LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9385

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 8 June 2017

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

9386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG#

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

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

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9387

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

9388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, M.H., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE NATHAN LAW KWUN-CHUNG#

DR THE HONOURABLE YIU CHUNG-YIM#

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU SIU-LAI#

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9389

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

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

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

THE HONOURABLE ERIC MA SIU-CHEUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

9390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

MOTION UNDER ARTICLE 73(9) OF THE BASIC LAW

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 7 June 2017

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I support the motion initiated by 28 pro-democracy Members to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying in accordance with Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. The reason is simple. Over the past five years of his administration, LEUNG Chun-ying's wrongdoings are just too numerous to mention. Had Hong Kong been a democratic society, he should have already stepped down long ago.

Even without the present "Holden Gate" incident, LEUNG Chun-ying should have stepped down long ago for accepting accountability as he has been involved in so many controversies and scandals ranging from power abuse to corruption and dereliction of duty. As a matter of fact, this incident involving Mr Holden CHOW colluding with LEUNG Chun-ying to interfere with the inquiry of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council is the most serious, callous and conclusive of its kind in Hong Kong. While being the subject of inquiry by the Legislative Council, the Chief Executive interferes with the work of the Select Committee by submitting a paper thereto on its scope of study through the Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee. It is unprecedented that such a blatant attempt has been made to interfere with and sabotage the work of the Legislative Council.

President, I have listened very carefully to the speech made by Ms Starry LEE, Chairperson of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"), yesterday. She said (and I quote), "The opposition camp wants to use these motions that are unsubstantiated by facts to seriously harm the Government. … They want to turn the inquiry into a political tool to suppress opposing forces. These are all political attacks. … They are the ones who have brought Hong Kong in total disarray. … The opposition camp even asked Mr LEUNG to step down before he took office. They did not even want to see how he would perform in office. … They would oppose any proposals so long as they came from Mr LEUNG. … The opposition camp wants to attack the Chief Executive and send him to the guillotine. … As a result, they have turned this solemn Council into a platform for political struggles." (End of quote).

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9391

Having heard Ms Starry LEE's speech, I think she has made an excellent speech, that is, if the standard is set on the basis of sophistry and lies. In that case, her speech is indeed excellent and can almost be regarded as a textbook example for all villains. Should any of their wrongdoings come to light, they could also defend themselves along similar lines, say, the opposition camp has turned the incident into a political tool of suppression even before it has been substantiated by sufficient facts, and so on and so forth. But in fact, none of what she said can hold water.

First of all, let me talk about the facts of the case. What are the facts of the case? The facts are that at an open meeting of the Select Committee in April, Mr Holden CHOW submitted an amended copy of the scope of study of the Select Committee, insisting time and again that the amendments were made by him and they were his own ideas. When we suggested making certain compromises or concessions, he said that he must insist on his own views, and that he would go back to think over the matter carefully. At that time, we knew nothing about the softcopy of the document, as presently revealed, containing amendments made by LEUNG Chun-ying personally, and Mr CHOW had never reported the matter to the Select Committee. If it is not concealment, what is it?

I once asked Ms YUNG Hoi-yan who is present in the Chamber now whether she knew in April that the document had been amended by LEUNG Chun-ying. Ms YUNG immediately denied knowing anything about it at the City Forum programme. Ms YUNG, I believe you; I think you really know nothing about it because for one thing, I do not think CY would approach pro-establishment Members individually, asking them to do such a thing. For another, given its clandestine nature, the matter may easily be exposed if too many people are involved. Those are the facts of the case, President. Mr Holden CHOW and LEUNG Chun-ying also admitted such facts, and that they had not disclosed the matter to the Legislative Council and the Select Committee. How can the subject of inquiry submit a document in such an indirect and clandestine manner to the Select Committee in order to interfere with its inquiry? After the matter came to light, LEUNG Chun-ying denied concealing anything because he said the amendments could be traced in the softcopy of the document. But the fact is that when the meeting was held in April, we did not have the softcopy of the document. I think he should stop cheating.

9392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Let me explain it with a metaphor. This incident is just like a case of theft committed by a thief in collaboration with another thief. The first thief left his fingerprints in the scene of crime accidentally. Tracing the fingerprints, the Police arrested the thief. But the thief denied any wrongdoing and he said, "I left the fingerprints intentionally, so that you can trace the fingerprints to me. I was not stealing anything. I went to borrow something, but I forgot to write an IOU. I will write the IOU now. I have not concealed anything, and I have neither contravened any rules nor any laws." How can she say such sophistry with a straight face and without a sense of embarrassment? Perhaps that is why she is the chairperson of the largest party in the pro-establishment camp.

As democrats, seldom do we have the chance to reveal such a callous attempt made by the pro-establishment camp to interfere with the Legislative Council. As representatives of public opinion, we are duty-bound to uphold the dignity, the systems and the credibility of the Legislative Council. As far as this matter is concerned, we have made fair and severe criticisms. It is also reasonable and justifiable for us to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying because his acts involve a serious dereliction of duty.

I find it difficult to understand Ms Starry LEE's rationale when she said the opposition camp had brought society in total disarray. She wanted to dismiss the whole thing casually by saying that the culprit was inexperienced and not sensitive enough, and so on and so forth. Pardon me. The question at issue is not whether he is experienced or not. When Ms Starry LEE said Mr Holden CHOW was inexperienced, did she mean that in future, when Mr CHOW receives any emails or softcopies from LEUNG Chun-ying, he should check thoroughly and delete all tracked changes made by "CEO-CE" before submitting the same to the Select Committee? Is that what she means? Is she telling Mr CHOW that he should do better to cover up his tracks when doing some evil or shady deeds in future?

