689" as a puppet manipulated by the Communist Party ― when policy and public money are used to launch certain projects. Since I do not wish to see these people turned into tools, I have proposed this amendment to reduce the relevant expenditure.
Before all else, we have seen a significant increase in expenditure on the Liantang BCP project, though we have also seen significant increases in expenditure on all public works projects in recent years. Certainly, the Government will blame the rising costs. However, in the past year, we have actually seen a sharp fall in the costs of most construction materials, including iron and copper, with the costs of some construction materials having fallen up to 50%. On the other hand, the Government has constantly pushed up expenditure on wages due to its loss of control over public works projects, lack of co-ordination and launch of a number of projects of the same type concurrently, thereby resulting in the fight for workers. Due to a shortage of workers, the construction industry cannot but recruit workers with very attractive remunerations, thereby causing a vicious cycle. All this can be attributed to a lack of planning by the Government.
I have put the same question to the Development Bureau on many occasions: Judging from the overall expenditure on public works projects, including expenditure incurred by private developers, how much stress can be borne and how much expenditure will be incurred by the Hong Kong market according to the Government's estimate? I was told by the Government at that time that the overall spending on construction in a year could reach $170 billion. However, we can see that the Government cannot necessarily make accurate evaluations of many expenditure items. For example, some projects may require tunnel excavation and reclamation, and so in terms of expenditure and labour, the number of workers required may be relatively low. However, some projects, such as those for the repairs and maintenance of buildings under the Hospital Authority, require intensive labour.
Over the past three decades, moreover, not only has Hong Kong seen the completion of 50 000 to 80 000 units per annum, but it has also reached the peak of housing production, with at least 70 000 to 100 000 public housing and private LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9945 units being completed per annum. Although most of these units were built three decades ago, most of them have never been given any major repairs and maintenance. This explains why Members have recently seen many disputes over maintenance matters involving owners' corporations and housing estates. The maintenance fee of a unit may range from $50,000, $70,000 to more than $100,000, or even $200,000 to $300,000. Can Members imagine the scope of the maintenance works? The works include maintenance of external walls, replacement of water pipes, drainage culverts, mail boxes, mosaic tiles, redecoration of external walls, and so on. Besides, scaffolding and many other labour-intensive works will have to be carried out, too.
Come to think about this. How terrible will the fight for construction workers be when maintenance works have to be carried out on tens of thousand or even hundreds of thousand units. Many owners will also carry out interior maintenance works while the external maintenance works are in progress. The figures of such works are quite alarming, too. Coupled with the fact that many railway, reclamation and housing production works are carried out concurrently by the Government, the construction sector is thus facing higher and higher construction demands. The pressure faced by it can even be described as on the brink of explosion. In addition to the Government's inadequate efforts, some veteran civil servants are going to retire soon ― the most experienced Permanent Secretary, who was responsible for such works, has just retired. Even if someone will succeed him after his retirement, he or she cannot make up for the experience thus lost. Hence, we can really not underestimate such problems. Earlier, when the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) was revealed to have incurred a cost overrun, Mr Michael TIEN estimated that the additional cost would reach $80 billion, though I pointed out at that time that the additional expenditure on the XRL project would definitely exceed $100 billion. Actually, according to a newspaper report today, the cost overrun incurred by the XRL project will exceed $90 billion, right?
Although the gravity of the problems has already come to light, I think the parties concerned are still seeking to conceal the ultimate figures and actual situation. According to my prediction, these public works projects will experience the worst cost overruns in Hong Kong history. Moreover, the future overrun figures will be so shocking that even Hong Kong people will feel extremely angry.
9946 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
The ASD must be held partly responsible. Although many of its staff members are civil servants or technicians, they should examine their own conscience and come forth to make some fair comments. Actually, many development and works programmes are already beyond the capacity of the construction sector. Such being the case, the sector should not, for the sake of accomplishing its political mission, launch the works programmes reluctantly, as if it slaps its own face until it is swollen in order to look imposing. So, we can see that the situation is deplorable.
Chairman, I would now like to speak on Amendment No 577 proposed in respect of head 158 to reduce $3.58 million, the emoluments of Anthony CHEUNG, Secretary for Transport and Housing. Chairman, I have criticized Anthony CHEUNG time and again for being an "exploiter who sponges off people" and draws close to any camp from which he can get benefits. He would join the Democratic Party if he could benefit from following it, right? If he was to run in the Legislative Council election … At that time, the Democratic Party nominated District Council members for election among themselves. Seeing that it was a sure win for the Democratic Party, he decided to run in the election, but he failed completely to fulfil his electoral promise afterwards. So, he is an exploiter. When he took office as Secretary for Transport and Housing, I asked him some questions about the 4 June incident because of my query about his political integrity, but he refused to give me a reply. Anyhow, he refused to respond to this series of questions raised by me: Had any massacre taken place during the 4 June incident? What is his stance towards the 4 June incident, and is there a need to vindicate the incident? He is absolutely an untrustworthy and incompetent political villain.
When Anthony CHEUNG took office, I already pointed out that he knew nothing about transport affairs. I have known him for two decades. Although he has done some research on public administration, he has absolutely no administrative experience. Nor does he have any experience in co-ordinating public organizations or other management experience. Second, he can be described as having no knowledge of transport matters. Now, being the so-called commander-in-chief of sea, land and air, he is responsible for the management of areas covering the airport, ferries, the Mass Transit Railway (MTR), buses, public light buses, and non-franchised buses. Transport is an extremely complicated industry. Having been following up public utilities for three decades, I have some knowledge of transport affairs and understand the great complexity of the matters involved, with conflicts of interests and how to strike a balance and serve the public being subjects of great importance. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9947
Transport and infrastructure development is an issue of great significance. From the occurrence of tragedies in Tuen Mun New Town in the 1980s to the plights faced by Tin Shui Wai residents, we have seen quite a number of problems. Due to the blunders made by the Government in planning, co-ordination and administration, hundreds of thousands of people have to suffer every day, as the long wait for buses often drives them close to tears. Due to the frequent occurrence of buses skipping bus stops, they might still be waiting at bus stops at midnight, but this is only one of the plights faced by the public. It is indeed a disaster for a person who knows absolutely nothing about transport to act as the Bureau Director. Now we can already see the problems, which include the complete loss of control of the Civil Aviation Department, the continued MTR hegemony, the messy regulation of construction works, and the building cost of the XRL (The buzzer sounded) … reaching $90 billion, and so on. Chairman, I will add a few points about this respect later on.
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 25 be reduced by $1,054,278,000 in respect of subhead 000."
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, each time before I begin my speech, I have to point out that I find the time allocation made by the Chairman in respect of this debate most unreasonable. In this fourth debate, many heads are involved and this is also a disaster area encompassing housing, transport, planning, lands and works, building safety, energy, environmental affairs and conservation and in all, 106 amendments covering 15 heads were proposed by seven Members, including 31 by me. Just now, I had a chat with other Members who have proposed amendments and a Member pointed out that all of them should be allowed to speak on each amendment at least once. Of course, I understand that some Members have proposed two or three amendments, so they have the reasonable expectation of being able to speak on each amendment once. I am not that ambitious. I have proposed 31 amendments but I believe it would not be possible for me to speak 31 times. However, insofar as all the heads are concerned, surely I should have been given the opportunity to state my case in respect of each head once? The heads covered by the 31 amendments proposed by me are related to the Drainage 9948 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Services Department, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, Highways Department, the Buildings Department (BD) ― the BD is a disaster area and it would not be enough to spend just one session criticizing it ― the Environment Bureau, Transport and Housing Bureau and the Planning and Lands Branch of the Development Bureau.
I am not going to talk about the Environment Bureau, so let me talk about the Transport and Housing Bureau first. Concerning Secretary for Transport and Housing Prof Anthony CHEUNG and the Transport Department and the Secretary for Development, Mr Paul CHAN, I believe all Members should take the opportunity of this debate to voice their views adequately. Some people said that Paul CHAN has to be congratulated because in July 2012, in his capacity as the Secretary for Development and while implementing the North East New Territories New Development Areas Project, he was exposed to have bought three pieces of farmland, located at Kwu Tung North and held by his wife, Frieda HUI, that may benefit from land resumption by the Government, so a conflict of interests was involved but today, the Independent Commission Against Corruption decided not to prosecute the Secretary for Development and his wife, Frieda HUI. Paul CHAN indicated through his spokesperson that he had no comments on this matter. I wish to tell the Secretary that not instituting any prosecution does not mean he had done nothing inappropriate. Later in this debate, no matter how, I will surely find some time to detail the incident involving Paul CHAN. However, in this debate, I will deal with Prof Anthony CHEUNG first.
The Transport and Housing Bureau deals with transport and housing. On this occasion, I will focus on transport. Here, first of all, I wish to tell Members that apart from me, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr Albert CHAN have also proposed amendments to deduct the remuneration of Prof Anthony CHEUNG. I wish to tell Members how much the remuneration of the Secretary is. He is paid $3.58 million annually. Apart from the Secretary, there are also amendments seeking to deduct the estimated expenditures in respect of the Under Secretary and Political Assistant for one year and I hope Members will support these amendments. As regards opponents of the construction of the Third Runway, they can also take the opportunity of this debate to take Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG to task. Although maritime and aviation are the areas for the next debate, the next debate covering maritime and aviation only targets the Civil Aviation Department and the Marine Department but not Prof Anthony LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9949
CHEUNG in a direct way, so I call on Members not to miss the opportunity of this debate to directly take Prof Anthony CHEUNG to task.
Chairman, in the past year, the Secretary for Transport and Housing was involved in serious dereliction of duty. I am not going to talk about maritime matters for now and will talk about land transport first. Among them, news of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) experiencing delays in its construction projects surfaced in succession and as a result, the Secretary had to tender apologies repeatedly. When it comes to the Director of Bureau who most often tendered apologies last year, it was probably Prof Anthony CHEUNG, whereas Mr Jay Herbert WALDER, the former Chief Executive Officer, and the former Project Director, Mr CHEW Tai-chong, also resigned from their posts early on account of this.
First, I wish to talk about the West Island Line. The West Island Line was originally scheduled for commissioning at the end of last year but, putting the blame on the soft ground, the MTRCL admitted for the first time in May last year that the construction project had experienced delays, claiming that due to the excessively soft soil around the exit of the tunnel connecting Queen's Road West and First Street, the excavation method had to be changed. It was necessary to use the ground freezing method, which presented a higher degree of difficulty and was more time-consuming. As a result, the construction project was delayed. Subsequently, the MTRCL proposed a backup plan, stating that if the commissioning of West Island Line at the end of the year had to be adhered to, trains would not stop at Sai Ying Pun Station. Eventually, after delays, the Sai Ying Pun Station was commissioned in the first quarter of 2015.
In the end, the commissioning of the West Island Line was postponed to the beginning of this year after experiencing cost overruns. However, after commissioning, the quality of the works on the stations was also called into doubt. Recently, various degrees of water seepage can be found in many places in the stations. Be it in the concourse or on the platforms, continual water seepage and leakage can be found on the walls, ceilings and pipes. There were water puddles on the floor, so cleaning workers had to mop and wipe continually and staff members even had to cordon off some passageways or stairs to prevent passengers from slipping and falling. One of the places with the most serious water seepage problem was Sai Ying Pun Station, which had experienced delays in its construction. It was suspected that one of the floor drain outlet at ground 9950 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 level inside the station was blocked by sand and stone carried there by underground water, so a large amount of water accumulated inside and almost gushed out onto the ground.
The head of Operating of the MTRCL said that the West Island Line was located tens of metres underground, so relatively speaking, the water pressure was great and since there were small building gaps, it was inevitable that instances of underground water seepage would occur, that is, seepage was expected but he stressed that the structure of the station and services were not affected, that the gaps would be repaired by grouting and that the seeping water would be drained. Since there were delays in the construction projects of the MTRCL, in order to expedite the projects, quality was sacrificed. At present, Hong Kong has not yet entered the rainy season and no red rainstorm signal or black rainstorm signal has been issued. We are very worried that in that event, the Sai Ying Pun Station would become "The House of Dancing Water" and even train services will be affected. As the most senior officer in the Transport and Housing Bureau in charge of overseeing the projects, has the Secretary ever done his job properly? It was only after exposure by the mass media that they were willing to make public announcements.
Next, I wish to talk about the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL). Simultaneously, scandals involving cost overruns and delays in relation to the Shatin to Central Link, South Island Line, Kwun Tong Line Extension and the XRL have also surfaced one after another. Among them, the most outrageous case is the XRL project. It costs Hong Kong people $66.9 billion. It is because of this that many people encircled the Legislative Council on numerous occasions, demanding that the Government rethink its cost-effectiveness. With the whole community clamouring for the withdrawal of this "white elephant" project, the XRL project has given rise to negative consequences again and a spate of scandals has occurred. Earlier on, certain media people got hold of a number of internal papers of the MTRCL which indicated that many contractors of the XRL project had told the MTRCL that the design of the lobby at the north wing of West Kowloon Terminus was not sound and major modifications had to be made. Hence there was a need to carry out design and construction at the same time. During the first 16 months of the construction period, there has been a delay of nine months. It is estimated that the project will have to be completed one year behind schedule.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9951
However, the Transport and Housing Bureau, which is supposed to oversee the entire XRL project, has been insisting that the target date of completion, that is, 2015, can be met. In the latest incident, I do not know if the MTRCL has blamed the ground for being too hard or too soft as it claimed that before the commencement of construction, it had not got hold of enough information about the underground granite and the distribution of underground pipelines. It has been discovered that the geology around Jordan Road is very complicated and a large amount of rocks and rock strata of different depths have to be removed, so on this occasion, it blamed the ground for being too hard. Then, what else did it blame? It blamed the rain. For the sake of convenience, it did not build a flood prevention gate as suggested by the Drainage Department. The result is severe flooding in the project tunnels caused by a heavy downpour and large boring machines were thus damaged. A delay of at least nine months was caused and the commissioning date was again postponed, possibly to 2017 and perhaps even beyond.
Meanwhile, it was exposed that piles had been placed in the Nam Cheong Station 10 years ago in preparation for the construction of housing estates on the station podium. But the piles, never used, had to be removed because of the XRL project, and there are 200 such piles. As a result, there is a cost overrun of 1.6 times in the project as compared to the original cost. The amount of money in question is as much as $860 million. These pieces of news were not disclosed by the MTRCL itself, nor were they found out by the authorities or the Secretary, rather, they were exposed by the mass media which got hold of such news. Otherwise, the public would have been kept in the dark, knowing nothing. They will find out that the construction project cannot proceed or it cannot be completed in time only when the deadline draws near. We do not know whether or not the authorities are aware of the cover-up of so many things by the MTRCL.
In July last year, the MTRCL revised the cost estimate of the XRL project as more than $71.5 billion, so the cost overrun stands at $6.5 billion. After an assessment by the authorities, it was found that the MTRCL had not included some items in the cost estimate, so the MTRCL was asked to carry out a re-assessment. It is rumoured that an internal cost estimate made by the MTRCL has increased the amount to $85 billion and today, a press report even said that it would exceed $90 billion. I believe it is inevitable that more than $100 billion will be needed to settle the bill. For this reason, it is uncertain even now whether the cost overrun will be $20 billion or $30 billion but all in all, the cost overrun is on the increase all the time. The latest news today is that as the 9952 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 costs of construction materials have hit new highs ― this is one of the reasons as a reason must be given anyway ― the construction cost has reached $90 billion. This means the original construction cost has been exceeded by almost 40%.
However, the amount of compensation that the MTRCL has to make is capped, so even if the Government seeks compensation from the MTRCL, after deducting the entire sum of management fee, that is, $4.59 billion, the compensation still will not be able to make up for the cost overrun of $25 billion. In the end, of course, it will be necessary for the Government to "fill the pit", so how much money is needed to "fill the pit"? More than $20 billion. The latest papers show that only 66.3% of the project in the Hong Kong Section of the XRL has been completed, that is, a lag of 3.2% behind the revised estimated progress of 69.5% ― this is the revised one, not the original one ― that is, the project experienced further delays after delays had been announced, so it is doubtful if commissioning will be possible in November 2017. The construction cost is unclear, cost overruns have occurred time and again, the timetable for commissioning is unreliable and there are further delays, so the money spent is like water splashed or money dumped into the sea.
What is the rate of return of the XRL? As low as 6%. If it is delayed by two to three years, the Government has to inject public funds into it, so the cost may eventually exceed $100 billion and it looked as though this were a bottomless pit. How can we tolerate the use of taxpayers' hard-earned money to carry out a "white elephant" project? Certainly, the history, the factors for and consequences of the construction of the XRL cannot all be attributed to the incumbent Secretary for Transport and Housing, Prof Anthony CHEUNG, but he cannot shirk the responsibility for the problems that arose, the mistakes he failed to notice and the cover-ups by the MTRCL he failed to discover after he had taken office.
Prof Anthony CHEUNG was aware of the situation only belatedly and on many occasions, he mistakenly trusted the progress reports submitted by the MTRCL to the Government. However, the MTRCL was over-confident, thinking that the progress missed could be recovered in a short time. The Secretary gave the corporation the benefit of doubt but he had not done his part in supervision. Rather, it looked as though he were returning a favour of the MTRCL. This is somewhat like the culture on the Mainland and he has forgotten his usual rational and professional attitude. Did anyone deliberately cover things up by deceiving his superiors and subordinates alike? Did he give LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9953 anyone the benefit of doubt, or was there improper handling with the intent of harbouring someone? Must anyone be held accountable and step down? Or are there problems with the corporate governance of the MTRCL, thus resulting in the spate of blunders?
After the incident, the Chief Engineer, CHEW Tai-chong, opted for early retirement and the Chief Executive Officer, Jay WALDER, resigned for health reasons. However, the mass media made the revelation that before Jay WALDER's departure, apart from receiving $8.5 million in basic salary, he also received an additional amount of $15.7 million in gratuity, so the two sums amounted to $21.5 million in total, and he pocketed this sum of money, which is higher than his annual salary of $10 million, safely. The former Chief Engineer, CHEW Tai-chong, who also left early, was also paid $6 million in emoluments. In response, the MTRCL said that the departure arrangement for Jay WALDER was in line with his conditions of employment but due to the confidentiality clauses entered into with Jay WALDER, the amount of money cannot be disclosed.
Obviously, the MTRCL has committed dereliction of duty, so the Government has to effectively give them a golden handshake to make them leave and let them off the hook. The Government has appointed a three-member independent expert panel. But Members may recall that right after the panel was formed, again, something ridiculous happened. Do Members remember it? A member called Prof LEE Chack-fan, who was invited to join the panel, was alleged to have conflict of interest and he resigned swiftly. This is also another score that we have to settle with Prof Anthony CHEUNG because he has been acting in a most sloppy manner and found wanting in astuteness, so this is not an individual problem. For this reason, it is necessary to settle the score of the XRL with Prof Anthony CHEUNG. Of course, apart from the XRL, there are also problems related to the South Island Line, Kwun Tong Extension, Shatin to Central Link and the Admiralty Station and I will speak again later on. Of course, the score of the opposition to the third runway must also be settled with Anthony CHEUNG.