Some people described Mr Holden CHOW as a "pig-like teammate". But it is not true because LEUNG Chun-ying is not any better. As LEUNG Chun-ying was set to do such a bad thing, why did he not take a step further? Nobody would find out what had happened if he had accepted all the tracked changes in the document before passing it to Mr Holden CHOW. But seemingly, he has overestimated Mr CHOW's ability. Or Mr CHOW might not even dare to open the document from the Chief Executive and submitted it to the Select Committee right away as he had no comments about the 40-odd LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9393 amendments whatsoever. LEUNG Chun-ying's views are Mr Holden CHOW's views, and Mr Holden CHOW's views are LEUNG Chun-ying's views. That is why Mr Holden CHOW could hold the document and tell the Select Committee: "Those are my views."

Separately, Ms Starry LEE also quoted from Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, saying that he had explained the matter time and again, while several statements had also been made by the Australian firm UGL. Moreover, no follow-up action had been taken by overseas investigation authorities. She also said that by making those amendments, LEUNG Chun-ying was expanding the scope of inquiry, which was conducive to the Select Committee's work, and so on and so forth. Just cut the crap! Mr Holden CHOW has already turned himself into a mouthpiece, a puppet. Why does Ms Starry LEE make the same mistake again and let LEUNG Chun-ying pull the strings? Like a parrot, she just repeats exactly what has been said by the Chief Executive.

Although LEUNG Chun-ying said he had responded to the matter many times, there are still many questions which are left unanswered. For instance, he has never responded to the nine questions raised by Prof Eric CHEUNG. When I asked LEUNG Chun-ying in the Council whether other Members of the Executive Council were allowed to do what he did, that is, signing consultancy agreements and accepting large payments before joining the Executive Council, he did not answer my question. What did she mean when she said "he had explained the matter time and again"? She also said that several statements had been made by the Australian firm UGL, but so what? In this matter, UGL is suspected of providing the relevant interests. If she could accept its statements, I think we might as well disband all enforcement agencies because the suspects would always claim to be innocent. "Sir, I have already made several statements, so you can just stop investigating my case. If you don't know what happened, just go and read my statements!" Isn't she being too naive?

According to Ms Starry LEE, no follow-up action has been taken by overseas investigation authorities against LEUNG. I am not sure if that is true as I do not know all investigation authorities in the world, and I have not asked them individually to confirm whether any investigation has been taken against LEUNG. But he is under investigation in Hong Kong. If she said it was fine because LEUNG was not under any overseas investigation, did she mean that Hong Kong was wrong to investigate him? Her logic is just so funny.

9394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Ms Starry LEE went on to say that according to LEUNG Chun-ying, what he did was meant to expand the scope of inquiry. Let us put things in perspective. At the open meetings of the Select Committee―which were also attended by Dr Junius HO―members have stressed time and again that the inquiry must be conducted in accordance with the wording of the motion passed by the Legislative Council, and nothing more; in other words, the scope of inquiry must not be expanded indefinitely. This, incidentally, is also a point of utmost concern to Dr Junius HO. We must act according to rules and regulations, and it is not a matter for LEUNG Chun-ying to decide whether our scope of inquiry should be expanded or not.

But has LEUNG Chun-ying actually expanded the scope of inquiry by what he did? I can tell Members that it is absolutely not the case. Let us consider paragraph I (e) of the proposed scope of inquiry. Originally, the Select Committee intended to study the agreement between UGL and LEUNG Chun-ying, but he amended it to read: "澳洲傳媒公開的協議文本 "("the copy of the agreement made public by the Australian media"). What does that mean? That means the specific copy of agreement between UGL and LEUNG Chun-ying which was disclosed by the Australian media at that time. But does that copy covers every aspect of the agreement? No, because the agreement contains follow-up clauses concerning LEUNG's stake in DTZ Japan. In other words, other follow-up actions would arise from the agreement.

Now I understand why he must make those amendments. It is because he does not want us to look into the question about DTZ Japan, including whether he has accepted further interests from UGL. He does not want us to inquire into that matter. Is that how he has "expanded the scope of inquiry"? Seriously, no joking please! Does LEUNG Chun-ying really want more investigation from the Legislative Council? No kidding. Does Ms Starry LEE believe in LEUNG Chun-ying? I do not think so. She just forgets her conscience for the time being and pretends to believe him. I honestly think that pro-establishment Members should not engage in so much sophistry even for the sake of shielding LEUNG.

The Legislative Council's duty is to monitor the Government and check its powers. If the Government has any maladministration or blunders, we must point that out. But this is not the stance taken by the pro-establishment camp. What did Ms Starry LEE say about Mr Holden CHOW's wrongdoing? She said Mr CHOW was too much of a "LEUNG's fan". He is in the wrong just on this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9395 point. The Select Committee should work impartially and independently. It should make its judgments on the basis of evidence and facts and take follow-up actions accordingly. According to Ms Starry LEE, Mr Holden CHOW was too much of a "LEUNG's fan", so he helped LEUNG. Is there something wrong with her brain? She is the chairperson of the largest political party in Council, and her remarks are most funny indeed. Doesn't she consider what she said most ridiculous?

President, pro-establishment Members have said time and again that it is inappropriate for Mr Kenneth LEUNG to stay in the Select Committee. But when I checked the records of the House Committee meeting held on 18 November 2016, I noted that when a vote was taken to decide the membership of the preparatory subcommittee, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr Steven HO, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr LAU Kwok-fan of DAB, as well as other pro-establishment Members all voted to support Mr Kenneth LEUNG joining the Select Committee. At that time, Mr Kenneth LEUNG has already queried the taxation liabilities of LEUNG Chun-ying for more than two years. Were they not aware of it? He cannot stay in the Select Committee because he was subsequently sued by LEUNG Chun-ying. Isn't that so? What if LAM Cheuk-ting is also sued by LEUNG Chun-ying? Does it mean that I must also withdraw from the Select Committee?

President, when the then Vice President, Mr ZENG Qinghong, met with a DAB deputation in 2006, he told them that they should "improve their internal quality and build a good external image ". What is their quality now? In the words of Mr Stanley NG of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, they are "incapable, idle and utterly foolish". What is their image now? They have become LEUNG Chun-ying's mouthpiece and puppets. In the words of Mrs Regina IP, they have lost all their credibility.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, before I speak on the motion, I would like to respond to the speech made by Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG yesterday, in which he highlighted a number of achievements made by the SAR Government. As a matter of fact, much work has been done by the SAR Government in various aspects over the past few years, and in particular, 9396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 good results have been achieved in improving people's livelihood and social welfare services. Nonetheless, I absolutely cannot agree with the Chief Secretary's claim that achievements have also been made in terms of increasing housing supply. As we all know, property prices have increased by more than 50% since the SAR Government took office. In my opinion, some government policies, such as the "curb measures", are wrong. By now, everybody must surely know that the "curb measures" are ineffective, yet the Government just continues to increase their intensity, which is exactly one of the factors that further fuels the property market. Pardon me, President. I will now return to the subject of the motion.

Apart from discussing the subject matter with Members of my party, I have also discussed with different people in society and sought the views of different members of the public in the past two day. I have summarized their views and would incorporate them in my speech today. For this reason, I hold that the points stated in my speech are quite impartial.

Needless to say, it is definitely wrong for the Chief Executive to collude with Mr Holden CHOW in this incident. What they have done is wrong, and they cannot defend themselves with any reason or explanation. Having said that, I do not agree that it is necessary to invoke Article 73(9) to impeach the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive said that he had the right to express his views. In fact, the Chief Executive has every right to express his views, so long as he does so through normal channels. For instance, he can express his views before or after the Executive Council meeting each Tuesday. He can also submit his views in writing or engage a professional lawyer to speak or express views on his behalf. He can even talk to any Member of the Legislative Council. All these are quite acceptable. But in this matter, the most serious mistake he made is that he has been acting in a clandestine manner.

If his partner in this clandestine deal were a veteran legislator, perhaps nothing would have happened. But if his partner is a newbie in the Council, and this newbie―as described by Ms Starry LEE―does not how to say no, then things can go seriously wrong. In this world, many things are conducted in a clandestine manner. The question is: why does this incident get exposed? I think most often, it is a matter of fate that people tend to overlook things that are hidden in plain sight. For instance, he should not use a computer in his office to process a private document. If he passes the document to his partner, his partner should learn how to convert it into a PDF file. Even if his partner does not know LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9397 how to do so, he should at least make the amendments in his own letterhead. All these questions in the incident could have been avoided, but at the end of the day, their clandestine deal could not remain hidden and was exposed.

The Chief Executive criticized the pan-democrats for abusing the impeachment mechanism. But why did he give them the chance to initiate the impeachment motion in the first place? Since the incident came to light, we have given a lot of advice to the parties concerned. In my view, the parties concerned should let the matter die down as soon as possible, rather than adamantly refusing to admit their mistakes. As what they have done is wrong, they might as well admit it, so that they will no longer be providing ammunition to the pan-democrats. They have been providing so much ammunition to the pan-democrats that they are able to stage this show these two days with their endless criticisms. When handling a crisis, the first thing we must do is to put out the fire immediately. The worst thing we could do is to give fuel to the enemies, so that they can make the fire burn even fiercer. As a matter of fact, this incident has already impacted the relationship between the executive and the legislature. I hope the next-term SAR Government will do better and try to mend the relationship between the two sides.

Will the impeachment motion be passed? Certainly, it will not. The impeachment process cannot even get past the first gate, that is, this motion today. No matter what Members of the Liberal Party do, that is, whether we support or oppose the motion, or whether we abstain from voting or leave the Chamber during voting, no matter what we do, this motion will not be passed. Secondly, even if the motion is passed, the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal must still form an investigation committee, and it is uncertain how long the investigation would take. In fact, there is already conclusive evidence that they have colluded in this matter, so what is left for investigation? Thirdly, the impeachment motion must be passed by a two-thirds majority of all Members of the Council. But if even the constitutional reform proposal did not get passed in the Legislative Council, what will be the odds for the impeachment motion? And mind you, it is by no means easy to get the support of two thirds of all Members. Finally, the matter must be reported to the Central People's Government ("CPG") for decision. As the Chief Executive has already become one of the state leaders, why would CPG make special efforts to deal with this matter which might be quite insignificant in its opinion? As the impeachment procedure can hardly proceed further, why do some Members still insist on initiating the impeachment motion? It is because the whole thing is just a show for them.

9398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

The pan-democrats only have two objectives now. For one thing, they want to arouse attention in society and hence, they have been criticizing the two persons concerned in this matter endlessly over the past two days. Basically, they have achieved this objective. For another, they want to force the Chief Executive to step down. But the Chief Executive will leave office three weeks later. Why do the pan-democrats make such a big fuss? Three weeks later, the Chief Executive will leave the SAR Government automatically as the new term of Government takes office. Basically, the pan-democrats have poured their hearts out over the past two days. But do we really need to impeach the Chief Executive? My view is that we should not waste any time or resources over such a futile undertaking.

Finally, I hope Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG … Rumour has it that he would stay on and work for the next-term Government. I hope that he and Mrs LAM, as the head of the new government, will strive to mend the relationship between the Executive Authorities and the Legislative Council. I also hope that no more meaningless and clandestine deals like this one will ever occur again.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please speak.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, of course, I will speak in support of this motion and I am also one of the Members who initiated this motion.