I so submit in this session.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said just now that it is a reasonable expectation to speak once on each amendment. I do not agree to this remark because it is only reasonable to speak once on each amendment. 9954 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
It is reasonable to do so and that is it, full stop. It is not necessary to add "expectation" because if the amendments are about different issues, there is basically no reason to make us include all these issues in a 15-minute speech and then shut up when we have spoken only on half of them, right? So, Chairman, I hope that you can understand this point in making arrangements. Insofar as the amendments are concerned, even if the subhead and the head are the same, each of them may still concern different issues and Members should be allowed to speak on and discuss each of them individually. For example, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has proposed 30-odd amendments which may all be about deducting the salary of the Secretary, such as deducting his salary for one year or six months, but if he can explain the difference between a deduction for one year and a deduction for six months, such as whether his purpose is to drive him to the wall by depriving him of the means to support his living and to meet his mortgage repayment, or he intended to deduct only part of his salary, and so long as he can elaborate the difference, he should be allowed to speak twice. But Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you cannot say that you represent me. Do not say that it is enough to speak once on the same head, because with regard to the two amendments that I am going to discuss now, although both of them are related to head 44 and subhead 700, they are two different funding applications, and even in the Panel on Environmental Affairs, they had to be discussed separately at two meetings. So, these two issues cannot be lumped together in any case and cannot be dealt with at the same time.
Chairman, let me first talk about the first amendment that I have proposed. It concerns the funding application for Cleaner Production Partnership Programme (the Programme). It is a pity that just as what we saw this morning, the Secretary who should attend the meeting now is not in the Chamber listening to Members' speeches and instead, another Secretary who has never followed up these policies and may not jot down any notes and will not give a response after the debate is in this Chamber. I think it shows that the Government is evading its accountability to the Legislative Council. Concerning this amendment that I am talking about now, it should have been proposed in the Finance Committee because at meetings of the Finance Committee, there can be questions and answers, and we can ask questions which will then be followed up. But now, we are like speaking to ourselves. While we are speaking here with the information in hand, in the future we will have to follow up these unanswered questions again and we will have to put questions to the Environment Bureau and hold discussions with it again.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9955
Chairman, let me start by providing some background information on this funding application. The Programme is, in fact, a kind of green economy. Under the Programme, preventive strategies are adopted to effectively utilize raw materials in the production process and reduce pollution while ensuring optimal use of energy and water resources, thereby enhancing productivity. These new economic activities can reduce waste production and improve the environment. This is a kind of green economy. In April 2008, the Government made a funding allocation of $93.06 million for the Programme, an initiative involving cross-boundary co-operation. The Programme encouraged applications mainly from Hong Kong-invested enterprises in Guangdong Province with the objective of assisting them to develop cleaner production processes, hence reducing the emission of pollutants, including effluent discharges and emission of air pollutants. The Programme was later extended to March 2015 with an additional funding of $50 million provided by the Government in December 2012. Now the Programme has expired. I wonder if this is the reason why the Government has bundled up this item with the Budget. But why is it that the Government did not take actions earlier but waited until the end of March when the funding was used up or the extended period expired and then submitted a discussion paper to the Panel only in February, saying that it was necessary to bundle up this item with the Budget due to the tight time frame? In fact, it is often the case that the entire system, institution, procedure and structure gradually fall apart precisely because of these blunders. I have never questioned the Environment Bureau of the current-term SAR Government for harbouring any outlandish political ambition, objective or motive, but if they could foresee what would happen at an earlier time and make arrangements for submitting a funding application to the Finance Committee earlier, they would not have to make a detour and this violation of procedural justice would not have been resulted.
Chairman, the Programme itself is successful, but we still have to highlight several problems. According to the papers provided to us by the Government, the annual emission reduction that has been achieved is quite good. For example, the Programme has brought about an annual reduction of volatile organic compounds by 11 300 tonnes, sulphur dioxide by 5 100 tonnes, nitrogen oxides by 11 800 tonnes, carbon dioxide by 1.5 million tonnes and effluent discharges by 17.8 million tonnes. These figures are all set out in the paper but the Government did not tell us the base. If we do not know the base, we cannot tell whether the rate of reduction achieved is 1% or 51%.
9956 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Therefore, Chairman, these details should be discussed in the Finance Committee. These papers are not enough for they only provide figures on emission reduction, and it is actually impossible for us to exercise monitoring in order to find out whether the previous injection of $150 million has achieved the desired targets under the value-for-money principle. The Programme has substantially reduced electricity consumption and enabled factories participating in the Programme to reduce their production costs. The Government has made injections totalling $150 million and under the Programme, part of its funding is provided on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis, which means that the factories are required to make an injection of an amount that matches the Government's subsidy. Assuming that the Programme is funded entirely on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis, it would mean that a total of $300 million was injected and if $1.7 billion in savings has been achieved in the production costs, this is already quite good a result. Judging from these figures, the Programme is worthy of support. But what have we achieved in terms of emission reduction? There is entirely no mention of this in the papers. This is why we should ask these questions in the Finance Committee.
However, it is the Secretary for the Civil Service who is in attendance today. I hope that Secretary WONG Kam-sing will provide him with the information either through WhatsApp or other electronic communications systems, so that at the end of this debate session, he can give us a response, which is what he should do as required by his responsibility and by political ethics and political morality. These questions are clear and precise; they are not political in nature and they purely seek to obtain information. Disregarding whether it is the Secretary or anyone else who is attending this meeting, if the Environment Bureau is not here listening to this debate or if it is not providing information for you to give a reply, then it should be denounced and criticized.
Chairman, apart from how the effectiveness of the Programme should be gauged, we should also explore the feasibility of transforming this study and the green production methods and technologies into business opportunities. As I said just now, the business sector and the Government may have injected as much as $300 million altogether and $1.7 billion in savings has been achieved. This can actually be transformed into business opportunities. If this can be done, when the other factories have seen that they can achieve savings in their costs by participating in the Programme and adopting these technologies, this should be an incentive for them. Therefore, it was in public interest that public coffers were injected into the Programme at the initial stage but at the second stage when it has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9957 been proven that the factories can gain benefits in achieving savings in costs, this can be transformed into business opportunities. But the papers have not mentioned this point; nor have they given any consideration to development in this direction. Is it that the Programme should be handled in the same way as the Innovation and Technology Fund into which the Government made injections and then received a nominal royalty but the Fund, after an audit review conducted by the Director of Audit, was found to be not meeting the principle of value for money? So, this also has to do with the policy direction. We have seen the cost-effectiveness of the total injection of $300 million by the Government and the business sector at the initial stage and now, we are going to make a further funding commitment of $150 million, just that only $30 million will first be provided this year. Since the past experience shows that factories can gain benefits by developing a production process that can bring about a reduction in costs, the Government should transform this into business opportunities in the future and at least it should ask the Productivity Council which is responsible for this Programme to continue to operate the Programme on a self-financing basis, rather than being financed by public coffers.
Moreover, the third area that warrants a review is whether audit reviews will be conducted. Chairman, I have friends who run factories in the Mainland. They said that the so-called environmental protection laws offer the best excuses for people in the Mainland to engage in corrupt practices and accept benefits. It is because firstly, these environmental protection laws are rather harsh; and secondly, from their personal experiences, it is often necessary to appoint some so-called independent persons to conduct assessments for them. But it turns out that what these independent persons have done is actually more or less the same as those engaging in bid-rigging in building repairs in Hong Kong. These people know each other; they have meals and go to karaokes at night together. Then they distribute the districts among themselves, assigning this district to this person and that district to another. If you do not wish to hire their service and wish to engage some truly independent persons, sorry, you will never be given a green light. These ridiculous corrupt practices on the Mainland are actually being carried out at the expense of taxpayers' money in Hong Kong. Can we perform audit reviews or conduct random checks on them?
My friends with manufacturing plants in the Mainland even told me about a most cunning trick employed by those people on the Mainland. Knowing that you have to work against the clock in order to deliver the goods on time during the Chinese New Year, they would come to you a month before the Chinese New 9958 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Year to conduct checks on your factories, and then they would say that this is not up to standard and that is not up to standard. Are you willing to pay the fines then? If you do not pay the fines, they would tell you to stop the production, so that you would not be able to deliver the goods on time and would hence offend your clients. Therefore, many manufacturers will "entertain" these people generously at the end of the year to ensure that their production is not disrupted, but when we made allocations from the public coffers for promoting clean production, it was not our intention to facilitate the spread of this trend of corruption. In view of this, as the Audit Commission in Hong Kong has the statutory power to conduct audit reviews on any programme with over 50% of its funds being subsidized by public coffers, the Audit Commission should have the power to conduct audit reviews on a random basis, particularly on those factories in the Mainland. Of course, it can be said that this is just hearsay without any proof, but this is why it is all the more necessary to perform audit reviews on them in order to examine whether the public coffers that we have injected have provided another breeding ground for corruption and depravity.
Having said that, Chairman, I am worried that this would be a tall task once cross-boundary co-operation is involved. Yet, we have to clarify this: If the Audit Commission decided to conduct an audit review of this funding allocation made for the purpose of promoting clean production, can we examine only their agencies in Hong Kong or can we also conduct audit reviews on those four chambers of commerce in Hong Kong? Can we examine the documents at the factories in the Mainland and look into whether corruption and transfer of benefits are involved when the factories engaged these so-called independent professionals to conduct production and environmental assessments for them? All these are questions we have to ask. When cross-boundary co-operation is involved, and since the factories concerned have received subsidies from the SAR Government, should they have the responsibility to make public their accounts and assist the auditors of the SAR Government by all means in reviewing their accounts at their plants in the Mainland?
Nevertheless, Chairman, we have found that since the establishment of the SAR Government, whenever cross-boundary co-operation is involved, the situation would really become one of black-box operation. Worse still, when we asked the departments for the records of their meetings with their counterparts in the Mainland, they would say that no such records could be made available because the subject matters were too technical. This is too bad. Following this logic of the officials, no records would have been kept for these environmental LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9959 assessments which are technical in nature and so, there would be no clues to trace whatsoever. Such being the case, there is entirely no way for us to find out whether this provision of $300 million has been put to proper use, whether it is value for money and whether it has become a breeding ground for corruption and depravity. Therefore, Chairman, I hope that the Secretary for the Environment can come to this Chamber later on to answer these questions raised by me.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, my amendment reads "Resolved that head 60 be reduced by $925,500 in respect of subhead 000", which is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for emoluments of the post of Director of Highways for four months. In fact, the relevant reduction mainly aims to show that the Director of Highways has to be held accountable for the delay of the construction of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL).
Last year, following the announcement that the XRL could not be completed on schedule, various departments of the Government, be it the Transport and Housing Bureau or Highways Department (HyD), and the Mass Transit Railway Corporation (MTRCL), all tried to play down the matter, attempting to pass the buck by using wording like "communication problems". Meanwhile, in order to obstruct the Legislative Council from finding out the truth, the Government and the MTRCL have exhausted various means, including dismissing two key figures, namely former Chief Executive Officer Mr Jay H WALDER and Projects Director Mr CHEW Tai-chong, and requiring the Select Committee of the Legislative Council not to disclose to the public any material information sought from the Government, including the entrustment agreement, details of meetings of the Project Supervision Committee and reports of the monitoring consultant, or such information would not be provided.
In fact, if the Government considers itself innocent, why should it worry about an investigation? Why should it refuse to provide such fundamental information? In any case, even if the relevant information involves certain commercially sensitive issues, can we be allowed to get a picture of the discussion on the incident with the information about certain parties or issues crossed out accordingly?
9960 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
The Director of Highways, who has been in office since 2010, has repeatedly mentioned at meetings that there is a sound mechanism to supervise the XRL work. In that case, why did he have to use the defence of the MTRCL's committee, claiming that MTRCL has not made a full disclosure of information to the Director of Highways? Is the HyD not supposed to have a mechanism in place to detect lies or dig out the truth by itself? If they are totally dependent on the reports prepared by the MTRCL, then what are the HyD and dedicated officers paid by public coffers doing?
Chairman, it is stated in a paragraph of the report released by the Expert Panel entrusted by the Government that (I quote) "In July 2013, the M&V Consultant estimated a 'potential delay of almost 11 months to the Completion Date' (this is, July 2016). There is no indication that the Highways Department acted upon this information to request MTRCL for an in-depth review on XRL Project progress." (End of quote)
Certainly, the Director of Highways has publicly responded that he has urged the MTRCL to submit the most updated Programme to Complete. However, according to the information made public, the MTRCL has been procrastinating on submitting the relevant information, but the HyD has not taken any follow-up action. It is also stated in the report of the Expert Panel that (I quote) "Highways Department could have done more to validate MTRCL's opinions by demanding regular updates on: i) the forecast for overall project completion; and ii) the effectiveness of Delay Recovery Measures (DRMs). This was not done." (End of quote) To put it in layman's terms, they are empty words.
Another paragraph of comment or criticism in the report is even more straightforward. As stated in the report, the Panel has found no evidence of the HyD exercising independent insight to plan, programme, forecast, and so on, at any time prior to its review in April 2014. If the HyD has not exercised any independent insight, then how can it supervise the work? How can it supervise such a large project as the XRL? And why does it deserve the enormous resources drawn from taxpayers for the Government to set up a task force supervising the progress of XRL work?
Another act of the Director of Highways which has been called into question is about the suggestion of partial opening made by the MTRCL to the HyD in 2013. Subsequent to the suggestion of partial opening made by the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9961
MTRCL to the HyD, we did not see any follow-up action taken by the HyD in the days that followed. By common sense, if a contractor clearly states that it can only supply some of the products, it means that it is most likely to default on the original contract. In that case, should the Government reassess the risks and give an advance warning of the possibility that the XRL might not be completed on schedule? But as far as this issue is concerned, we see that the HyD has indicated its disapproval or rejection of the option of partial opening. But apart from that, has it further taken any follow-up actions? Has it given any warning to remind the politically accountable officials of the Transport and Housing Bureau in charge of the relevant project of the possible delay in the construction of the XRL? Nevertheless, the fact as observed by us is that at the two meetings in 2013, the Housing and Transport Department indicated that the XRL could be completed in 2015, and certainly, subject to certain testing, the formal commissioning might take place in 2016.
But in that case, it has actually defaulted on the delivery date set out in the entrustment agreement because according to the one seen by us, the delivery date agreed between the Government and the MTRCL in respect of the XRL works was scheduled as 4 August 2015. Hence, any change or possible delay may give rise to a contractual dispute in relation to the completion date set out in the relevant agreement. From this perspective, has the Director of Highways duly performed project supervision work supposed to be done properly? Has he made any alert or forecast concerning any potential dispute arising from project delays? If not, will it constitute a dereliction of duty on his part in supervising the MTRCL's projects?
The HyD has often publicly stated that compared with the West Kowloon Terminus, the cross-boundary tunnel is the key of XRL works. For this reason, they think that if the delay in the cross-boundary tunnel can be recovered, the railway can be commissioned as scheduled. However, we may refer to the report released by the Expert Panel led by Mr Justice Michael HARTMANN appointed by the Government, which states that the Panel has found no evidence that the MTRCL has a process to measure the benefits of Delay Recovery Measures (DRMs). The fact that many contracts have continued to fall into further delay after implementation of DRMs has raised further questions about their effectiveness. Even the Expert Panel led by Mr Justice Michael HARTMANN made such an observation. Why did the HyD responsible for project supervision believe the progress reports of the MTRCL so readily? If 9962 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 the MTRCL cannot prove the benefits of DRMs, why did the HyD not give any forewarning or remind the Transport and Housing Bureau, pointing out that the measures proposed by MTRCL for catching up work progress have led to further impact on the actual progress of XRL work?
In fact, following the announcement of the delay of XRL project last year, I wrote to the Director of Highways and all directorate staff to inquire about their managerial experience in railway projects. According to the reply of the Government, the experience of the Director of Highways in railway projects is four years. What does four years imply? Earlier on, I mentioned that the Director of Highways formally took over the work of Highways Department in 2010. In other words, before taking over the Highways Department, he actually did not have any managerial experience in railway projects. For a Director of Highways who does not have any actual experience in railway projects, should he be more cautious in assessing the progress reports of MTRCL, and the benefits of the measures proposed for recovering delays? Even if he himself does not know how to deal with it, should he instruct the 13 engineering experts under the Railway Development Office to provide him with more detailed information, so that he can be more well-informed to assess the progress of the construction of XRL, and give an adequate advance warning to the Transport and Housing Bureau? But we find no evidence that the Director of Highways has cautiously instructed the expert group supervising the construction of the XRL under the Railway Development Office to keep the Government well-informed in this regard, so as to study and determine whether the work progress of the XRL is on schedule as stipulated.
In fact, the experience of the Director of Highways in railway projects is four years, while that of Chief Engineer 2 and 3 responsible for the XRL project under the Railway Development Office is four years and a half. In other words, the XRL is the first railway project placed under their charge. Certainly, the Director of Highways has repeatedly indicated that teamwork is what makes a team work. But as shown by the information, after the rail merger exercise, personnel with experience in railway construction were almost entirely absorbed by the MTRCL. Does the Government have adequate manpower with the necessary qualifications internally to carry out railway supervision? If they are under-qualified, should they be more prudent in examining the papers on the project submitted by the MTRCL, and take up the necessary responsibilities as the supervisor of XRL works by giving instructions to the MTRCL to provide LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9963 more detailed evidence that all recovery works launched for offsetting the XRL delays and cost overruns carry benefit? If the Director of Highways does not do so, it will be a clear sign that he has failed to discharge his due responsibilities.
Chairman, today it is reported that the cost of XRL works has been surging from the original estimate of $65.5 billion to possibly as high as $90 billion. Nevertheless, regardless of the one who foot the bill in the end, the Director of Highways has to bear major responsibilities for failing to give an advance warning of cost overruns and delays and keep the Secretary for Transport and Housing responsible well-informed early. Certainly, the subsequent investigation may involve disclosure of more information, but we have learnt from the Government's expert report that the Director of Highways has failed to discharge his due responsibilities in supervision.
Surely, in addition to the improper supervision by the Director of Highways, the delays and cost overruns in the XRL project also involve the actual implementation of co-location system as an earnest undertaking made by the Government to Hong Kong people back then, which is the key to reaping benefits from the XRL. Nevertheless, so far we have seen no sign of implementation of co-location arrangements to make the XRL a truly effective railway network. Hence, if the co-location arrangements cannot be put into practice, and that no one is held accountable for the project delays and cost overruns, I believe it will be hard to seek approval from the community of the supplementary appropriation in respect of the cost overruns in the XRL project. People will not be willing to pay a price for it. For this reason, I think the Director of Highways should bear major responsibilities for the delays and cost overruns in the XRL project because he has not properly discharged his due responsibilities and given an advance warning. For all of these reasons, I have proposed the amendment that seeks to reduce the emoluments of the Director of Highways in order to manifest accountability. Thank you, Chairman.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak on Amendment No 584 proposed by me, which is about reducing the estimated expenditure by an amount equivalent to half year's salary of the Secretary for Transport and Housing.