First of all, I would like to respond to the remarks made by pro-establishment Members. Mr WONG Ting-kwong said yesterday that the democrats used "vicious language" to criticize LEUNG Chun-ying, but he had not pointed out which expressions were vicious; I really want to know. I think we have been too polite when we speak and we will not use vicious language to criticize LEUNG Chun-ying. At last week's Question and Answer Session, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting called LEUNG Chun-ying a scumbag. I think LAM Cheuk-ting was too nice because he at least considered LEUNG Chun-ying a person. Yesterday, "Long Hair" used the word "despicable" to describe LEUNG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9399

Chun-ying, which has actually insulted the word "despicable"; likewise, calling LEUNG Chun-ying a scumbag has insulted the word "scumbag". Mr WONG also said that this was a political farce scripted, directed and performed entirely by the democrats. He is half right; this is certainly a political farce but it was scripted, directed and performed by LEUNG Chun-ying. I am going to call this farce "The Tale of 689 and Holden", co-starring "689" and Mr Holden CHOW. Mr CHOW should be able to get the Best New Artist award.

As the saying goes, "fear not god-like opponents but fear pig-like teammates", there are certainly quite a few "pig-like teammates" in this Council. For LEUNG Chun-ying, he should have nothing to regret when he has an ally like Mr Holden CHOW. Jenny CHAN, a candidate in the last New Territories East Geographical Constituency in the Legislative Council General Election, often talked about "men behind the scenes" and "pawns". LEUNG Chun-ying is the "man behind the scenes" in this incident and Mr Holden CHOW is LEUNG Chun-ying's "pawn". Instead of goofing up, oversight and carelessness, we would rather say that he has made a Freudian slip or justice has long arms.

When I returned home yesterday, I deliberately read the press release on the opening speech of Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG because I would like to respond to it. The Chief Secretary cited what LEUNG Chun-ying has done these five years but some Members did not quite agree. These so-called official duties were only mentioned in mitigation plea, just like what was said when people made a mitigation plea for Donald TSANG, though many people had not done so. Those words are only said in mitigation plea but not in stating whether he had made mistakes.

Has LEUNG Chun-ying read Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG's scripted speech? I notice a very interesting point, that is, Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG said "LEUNG Chun-ying was dedicated to his duties" twice but he had not said he is "a person of integrity". I wonder if that has been deleted by LEUNG Chun-ying or the original script had the full version, just that Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG could not bring himself to say that, hence he said "dedicated to his duties" twice.

The Chief Secretary said that he respected the constitutional power of the Legislative Council but he has been selective in showing respect. He respected Article 64 of the Basic Law and the Select Committee but he did not respect the impeachment proposed by Members in accordance with Article 73 of the Basic 9400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Law. Why? That is because the Select Committee lacks power and is "toothless", but the impeachment motion may theoretically be fatal, it may take the Chief Executive's life. However, Ms Starry LEE said yesterday that we "oppressed dissidents". Excuse me, the expression "oppressed dissidents" should not be used this way; it is used to describe the deeds of totalitarian regimes, the masses cannot oppress dissidents. The democrats, being in the minority, do not have the ability to oppress dissidents; she further said we want to send LEUNG Chun-ying to the guillotine; we simply do not have this power.

We are just fighting for room to do justice by enabling people to see the true picture of the incident. Members of the public can clearly see how the royalists "pro-LEUNG" at different levels. CHAN Yuen-han, a former chairman of the "Pro-LEUNG Kuk", is not a Legislative Council Member now. Ms Starry LEE is now the chairman of the "Pro-LEUNG Kuk". I really want to hear Dr CHIANG Lai-wan speak; I do not know if she cannot find reasons to defend LEUNG Chun-ying or she wants to wait until the last moment to criticize us.

On the details of the incident, Members have repeatedly pointed out that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying received $50 million from UGL during his term of office, but he had not made declaration or filed a tax return. Though the Legislative Council has inquired about that time and again, he kept saying that he only signed a resignation agreement with UGL and no conflict of interest was involved, he also said that the agreement was signed before he was elected the Chief Executive, so he did not need to declare. Do we know that LEUNG Chun-ying is an expert in "hypocritical rhetoric"? He mentioned repeatedly that the agreement was a resignation agreement or a service agreement; did he work for the company by doing nothing? We had a lot of debates on this point.

I would also like to point out that before assuming office, LEUNG Chun-ying sincerely pledged that he would actively consider amending the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance to extend the scope of application to the Chief Executive. Up till now, he is still saying that he would make all-out effort to amend the Ordinance but many provisions require consideration in a holistic manner. With his five-year tenure almost coming to an end, the legislative amendment process has yet to be initiated; is he worried that he will be affected if the amendments are made? It is actually too late to initiate the process within his term of office. At one time, he might expect that he would be re-elected and he might serve as the Chief Executive for five more years. If he does not intend LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9401 to be re-elected, he may initiate the process and the amendment will be completed in 2020. By then, he will not be affected at all. I do not know what he is plotting.

The document that Mr Holden CHOW, former Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee to Inquire into Matters about the Agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and the Australian firm UGL Limited ("the Select Committee"), submitted to the Select Committee showed that the amendments were made by the Chief Executive's Officer ("CEO-CE") at a time from 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm on 21 April, i.e. four days before Mr CHOW submitted the first document on the 25th of last month. The amendment records were eventually uncovered by the Legislative Council Secretariat. LEUNG Chun-ying made 44 amendments, making recommendations on the authority of the Select Committee, such as adding whether he was elected the Chief Executive on the date of signing the agreement, looking into the authenticity of the copy of agreement disclosed by the Australian media and studying the legislative intent of Article 47 of the Basic Law.

What is Article 47 about? Article 47 provides that the Chief Executive must be a person of integrity, dedicated to his or her duties. The legislative intent of which cannot be disputed. It is also specified that the Chief Executive, on assuming office, shall declare his or her assets to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"). This declaration shall be put on record. In other words, the Chief Executive must account for his or her assets; are assets the same as interests? To study Article 47, is it necessary to ask all members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee questions? How can we ask those members who passed away?