Today, I think the issue of the gravest concern to the public is the further cost overrun and delay of the Express Rail Link (XRL). We all know that the XRL project was passed under pressure back then. Although many queries and 9964 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 questions had not been given clear answers, the Government insisted on bulldozing through the project. According to the original estimate, the construction cost was $66.9 billion, or less than $66 billion as some people claimed, but now the cost is close to $90 billion, with a cost overrun of 40%. The point that worried us most is no one knows when the railway can be commissioned.
Back then, the Government insisted that there would not be any problem with the XRL and it would definitely be completed. It even claimed that the location of the West Kowloon Terminus was a flawless choice. What do we see now? It turns out that the essential ground investigation works for assessing the suitability of the lot for the construction of the terminus was not done properly, and then the soil at the location was found to be too hard and construction works cannot be carried out now. Sometimes, I find this very ridiculous. Some people will find excuses to cover up their fault, as a common saying goes, they will blame the hard ground. Now, the Government is literally "blaming the hard ground" in the construction of the terminus.
The provision for the project is $90 billion, which means each ordinary citizen will have to invest tens of thousand dollars for the construction of the railway. However, there are two problems. First, no one knows when the project can be completed. Second, what purposes will the XRL serve. This is not the first time these questions are raised. Moreover, the problem of co-location arrangements has not yet been solved, so the Hong Kong section running between Hong Kong and Shenzhen of the XRL may eventually turns out to be a "slow link". In fact, the $90 billion spent may be a waste. We have made it crystal clear that these projects are "white elephant" projects and projects to win face.
Originally, under "one country, two systems", proven systems offering worthy reference have been put in place. We adopt a pragmatic attitude in implementing public policies, and this is even recognized by overseas countries. Regrettably, under the influence of the prevailing atmosphere of launching "face-winning" works and "white elephant" works, the Government was also gripped by that fever. As a result, without giving prudent consideration to the technical feasibility and problems concerning co-location arrangements, construction works, expenditure and economic return, the Government pushed through the project. At the time, the authorities did not only guarantee in the Legislative Council that the works would be completed, they also said it would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9965 bring tremendous economic benefits. As we see it today, it was all empty talk. The $90 billion has been spent, but can we get the return so claimed then? No one knows. Hong Kong people do not always ask for rewards, but the authorities should at least ensure that no harm will be done and no danger will be involved.
Let us see what the Secretary has done to prompt us to request a reduction of his salary. Actually, I somehow sympathize with Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, for he might have limited knowledge about transport and housing before he took office. In fact, the XRL is a black mark created and bulldozed through by the previous Government, and now he has to clean up the mess. Having said that, he has undertaken to be an accountability official and taken up the present post, so he must shoulder the political accountability. No one will pity him. As we see the repeated blunders in transport policies, we sometimes consider it lamentable, too.
I recall that last year, Anthony CHEUNG expressed surprise about the delay in the XRL. Yet it turned out the Government knew that the XRL could not be completed as scheduled and the completion had to be postponed to September 2016 as early as June. Why would Anthony CHEUNG know nothing about it? He may lack the ethics expected of a political figure. He just pretended to be innocent, saying he know nothing about the delay and was surprised by it. As the public followed the incident, they knew the excuses advanced by him. When we look at the incident now, those excuses are most ridiculous, which include the damage of the boring machine under the black rainstorm warning and the hard ground. When the contractors saw that the Government handled the incident in such a sloppy manner, they took advantage of the opportunity to make repeated requests for additional funding. The tender mode adopted by the SAR Government is comparable to offering an ATM to contractors for cash withdrawals. In other words, if the funding for the project is inadequate after getting the tender, the Government will naturally make up for the shortfall, so the contractors can get whatever they want. The contractors also know that they have to speed up their works, for the authorities will have to explain to the public in case of delay. If the project cannot be completed in 2015, it will be postponed to 2016, and now they even say that it may be postponed to 2017. As a result, they keep asking for more funding. The hard-earned money of taxpayers are spent this way by the Government. What a pity?
9966 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
In the previous session, we talked about the inadequacy in healthcare services and welfare and the non-event of introducing universal retirement protection. In other words, while the Government turns a blind eye to the grassroots, people with the least bargaining power and people who should be provided with some welfare benefits, it continues to pursue those "white elephant" projects. Apart from the XRL, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has incurred cost overruns time and again, and the Hong Kong section of the bridge may not be connected with the Mainland. What a big laughing stock on earth is this? The bridge may not be connected and the project is delayed further, yet the authorities managed to force it through back then.
This is not the end of the story for the Transport and Housing Bureau. This year, it has dropped another bomb, that is, the construction of the third runway for the airport involving a sum as great as $141.5 billion. Yet the fundamental issue concerning this runway has not yet been solved, that is, whether airplanes can land and take off upon its completion. Today, the Airport Authority (AA) pointed out to the media seriously that the two existing runways of the airport would reach the maximum capacity of 68 flights per hour by this winter. When the AA applied for funding from the former Legislative Council for the construction of the airport in 1992, it said that the maximum capacity was 82 flights. However, after the funding application was approved, it was discovered that four out of the six directions of the runways were not suitable for landing and taking off due to airspace restrictions. If this problem concerning airspace is solved, the maximum capacity of the existing runways will be 82 flights per hour instead of 68, as it was stated clearly in the estimate back then that the maximum capacity could be increased to 82 flights, Chairman.
However, today, the AA rides roughshod over the Legislative Council in taking forward the proposal. It is so despicable that it has ceased using the tactics adopted in the past and tried to circumvent this Council now. It does not return the profit to the Government, and it will fund the third runway project by issuing bonds of its own accord and increasing passenger fees. They simply pay no attention to the resistance, determined to ignore all obstacles and have their own way. Yet who will finally pay the cost for their action? Hong Kong people again. Is the $50 billion so-called profit a real profit? We have invested hundreds of billion dollars in the new airport, expecting that the returns thus generated can be used to fund essential public services, such as healthcare services and education, and so on. But now, it turns out we will get nothing, for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9967 the AA will not return the $50 billion to the Government and will keep the whole sum to fund the construction works. Why have the authorities not provided the relevant papers for a project costing $140 billion? They do not bother to explain it, for they think they should get the $140 billion no matter how. Will there be any cost overrun? They will not answer this question. Actually, they do not know, do they?
How can a Government act in such an irresponsible manner? There is no careful and thorough consideration of the design. There is no clear technical proposal. Above all, there is no agreement in relation to the landing and take-off of airplanes. The go-ahead was given hastily. How can the Government degenerate to such an extent of resorting to such ridiculous and despicable tactics? Under the system of political accountability, why should Anthony CHEUNG not be held responsible? Although he is an academic and I used to consider the majority of academics worthy of respect, he is in a different capacity nowadays defending the poor administration of the authorities and coming forward to adamantly bear blame for some wrong decisions, and he may even be lying. All was laid bare in the incident concerning the delay of the XRL last year. In that case, why should he get the full payment of salaries?
Apart from these large-scale infrastructure projects, many transport policies involving the general public also make us feel heart-rending. Every cent spent in the construction of the MTR was paid by taxpayers. Later, the MTRCL became a listed company. According to the latest figures, it made a profit of $13 billion in 2014. But it increases its fares arbitrarily. The increase does not require the consent of this Council nor the Executive Council, for they have proposed the perfect Fare Adjustment Mechanism that allows them to increase fares as they like. We have pointed out repeatedly that for a mode of public transport providing service to the majority public, which construction was funded by the majority public, this is unacceptable.
On some occasions, they will pretend that they are not a commercial organization. For instance, in the construction of new railway lines which will not generate any profit, they will refuse to undertake it. The Hong Kong Island Line is a case in point. They requested the Government to bear all the cost while they would be responsible for the management and operation. When profits are recorded, they will change into a commercial organization again. The most ridiculous point is that even when the Chief Executive Officer had made a 9968 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 mistake and lied to the Government, the Legislative Council and the public, we had to give him compensation all the same. According to the information, the compensation amounts to $30 million. The Government is totally ineffective. How ridiculous this organization and structure is? Why do we have to make compensation to an incompetent person who lies? The successor of the Chief Executive Officer is a "local expert". I do not know whether he will perform well by then. Neither do I know whether he will be offered tens of million dollars upon his departure arising from his fault. Such a practice is really ridiculous. Although the issue involves public expenditure, it will claim to be a commercial organization when the situation is considered unfavourable to it. On the other hand, it will brag about its commitment to fulfil social responsibility when it seeks funding from the Government. The Government can only swallow all of these without any complaint. We have made repeated requests and queries why the Government does not privatize the MTRCL at a suitable time, and it turns out this is not allowed. The Government is smart. It knows that after the privatization of the MTRCL, the Government will have no excuse to put on another hat arbitrarily, and fare increases will be a must. This is precisely what is all about commercial operation.
However, Members should also examine the practice of the MTRCL. The MTRCL has already been granted a lot of sites, and we earnestly hope that those sites can be used for the development of residential flats to provide housing for the general public. But this is definitely not the reality. Those sites will only be used for the construction of super luxurious flats, and even to set a record in the luxurious property market in Hong Kong. The luxurious flats on top of the Kowloon Station, such as The Cullinan, are not provided for Hong Kong people, for many of those flats have become targets of speculation by billionaires from the Mainland.
Regarding the failure of the tendering exercises for the property development project at Tin Wing Station, we have asked the authorities whether the site can be used for the construction of Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats. The authorities simply say, "Sorry, no." If HOS flats are constructed, people who do not have much money may have a chance to move in. Yet the authorities refuse to do so. The site will be put on tender to allow real estate developers to reap maximal profits, where the MTRCL will yield the highest profit. Why would such an incident happen? The Government is utterly suffering from psychosis. It is sick.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9969
What do we see today? Housing in Hong Kong is ranked the most unaffordable in the world, yet our property price has not yet reached the highest. The affordability rate for Hong Kong in 2014 was 17, which is 70% higher than Vancouver, the city second on the list. In comparison with the city ranked the 10th … We all know that the property price in London is the highest in Europe.
Chairman, I so submit. I will talk about housing on the next occasion.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will speak on heads 158 and 159 but, before all else, let me say a few words about the Development Bureau. Although the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has let Secretary Paul CHAN off the hook, his involvement in the hoarding of land and "sub-divided units" as a symbol of the corrupt image of the "689" clique will be remembered by all Hong Kong people. Even if the ICAC has let him off the hook, Hong Kong people will definitely remember his involvement in the hoarding of land and "sub-divided units". Why did he choose to cease serving as a Legislative Council Member but join the Government instead?
Chairman, according to the list of public officers attending meetings on the Appropriation Bill 2015 as provided by the Secretariat, the Secretary will attend meetings in sessions from 11 am to 8 pm on 6 May, from 2.30 pm to 8 pm on 7 May and from 9 am to 1 pm on 8 May. Nevertheless, I have only seen the Secretary for the Civil Service in this Chamber since noon, and Anthony CHEUNG did not show up until he was given a good scolding by Members. Certainly, I will not give him a dressing-down in this session. Just now, Mr Albert CHAN spent 15 minutes naming and berating him. I will pinpoint the Development Bureau in this session. Of course, I will say a few words about the Transport and Housing Bureau, too. Chairman, I will also propose amendments to reduce the emoluments for the Secretary for Transport and Housing, for the Bureau can be regarded as having done all such "good deeds".
Our speaking time is limited by the Chairman, such that this debate session lasts only 11 hours. If I were allowed to speak freely, I could speak for at least two hours. Chairman, you can look up the records to find out if I have ever made any repetitive speeches or failed to make preparations and made repetitive speeches for the sake of filibustering? The answer is in the negative. I have to be accountable to my assistant who has worked very hard. The Secretary for Transport and Housing is now in attendance. There are simply too many issues 9970 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 which are related to him. Examples are the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) and the third runway. The Secretary did not heed me when I invited him for an interview. Now let me give him a good scolding for 15 minutes in front of all people in Hong Kong! Nevertheless, this is not his turn. I said a few words to him because I happened to see him enter the Chamber. It is the turn of the Development Bureau.
When the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council scrutinized the funding application for the advanced works to be carried out for the Northeast New Territories (NENT) New Development Areas (NDAs), the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government did not only fail to give a positive response to such issues of principle as land resumption, the disappearance of the boundary line between China and Mainland, land allocation, and so on, but it also joined hands with the pro-establishment Members in forcing the approval of the funding application. Since the affected villagers and a large number of members of the public were staging a sit-in protest in the Legislative Council Complex and ground floor lobby, the Legislative Council Commission finally decided to "castrate" itself by allowing the Police to take over the security work of the Legislative Council Complex. Not only was I involved in one or two incidents at that time, but the Chief Security Officer and the NENT Development were also involved in the same incidents.
With respect to the incident in which security officers were instructed by the Chief Security Officer through wireless communications to bar me from leaving the car park, I have exchanged correspondence with the Legislative Council Commission on more than 90 occasions. In its final reply, it said that the Chief Security Officer would be let off the hook. I will definitely publish a book to settle scores with him because it is complicated to initiate a lawsuit. Even the Police may not dare institute a prosecution since a decision has already been made by the Legislative Council Commission. This incident, which was triggered by the submission of a funding application to the Finance Committee with respect to the NENT development project, has highlighted not only the lame performance of the executive, but also the legislature's bankrupt dignity. Furthermore, I am also involved in a judicial review on a decision made by the Finance Committee, and a court hearing has been scheduled for June. I might even end up a bankrupt. Sometimes, I would ask myself these questions: What is the purpose of doing all this? Why would I come to this pass? So, how can I possibly let Paul CHAN off the hook and not take this opportunity to bombard him?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9971
Initially, the scope of the NENT NDAs includes Kwu Tung North (KTN), Fanling North (FLN) and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling, which are close to the boundary between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. Subsequently, the Government put the Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling development NDA on hold and focused on taking forward the NDAs in KTN and FLN. In the outline development plan announced by the Government in July 2013, the proportion of public housing and the boundary between China and Hong Kong became the greatest concerns to the public. Without a doubt, public housing is related to Anthony CHEUNG. At that time, some groups queried why less than 5% of the land would be used for the construction of public housing when the proposal on the planning of the NENT involved 780 hectares of developed area, eviction of thousands of households, and the levelling of dozens of villages and countless farmland. However, they were fiercely criticized by the pro-establishment camp for hindering the construction of public housing. When I demanded the pro-establishment camp to produce concrete evidence and data for our inspection, their argument simply could not stand up to debate and test. Their behaviour was simply outrageous.
After revising its outline development plan from the originally proposed ratio of 43:57 to 60:40, the Government is going to provide 60 000 new units in total, including 36 600 subsidized housing units and 24 100 private units, to accommodate an additional population of 174 900. Originally, the SAR Government merely sought to provide private units in the NENT development and put the interest of property developers in the first place. It was only when it was under public opinion pressure that the Government indicated willingness to increase the ratio of public housing. Nonetheless, will the public believe the Government, a habitual liar, will honour its promise of providing 36 600 public housing units? Honestly, I do not believe it will.
The Government has been reminded by Members not to repeat the mistake of Tin Shui Wai in focusing excessively on the development of public rental housing in certain places. However, I do not consider this the crux of the issue. It was once pointed out by the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee (the Steering Committee) that the Government should develop more self-contained new towns like Sha Tin. In my opinion, the failure of Tin Shui Wai lies not in its population density but the failure to strike a balance in planning.
9972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
The Government once said that the NDAs would better capitalize on Hong Kong's increasing economic interaction with the Mainland and create approximately 37 700 job opportunities, and that it would include studies and development of job opportunities related to commercial, retail and community services.
Along Fanling Highway within the KTN NDA, about 14 hectares of land is earmarked for "Commercial, Research and Development" with potential to develop into offices and research and development uses, providing more space for industries in which Hong Kong enjoys clear advantages. I have all along been skeptical about the Government's industrial policy. So long as the SAR Government keeps pursuing the so-called high value-added and magnificent priority industries while failing to return to square one and model on such places as Switzerland and Singapore in developing its industries and agriculture, I do not believe its industrial policy can succeed. Should its industrial policy fail, the NDA will only become another Tin Shui Wai in the end. This is the first problem encountered in developing the NENT.
The second issue concerns the boundary between China and Hong Kong. Given the proximity of KTN and FLN to the boundary, coupled with the relatively high ratio of private housing, there were proposals of building "a city for rich doubly non-permanent residents of Hong Kong", integration of Hong Kong and Shenzhen, and so on. In June 2012, LEUNG Chun-ying as the Chief Executive-elect even pointed out that a special zone in the SAR could be created in the frontier closed area adjacent to the NENT NDAs to offer visa-free entry to Mainlanders and foreigners. According to a report compiled by the One Country Two Systems Research Institute and cited by Ta Kung Po ― all of them are confidants ― with the inclusion of the construction of residential units in the NENT and the active admission of Mainland residents into the special development area at the boundary between Shenzhen and Hong Kong by virtue of visa-on-arrival … the KTN and FLN, for the sake of complementary development, will provide ancillary residential facilities for the development of the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone and the special development area at the boundary in Hong Kong. According to the Government's response at that time, the relevant allegation is totally "unfounded", for a mix of public housing estates and private residential units is planned for the area. Not only will most of the flats to be built be small and medium residential flats, but the job opportunities LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9973 will also be provided mainly for Hong Kong residents. The authorities have not proposed opening up the boundary area or integrating the NENT with Shenzhen. Neither will the construction of dwelling places for Mainlanders be used as the guiding principle for the new development zone. An explanation is thus in order, right?
The SAR Government and LEUNG Chun-ying are tilted entirely to China in dealing with the Individual Visit Scheme, the third airport runway, the XRL, the vetting and approval of one-way permits, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, and so on. How can we trust him? He is indeed an out-and-out communist, putting the interest of the Communist Party of China above everything else, period. I was actually the first one who used the word "period", but KO Wing-man has now borrowed it without seeking my consent.
The Secretary for Transport and Housing is now in attendance. The Secretary for Development ought to sit here boasting and blustering or listening to Members' speeches, for he has been let off the hook after the ICAC decided not to institute proceedings against him. Is he very busy? We have the Secretary for Transport and Housing, the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury ― I saw Prof K C CHAN this morning ― I have not seen the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development. The Secretary for the Civil Service was out of danger a while ago, and it is now Anthony CHEUNG's turn to stay here until 8 pm, right? It is now 5.20 pm, right? If I still have time to press the "Request to speak" button, I will spend 15 minutes addressing him. Nonetheless, I have even failed to finish talking about the Development Bureau, and here is a large stack of material. I will focus on the NENT development for the time being.
Given the Government's intention to adopt an enhanced model of developing traditional new towns by allowing modifications of land leases, including applications for in situ exchange, quite a number of people consider that the Government has bowed to two major real estate developers who have purchased and hoarded lands in the NDAs ― this is the origin of Paul CHAN's nickname, which is associated with land hoarding. The Government has responded that more than 70% of the land in private ownership will be acquired. Applications for land lease modifications must meet the criteria set by the 9974 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Administration that comprehensive planning can be made and support facilities be provided in a timely and orderly manner while fair treatment must be accorded to private land occupiers. Owing to the tolerant attitude taken by the British Hong Kong Administration and the SAR Governments towards land hoarding by real estate developers over the years, the Government lacks land today. The paradox of real estate developers' possession of abundant land has also led to the Government being restrained by developers in the formulation of development projects. As a result, it could only put forward such a lame and controversial proposal as the NENT development project. How could the Government have fallen into such a state and bowed to the despotic power of the plutocrats?
Even if LEUNG Chun-ying cannot win the hearts of major real estate developers, he should continue to carry on, be a rightist and turn his own Government into a rightist government. If the Government had adequate land in the New Territories, it could have proceeded with development near existing towns without the need to forcibly develop new towns in Kwu Tung and FLN, which are not only remote but also not easily accessible by public transport, by painting a picture of a paradise on earth for Hong Kong people as well as a beautiful but remote blueprint. While the paradise is still nowhere in sight, people affected by the NENT development project are already moaning in hell.
It is utterly outrageous that the attitude adopted by the Government after putting forward the NENT project amounts to giving tacit consent to local despots and the evil gentry to attack members of the public who oppose being planned. Furthermore, the Government has already begun placing publicity advertisements on television when the parties concerned have yet to reach a consensus and the project has yet to be implemented officially. Instead of discussing with the public the pros and cons of the policy with a candid and honest attitude or examine whether or not the policy can be implemented, the authorities are conducting publicity through advertisements. Those local despots and the evil gentry, as well as local tyrants, have recently put on a show in front of Members, right? Such behaviour can actually be described as infuriating. How can the Government adopt such an attitude in policy discussion? I do not understand why Anthony CHEUNG could have been called an academic (The buzzer sounded) … is he capable of serving this Government?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9975
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak against Amendment No 97, which seeks to deduct the annual estimated expenditure on the personal emoluments for the staff of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) under subhead 000 of head 44.
Chairman, I am making this speech because in my opinion, we should not reduce the expenditures of certain departments, especially the Environment Bureau and the EPD. On the contrary, we should increase their resources. Chairman, since the last term of the Legislative Council, I have been striving to improve the water quality of the Victoria Harbour in this Chamber. I have proposed a motion debate and raised an oral question particularly on this subject. Moreover, for this reason, I have set up the "Blue Sea Action" with Prof HO Kin-chung of The Open University of Hong Kong, who is a specialist in water quality, and proposed that we should put in place a water quality index for assessing the water quality of the Victoria Harbour, especially when we have resumed the cross-harbour swimming events in recent years. We can improve the water quality of the Victoria Harbour only through controlling the sewer connections, increasing the frequency of desludging, as well as the co-operation of many other departments.
Chairman, in my capacity as a legislator, I have offered assistance to the districts for which I am responsible, including West Kowloon, Tai Kok Tsui, Hung Hom, To Kwa Wan and areas in the vicinity of Hoi Sum Park, because the odour from the seawater there is unbearable. I remember I once said in this Chamber that the Victoria Harbour is the best asset of Hong Kong. It can be likened to a beautiful young lady, but when we go near her, we find that her body seems to smell, so we gradually do not wish to get close to her again. Now we have got the West Kowloon Cultural District for which large-scale international promotion has been launched. The waterfront and the water quality are actually intertwined and inseparable. We cannot evade the water quality problem, especially the problem of odour along the shores.
At the same time, I am also a complainant, like a tailor clad in rags. I live in New Territories West. Being a local resident, I have written to the EPD several times to complain about this matter. When I go for a morning walk at 6 am or go out to the balcony before I go to bed at night, I will smell a strong odour of oil leakage from vessels. I have asked HO Kin-chung why that is the case. He said it is illegal oil leakage which should be prohibited. Then I asked, if it is prohibited, why does this situation occur so frequently? This problem also exists in the districts for which I am responsible. 9976 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Actually, it is not true that the Government has done nothing since we raised the issue of water quality and odour in the Chamber. Hence, I think the EPD has made some efforts. We have held different meetings on water quality at One Silversea in Tai Kok Tsui together, during which we found that to solve the problem, we need the help of not only the Environment Bureau but also the Marine Department (MD), and it has never occurred to us that we also need the help of the District Offices because it turns out that misconnection of sewers falls under their ambit. Besides, there are the Buildings Department (BD) and the Drainage Services Department (DSD). All of them are on an equal footing. As a result, despite their willingness to help, the staff of the EDP often wear a look of helplessness. Besides, it is related to the Development Bureau, too. Regarding the situation in Hung Hom, I remember I have proposed a motion debate in the hope that our waterfront could have continuity … the issues which I am going to talk about also concern the Secretary for Transport and Housing. It was a difficult process. As I recall, I began to serve as a District Council member for that district in 2007. At that time that place was just a piece of barren land. Eventually, in September 2011, the waterfront was opened up from Hung Hom all the way to Tsim Sha Tsui. At that time Carrie LAM was still the Director of the Bureau. She officiated at the opening ceremony there, looking rather happy. She loved the place, especially the pier at the back ― the pier is also shown in this photo ― at that time the Development Bureau was most willing to revitalize the pier. However, I believe, since it was unable to break through the mindset of the Transport Department and the Transport and Housing Bureau, all along the work could not commence, and several years have since passed. Every time I go to the waterfront, I will take a look at the pier. Why are such good resources left unused? I remember that at that time many members of the public put down their signatures there to express their views. For example, they hoped the Government would revitalize the place, develop arts venues or set up some small eateries there. If advertising was allowed there, it could also subsidize the ferry service. This also falls under tourism planning, including the question as to whether the ferry service under the purview of the Transport and Housing Bureau should be resumed.
Let us take a look. I went there last Saturday. Since I had received a lot of complaints, I made time to walk from Hung Hom to Tsim Sha Tsui last Saturday. Actually, regarding this problem, our District Council had written to the BD, which replied that there were 22 spots where the sewers were misconnected, thus causing the odour. Later, it gave another reply that 17 of them had been rectified and completely fixed, but five remained to be handled. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9977
It seems these five spots improved for a short period, but now the odour problem has come back and the smell is rather stinky. A lot of people will jog and go for a morning walk there. The odour does not exist all the time. I happened to find out on that occasion that the odour was intermittent. What problems does it show? It shows there are problems with inspection and law enforcement.
After I had proposed the motion debate in question, in 2012 the Government replied to the Legislative Council, stating that the authorities had introduced legislation to prohibit illegal oil leakage. Actually this also concerns Kowloon East. Will Members please take a look at this photo which was also taken at the Hung Hom Ferry Pier. At first, HO Kin-chung and I went to a number of districts to conduct water quality tests. The test result of the water in Tai Kok Tsui was poor, whereas the result of the water in Hung Hom was fair. We also went to Tsim Sha Tsui East, To Kwa Wan, Kwun Tong, Causeway Bay, Lai Chi Kok and Cheung Sha Wan. This photo was taken by me recently. Why did it turn out this way? Is it because there have been fewer complaints, so the number of inspections here is reduced? Do I need to bring it up at the Legislative Council to lash the authorities again? This problem is unacceptable, and obviously, the legislation for water quality control is ineffective. The authorities advise that serious and repeated offenders may be sentenced to a fine of $1 million and even imprisonment of one year at the maximum, but according to the records provided to me by the authorities, it seems that over the years, the heaviest fine was only $470,000. I do not know the total number of prosecutions instituted by the authorities. Even in Tsing Yi …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LEUNG, what you are saying right now is far away from your earlier remark that your speech will focus on the amendment.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): This is related to the EPD, Chairman. You will know it if you let me go on.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have reminded Members that in this debate, they should not speak in detail on a certain issue, a certain specific measure or mistake of the Government. You should be more concise.
9978 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, Chairman, I got it. However, this is a vivid example. The Government has given us a number of replies, among which it is stated that the situation would be fine after the introduction of legislation. I would like to tell Members that it is still not fine. After we had made the claim about the need to seek seawater treatment at all the waterfronts in the territory, the Environment Bureau proposed a pilot scheme for four districts, covering Kowloon West, Kowloon East, the New Central Harbourfront, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay. In my opinion, this is desirable. So I said it should be commended, and I do not support cutting their remunerations. I consider that the allocation of more resources is better than cutting their resources. I hope this pilot scheme can be extended to the New Territories as soon as possible. I hope Members from constituencies in the New Territories can listen to the views of our residents in the New Territories. We hope the pilot scheme will be implemented not only in these four districts. Yet I am certainly pleased that Kowloon West is one of these districts. In this regard, I think the Environment Bureau should be provided with more resources.
Besides, the Chief Executive has addressed our request in the Policy Address this year. In paragraphs 178 to 181 of the Policy Address, he proposes a water-friendly culture. The EPD has also directly approached me and HO Kin-chung several times to discuss how the water-friendly culture should be promoted. In my view, apart from seawater treatment, the Government must deploy resources and devolve more power to the Environment Bureau so that it can take the lead in co-ordinating the work with other relevant Policy Bureaux and departments, including the MD, DSD, BD and District Offices.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Regarding the water-friendly culture, I told the Policy Bureau what matters most is that the hardware, which means the waterfront, is already available in Tsim Sha Tsui, but there is a strong odour along the road from Tsim Sha Tsui to Hung Hom. After the connection with To Kwa Wan in the future, there will also be that kind of odour from the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal. I know Honourable colleagues pointed out the day before that there were many similar problems on Hong Kong Island. In the long run, I think more resources should be allocated. As mentioned in our discussion on the Budget in the past three LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9979 years, we hope the authorities will allocate more resources in the long run. Apart from the submission of consultancy reports to the Environment Bureau, actual improvement in water quality is necessary. This is like savings. Similarly, we have proposed to save up for education and healthcare because it is suitable for both men and women, the aged and the young, the rich and the poor. Hence, I consider that in the light of the surplus every year, $10 billion should be used to genuinely improve the water quality of the whole Victoria Harbour in Hong Kong.
The pilot scheme was launched in June 2014 in the form of a consultancy report. In my view, the study period of the consultancy report should not be two years. Is there insufficient funding? I am not sure. I once asked at a meeting of the Panel on Environmental Affairs whether the funding was sufficient. If the authorities apply for such a small amount of funding, that means they will undertake just a small amount of work. I hope the authorities will apply for more funding. For this reason, I have advised the Financial Secretary not to hold back the work relating to water quality.
Regarding water quality, the Policy Address proposes to foster a water-friendly culture rather than simply allocating a small sum of money to the compilation of water quality reports as in the present practice. For this reason, I absolutely do not agree to cutting their remunerations. On the contrary, more resources should be provided so that the overall work can be carried out on a longer-term basis. Hence, apart from the need for seawater treatment, I hope the Secretary will also give it some thoughts. This is a cross-bureau issue which involves different officials. The water-friendly culture for the whole waterfront certainly covers the Transport and Housing Bureau. Water taxis may travel freely on the sea to prevent traffic congestion in the district. Tourists and elderly people in the district may also travel, for example, from Tsim Sha Tsui to To Kwan Wan. Even passengers from the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal may go into the district more easily and comfortably.
Hence, revitalization of the pier cannot remain stagnant. Three to four years have since passed. I hope the authorities will do some thinking, heed the views in the community and see how the ordinary ferry service can be turned into a kind of water taxi service. In this respect, I hope the Transport and Housing Bureau will have a role to play in launching the water-friendly culture.
9980 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
So, Deputy Chairman, I have expressed these views in the hope that more resources will be allocated to the Environment Bureau. With regard to this issue, the Transport and Housing Bureau should think about how to facilitate the resumption of the ferry service, especially the more popular ferry routes in the urban areas, and launch the water taxi service.
Deputy Chairman, I so submit.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, after listening to the speech of Dr Priscilla LEUNG, I have a strong impression that she knows nothing about the plight of the public, and it is comparable to suggesting people struck by a famine to eat meat porridge if they have no rice. Certainly, her remarks may be reasonable in some measure, yet there are a lot of issues in Hong Kong that warrant our attention. Since Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG is in the Chamber, I would like to talk about transport under the policy area of transport and housing.
Yesterday, a public hearing on increasing the number of passenger seats on public light buses was held at the Legislative Council. I do not know whether or not the Secretary had attended the hearing. Though this is only a small topic, nearly 100 organizations attended the hearing to express their views. It is merely about adding four additional seats on public light buses, yet it obligated the stakeholders to engage in hard arguments. I understand that LEUNG Chun-ying has laid down the Manifesto long since, stating the work he will carry out in respect of transport after taking office. Since he has appointed you as the Secretary, Secretary, you naturally have to execute his vision.
In his election Manifesto, in the 18th paragraph under the section Land Planning and Transportation ― let me read it out and share it with Members ― it is stated that, "We will co-ordinate the operational service models between different forms of public transport, including railways, buses, trams, estate buses, public light buses and taxis, and will also provide assistance to the industry in resolving issues such as the shortage of labour and escalating fuel prices." In respect of co-ordination, public light buses is placed in the fifth position, right after railways, buses, trams and estate buses but in front of taxis. If the authorities hope to co-ordinate the operational service models between different forms of public transport, it should indeed conduct a large-scale territory-wide study or consultation exercise, for six stakeholders are involved excluding ferries for the time being. According to Mr Frankie YICK of this Council, he has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9981 requested the authorities to conduct a relevant study after he took office. He had also proposed a motion in this Council to urge the authorities to conduct the study, and the motion was passed by this Council with the support of a majority of Members. I would like to ask the Secretary: Does he not know that such a motion has been passed? Does LEUNG Chun-ying regard his own Manifesto just a piece of toilet tissue? We can see the world in a small grain of sand. If he cannot do a minor task properly, it is natural that he cannot do other tasks well.
The Secretary surely has a big headache now. I recall once asking him face to face if the MTRCL is found deceiving the emperor, that is, cheating LEUNG Chun-ying and his officials (that is the Directors of Bureaux), for not reporting the cost overrun and delay to the authorities, will the MTRCL be held accountable or blamed? Accountability has been pursued and two persons have left their posts because of the incident. However, they have left the posts according to the terms of their agreements and with compensation. In other words, the authorities have no way to prove their faults. The MTRCL has no way to prove that it is the fault of the persons concerned.
The curtain has fallen on this exciting drama of the West Kowloon Terminus of the Express Rail Link for the time being. For senior staff members of the MTRCL who have been reprimand severely, I will describe them in this way, "Scold me if you like, I will get my gratuity as I like". Secretary, how unacceptable it is? We want you to be accountable. We only have the power to hold you but not the MTRCL accountable, for the MTRCL is independent. When we want you to be punished, Members from the pro-government camp say that it is impracticable to hold the Secretary accountable for all issues. Secretary, you should respond to this question: Who is lying, the MTRCL or you?
There is another issue, that is, whether the so-called "Design-Build-Operate" model is effective? I have never heard in the commercial sector that an enterprise will request guarantee of funds for construction works from the Government for its operation, whereas the "design and build", the "Design-Build-Operate" model, is executed between the enterprise and outsiders. How will this happen in the commercial sector? Besides, all the money involved is public money, that is, 5% of the money we earn by sweating blood. However, when something went wrong, the enterprise could remain intact. What kind of a Government is this? What kind of an enterprise is it? And what kind of a legislature we are? Concerning some minor items, we have urged the authorities to carry out a territory-wide consultation, but the authorities have not done so. When the Legislative Council holds such meetings, the 9982 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Secretary does not attend them and pretends that he hears nothing. Buddy, we are only talking about adding four seats to public light buses, why should this be dragged on for such a long time? His performance in handling major issues is even worse.
I will now talk about housing. During the previous debate session, I already wanted to pursue accountability of the Buildings Department (BD). But since the Chairman restricted my speaking turns to the minimal, I could not take the BD to task for accountability's sake. At present, the BD seeks to eliminate illegal "sub-divided units" in factory buildings in a high profile, yet the phenomenon of "sub-divided units" is not a problem about unauthorized building works but a housing problem. A large number of hard-working people have chosen to turn a blind eye to the poor living conditions and risk their lives to live in illegal housing for they cannot afford the exorbitant rents. These illegal structures are different from those in the New Territories, for the residents of these illegal structures do not choose to live there out of greed. However, the action of the authorities is aptly contradictory. This resembles the Bible verse in some ways, that is, "Blessed are the greedy, for they know how to threaten the Government".
Another issue is about a task which Carrie LAM stated clearly she would execute. The Secretary should not be involved, yet it seems that he is somehow related to it. Carrie LAM has said that she will definitely deal with the illegal structures in the New Territories. Has she done anything so far? For the illegal structures with five to six floors in the New Territories, have the authorities done anything about them? Will not those illegal structures collapse and cause casualties? I can only say that blessed are the greedy, yet the poor are treated badly, worse than the dust of the earth. They have to live in "sub-divided units" and face the demolition of their humble dwellings by the BD. However, the BD has never asked the relevant departments responsible for public housing allocation and rehousing arrangement under the same bureau, the Transport and Housing Bureau, to make rehousing arrangements for the residents affected. On the one hand, poor people living in "sub-divided units" are left homeless, and on the other, the rich people having erected illegal structures in the New Territories continue to show off. What kind of a Government is this?
Perhaps the Secretary has also been misled. When Carrie LAM resigned from the post of Secretary for Development, Paul CHAN applied the malicious plot to snitch on the former Secretary for Development. When Paul CHAN took the office of the Secretary for Development, he told Carrie LAM that he would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9983 launched a factory building enhancement programme to improve 10 000 "sub-divided units". Despite the grandiose promise made by the Secretary, he has achieved nothing. But this machinery will run continuously. Since the BD has already announced the launching of the exercise, it will continue to carry it out. As a result, a lot of poor people who are forced to live in "sub-divided units" are left homeless and destitute. Have the authorities ever considered the rehousing arrangements for these people? Have the authorities ever considered discussing with the Secretary for Development ways to provide rehousing for them? Now, the BD says that it is not responsible for the rehousing arrangements of the residents, for the BD is only responsible for the demolition works. As for other problems, people should ask the relevant departments under the Secretary for Transport and Housing. We only have one Government, not four. To the very least, Carrie LAM should make enquiries about that, for she used to be responsible for that task. Before she left that post, she was a "good fighter", claiming she must have the illegal structures removed. But what is the situation now? Those structures which she claimed must be removed have not yet been removed, but for those which removal has not been mentioned, they have on the contrary been removed. What a pity? I do not bother to raise other concerns. I have picked this issue for it just comes in handy.