If as suggested in the document submitted by Mr Holden CHOW, the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee is changed in the direction amended by LEUNG Chun-ying, I think it would really be favourable to LEUNG Chun-ying. If it is changed from focusing on studying whether the $50 million "golden handshake payment" made by UGL to LEUNG Chun-ying has violated the rules to studying the credibility of the public statement of UGL, it will be beneficial to LEUNG Chun-ying's self-justification. Studying the original intent of Article 47 of the Basic Law and the controversies and amendments concerned cannot be completed in a short time. LEUNG Chun-ying is best at filibustering and procrastination and the new requirements will virtually delay the progress of the Select Committee.

9402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Although we still think that the Select Committee is a "toothless tiger", I advise members of the Select Committee that, in the course of inquiry, they should not give the public an impression that they are collaborating with LEUNG Chun-ying as if they were "Holden CHOW 2.0 or 3.0" to delay the progress of the inquiry of the Select Committee. We initially thought that the Select Committee has no destructive power as it does not have the power to summon witnesses and the findings of its inquiry have no binding effect. Moreover, there are seven royalists among the 11 members of the Select Committee. Normally, if I were LEUNG Chun-ying, I would feel relieved because the inquiry would not be fruitful. Why should LEUNG Chun-ying secretly amend the scope of inquiry through Mr Holden CHOW of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong which was accidentally uncovered later? There are many possibilities. He may have a guilty conscience; though he clearly knows that the findings of the Select Committee are not binding, he is still afraid that the findings may be unfavourable to him. Another reason is that he is belligerent, he will not lose a move no matter the Select Committee has destructive power or not.

LEUNG Chun-ying has sent legal letters to the press, claiming that the reports on his involvement with UGL were wrong and untrue but he has not instituted further legal actions. In March this year, he filed a case with the High Court to sue Kenneth LEUNG, a Legislative Council Member from the accounting sector for libel because Kenneth LEUNG said that he was being investigated for tax payment issues but in fact, no tax authorities had approached him. Members have suggested that in the face of criticisms made by Members or members of the public, the former Chief Executives would at most issue statements or convene press conferences for clarification. They would only express their views through microphones but would not send legal letters to the media. The present Government has really set a precedent; it is the first time that it has taken legal actions against the media, columnists and even Legislative Council Members. I hope this is an unprecedented situation.

LEUNG Chun-ying has hidden behind Mr Holden CHOW, hoping to amend the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee through him instead of openly presenting his own submissions to the Select Committee. He often says that the subject of inquiry has the right to speak and freedom of expression. As pointed out by many Members, there are better and more appropriate ways for him to express his views and he can even take the initiative to request for attending the meetings of the Select Committee to give evidence. I believe the Select Committee will certainly welcome LEUNG Chun-ying's attendance to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9403 express his views. Even if he has to speak seven days non-stop, the Select Committee will allow him to do so. No one has ever denied that LEUNG Chun-ying has the right to speak on this issue. However, as he is the highest leader of the HKSAR apart from being the subject of inquiry; will his advice given to a Member in private exert pressure on that Member?

As many scenarios are involved, I may have to explain this issue in detail later at the debate on the motion censuring Mr Holden CHOW: is Mr Holden CHOW being coerced or seduced to take that action; or is he so silly and naïve; or is he too much of a "LEUNG's fan" that he will do whatever LEUNG said. To find that the true picture, we really need to ask Mr Holden CHOW to solemnly swear and be questioned by us. Nevertheless, if LEUNG Chun-ying has common sense, he should also avoid arousing suspicion and refrain from expressing his views this way. The Select Committee has actually been established for some time and it has held a few meetings on matters related to Mr Kenneth LEUNG. If LEUNG Chun-ying wanted to sue and censure Mr Kenneth LEUNG, why did he only claim that Mr Kenneth LEUNG should not continue to be a member of the Select Committee after the "689-Holden" scandal came to light? This is inconceivable.

I would also like to make one point that has rarely been mentioned by other people, i.e. has LEUNG Chun-ying instructed Mr Holden CHOW or pressurized Mr Holden CHOW not to disclose to the Legislative Council that the amendments are made by him? I also asked Mr Holden CHOW at the last meeting of the House Committee: "You said that you had not concealed anything; when did you intend to confess to this Council that your proposal had been amended by LEUNG Chun-ying?" If an investigation committee can be formed, I believe that we can only find out the truth after the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal has investigated the relevant matters. If it is confirmed that LEUNG Chun-ying had instructed Mr Holden CHOW not to disclose that the amendments were made by him, he might have forced a Legislative Council Member to make a misrepresentation in the Legislative Council. Mr Holden CHOW repeatedly said at the meeting of the Select Committee on 25 April that the amendments were made by him. If revision marks are not shown in the document submitted to the Select Committee, it shows that LEUNG Chun-ying had instructed Mr Holden CHOW not to let others know that the amendments were made by him, which precisely proves that he has intentionally instructed Mr Holden CHOW to make a misrepresentation. (The buzzer sounded)

9404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, your speaking time is up, please stop speaking right now.

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, a total of 27 persons, including the Chief Secretary for Administration, have spoken on these two days, and most of those who have spoken are the opposition Members1. The motion is jointly initiated by 28 Members who call for the impeachment of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. Most of them have talked about justice and proper procedure, to which we certainly agree. Whatever we do, we must follow the proper rules and legislation.

However, in respect of this motion, I would like to point out three things. First, have the opposition Members followed the proper procedure? Let us look at the wording of the motion. It is stated in the motion "[w]hereas not less than one-fourth of all the Members of this Council have jointly initiated this motion charging the Chief Executive with serious breach of law and dereliction of duty (as particularized in the Schedule and Annex appended to this motion), and whereas the said Chief Executive refuses to resign within a reasonable time, this Council" will move a motion in accordance with Article 73(9) of the Basic Law, so on and so forth.

First may I ask when they have demanded the Chief Executive to resign? What is the reasonable time within which the Chief Executive has to resign and when he refuses to resign, they can initiate the impeachment procedure? I do not see such information. Procedure-wise, I know that Mr Alvin YEUNG is a lawyer. When he drafted this motion, he should have done it very carefully but now it seems that he had not thought it out very thoroughly.

In respect of breach of law and dereliction of duty, may I ask what law has been breached? It is stated in the Schedule of the motion that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying "worked through Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding to improperly interfere with the affairs of the Select Committee in an attempt to frustrate, deflect or affect the direction, course and result of the inquiry to be carried out by the Select Committee (as particularized in the Annex appended hereto)". How did he deflect the inquiry? As for interference, Mr Abraham SHEK and Mr CHUNG

1 Dr Junius HO mistakenly referred the "opposition Members" as "pro-establishment Members". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9405

Kwok-pan queried why he took that action and thought that he should be smarter as what he did would give the public a bad impression. This is an issue of political impression.

It is true that people did have a bad impression but that is purely a political impression. The person in question has to bear the political consequence but is the problem really so serious? I do not know which rules and legislation have been violated. Some say that it is a matter of due process, which is regarded as one of the offences of "perverting the course of justice" during the inquiry.

However, do not forget that soon after the establishment of the Select Committee to Inquire into Matters about the Agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and the Australian firm UGL Limited ("the Select Committee"), I had very clearly asked at the first two meetings of the Select Committee if the paper titled "Proposed major areas of study" was necessary. I pointed out that the establishment of the Select Committee was endorsed by the House Committee and confirmed at the Legislative Council. As the Select Committee has its terms of reference, it was not necessary to add anything to the areas of study, lest more disputes would arise in the future work. I insisted that it was not necessary to set the proposed major areas of study. At that time, the pan-democratic colleagues asked me not to worry as the proposed major areas of study were for reference only and they had no legal basis. While these words are still ringing in my ears, they are now finding fault with that.

What is this paper titled "Proposed major areas of study" about? A number of select committees in the past also prepared similar papers but that does not mean we should take wrongdoings to be right just because we are accustomed to them. If we follow the terms of reference, they are the yardstick, the standard, of our actions. The paper titled "Proposed major areas of study" is a public paper and anyone can read it. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting just said that it would be fine if the Chief Executive was smarter. Other Members also admitted that the Chief Executive was entitled to express his views and if he officially wrote to the Legislative Council or the Chairman of the Select Committee, or even Ms Starry LEE, leader of DAB, to make a representation, his views would be accepted.

The problem now is that the Chief Executive had acted covertly, but as Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan has said, many things are done in secret, aren't they? The nature of the problem is how things are handled. I do not endorse and do 9406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 not like acting covertly. As a member of the Select Committee, I also agree that we should keep a distance from the subject of inquiry. But if someone adheres to a different standard, is such an act serious enough to constitute a breach of law and dereliction of duty? I do not think so.

Of course, politics are often associated with moral issues. Mr Holden CHOW also said that since everyone found his practice undesirable, he would withdraw his membership of the Select Committee. I think that he did so in a responsible manner. On the other hand, what is the present yardstick or standard? In the motion, we can find words and phrases such as "conspired" and "worked through Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding to improperly interfere with the affairs of the Select Committee in an attempt to frustrate, deflect or affect the direction … of the inquiry to be carried out by the Select Committee", which to me are sheer exaggeration without the basis of any legal standard. In fact, there is no such requirement in the Rules of Procedure as the subject of inquiry cannot have communications with the inquirer. In respect of Members disputing over the proposed major areas of study which have neither a legal basis nor legal effect, it is no different to making an issue of a mirage and something without any justification.

As regards whether the practice is desirable and whether it should be adopted, they are of secondary importance. Since the paper has no legal effect, is it appropriate for Members to make a judgment on this issue purely on the basis of moral standards? I do not see there is any legal justification.

When it comes to dereliction of duty on the part of the Chief Executive or his contempt of the Legislative Council in this incident, first of all, I do not find the Chief Executive in contempt of the Legislative Council; even if he is, is he the only one in contempt of the Council? I believe among the 28 pan-democratic Members, many have acted in contempt of the Council. From mid-October last year up till this moment, there have been over 10 cases in which Members acted in despicable ways, which completely violated law and order.

For example, during the oath-taking of Sixtus LEUNG and YAU Wai-ching, both of them confounded right and wrong, they only held onto their stance but not rationality and legal justification. They made drastic actions in such a solemn oath-taking ceremony, turning Hong Kong into a laughing stock of the whole world. LEUNG Chun-ying is not the person subjected to ridicule, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9407 some opposition Members are no better. If there is a saying that one fears to have "pig-like teammates", I think some opposition Members can be said to be "more pig-like than pigs".

I will first leave aside the issue of dereliction of duty, and continue to talk about contempt of the Legislative Council. Before the Select Committee formally starts to operate, certain opposition Member had already caused a great mess that attracted criticisms from all sides and obstructed the work of the Select Committee. The incident concerning Mr Holden CHOW was disclosed on 15 May during a closed-door meeting. Everyone agreed to be tight-mouthed about the issues discussed and would not disclose information to the public before a conclusion was made. Then someone said to the effect that the meeting was now held behind closed doors, but later the door would be wide open. These words are still ringing in my ears.

I have complied with the rules of confidentiality and have not said a word. When I was asked by the media, I declined to answer. But some people were too eager to show off; they acted foolhardily and recklessly in the name of justice and law. They are the ones who defy justice and law under the banner of "fighting for justice and law", and have made known all the information that we should supposedly keep confidential. President, right now I am following up on who has leaked the information, which is also a very important issue.