Deputy Chairman, the development of North East New Territories is a similar case. The Government only provides compensation to owners possessing sites with an area of 4 000 sq m. This proposal will only make people hoarding land, those who have sites of 40 000 sq m each, to make a big fortune and drive away the poor who have leased sites for farming and accommodation. If this is not an approach specially designed for the rich, what approach is it? Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, I have mentioned many times that the development of North East New Territories is practicable provided that the authorities do not fear the real estate developers. For the authorities may invoke Article 105 of the Basic Law to acquire the sites hoarded by real estate developers at market price, which are left vacant and where no farming activities are carried out, on the grounds of major public interest. If the authorities do so, a large amount of land can thus be obtained without the need to offer compensation and drive away the poor who have no place to live. However, the authorities have not done so, for they dare not offend the real estate developers.
Moreover, the Government often says that it wants to solve the housing problem in Hong Kong, yet only 5% of the vast development area in North East New Territories is allocated to the construction of public housing. It is 9984 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 unacceptable, is it not? Will a Government use 95% of the sites to solve a problem for which a solution has never been called and merely 5% of the sites to solve the problem which it earnestly desires to solve? You are the Secretary for Transport and Housing, so you should know this better.
It is highly likely for me to go to a hilltop in Ho Man Tin to play football every week. Now, when I take a look down the hill, I see the construction of a luxury residential building with a price of $30,000 per square feet. The construction site used to be the Valley Road Estate, a public housing for the general public. But now, these public housing estates, like the Valley Road Estate, Wong Chuk Hang Estate, North Point Estate and part of Ho Man Tin Estate, have all been changed to "prime sites". Have the authorities ever considered that the effect of this policy is just the opposite of what it says? Why is it necessary to construct flats priced at tens of thousand dollars per square foot? Why are public housing or Home Ownership Scheme flats not constructed? How can the living conditions of Hong Kong people be alleviated? This approach is adopted in both the urban areas and new development areas. Secretary, can you blame the tens of thousands of young people for coming to the Legislative Council to oppose you? Can they afford to live in the buildings constructed in North East New Territories? Secretary, you are a scholar. Even though you are a senior official in the Government, you are still a scholar. I urge you to respond to these fundamental questions later.
In fact, I still have a lot to say. But since President Jasper TSANG has adopted the approach of trimming toes to fit the shoes to cut only my speaking time, what can I do? This is how this legislature works, and it will continues to perform its role as a matter of ritual.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I made strong criticisms of the Secretary for Transport and Housing in my speech in the last session, but he was not here. Now we are discussing issues related to the Transport and Housing Bureau, and it so happened that he is here.
In my speech made earlier, I denounced Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG as an "exploiter who sponges off people" ― a political "exploiter" ― who fails to keep his words and is incompetent in management. It can be regarded as a disaster for transport and housing in Hong Kong to have such a scholar with nil experience in public administration yet pretending to be so conversant to take up the position. As the person in charge of the sea, land and sky ― that is, the airport, water transport, vessels and all modes of land transport ― of Hong Kong, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9985 his competence in management will only render these problems ever-worsening, evident in the recent cost overrun of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) project.
Several months ago, when the news about the XRL project being delayed was just exposed, the Secretary responded in an incomplete and untruly manner. It was like "squeezing a tube of toothpaste" that he would disclose a little bit only when we pressed him. At that time, he said there would be a cost overrun amounting to a few billion dollars. I then stated openly that the expenditure of the XRL project would easily exceed $100 billion. The logic of this is rather simple. If one is well versed in public works projects and has some experience and common sense, he will not be convinced by the claim then that there would be an overrun of a few billion dollars only. It is because the cost overruns of many projects in the same or previous period ranged from 30% to 50%.
When Eva CHENG was still the incumbent Secretary, I already pointed out that there were three serious problems with the entire XRL project: firstly, the planning was made too hastily with great deficiency in terms of the alignment and information; secondly, on site investigation, it was done in an excessively sloppy manner because of the time and financial pressures; and thirdly, an even more serious problem ― I asked Eva CHENG personally at that meeting, and she just replied most ambiguously ― was the contractual problem between the Government and the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited (MTRCL). We already pointed out that the entrustment agreement then was very important. It is because MTRCL was the one to conduct site investigations and design, yet it was also entrusted with the execution, and should there be anything unclear or improper in the entrustment agreement, problems would be bound to arise. Compared to a Policy Bureau with nil experience, an experienced one in dealing with a sly and shameless professional establishment over an entrustment agreement will surely contract with the latter for a bargain that is favourable to it.
We recall that when taking forward the 10 core projects, the British-Hong Kong Government back then specially commissioned a team of overseas experts and set up a designated office to deal with issues related to the management, drafting and formulation of contracts for these projects. Therefore, this problem brought forth by the triple defects will definitely lead to delay in and cost overrun of the construction of the XRL. As such, if this matter can be settled with $100 billion, then I would consider it a catch of luck amid misfortunes. A lot of money might have been spent in vain, and I doubt whether corruption and depravity is involved in the many causes thereof.
9986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Mainlandization and communization is the greatest achievement in Hong Kong since the reunification 17 years ago: Whatever points good would not be learnt whereas the good points are turning gradually into bad ones; and things that used to be fine would become catastrophes. Just take a look at our Police Force, and you will feel so disgusting after hearing TSANG Wai-hung say on his departure from office as the Commissioner of Police that the Hong Kong Police Force is the best in the world. Well, it used to be the best, yet all policemen have become "black cops" under TSANG Wai-hung's leadership. Many youngsters were charged because of the Police's wrongful prosecution. Just yesterday there was one who committed suicide by jumping from a height, for he could not withstand the pressure any longer. This is caused by the sordidness of the Hong Kong Police Force.
Deputy Chairman, I now come back to the problems and disasters faced by the Secretary who is an "exploiter sponging off people". Regarding the supervision of the XRL project, the Transport and Housing Bureau is actually incapable of overseeing such a huge project as the XRL. Not only are there problems with the XRL, but also there are problems with the South Island Line, West Island Line and many other aspects; yet we are going to let him take charge of the new elevated monorail to be built in Kowloon East, which would be just another disaster in my opinion. His ignorance about all these things will only make room for transfer of benefits, harbouring of cronies and making of mistakes. Therefore, the problems in this regard expose the Government's incompetence in administration and dereliction of duty in dealing with issues. In particular, as regards the XRL, it is most obvious that the Government has time and again concealed facts from the public, and there have been cover-ups and recourse to excuses over and over again.
Therefore, as regards the facts in this aspect, the Secretary must be held politically accountable. Instead of learning the good things, the Secretary has learnt the "hypocritical rhetoric" from LEUNG Chun-ying to make specious remarks. Deliberately, he did not tell the commissioning date clearly in an attempt to muddle through and cover up once again the delay problem.
Deputy Chairman, it can be said that there are countless problems with the XRL. I trust the materials to be exposed might fuel the anger of the public, which means an even greater financial responsibility for them to bear. Deputy Chairman, if it is said that the XRL has brought forth enormous financial liability, the greatest is yet to be seen indeed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9987
Deputy Chairman, having said all this, how come there are so few people here? I do not have much breath to go on, anyway. Please do a headcount according to Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure to summon those "sloppy and lazy" and "class-skipping" Members back to the meeting.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): As I mentioned just now, there is already a rather great burden with the XRL in terms of the cost overrun as well as on the public coffers, with the amount having risen from $66.9 billion to the $90 billion that we are talking about now ― yet I reckon it will rise further beyond $100 billion. In fact, this is not quite serious yet, because the more catastrophic is yet to come with the problems involved with the third runway of the airport. Deputy Chairman, the reason for this is rather simple: The XRL has now become an "Expressly-low-speed Rail Link" whose speed is by no means up to the standard for express railway in the Mainland. While the speed per hour of a railway has to be above a certain level for it to be called express, part of the XRL in the Shenzhen-Hong Kong section needs to pass underneath the ground, so its speed per hour will by no means be reaching the designated standard for an express. The XRL is therefore actually low-speed.
Let us look at the third runway, of which the cost-effectiveness is even saddening. It is because this third runway of the airport in fact may, at any time, come with even less than half of a runway's capacity. In consideration of the objective circumstances, there must be altogether four possible directions for a runway, which means two for taking off and two for landing respectively; yet for one thing, it is definitely impossible to have four directions on the runway in question, so it is doubtful whether there will be only two directions or even a mere quarter of a runway's capacity. Therefore, this is overall a wrong project. The Secretary has stated publicly on a number occasions that this runway could bring economic benefits of $455 billion. But that is nothing but a lie.
9988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
How did he arrive at this figure? How could it be verified? Those are likewise some implausible lies. It is because a lot of projections must be made in considering economic benefits; yet many past figures have been proven to be incorrect. For instance, the Government developed the Deep Bay Link, yet the traffic flow became less; the Government developed the Cruise Terminal with so much money spent on it, yet it turned out to be so scarcely visited after its commencement of operation. As proven subsequently by the many "economic benefits" claimed by the Government and the series of large-scale planning it conducted in the past decade, those so-called data claimed then have become totally different stories upon completion.
Because of all this , Hong Kong is now ruled under lies. In the past, it might be out of certain personal blunders in Donald TSANG's administration, or it might be changes in circumstances that caused something unexpected at that time, such that there were wrong assessments. But it is not the case now. I used to believe that in most of the cases it was because of wrong assessments and changes in circumstances; but now, it is lying through one's teeth ― knowing perfectly well that things have gone wrong, the information is inaccurate, and there is no ground to support claims, yet just make it up casually, or else just conceal it. As in the case of the Kai Tak Sports City, documents were submitted to apply for some $60 million for preliminary design. In the past, the project estimate would be indicated in all documents as a matter of course; yet it is stated nowhere in the present document. Not until we had kept pressing the authorities did they give an answer as $25 billion, but I am sure it will be more than that. By then, it will be $40 billion. The $25 billion was just an estimation made two or three years ago. When I went on to ask about the mode of operation, the authorities suddenly said that it would be a Design-Build-Operate approach. When I asked further about the source, mode and reliability of funding, they just replied that such aspects had already been accounted for in the consultancy report. However, many financial arrangements were not accounted for in detail in the consultancy report.
As such, it is evident that the present governance by the Government is in a "just to make it passed when everything can be forgotten afterwards" manner. LEUNG Chun-ying is just one of his kind. The current Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux … I feel most sympathetic towards the civil servants, in particular those in professional departments ― save those under the Civil Aviation Department (CAD). The CAD followed "Sub-divided-units Paul" and "689" to give personal enjoyment top priority, which eventually put a dance studio of 1 000 sq ft in its planning. When it could not be used as a dance LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9989 studio, they then used it for singing Cantonese opera. Buddy, what about those living in "sub-divided units"? Now even "sub-divided units" fetch $40 per square foot in rental. Here, we thus see the extravagance of the officials of the CAD ― which is under the purview of the "exploiter" Secretary.
In this connection, one may see the modus operandi and work culture of the current Government as a whole is deteriorating ― I should not use the term "deteriorating", as it is instead "being assimilated" by the Communist Party, Beijing and the neighbouring governments. What is the point to still go for corruption? Taking advantages of just $10 million or so and one might have to be put behind bars for five or seven years in return; some officials on the Mainland have taken bribes of a couple of billion Renminbi yuans, yet they do not even have to be jailed for so long. Hence, from our observation, such deterioration in governance under the impacts of the Chinese Communist culture and the Hong Kong communist regime throughout these 17-odd years since the reunification has caused the core values of Hong Kong to vanish into thin air, and this can be regarded as a heinous crime. Yet they could be so shameless as to put up a look of pride. Just now I mentioned the "Condor", who even said on his retirement that the disciplined forces in Hong Kong were the best in the world ― well, just go on to become the best "black cops", for "black cops" are the best.
Sometimes, I think Mr Paul TSE would find it ridiculous to have seen so poorly created statements by the Police. Creation of statements does require a tincture of quality. Since those statements are so lousy, Mr Paul TSE should be invited to tender some advice. If Mr TSE could give some professional legal advice as guidance to them, probably their statements would not have become so poor that they are still contradictory and inconsistent by the time when they are about to be adduced in court. Being so, statements by the Police nowadays are in such a poor quality that even triad members would have written something better. Even the statements given by small-time triads in court are still better than such "black cops". I thus always say that Hong Kong policemen are just of the standard of urban management officers in the Mainland, let alone saying they are even worse than the public security officers. With just the same quality as urban management officers in the Mainland, yet they bragged about themselves as the best police force in the world ― wouldn't it be too ridiculous?
Deputy Chairman, let me talk further about the disaster with the third runway. The Secretary has also said publicly that he believed the third runway would cause no impact on the environment. That is again nonsense. While all works will definitely have impacts on the environment, however some mitigation 9990 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 measures would be recommended in the environmental impact assessment report to deal with the impacts thus caused, so as to reduce them to a scope permitted by law or policy. Works will bring about impacts for sure; yet he came and told me that the third runway ― a project that involves land reclamation of 500 hectares ― would reclaim land at a location with a dolphin population, and there would be increases in landings and take-offs of aircraft, air and noise pollution ― would have no impact on the environment. Was he kidding me? So, he is even deceptive in picking his words, which means to deceive whoever he can. Anyone innocent will be caught by him. Hence, he is also deploying his diction in a manner of "just get it passed and all would be well", by which he intends to get by under false pretences, such that he will not have to face it (The buzzer sounded) … I will supplement further and continue castigating this "exploiter" Secretary later on.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, speaking time is up. Please sit down.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please speak.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, you do not have to be so ferocious, for I am sitting down. Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount. Please do so by invoking Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, Mr Albert CHAN spoke loudly in his seat)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, this is not your turn to speak.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9991
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please speak.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in speaking on this occasion, I wish to express clearly my support for the passage of the Appropriation Bill 2015 as a whole, particularly given that the themes of the fourth debate are all related to planning, land, housing, transport and works. As the representative of the engineering sector in this Council, it is necessary for me to express the voices and demands of the sector clearly. Some Honourable colleagues of the pan-democratic camp have proposed 106 amendments in this session, including many that are unreasonable and unjustified, so I must rebut them to set the record right.
To various extents, the subject matters in this session have a bearing on the long-term planning for Hong Kong. Since it is necessary for Hong Kong to continue to commit resources to meeting the need in supplying housing and planning new development areas, as well as implementing railway projects and other infrastructure projects that have a bearing on economic development and the improvement of people's livelihood, so as to ensure our sustainable development, on a number of occasions, I have urged the SAR Government to properly formulate comprehensive and holistic long-term plans. At the Legislative Council meeting on 9 October 2013, I moved the motion "Formulating long-term infrastructure planning to promote sustainable development". In my speech, I stressed that the SAR Government should, on the basis of the Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy, expeditiously put forward proposals for long-term infrastructure planning and motivate public involvement to forge a consensus before implementing the proposals step by step. The motion was passed by this Council without amendment, so it shows that the great majority of Honourable colleagues agree with the importance of long-term planning.
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
As regards specific development planning and the problems in the supply of land and housing, they are the focus of administration by the present-term Government. Having regard to the "Long Term Housing Strategy", the authorities adopted the total housing supply target of 480 000 units. This 9992 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 certainly shows the determination of the authorities in meeting the housing needs of the public in earnest but whether or not this can be implemented smoothly depends on whether or not an adequate supply of land can be secured in a timely manner. In the Policy Address this year, the Chief Executive stressed that the Government is committed to putting an end to the long-standing shortage of land supply through a multi-pronged approach, including pressing ahead at full steam the development of the Kwu Tung North, Fanling North and Hung Shui Kiu New Development Areas (NDAs), the extension of Tung Chung New Town and the planning for the long-term development of New Territories North and Lantau. However, I have also once reminded the authorities that they must pay attention to and must by no means underestimate the resistance to the implementation of the relevant plans. For many years, the authorities have worked hard to plan some projects but when they were submitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny, they encountered filibusters and the non-cooperation movement. Take the agenda of the Public Works Subcommittee in the current session as an example, the planning and engineering study on Sunny Bay reclamation, as well as the project on the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point and associated works, have been negatived one after another and the Administration was also forced to withdraw the strategic studies on artificial islands in the central waters, so this is most regrettable. The administration by the Government has been hindered but to some Members, this has become the so-called evidence for the lacklustre performance of the departments concerned and on this ground, they demanded the drastic reduction of their resources, so they have practically confounded right and wrong and misled the public.
Chairman, concerning the various types of planning for land and housing supply, an array of financial commitments and manpower supply is involved and it is also necessary to ensure that the establishment of the professional grades in the Civil Service, as well as various types of complementary resources are adequate because any project on land and infrastructure and housing supply may involve professional-grade staff in such departments as the Planning Department, Civil Engineering and Development Department, Housing Department, Drainage Services Department, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, Transport Department and the Highways Department. The labour unions of these professional grades have reflected to me that the workloads of the SAR Government in respect of land, infrastructure and housing supply had increased significantly but the resources were inadequate to cope with them. For this reason, I made a special arrangement for the staff representatives concerned to have a meeting with the relevant Policy Bureaux to urge the authorities to commit LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9993 more resources and find ways to meet the reasonable demands of professional-grade civil servants for an increase in manpower, so as to maintain the professional standard and the overall morale of the civil service team, such that solid work can be done for the public. However, the amendments proposed by some Members of the pan-democratic camp have gone in the opposite direction of drastically reducing the resources for the departments concerned, so this can be described as totally outrageous.
Although Honourable colleagues can have different views on the actual allocation of funds under the relevant heads, they should raise and express them in a reasonable and justified manner. However, on the one hand, individual Members have demanded that the Government raise its standard of service and strive to satisfy the public's aspiration for home ownership and meet their livelihood needs; but on the other, they have proposed various types of amendments to the Budget and even wanted to completely remove the estimated expenditures of some Policy Bureaux and government departments altogether. If these unreasonable amendments are passed, not only would this bring the relevant government services to a standstill and deal a blow to the morale of the Civil Service, it will also impact on society and public livelihood seriously.
The amendments proposed by Members of the pan-democratic camp are almost all related to the resource commitments for various departments having a close bearing on infrastructure planning and land and housing supply. For example, the amendment proposed by Mr Albert CHAN in relation to "Head 33 ― Civil Engineering and Development Department" includes reducing the estimated annual expenditure for the personal emoluments of the staff involved in the design and site investigation for the advance works and first stage works of the Kwu Tung North and Fanling North New Development Areas, the feasibility study on the topside development of the Island of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, as well as the implementation of the strategic studies for artificial islands in the central waters. Under Programme (5) of "Head 62 ― Housing Department", Mr CHAN also seeks to reduce the estimated annual expenditure for the operational expenses arising from the implementation of the follow-up actions resulting from the Long Term Housing Strategy, as well as reducing the expenditure for the personal emoluments of the four new posts for supporting site searching and co-ordinating the development of potential public housing sites and the relevant co-ordination work. In another example, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment to "Head 138 ― Government Secretariat: Development Bureau (Planning and Lands Branch)" seeks to reduce the estimated 9994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 annual expenditure for the relevant operations of the department concerned from some $200 million to $1,000. If we visualize the whole picture, we will find that the consequences are quite terrible: Some items which had been planned for years met with a complete rout and were negatived after submission to the Public Works Subcommittee of the Legislative Council for scrutiny. At the same time, the resources for the relevant departments are slashed and this is tantamount to halting the operation of these departments, so how possibly can various new plans and long-term housing strategies be launched? What is the development prospect for Hong Kong? How can the housing needs of the public be met? How can the morale of civil servants be maintained?