In the case of Mr Holden CHOW, there is no express provision stipulating what he can and cannot do. There is only a certain norm, implied and accepted norm that he should not make contacts with the Chief Executive who is the subject of inquiry. However, do not forget that the said paper "Proposed major areas of study" was still in the drafting stage and it did not have legal basis. Besides, the inquiry has not commenced. If the Chief Executive wished to discuss the areas of study, it was his own business. Mr Holden CHOW should have made a political judgment and considered the consequence. That said, the Chief Executive's action did not constitute a dereliction of duty, neither could he be considered contempt of the Legislative Council. Besides, I do not consider we should charge Mr Holden CHOW with dereliction of duty and contempt of the Legislative Council.

On the contrary, at the closed-door meeting, everyone solemnly agreed to keep confidential of the issues discussed but someone was too eager to show off, and when he was interviewed on a radio programme, he was directly or indirectly 9408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 guided to talk about the discussions at the closed-door meeting. This matter warrants follow up as there is an express provision and consensus on the confidentiality of the discussion. How should this problem be resolved? Has the code of conduct been violated? Not only has the code of conduct been violated, the cooperation and trust among members of the Select Committee, as well as the credibility of the Select Committee in the eyes of the public have been undermined, which has directly defeated the purpose of the Select Committee.

According to the opposition Members, LEUNG Chun-ying has nothing to fear about, as first, the Select Committee is "toothless" and second, the majority of members of the Select Committee are from the pro-establishment camp. If so, why do opposition Members still stir up trouble? If they accept the political reality, why do they still stir up trouble? The answer is, they want to "put on a political show" and that is their sole purpose.

It is stipulated in this motion that if the Chief Executive refuses to resign within a reasonable time, this Council will initiate the impeachment procedure under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. May I ask when the opposition Members officially requested the Chief Executive to resign, in whose names the request was made and whether the Chief Executive has made a response? After that incident, is it that the opposition Members found it hard to accept and so they wanted to activate the impeachment procedure under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law? May I ask about the sequence of events? Therefore, the opposition Members are simply putting on a "political show". Over 20 Members have said in their speeches that although there is only three weeks left in the Chief Executive's tenure, they still want to impeach him. This is exactly the opposition Members' attitude, which is, seeking to accomplish an impossible task. They appear to be persons of integrity but what is inside of them? It cannot be reflected by the mirror.

Over the past seven or eight months, the funding applications of various projects ranging from major ones such as infrastructure projects to minor policies concerning the people's livelihood have all been stalled by the opposition Members through filibustering. They even said that they were somewhat more benevolent this year as they used to propose over 1 000 amendments. If one commits a thousand crimes in the past, that does not mean he has not violated the law for committing just one crime. The opposition Members are consciously aware that they are wrong, but they still insist to go ahead, hence wasting a great deal of precious time of the Legislative Council. When vetting the funding LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9409 applications, if they have justifications, they can put forth; but if not, they should let it go. This is the political reality. If opposition Members have the power, they can bring more of their peers into the Legislative Council; otherwise they should go by the book. If the opposition Members have guts, they can initiate another Occupy Central movement or start a revolution, which does not require compliance with the law and all they need is muscle.

Thank you, President. I so submit.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): First of all, the speech made by Dr Junius HO just now is indeed an eye-opener to me. He made a Freudian slip right at the beginning of his speech, saying that Members of the pro-establishment camp wanted to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying today. Members can review the video recording. As a matter of fact, Members may also notice that even colleagues of the pro-establishment camp find it hard to save LEUNG Chun-ying from this second impeachment motion during his term of office.

Just now, Dr Junius HO teased us that we are seeking to accomplish an impossible task. It is true that Hong Kong people would seek to accomplish impossible tasks in the face of suppression or injustices. If a mirror does not show the image of the person standing in front of it, what kind of mirror is it? It is a witch mirror. Elected Members in this Chamber represent the voices of Hong Kong people. Some people proposed to increase the number of Members of this Council, which is a good idea, but given the ridiculous system of Hong Kong's Legislative Council, Members returned from functional constituencies can obtain a seat in this Council by securing just a few hundred votes. There is still room for improvement in this respect, which I think even colleagues of the pro-establishment camp would not disagree. Thus, we need not create such a tense atmosphere, throwing down the gauntlet and saying which side has more seats in the Legislative Council. Dr Junius HO, that is not the way. I do not intend to discuss with him how the pro-establishment and pan-democratic camps engaged in a battle of words in different committees in the past, as this is not the subject of debate today. Rather, we are going to discuss why it is necessary to initiate the impeachment procedure.

Earlier on, Dr Junius HO asked who has asked LEUNG Chun-ying to step down, and he also queried that we should initiate the impeachment procedure after an attempt to make him step down failed. It is the people of Hong Kong 9410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 who urge LEUNG Chun-ying to step down. LEUNG Chun-ying's five-year term started with the unauthorized building works saga and ended with the UGL scandal. In future history books, this Chief Executive of Hong Kong who had governed Hong Kong for five years would be depicted as a chief executive who was an expert in "hypocritical rhetoric", good at telling lies, utterly shameless and despicable.

As a matter of fact, he once said that he did not know how to use Facebook and WhatsApp even after being taught by family members, I think what he has no knowledge of is the use of Microsoft Word, because he was unaware of the track change function. If there was no such function; if the Legislative Council Secretariat had not uncovered the case, and if the media had not pursued and reported the case with detailed illustrations, he would not have confessed and vowed that this was unintentional. He even went further to argue that he would not have left any evidence if this was intentional. As a matter of fact, even the pro-establishment camp thought he has done wrong in this case.

If we say that the political sensitivity of Mr Holden CHOW is not high enough, then how about LEUNG Chun-ying? He is very experienced indeed. After keeping a low profile for many years, he rose to Hong Kong's top post of Chief Executive, so he must be very capable in some ways. Can we say that he has not given serious consideration to every step he made? Obviously there are better alternatives for him, but instead of taking the proper channel to act in an open and above board manner, he made use of a string puppet, the Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee, to make dozens of amendments to a document. After people found the traces and clues, he responded that this was no big deal. A thief who is caught red-handed argues that he wants to be caught; how will a genuine thief wants to be caught? What kind of logic is this? If we allow such logic to go popular in Hong Kong, the traditional values and ethics will collapse. This is tantamount to allowing our long-established system to gradually disappear.