Last year, some Honourable colleagues in this Council initiated the filibustering and non-cooperation movement, thus slowing down the progress of scrutiny in the Public Works Subcommittee and the Finance Committee, such that the implementation of new projects has been seriously affected. According to the statistics on the items scrutinized by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, in 2013-2014, the original estimated allocation for new projects was $43.1 billion in total but the actual approved total fund allocation for new projects amounted to $3.6 billion only. This represents a drastic drop from the total allocations for new projects in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013, which stood at $160.7 billion and $90.9 billion respectively, and even the allocation for new projects approved in 2003, during the SARS outbreak, which stood at $22 billion. Recently, in response to the questions asked by Members, the Government pointed out that in 2014-2015, only 18 capital works contracts with a total value of $18.2 billion had been approved. Compared with the 57 contracts and the expenditure of $51 billion last year, the rates of decrease were 68% and 64% respectively.
The construction and engineering industries have borne the brunt and suffered losses. It is estimated that the situation this year may be even worse. Friends in the industry pointed out that as a result of the political wrangles over the years, the implementation of the plans for infrastructure projects had been affected. In this year and the next, a number of large-scale projects will reach their peak construction periods simultaneously, so this will lead to an imbalance in manpower in the construction industry and instances of some job vacancies not being filled will arise. However, if the next batch of projects cannot come on stream in a timely manner, another extreme will arise: The number of construction projects will be inadequate, thus making members of the industry work until physical exhaustion at one time and go hungry for lack of work at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9995 another. If the unemployment rate in the industry climbs back to the 19% of the year 2003, some 70 000 workers in the industry will become unemployed. The authorities and the industry estimate that each year, it is necessary for the actual investments of the Government in public works to reach over $70 billion, coupled with a level of investment of $180 billion in construction projects made by the private sector, before the livelihood of members in the industry can be assured and Hong Kong's development sustained.
A dozen groups consisting of trade associations, professional institutes and trade unions in the industry have formed the Construction Industry Alliance (CIA) and I am also one of the members. On 8 March, the CIA organized an anti-filibuster rally attended by 5 000 people, including construction site workers as well as a number of engineers and related professionals. They are concerned that with the ongoing filibuster, a gap in the launch of public works projects will arise and the livelihood of 360 000 workers in the industry and their family members, involving 1 million people in total, will be seriously affected. Friends in the industry have conveyed to me the fact that at present, some companies have to cut their manpower due to the shrinking number of construction projects, so an alarm to society has been sounded.
Chairman, no matter if Members of the pan-democratic camp initiated the filibuster or non-cooperation movement to hinder the scrutiny of the fund allocations for infrastructure projects or propose a diverse array of amendments during the scrutiny of the Budget, it is all about citing some high-sounding excuses in an attempt to show that they are justified. A frequently seen excuse is to demand that the authorities stop planning indiscriminately for "white elephant" projects aimed at promoting China-Hong Kong integration. I believe the criticisms against infrastructure projects that will give play to Hong Kong's strategic role in the region further are indiscriminate and pointless. The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) is a case in point. The implementation of the relevant plan is arguably punctuated by complications. Its incubation, discussion and deliberation have spanned many years and in 2007, the project was finally included in the 10 major infrastructure projects of Hong Kong. The construction of the main bridge was originally scheduled to be launched on December 2009 but at the end of the same year, under the support of some Members of the opposition, a Hong Kong resident applied for legal aid to seek a judicial review. The lawsuit lasted nearly two years and the Government won the appeal only in September 2011. Finally, the project could be restarted at the end of the same year. The launch of the project was delayed for almost two 9996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 years and such methods as deploying additional manpower, introducing additional shifts and increasing construction equipment have to be adopted to compress the construction time from six years to five years. The Government hopes that the actual delay in project completion can be shortened to one year. Of the approved estimate of $30.4 billion for the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities of the HZMB, $6.5 billion is the additional expenditure incurred by the judicial review. The interference of politics resulted in delays in project implementation and cost overruns, thus wasting public funds, so how possibly can we make no mention of this?
The construction project of the HZMB was hammered out by three parties, that is, Hong Kong, Macao and the Mainland and the task of implementing the project is also shared by the Governments of these three places. Since the economic potential of the Western Pearl River Delta (PRD) is huge, the bridge will serve to promote the sustainable economic development of the three places. After the HZMB and the link road between Tuen Mun and Chek Lap Kok have been completed, Lantau will become an essential connecting point for journeys to and from Hong Kong, Macao and the Western PRD, so the value of developing a bridgehead economy to Hong Kong must by no means be overlooked. For large, medium and small enterprises operating in such places as Zhuhai, Zhongshan and Jiangmen, the HZMB will also bring a great deal of convenience. Various trades and industries in Hong Kong, including finance, trade, logistics, engineering, construction, tourism, retail, commerce, various professions, support services, and so on, will all stand to benefit. If it is said blindly that these are "white elephant" projects, not only is it impossible to convince anyone with sound arguments, the contribution of the engineering and construction industries to Hong Kong economy will also be negated.
Chairman, the longer the non-cooperation movement and filibuster in the legislature last, the greater the impact on the economy and people's livelihood. I call on Members of the pan-democratic camp to desist before it is too late, think about the future sustainable development of Hong Kong and stop the filibuster as soon as possible, so as to avoid interfering with the normal operation of the legislature and encumbering the administration by the Government. Otherwise, not only will housing supply and the implementation of transport and regional projects as scheduled be affected, the development of the engineering and construction industries will also be affected, thus breaking the "rice bowls" of workers in the sector and depriving the new generation of opportunities of upward mobility.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9997
With these remarks, Chairman, I support the Appropriation Bill 2015 but oppose the amendments.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this debate session, seven Members have proposed a total of 106 amendments which are related to 15 heads, including the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD), Housing Department (HD), Lands Department (LandsD) and the Buildings Department (BD). I will vote against all of these amendments because the main purpose of such amendments is reducing the expenditure on the annual emoluments for the Directors of Bureaux, Heads of Departments, senior government officials or even all staff members of the departments which are related to the policy areas of land planning, development, housing and environmental protection while some amendments seek to reduce the estimated expenditure on certain works projects, measures or plans. I think these amendments are completely impractical and not solutions to the problem. The reduction of resources for these departments will not only fail to prompt the Government to improve its administration and enhance the quality and efficiency of government services, but conversely put greater pressure on civil servants, undermine staff morale and hinder the overall development of Hong Kong. Therefore, I will definitely vote against these amendments.
Chairman, Amendment Nos 58, 213, 225 and 276 respectively propose reducing the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments for staff of the ArchSD, BD, LandsD and the Planning Department (PD), amounting to over $4 billion in total. Chairman, the Government has implemented a series of short-, medium- and long-term measures in recent years to increase the supply of land and residential units so as to expedite ameliorating the housing problems faced by the public. In fact, these government departments are mainly responsible for the execution and implementation of the relevant policies and measures. Therefore, their staff members have to bear the pressure of a significant increase in workload and manpower shortage. Given the shortage of resources in those departments, it will be unfair and unreasonable to further reduce the expenditure on emoluments for their staff members as this is not the suitable remedy to the problem, as it will simply aggravate the situation.
In fact, the relevant professional associations of the LandsD, ArchSD, BD, HD and the PD have relayed to me time and again that they are facing the problem of manpower shortage in their respective departments. For instance, the Government has introduced a number of policies and measures related to 9998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 building management and maintenance in recent years. Yet, the manpower in the BD is simply insufficient to cope with the significant increase in workload. As a result, some front-line staff members of the BD staged a short strike in October 2013 to protest against the Department's failure to address the problem of serious manpower shortage. Although the Government has increased manpower in the past two years and proposed in 2015-2016 to increase the civil service establishment of the BD by 152, 145 of them are created to replace the non-civil service contract staff. In other words, there is only a net increase of seven posts in the BD. Even though the actual increase in manpower is small, I still expect the Government to conduct recruitment exercises expeditiously so that new recruits can commence work as soon as possible.
Furthermore, I wrote to the Secretary for Development in July last year to express my concern over the manpower shortage in the Town Planner grade in the PD. Chairman, the Government has proposed a number of development plans in recent years with a view to achieving the new housing supply target for the next 10 years, including the North East New Territories and Hung Shui Kiu New Development Areas, the studies on constructing artificial islands in the central waters, the development of an East Lantau Metropolis, the studies on reclamation in certain areas outside Victoria Harbour, underground space development, and so on. The availability of land is necessary for the development plans in various policy areas. Moreover, an increasing number of people in society has raised objections to planned development in recent years and staff of the PD has to follow up and handle such cases. Last week, I met with some planner grade staff members who relayed to me once again that their workload had kept increasing while their working hours were getting longer that they often had to work well into the night. Sometimes, they even had to work during the holidays. Therefore, I hope the Government can squarely address these problems, allocate more resources and increase manpower so as to avoid undermining staff morale or even affecting the service quality of the relevant departments as a result of the significant increase in workload and manpower shortage.
Chairman, after discussing the problem of manpower shortage in the Civil Service, I would also like to talk about the subject of environmental protection. Chairman, Amendments Nos 97 and 315 respectively propose reducing the expenditure on the annual emoluments for the staff of the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) and the Environment Bureau, which amounts to over $1,114 million in total. I definitely do not support these amendments. In recent years, the Environment Bureau has introduced a number of environmental LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 9999 protection policies and measures, including the formulation of the "Hong Kong: Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources" and "A Clean Air Plan for Hong Kong", the implementation of the Food Wise Hong Kong Campaign, the full implementation of the plastic shopping bag charging which started on 1 April this year and the launch of the Producer Responsibility Scheme. Concerted efforts made by the staff of the EPD and the Environment Bureau are necessary for the implementation of these plans and measures. Therefore, it is simply impractical to cut in full the expenditure on their emoluments.
Chairman, with regard to improvement of air quality, as electric vehicles have no tailpipe emissions, the Government seeks to improve roadside air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging members of the public to use electric vehicles. The first registration tax for electric vehicles has also been waived since 1994. However, I once asked the Government at a meeting of the Finance Committee whether it had reviewed the effectiveness of the existing measures to promote the use of electric vehicles, and whether it had assessed the difference between the original target of the Government and the number of around 1 220 vehicle owners who were currently exempted from the first registration tax for electric vehicles. Unfortunately, the Government replied that no target had been set when the relevant tax exemption was first introduced. I was deeply shocked at the Government's reply as I literally cannot understand this. How can the Government analyse quantitative data to consider whether value for money has been achieved when no target is set? Without setting a target, how can the Government estimate the amount of ancillary facilities required for electric vehicles in Hong Kong? I therefore urge the Government to take these questions into serious consideration.
Chairman, I so submit.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am going to speak on Amendment No 180, which is related to subhead 000 of head 60 and seeks to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the emoluments for the Director of Highways for six months.
Chairman, with regard to the construction project of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL), the Neo Democrats considers that the Highways Department headed by LAU Ka-keung, the Director of Highways, was lax in monitoring the project and has covered up delay in the construction progress. In brief, it was a dereliction of duty. Chairman, the 10000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
SAR Government officially signed an agreement with the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) in January 2010 to entrust the MTRCL to construct the Hong Kong Section of the XRL with a total length of 26 km at the original agreed price of HK$65 billion. In terms of the average cost of construction per kilometre, it is the most expensive railway in the world. According to the agreement, it is originally expected that the XRL project will be completed on 4 August this year, which means we only have three months to go when compared with the original target completion date. In 2010, the SAR Government defied the strong opposition from the public and pushed ahead with the XRL project. In fact, the Government was lax in monitoring the XRL project as well. Now, the XRL project has incurred a cost overrun and delays while the Government may shelve the "co-location of immigration and customs facilities" as it involves complex constitutional and legal issues. Perhaps the XRL, which costs a substantial amount of public money, will merely turn into an ordinary through train railway.
The Highways Department (HyD) under the Transport and Housing Bureau is responsible for the direct implementation and monitoring of the XRL project. The Director of Highways, LAU Ka-keung, assumed office in October 2010 when the construction of the XRL project had commenced for a few months. He should be one of those government officials who are most well versed in the details of the construction of the XRL project. However, there was dereliction of duty on his part. In May 2013, three years after to the commencement of the project, it was concurrently reported by two newspapers with a high circulation that the completion of the XRL project would be delayed for at least one year and it was estimated that there would be a cost overrun of over HK$4 billion. At that time, the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Prof Anthony CHEUNG, made a public statement immediately to refute the media reports and asserted that the XRL project would be completed on schedule and within budget. It came as a relief for Hong Kong people to note that there was finally a major infrastructure project which could be completed within budget and on schedule. However, one year later, the MTRCL suddenly announced on 15 April 2014 that the completion date of the XRL project would be extended to 2017, which provoked a public outcry. Chairman, the problem is more than just one of project delay as it reflected that the Highways Department headed by LAU Ka-keung, the Director of Highways, was lax in monitoring the construction progress of the XRL project and has blindly trusted the MTRCL. Not only did he deceive the senior government officials, he also misled Hong Kong people, the Legislative Council and the media.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10001
Chairman, to begin with, although the HyD noticed delays in the XRL project as early as the moment when the XRL project had commenced for a short period of time, it did not give the public an account of the delay. According to the relevant information, four major contracts experienced various degrees of delay one after another subsequent to the commencement of the XRL project. At that time, Jacobs China Limited, the monitoring and verification consultant (M&V consultant) appointed by the Government, repeatedly reported the delays in various contracts of the XRL project in its monthly reports submitted to the HyD. Since December 2011, about a year after the commencement of the XRL project, the M&V consultant already noticed that certain construction contracts might incur delays in the XRL project and it had alerted the HyD on a number of occasions. In March 2012, about two years after the commencement of the XRL project, the M&V consultant further stated that there was no sign that the situation of delays would improve while the delay recovery measures implemented by the MTRCL did not have any meaningful impact. Nonetheless, what did the HyD do? It repeatedly believed the undertaking given by the MTRCL in public that the XRL project would be completed on schedule. Not only did it fail to timely inform the Legislative Council and the public that the XRL project might be delayed, it also failed to further implement effective monitoring measures to press the MTRCL to honour the undertaking and complete the project on schedule.
Chairman, not only did the HyD fail to give the public an account of the delays, it also failed to timely report to the Transport and Housing Bureau on the delays in the XRL project. It is stipulated that the Director of Highways is obliged to make monthly reports to the Secretary for Transport and Housing and the Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing (Transport) on the construction of the Hong Kong Section of the XRL project. However, the three-person expert panel chaired by Mr Justice Michael HARTMANN published its report in December 2014 which criticized that the briefing notes provided by the HyD before October 2013 did not report to the Transport and Housing Bureau on the delays in the completion date of the XRL project. This is why Prof Anthony CHEUNG made a public statement in May 2013 to completely deny that the XRL project would be delayed. In July 2013, two months after Prof Anthony CHEUNG had denied the rumour of delays in the XRL project, the M&V consultant further stated that the estimated completion date might be delayed for approximately 11 months, meaning that it might be delayed to July 2016. Although the M&V consultant had specifically calculated the duration of delay, the HyD neither required the MTRCL to conduct an in-depth review of the progress of the XRL project nor informed the public immediately to clarify the 10002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 previous remarks given by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Prof Anthony CHEUNG, who assertively denied that the XRL project would be delayed.
Chairman, subsequently, at the meeting of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways of the Legislative Council on 22 November 2013, the HyD also dodged questions about delays in the XRL project raised by Legislative Council Members. The Transport and Housing Bureau submitted the seventh half-yearly report on the construction of the XRL project to the Legislative Council at that meeting. In the last paragraph of this report, it was reiterated that the Government would "ensure that it is within the approved budget and will be completed as scheduled with high quality".
Although Director of Highways LAU Ka-keung also attended the meeting of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways on that day, he did not mention that the HyD had noticed long ago that the construction project was impeded as a large amount of rocks were found at the West Kowloon Terminus of the XRL. In October of the same year, the MTRCL even reported to the HyD on its own initiative that there were delays in the XRL project and the XRL could only commence operation partially. However, Director of Highways LAU Ka-keung also failed to report such a problem at the meeting of the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways of the Legislative Council. As the problem could no longer be covered up, the MTRCL eventually announced that the XRL project would be delayed. The report compiled by the independent expert panel has clearly disclosed time and again that there might be dereliction of duty on the part of the HyD in terms of monitoring the execution of works carried out by the MTRCL and the HyD had covered up the problem of delays. Yet, Director of Highways LAU Ka-keung attempted to give some lame arguments and shirk his responsibilities.
At the meeting of the Select Committee to Inquire into the Background of and Reasons for the Delay of the Construction of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link on 24 March this year (2015), I criticized Director of Highways LAU Ka-keung for failing to inform the public in a timely manner that the XRL project might be delayed for 11 months. Yet, how did he respond to my remarks on that day? He said that falling behind schedule was not the same as incurring a delay. He even stated that as, at that time, they still had two and a half years before the target completion date of 2015, he personally considered that the MTRCL should be given an opportunity to recover the delay. Therefore, at that moment, he could not assert that it would definitely be impossible to complete the project by 2015.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10003
I consider the reply given by Director of Highways LAU Ka-keung simply unfounded. At the meeting that day, when some Members asked Director of Highways LAU Ka-keung why he asserted that the MTRCL could recover the delay, he did not give any direct reply. Taking into account the performance of the MTRCL on carrying out the XRL project, the M&V consultant appointed by the Government has repeatedly issued alerts on possible delays to the HyD. The M&V consultant also pointed out that the delay recovery measures implemented by the MTRCL did not have any meaningful impact.
Given that the MTRCL has a poor record in carrying out the XRL project, Director of Highways LAU Ka-keung actually formed a subjective, unscientific, unfounded and wrong judgment to blindly trust that the MTRCL could recover the delay. I think it was a professional misjudgment. Worse still, when LAU Ka-keung learnt from the consultant that the XRL project might be delayed for 11 months, he did not require the MTRCL to conduct an in-depth review of the progress of the Hong Kong Section of the XRL project. I therefore firmly determined that Director of Highways LAU Ka-keung had blindly trusted the MTRCL in an irresponsible manner. It was absolutely ridiculous for LAU Ka-keung, who blindly trusted the MTRCL, to withhold information about the delay from the Transport and Housing Bureau as well as the public.
Chairman, the Highways Department headed by LAU Ka-keung, especially the Railway Development Office which is a department dedicated to implementing railway projects, failed to grasp updated information about the XRL project by its own means. Instead, it relied on the MTRCL for providing information which it blindly trusted. As a result, the Government, the Legislative Council and the public were all kept in the dark. Eventually, it gave rise to the big scandal that the XRL project would be delayed with a serious cost overrun. From the news reports today, we know that the cost overrun may be as high as 40% to 50%, which may amount to $90 billion or even $100 billion. It will be wasting a substantial amount of public money. After it was disclosed that there was dereliction of duty on the part of the Director of Highways, LAU Ka-keung, he made an excuse of "falling behind schedule was not the same as incurring a delay" to hide the fact that he had knowingly withheld the truth. Therefore, he should be held accountable for his own conduct.
Chairman, apart from the problem of the HyD being lax in monitoring the XRL project, all of the other four railway projects undertaken by the MTRCL, including the Shatin to Central Link, West Island Line, South Island Line and the 10004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Kwun Tong Line Extension, are delayed as well. Due to pressure, Director of Highways LAU Ka-keung recently stated that in regard to the delay in the XRL project, the Government would reserve the right to hold the MTRCL responsible. Nonetheless, how will the Government handle the other four railway projects which are all delayed? As I see it, the HyD is not prepared to review the problem of all construction projects undertaken by the MTRCL having incurred delays. Therefore, to express our dissatisfaction with the Director of Highways, I have proposed this amendment to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the emoluments for the Director of Highways for six months as a punishment, especially because the HyD was lax in monitoring the XRL project and, as a result, our public money and taxes paid by Hong Kong people were spent on the most expensive and largest railway project without achieving any meaningful result. Chairman, I have therefore proposed this amendment.
Chairman, I so submit.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, it is a difficult decision to make. In fact, I very much want to follow up the issues raised by Mr Gary FAN on the construction cost, delay and cost overrun of the XRL, but I must first speak on the amendment proposed by me. So, regarding the follow-up on the XRL, I will express my views when I speak for the third time.
Chairman, I now speak on the expenditure under subhead 700 of head 44. The amount of commitment under this item for this year is very small, and I have proposed a reduction of $100,000 only. However, after a few years, the total commitment of this item will build up to $40 million, which is used for the provision of subsidy to operators under the Restored Landfill Revitalization Funding Scheme.
Let me first talk about the relevant background. At the special meeting of the Finance Committee, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan asked a question, to which the reply is EMB105, about the operational details for providing subsidy to operators under the Restored Landfill Revitalization Funding Scheme. In fact, the Government has earmarked $1 billion for the project as a whole for revitalizing restored landfills. As restored landfills are not suitable for the construction of high rises, the sites are zoned for recreation and cultural purposes. Since the underneath of these landfills are all waste, buildings erected on them are prone to experience LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10005 settlement, so these sites cannot carry heavy loads. If grass is grown on these landfills, the sites can be used for the construction of buildings of one storey or at most two storeys. Therefore, these sites are most suitably to be used for recreation purposes.
For this reason, the Government introduced the Scheme under discussion to invite the community and organizations to apply for participation in the development of these restored landfills. Some of the projects under the Revitalization Scheme have already commenced, and the second phase of the Scheme is under way. Six landfills have been processed in the first phase, including those in Gin Drinkers Bay, Jordan Valley, Ma Tso Lung, Ngau Chi Wan, Sai Tso Wan and Shuen Wan. These six landfills cover a total area of 114 hectares, yet the area available for use is only 34 hectares, which is around 30%. Why? It has been learnt that the slopes cannot be used.
If the usable area under the first phase of the Scheme is 30%, why would the usable area for the seven landfills under the second phase of the Scheme drop significantly? These seven landfills include Ma Yau Tong Central, Ma Yau Tong West, Ngau Tam Mei, Pillar Point Valley, Siu Lang Shui, Tseung Kwan O Stage I and Tseung Kwan O Stage II and III, covering an area of 206 hectares in total. Chairman, the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) only covers an area of 42 hectares, so 206 hectares will be equal to five WKCDs. This is the reason why we strongly oppose using landfills.
These landfills are originally stuffed with refuse, but after restoration, they can be used for other purposes. However, after calculation, only 20.5 hectares out of 206 hectares of land of the seven landfills can be usable. The slope area has been excluded as in the previous case, yet the ratio is 9:1 in this latter case. Despite the vast total area of 206 hectares, the usable area is only 10%. According to the calculation just mentioned, the usable area of landfills under the first phase of the Scheme is around 30%. If so, why will the usable area of landfills, excluding the slope area, under the second phase of the scheme be so small? The Government must tell us the reason.
In fact, it is utterly a waste to use land for landfills. The present situation is the worst case of wastage. Why is an area only equal to half of the WKCD, which is only 10%, out of the vast area equivalent to five WKCDs available for use? Regarding the whole incident, the authorities only submitted a relevant discussion paper to the Legislative Council in June 2014, without providing any 10006 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 further account. However, the authorities have now included the $100,000 expenditure in the Budget this year and requested this Council to pass it. This is an undesirable practice. Besides, this project does not only incur $100,000, it will incur $40 million in total.
How will the authorities spend the $40 million? Actually, we also need to know how the authorities will spend the $1 billion set aside. The authorities expect to provide to each qualified and approved organization a maximum sum of $100 million to carry out construction works for the revitalization project, including site investigation and consultancy, as well as the construction of some simple facilities, and so on. In other words, we are spending $100 million to build a recreational facility through the provision of subsidies to community organizations. This $100 million is not a small sum. Besides, these organizations have already stated that if they run into a deficit in the first and second year of operation, the Government will have to make up for the operational deficit. This point warrants great attention, and we should be extremely careful about this. The subsidy for operational deficits comes from the $40 million now under discussion. This year, the authorities only allocate as a start $100,000 for the expenditure incurred at the initial stage.
In fact, in this case, the authorities only made the funding application in last June and it has not yet answered the questions raised by Members. The authorities have now circumvented the Finance Committee to obtain funding to try to kick off the Scheme. Therefore, Chairman, we must propose the amendment. We have to raise the issue and put it on record. We have to ask the Environmental Bureau and the Environmental Protection Department (EPD) how they will handle the case. According to the existing target which I have mentioned earlier, restored landfills will mostly be zoned as green areas and for leisure and recreation purposes.
We think the problem lies not here. Rather it is why the EPD and the Environment Bureau are responsible for the project. The EPD will only scrutinize the applications in accordance with the Town Planning Ordinance and the relevant environmental protection laws, but this is not the designated use of those sites. Those sites are designated for use as leisure and recreational venues, and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) and the Home Affairs Bureau are experts in this aspect. However, from the paper, we can see that the two Bureaux do not have any communication. The Home Affairs Bureau and the LCSD do not have a role to play under the Scheme.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10007
Now, all the authority is vested in the Environment Bureau. However, the Environmental Bureau may not be competent in approving land use, granting short/medium to long term leases, issuing licenses and drafting and examining conditions of use in the future. For this reason, after the requirements and conditions for environmental protection have been laid down and the town planning procedures completed, the authorities should transfer the Scheme to the Home Affairs Bureau and the LCSD, so that they will continue with the land approval process and the drafting of the agreement on conditions of service. These issues should not be handled all by the Environment Bureau. However, as we observed, the two Policy Bureaux have no communication at all.
If a site is to be approved for sports and recreational use, should the site be used for elite sports training or sports for all? The Environment Bureau is naturally not well versed in this and it will have to consult the LCSD. Yet how will the screening of applications be conducted? Will the authorities repeat the big mistake of granting the site to a private recreation club at a nominal premium? Will it provide a subsidy of close to $100 million to the applicant for the construction of facilities, as in the present case, but the facilities turn out to be private entertainment venues of certain clubs or sport clubs? Worse still, will the venue be used for profit-making purposes, as in the case of the United Services Recreation Club, about which the authorities can do nothing? I thus urge the executive to require the two Policy Bureaux to work in co-operation and learn from the painful experience of granting sites to elite private recreation clubs at nominal premium. It should examine the conditions of grant and service agreements carefully to ensure that the venues are open to public use for sufficient durations.
In fact, we have passed a motion at the relevant panel, for we consider it more desirable to relocate private recreation clubs located in prime lots in urban areas to the restored landfills. We have been following up this issue since the previous term. These private recreation clubs which cover vast areas are paying rents ranging from $1 to $1,000. Besides, they adopt a closed-door policy by restricting access to their members only. Even if schools or members of the public apply for use of those venues, the time slots offered to them are extremely inconvenient. Moreover, the public do not know that they can use those venues. When it comes to the recovery of those venues, we consider it appropriate to recover the cricket clubs in Austin Road and Wong Nai Chung Road, as well as the United Services Recreation Club in Ho Man Tin. Since these clubs are located in prime lots, the authorities should recover those sites and grant the sites at restored landfills to them, for there will be adequate space. Why can the authorities not do so?
10008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Chairman, we have to ask another question. How will the applications of those organizations be examined and approved? As I mentioned earlier, according to the information provided by the Government, these sites should be used as green areas, and for leisure and recreation purposes. However, when we checked the organizations which the authorities have offered site visits in preparation for future applications, we found that all kinds of organizations are involved, including the Confucian Academy, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Professional Power of Tseung Kwan O and the Tseung Kwan O Women's Association. As for the Women's Association, no information can be provided for the Government to examine in what kind of work the organization is engaged. Moreover, the list also includes a number of private companies which names include the word "Green". We know merely from the surface that they may be engaged in greening or waste recovery work.
However, according to the information provided by the Government, those sites are approved for use as green areas or for leisure and recreation purposes, so why would organizations of various natures pay site visits to those sites? How will the approval of sites be granted in the future? Will a site be granted to one of the companies called the Green Delta Resources Company Limited? The information provided on the company only indicates that it is a company operating a business in Hong Kong. What does that mean? Will the sites eventually be used for greening and leisure purposes? No information is provided for another company called the Sum Art New-Tech Ltd.
In fact, the authorities have not been subject to any supervision, and this approach has already deviated from the purpose of recreational use as the authorities declared. It is stated in the paper that the authorities may still grant $100 million to these approved organizations for site investigation and construction on restored landfills. Why? If the successful applicant is a private company, why should it be given such concessionary terms? Moreover, according to the authorities' proposal of earmarking $40 million for the Scheme, these companies will receive a subsidy for their loss if they run into a deficit in operation.
Furthermore, Chairman, the authorities have now bundled up these funding applications with the Budget and submitted them to the Legislative Council for approval. There is a significant problem with this practice. Besides, the Government has no intention to answer the questions raised by Members. As I mentioned earlier today, I do not know whether Secretary Prof Anthony LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10009
CHEUNG is jotting notes now, and I do not know how he will convey the message to the Secretary for the Environment or officials from the EPD and ask them to answer these questions concerning practical and concrete issues. Otherwise, our resources will be misused again.
In fact, I trust that in the legislature of a normal society, when such an expenditure is bundled up with the Budget of hundreds of billion dollars, Members will not vote against the Budget merely because of the $100,000 mentioned. Regrettably, the Government is actually playing the smart guy through the backdoor, trying to circumvent monitoring by the legislature with this confusing approach and refusing to provide further information to Members. Therefore, Chairman, I urge Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG to send an SMS to Secretary WONG Kam-sing to ask him to respond to the land approval work concerning restored landfills under subhead 700 and another amendment which I have mentioned earlier and give specific replies to the questions raised by us. Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Is Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung present?
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung was not present)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The three Members waiting to speak are not here in …
(Ms Cyd HO indicated her wish to speak)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO, you may speak now.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, concerning the cost overrun of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL), I will respond to the speeches made earlier by Mr Gary FAN and several other Members as fast as I can.
With regard to the XRL project, under the pressure exerted by the pro-establishment camp, questions that should have been asked in the Finance Committee were not put forward. In the end, Members were given only one 10010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 minute to speak and while questions were asked and answers given, we actually did not ask all the questions we had to ask. At that special meeting of the Finance Committee, a Member of the last-term Legislative Council, Andrew CHENG ― fortunately he attended the meeting ― requested the then Secretary, Eva CHENG, to provide the information. We managed to obtain the information of two inches thick on the planning of roads in the vicinity of the XRL Terminus in the Yau Tsim Mong District. It was during a meeting of the Finance Committee that we obtained the information. At first, the Administration refused to provide the information, claiming that classified documents were included and that they could only provide one set of information to our Library for Members' reference. The documents were very thick and mostly comprised of plans. We demanded that each Member be provided with one set of information, but while the authorities do not bother to observe environmental principles when they should, they resolutely refused to provide the relevant information on the pretext of protecting the environment. We eventually obtained the information on road planning in the Yau Tsim Mong District and found that many tunnels and flyovers in connection with the XRL Terminus had been placed under the development of road networks for the entire district. These projects were claimed to be not related to the XRL and worse still, they were said to be related to the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD). But even the WKCD has incurred a cost overrun now, and the authorities subsequently placed these projects under the district as a whole in an attempt to shirk responsibilities.
Now, the cat has come out of the bag at last. A cost overrun of $67 billion is incurred in the construction of the XRL, and there is even the breaking news today that the cost overrun may reach $90 billion. I wish to ask Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG this: For this differential of $30 billion in the cost overrun, where will the money come from? I am afraid it could be more than $30 billion, and I wonder for how many years the salaries of the entire team of senior officials of the SAR Government have to be cut in order to make up for that $30 billion. Moreover, the XRL project was bulldozed through this Council at the outset. When its funding was approved, the Mainland was pressing ahead at full steam with the construction of the high speed rail with the aim of developing the so-called "three horizontal and three vertical" railway routes in the form of a square grid to truly connect many major cities in the Mainland and develop it into an easily accessible railway network. But shortly afterwards, senior officials in the Ministry of Railways were subject to "investigations at the prescribed time and place"; and frequent occurrence of incidents relating to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10011 high speed rail and accidents caused by overtaking collisions in the Mainland have cast doubts on the safety of the high speed rail. Besides, the ridership of the high speed rail is lower than that as expected, and the same can also happen in Hong Kong. In the publicity on the XRL back then, the idea of a "three-hour living circle" was promoted, and in fact, travelling is very convenient nowadays. For Hong Kong people who wish to travel by the high speed rail, there may not be a big difference in the time required between travelling to Futian to take a high speed train there and taking a train at the West Kowloon Terminus. This so-called express rail link is a fake because its speed is not high at all. It actually runs at a low speed as it has to slow down once entering Hong Kong territory. Moreover, we are all concerned about the legal and even constitutional issues relating to the co-location of boundary control facilities, and from Secretary Eva CHENG to Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, there has yet been an answer and the issues have yet been properly dealt with.
Chairman, under such undesirable circumstances, should Hong Kong choose to endure short-term pain to avoid prolonged agony by taking a "stop-loss" approach and halting the construction of the XRL? After all, the Government has been carrying out consultation and engineering studies to explore the feasibility of developing underground shopping centres in downtown areas. For instance, the Government has commissioned a consultancy study on Causeway Bay and planned to designate certain underground space in Kowloon for the development of underground shopping malls. In fact, the location of the West Kowloon Terminus of the XRL is very good. We should think about this: Since there are so many uncertainties and unresolved problems, for those places where excavation works are already in progress, should they be used for developing underground shopping malls instead? These places should be put to this use as much as they are available because if excavation works continue and as no one knows whether these sites are made up of soft soil or granite, I do not know whether we should blame the ground for being too hard or too soft once problems arise. I do think that there is a very great chance of mistakes being made in assessing the ridership, and when $90 billion may not be the final construction cost, the Government should immediately consider whether a "stop-loss" approach should be adopted and convert the land use. In fact, we must solemnly and seriously discuss this issue. I am not saying that it will definitely be better than what is before us now if the Government ultimately adopts this approach, but at least we should start exploring this option. As a matter of fact, the geological conditions of Hong Kong are very complicated. For example, during the development of the new towers of Kwun Lung Lau in the 10012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
Central and Western District, the site was found to present mixed ground conditions which could be likened to a vertical sandwich with alternate layers of soft soil and granite. There is also a precedent in Kowloon. During the construction of a sewage tunnel, given that the boreholes were not closely-spaced enough in carrying out the investigation works, the existence of a wide layer of hard granite was not discovered. In fact, as lessons can be drawn from these examples, why did the Government not carry out investigations at that driving range when investigations were being done at the West Kowloon Terminus, thus resulting in such a serious problem now?
Let us come back to the tragic experience of that sewage tunnel. The Government was then engaged in a lawsuit with the contractor and lost the case in the end, and the Government even had to seek funding from the Finance Committee for paying compensation and the legal costs. So, in view of the current situation, Members may ask ― the reporters outside this Chamber are already asking this question ― if, one day, the Government is engaged in a lawsuit with the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), what will happen to us then? I think that would really be a rip-off, and Hong Kong people would be ripped off the most. Whether the Government wins or loses, payments would have to be made from the Treasury whereas the MTRCL has this major shareholder in the Government. Disregarding whether the MTRCL would win or lose, apart from the Government having to pay a large sum of money all the same, the small shareholders would also be plunged into misery. For those people who think that buying such stocks as the MTRCL which do not fluctuate greatly will enable them to support their living in their old age with the dividends received, they would have to join the Government in "hitting its right hand with its left hand". In fact, disregarding who is going to make compensation to whoever, both the taxpayers and small shareholders would suffer a loss in the final analysis. Therefore, if there is any issue that needs to be discussed and settled between the Government and the MTRCL, it is definitely not an option to go to the Court. Moreover, the Board of the MTRCL is comprised of some senior officials. Why did they fail to realize early that the works were making slow progress? Why did they fail to discover the problems early and propose solutions?
Therefore, Chairman, with regard to the construction of the XRL, firstly, we should seriously consider whether we should "stop losses" by changing the use of the excavated space. We definitely have to think about this and look into the feasibility of other options. Second, we must never rip off the taxpayers by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10013 going to the Court at the expense of taxpayers' money. If a lawsuit should really be instituted and coupled with such a huge cost overrun, even if $10,000 is handed out to each person every year, it still may not be enough to make up for their loss. Thank you, Chairman.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have originally proposed a lot of amendments but thanks to you, Chairman, there is no amendment proposed by me in this session. This is why I am once again deprived of an opportunity to speak, that is, to make a concluding speech in this session. But never mind, I will endure humiliation in order to discharge an important duty.
I have talked about issues relating to land and housing. Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG is in the Chamber now but Secretary Paul CHAN is not. I am seeking to deduct his salary but he is not in the Chamber now. However, Chairman, a reporter outside this Chamber asked for my views on the case concerning Secretary Paul CHAN, and I wish to say a few words here. Secretary Paul CHAN has officially said that the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) would not press charges against him and I was asked to give my views on this. I said that these affairs of the ICAC are not my business for they are the responsibilities of Maria TAM. Maria TAM is the chairman of the committee appointed by the Government to oversee the prosecutions of the ICAC. I, therefore, told the reporter to ask Maria TAM why no prosecution would be instituted. Turning back to the kernel of the question, I must say that this is not a question about deduction of his salary. I remember that when Secretary Paul CHAN was called such names as "Land-hoarding Paul" and "Sub-divided-units Paul", many Members said that as investigations were being conducted by other departments, it was inappropriate to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privilege) Ordinance (P&P Ordinance) to conduct an inquiry. Now, when it comes to criminal liability for which the ICAC plays a gate-keeping role, it is certainly under the purview of the ICAC, but on the question of whether a Director of Bureau who is in dereliction of duty is suitable for taking up the office of a Director of Bureau, it should be handled by the Legislative Council. I think that instead of pursuing his responsibilities over other issues in the Legislative Council, we had better put questions to him on the incident in which he is dubbed "Sub-divided-units Paul". I wonder what the pro-establishment Members of this Council will say about this. But they have 10014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 said that the P&P Ordinance should be invoked to inquire into my alleged acceptance of donations from Jimmy LAI. This is really strange, for they are applying double standards.
Simple enough, let me now come back to the Land Resumption Ordinance and Article 105 of the Basic Law, because the Chief Executive said that it would be a big problem if the people do not have houses to live in and so, it is necessary to identify land. Actually we have created a lot of land because whenever there is a large-scale project, a piece of land is created adjacent to it, like an artificial island ― such as the artificial island at the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ― and these are reclamation works carried out at exorbitant costs and in detriment to the ecology. This is unnecessary and pointless, because there are really countless sites that the Government could have secured. For example, the clubs mentioned by Ms Cyd HO just now. Why can they occupy such a vast expanse of land for a long time at a cost of $1 or $1,000 without informing those people who are entitled to enjoying such sites under the relevant ordinance? Or, irregular arrangements are made for people intent on using these sites, such that their usage of the sites becomes difficult or such sites are open for use only during odd hours, and so on, resulting in a large amount of valuable land being wasted. This is one point, which is unreasonable. Why should we have to damage the ecology and expend huge sums of money on reclamation?
Another problem is that many of these people who are having fun in these clubs are hoarding land. In other words, they have been hoarding land everywhere in North East New Territories by various means, waiting for the reprovisioning arrangements for such hoarded land. It is because the Government has changed the policy on new towns. Even though these people have bought the land, they cannot obtain the so-called letter of exchange and so, they can only leave their land vacant while waiting for "rescue" because the old policy on new towns no longer applies now. Now that LEUNG Chun-ying has come to their rescue by putting forward the North East New Territories (NENT) development project. As I already talked about this in the previous session, I am not going to explain any further how he acted perversely in allocating only 5% of land from the NENT development project to development of public housing. I am not going to talk about this for the time being because I have already given an account of it. Even though he is not in the Chamber now, I will not play foul in his absence. My question is: While we have made painstaking efforts, wasted much manpower and resources, and destroyed the natural environment to make land, why does the Government not fulfil its duties by resuming land which is readily available?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10015
First, let us not count the land that I mentioned just now, and let us not count the golf course either. Chairman, you should understand that the Land Resumption Ordinance is an "imperial sword" of the Urban Renewal Authority for the resumption of land. It is a sword which kills self-indulgent rulers and malicious state officials, a most impregnable tool. We can invoke the Land Resumption Ordinance to deal with the NENT development or similar land developments. Besides, as LEUNG Chun-ying has said that housing development is of overriding importance, this is certainly a major public interest and should be endorsed by the Chief Executive. If the Government resumes land on this basis and makes compensation at market price under Article 105 of the Basic Law, those sites are actually inexpensive. For this large number of idle sites, why did the Government not resume them in this way? Why did Secretary Paul CHAN not suggest their resumption in this way? Since the Secretary for Transport and Housing is distressed by the failure of the Secretary for Development to identify land for him, why did the two Directors of Bureaux not join hands to suggest to the Chief Executive or the Executive Council that the Land Resumption Ordinance and Article 105 of the Basic Law be invoked in order to solve the problems?
In fact, LEUNG Chun-ying said in 1997 to the effect that housing is like the shell to a snail; if not even their shells are provided with protection, this is almost like oppression from the Government which would only lead to a rebellion by the people; and if the people's demand for housing cannot be addressed, this would cause great upheavals in society. He made these remarks at that time. May I ask the two Directors of Bureaux why they do not adopt this approach for developing land? Why is it that for the land that they have obtained after spending so many public coffers and abandoning the proper path, only a small amount of it is allocated to development of public housing? This is a grave dereliction of duty. Therefore, I am duty-bound to propose the deduction of the salaries of the Secretary for Development and the Secretary for Transport and Housing, and it is also reasonable for me to do so.
Insofar as this issue is concerned, it is not true that Members of this Council know nothing about it. Take public rental housing (PRH) as an example. As Members all know, there is a footage on the website of Oriental Daily News, "on.cc", about a woman hurling abuses at me and swearing at me for occupying a PRH unit. In this Chamber many Members have also attacked me for the same matter, chiding me for occupying a PRH unit. As I have said before, the Housing Department has objective criteria in carrying out 10016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 investigations. I have contributed money to other social movements and this is considered an expenditure, and as I have spent the money and have no assets, I can be considered a so-called well-off tenant. This is the reason, and Members should stop making this allegation.
On the contrary, I have found out that many grass-roots Members have made a fortune and taken up residence in luxurious residential flats after becoming a Member of this Council, such as Mr WONG Kwok-hing, who has the means to make a one-off payment of more than $5 million to buy a residential flat in a few years' time. How generous he is in buying a flat at over $5 million, right? His living has been improved but there has not been any improvement for those people whom he has vowed to help.
Let me cite a simple example. With regard to the ordinance governing the rent increase of PRH units, Members should do some soul-searching. The pro-establishment Members of this Council supported the amendment introduced by the Government to the Housing Ordinance to replace the 10% median rent-to-income ratio with a system that provides for upward or downward rent adjustment. This Secretary has not done any soul-searching. Since the pro-establishment camp supported the abolition of this mechanism for rent protection, the rent of PRH units increased by an average of 26% between 2012 and 2014. Everyone attacked me, saying that I was making the situation of Hong Kong people worse. My position was that the Ordinance must not be amended, just that I was defeated in the vote. This is another instance of "discharging black excrement after taking pig's blood" ― Mr CHAN Kam-lam is in the Chamber ― On 27 June 1997 he vociferously stated his opposition to the Government's proposal of amending this Ordinance. What did he say at the time? He said that the DAB is of the view that the average MRIR should not be higher than 10%. This was what he said. Why did he say this at one time but say a different thing at another? This was what you said back then, and I am only asking you why you said different things at different times, buddy. You can answer this yourself, and I will definitely let you give an answer later. In fact, you have already answered … What? He interrupted me …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please address your speech to the Chairman.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10017
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): OK. Mr CHAN Kam-lam, you can rise to speak in response and that would be fine for me. I have never wronged anybody, and he can give a reply anytime. There are other examples of people whose position has changed. For instance, some years later, a Mr WONG Kwok-hing who always criticizes me also expressed his support. In other words, after Mr CHAN Kam-lam had said that changes should be made, which contradicted his previous remarks, Mr WONG Kwok-hing again did not voice any opposition, and they are indeed a legendary duo …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have strayed from the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Right, Chairman. I am exercising my discretion to consider whether or not the Secretary's salary should be deducted. Is it that "men are pigs" or "pigs are men"? Because without these Members, there would not be such a Government. There is no way for me to deduct the salary of Mr CHAN Kam-lam; nor can I deduct Mr WONG Kwok-hing's. So, I would like to do justice to the Secretary, and will the Secretary please give a reply as to whether he had heeded the view of Members or vice versa? The Secretary should really explain this later.
Insofar as this problem is concerned, the PRH tenants have suffered great losses. Given that the Secretary has not done his utmost to work for Hong Kong people, and in other words, when the Housing Authority (HA) ― Chairman, you must understand this. Why do I have to hold him accountable? Because the HA is, after all, an authority, which means that it is independent. When the HA said that it is short of funds, what should the Secretary do in response? Should the HA be provided with funding, so as to provide rent protection for PRH tenants and prevent the rent from increasing to too high a level which is beyond the tenants' affordability, just as Mr CHAN Kam-lam has said, or should it not be provided with funding? This has nothing to do with Mr CHAN Kam-lam, for this is their problem. The HA is short of funds, and the Government is caught in the middle. Should the Government provide subsidies to the HA, or should it be so forward-looking as to envisage that this is actually just a temporary phenomenon and that the labour sector in Hong Kong will make more earnings in tandem with the economic recovery and so, the HA's finances should be able to sustain its operation? Or is this not the view of the Government? But this is not what we have seen, as the Government has been messing around. Besides, 10018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 on the sale of assets to The Link REIT, the Government had again led the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress in Hong Kong (DAB) to cast a wrong vote because they heard the Government say that it was short of funds and when it was short of funds, there was no alternative but to sell the assets. On this issue, I still cannot clearly sort out …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, the more I have listened, the more I think that your speech has nothing to do with the incumbent Secretary.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It is related to him. Why has he not conducted a review? Now that even those Members who agreed to the sale have regretted what they did. If you do not believe it, you can ask the DAB. Regarding this mechanism which provides for upward or downward adjustment of PRH rent, there is no reason that the rent has only been adjusted upward (The buzzer sounded) … If he does not conduct a review …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up in this session.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will continue to speak on Amendment No 584. Now the Secretary is present. But earlier on, when I talked about transport, especially the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL), the Secretary was not here. I will repeat it once here. Originally …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, the absence of the Secretary when you spoke earlier on is not a reason for you to repeat the contents of your earlier speech. Please do not repeat your arguments.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am going to put forward some new viewpoints. Chairman, I will make no repetition. At present, the whole transport policy covering the XRL, Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) and a third runway at the airport in the future can be considered a time bomb LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10019 ready to explode. Secretary, there may be things beyond your control because a number of decisions were made well before your assumption of office, especially the XRL and HZMB, but the decision on the third runway was surely made in your term of office. Nevertheless, these decisions have not only thrown Hong Kong people into a predicament, including financial difficulty, but will also lead to cumbersome realistic issues in the future.
Now the XRL cannot be completed as scheduled. The validity of the cost overrun estimated at $90 billion is to be clarified by the Government, including the Secretary. In the end, it may be more or less than $90 billion. But all of these have caused the public to think over again and again why the Government could forcibly proceed with this project against all suspicion and opposition. Seeing how the HZMB or XRL ends up, how can we believe with our mind at ease that the future third runway can be spared of the trouble? As we all know, there is still no way to resolve issues related to the third runway, in particular, the crucial problem of airspace.
The Airport Authority Hong Kong's statement at today's press conference that the aircraft movements will reach the maximum capacity of 68 air traffic movements (ATMs) per hour at the end of this year is actually untruthful. In 1992, when this Council (the then Legislative Council) studied or passed the new airport proposal, it was clearly stated in the report that the maximum capacity was 82 ATMs per hour. And it is believed that the failure of aircraft movements to reach 82 ATMs is largely due to the problem of air wall or airspace. But this problem has so far remained unclear, and the Government has also failed to provide convincing papers or agreements to allay public worries.
Earlier on, I mentioned that to a wide spectrum of people of Hong Kong, housing was a rather serious issue which was hard to resolve, be they the most pitiful group living in "sub-divided industrial building units" or "sub-divided units", those living in the better-equipped public housing or Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats, or the more fortunate ones living in private housing. According to the latest House Price to Income Ratios covering 378 cities worldwide released by Demographia, a research firm in the United States, that is, the number of years of work it may take to acquire a residential property, the situation in Hong Kong is the worst in the world. In 2014, our rating is 17, meaning that even if a person spends no money on food, accommodation or anything else in Hong Kong, he will be able to acquire a residential property only 10020 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 by using all of his income accumulated over a period of 17 years, which is a double of the 8.5 years ― a figure which is already unreasonable ― of London, one of the European cities with the highest property prices.
We may compare this situation with the pledges of the current-term Government. What did LEUNG Chun-ying say when he took office? He said (I quote) "Based upon an assessment of supply and demand in our long term housing strategy, we will appropriately increase the construction of public rental units". (End of quote) At the time before he was elected, he openly declared that 35 000 public rental housing (PRH) units would be constructed. But according to the latest report of the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee (Steering Committee), the housing target for the next decade will be maintained at 290 000 units, comprising 200 000 PRH units and 90 000 subsidized sale flats, commonly known as HOS flats or HKHS flats. This is already too much. This failure to meet targets has shocked members of the public. But what we find even more unacceptable is that, as revealed by the report of the Audit Commission, only 180 000 PRH units can be built by 2021, indicating that far from improvement, the situation of failing to meet targets will get increasingly worse.
LEUNG Chun-ying has also mentioned in his housing policy that between 2012 and 2016, in addition to the 75 000 units as announced, he will also bring forward the completion of 35 000 flats of the said target for one year. However, this is apparently a lie. There is no concrete achievement nor early completion in reality. It is not known how many years people on the Waiting List have to be kept waiting before they can be allocated housing. He has also proposed in his Manifesto to shorten the waiting period for non-elderly single applicants. As we see from the report of the Steering Committee, it is proposed that the annual allocation quota for non-elderly one-person applicants be increased from 2 000 to 2 200. This is really awesome. But according to the Audit Report, by 2020, the waiting time for PRH units will be extended from 2.9 years to 4.6 years. The situation will only get increasingly worse. In fact, the Government's existing pledge of PRH flat allocation in three years is also a lie. The Secretary was formerly a scholar. I do not quite understand why he can put up with the Government's repeated lies.
Members may learn about the situation from the figures. At present, the number of applicants on the General Waiting List (that is, one of the focuses of the Housing Authority) is 117 000. Together with other non-family applicants, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10021 including those waiting for one-person flats or cases with family members not meeting the seven-year residence requirement, the total number of applicants is more than 220 000. As shown by the figures, in the past year, for example, a total of 14 057 units were completed in 2013-2014, while the number dropped to a mere 9 900 flats in 2014-2015. Come to think about this, and if we adopt a simple calculation method, if the completion remains at the current level by the time the current-term Government completes its term in 2017, only after 15 years can we resolve the situation in which there are some 200 000 family applicants on the existing Waiting List. Apart from the more than 220 000 applicants on the Waiting List today, we have yet to calculate the additional applicants each year in the coming five or 10 years.
In fact, the standard of PRH flat allocation in three years is filled with "inflation" factors and deceptive to members of the public. For those special cases in which a flat is allocated in three years, what kind of flats are they? They include flats facing refuse storage chambers, inauspicious houses and flats with a record of bloodshed or debt collection. If an applicant allocated a flat eventually opts to give it up, the target of flat allocation in three years will also be considered met. Chairman, everyone should have empathy. Just imagine, if some people are allocated inauspicious houses, PRH estate units facing refuse storage chambers or those that basically no one wants, the majority of people would rather make the painful decision of continued waiting unless under difficult or exceptional circumstances. They, who do not ask for much, will think that now they are allocated a flat within three years. Given the pledge of flat allocation in three years, they may be allocated a better one after they have opted to give them up.
Nevertheless, in order to be allocated a flat, actually their eventual waiting period is invariably as long as seven years. And under certain circumstances, the wait may even be longer. The Housing Department (HD) keeps saying that some people have been allocated a flat within three years, in defiance of the fact actually. Has the Steering Committee increased production or is it just playing with figures? Donald TSANG of the last-term Government pledged in his last Policy Address that a total of 75 000 PRH units would be completed in the next five years between 2011 and 2016, which meant an average of 15 000 units each year. Also, the resumption of HOS construction was announced in 2011 to provide 17 000 flats over four years from 2016-2017 onwards.
10022 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015
According to the figures provided by the current-term Government in its reply to a question from the Legislative Council dated 19 June 2013, the number of units which could be completed by the HD was exactly 17 000, and the units to be completed in 2016-2017, including those located in Sha Tin, Tsuen Wan, Kwai Tsing and Yuen Long, totalled 2 100. These figures are exactly the same as those claimed by the last-term Government. What does it imply? It implies that they are empty words, and the pledge is simply deceptive. Both Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG and LEUNG Chun-ying of the current-term Government are just working on the production targets passed down by the last-term Government. At that time, they misled the public with these figures, including a pledge to increase the supply of flats and PRH units. They even indicated that the completion of 35 000 flats could be brought forward for one year. In fact, all of these are just casual remarks.
What we feel most detestable is that LEUNG Chun-ying often talks about the existing living space of PRH units, and even points out that all Hong Kong people are facing the problem of cramped living conditions. He has outlined a bright vision for us ― but Members are advised not to take it seriously ― saying that the size of PRH units or even private housing should increase in the future. He has made it his promise which serves to give expectations to Hong Kong people, but he does not really mean it. Although we have actually kept requesting the planning anew of the prescribed standard of allocation space, the Government is still bent on having its own way. Certainly, its reason is that an increase in size will only result in a larger number of people waiting for allocation of a flat. But why did the Government make such a remark? Why did it irresponsibly promise things that it was uncertain of or had no feasible proposal? Why does the Government have a habit of saying such things?
The situation of private housing is even more worrying to us. I know that everyone can increase their own living space, but the problem is how it should be done. Since the inauguration of the current-term Government, the price of some private housing units has increased by 30%, and depending on districts, the price of some units has seen a rise by more than 50%. This means that with the exception of those coming from a wealthy family or investors from the north with rolls of banknotes in their pocket who speculate in properties in Hong Kong, for a local employee contented with his lot, it is by no means easy to make his wish in 2012 come true, let alone increasing his living space. At the inauguration of the current-term Government in 2012, they might have generated thoughts of marriage and raising kids, hoping that they could acquire a small unit measuring LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 6 May 2015 10023 about 400 sq ft for their family. If they use the sum of money set aside back then to acquire a property today, it is highly likely that they can only buy a flat measuring 300 sq ft or even some 200 sq ft. Hence, this Government is just all talk but no action.
Another issue at which we express deep regret is the problem of "sub-divided units". The Government has conducted a comprehensive survey of "sub-divided units", and indicated that hygiene standards and long-term policies to solve the problem of "sub-divided units" should be formulated. However, compared with last year, the latest number of "sub-divided units" has increased by 30% to 86 400. Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has mentioned that the tight supply of "sub-divided units" and absence of new housing supply have rendered them unable to eradicate this problem easily. This issue has thus drawn our attention to the recent eviction that took place at the "sub-divided industrial building units" in Tsuen Wan. It appears that the occupants of "sub-divided industrial building units" have drawn flak from many, questioning why they have to jump the queue and live there illegally. Members may get deeper into the issue. If these residents or people have a choice, none of them will live in those "sub-divided units" inside an industrial building of terrible conditions, and risk their lives dwelling in a place where there are problems with fire escape. Given a choice, who will be willing to do that? Who force them to live in such "sub-divided industrial building units" the living conditions of which are so appalling? Certainly, the culprits are the housing policy failure, dishonoured pledges and irresponsible government officials. Hence, today we have no choice but to hold the Secretary accountable by depriving him of his full emoluments
I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 2.30 pm tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at 8.01 pm.