As I have just said, the present impeachment against LEUNG Chun-ying originated from the grievances accumulated over the past five years, and the degree of grievances was determined by the things he had done to Hong Kong people. The most well-known quote of LEUNG Chun-ying was made in a radio programme of Radio Television Hong Kong called Theory of Relativity in 1988, and that is, "I am not cut out for politics." He was so right and he has thus turned Hong Kong into a mess. He has blatantly manipulated and amended the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9411 scope of inquiry of the Select Committee established by the Legislative Council to inquire into him. If we randomly pick up an elderly person in the district and tell him what has happened, and then ask him if LEUNG Chun-ying has done the right thing, I do not think that elderly person would reply in the positive. Honestly speaking, given that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying will only remain in office for 20-odd days, I beg Members of the pro-establishment camp not to shield him anymore. If they continue to shield him, they may lose the negligible support and conscience that is left with them in the end.

LEUNG Chun-ying has a deplorable track record in the past five years. He has been the subject of wide public discussion and is strongly detested. If there is no concrete evidence, I wonder how we can kick off this debate. Members should note that this is the second impeachment of him during his term of office. I still remember that Members moved the first impeachment motion against LEUNG Chun-ying in 2013. At that time, Members of the pro-establishment camp had also exerted their best effort to defend him. Members may still recall that the first impeachment motion is concerned with the unauthorized building works saga of LEUNG Chun-ying. At that time, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") made use of her speaking time to defend him. She made an analysis on the basis of compassion, reason and law. She said that a man spending most of the time working outside even forgot his wedding anniversary, not to mention a trellis. At that time, Members defended LEUNG Chun-ying one after another, accusing the opposition camp of putting up a "political show" against LEUNG Chun-ying.

A few years later, at a time when LEUNG Chun-ying's tenure will end in less than a month, colleagues of the pro-establishment camp may not know what stance they should take. They queried if we have gone too far, and argued that he did not deserve to be impeached even if he had done wrong. How can he make mistakes as the Chief Executive? This present case is indeed the Watergate incident of Hong Kong. Back then, NIXON used lies to cover lies. If the Chief Executive is not required, under the present circumstances, to be answerable to the Legislative Council and if the Legislative Council is not allowed to find out the truth and seek justice, then how can this Chamber live up to the expectation of Hong Kong people, as asked by Dr Junius HO? Hong Kong people should be able to judge if this is a political show, but as we can see, this is not the first time LEUNG Chun-ying has done so. Some of his previous remarks had pierced into the wounds of many Hong Kong people, so maybe let us 9412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 review together. How can a Chief Executive be so disgusting that Members still have to initiate the impeachment procedure when his tenure will end in less than a month?

What remarks had he made? He said that Hong Kong people "should not become conceited before getting rich". Such a remark was made in February 2014. During the Umbrella Movement, LEUNG Chun-ying said in an interview that "You have to take care of people from different strata of Hong Kong by all means, and if election is just a game of figure, you will surely start with people earning a monthly income of less than US$1,800." He was referring to Hong Kong citizens earning less than $14,000 per month. What does this imply? This is tantamount to drawing a line at the monthly income of $14,000, and such a remark had provoked a public outcry back then. In fact, it is very rare that the public remarks made by a Chief Executive will all turned into sound bites and anger Hong Kong people. At that time, some people even compared LEUNG Chun-ying with King Louis XVI of France. As Members may recall, Louis XVI called a meeting of the three estates in the hope of raising tax, which led to the outbreak of the French Revolution. Such incompetence has kept recurring in history. I would like to mention in passing that in January 1793, Louis XVI was sent to the guillotine.

As we can see, history keeps repeating itself. And yet, the fact is human beings should learn very hard to avoid making the same mistakes. As in the case of Hong Kong, we have a Chief Executive who has been talking nonsense, acting recklessly and breaking local rules arbitrarily. President, this incident is the last thing that Hong Kong people would wish to see. The term of office of LEUNG Chun-ying is approaching its end and we notice that he is at his wits' end. When Members of the pro-establishment camp make a response later, they will fight back in a battle of words, alleging that we are simply repeating ourselves by saying that LEUNG Chun-ying performs poorly and he is disgusting. Nonetheless, regarding the subject under discussion, has LEUNG Chun-ying actually done something wrong this time? Yes, he surely has erred, otherwise the pro-establishment camp would not be so miserable. The pro-establishment camp has all along been defending him, but why worth the trouble? If Members insist to turn black into white, deny the blatant mistake and then take the matter so lightly, or as Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said back then, the Chief Executive worked very hard as he had dark circles under the eyes, the present incident may be set as precedent, such that the next and next-next Chief Executive will no longer have to follow any rule. How can this be the case?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9413

I think more colleagues of the pro-establishment camp will speak later, so I would like to ask them if it is really worthwhile to defend LEUNG Chun-ying. He has made a mistake this time, so if the royalist camp insists to defend him no matter what, it may have a political price to pay. LEUNG Chun-ying, on the other hand, will rise to a higher position and will no longer remain in this post. So, what is the point of defending him? Worse still, the case has been widely discussed in the community. Hong Kong people are not blind and they will find that there is something fishy at a critical moment. They will not accept the practice of making amendments secretly and they will not endorse the argument made after the clandestine act was uncovered that he purposely exposed his acts.

After listening to the speeches made yesterday and today, I notice that the pro-establishment camp is actually in a very embarrassing position. I only hope that when pro-establishment Members speak, they will first state if LEUNG Chun-ying has done wrong in this case; if he has, we can then proceed to discuss whether he should be impeached. Has he done wrong? Has Mr Holden CHOW done wrong? How wrong is Mr Holden CHOW? Who is more wrong? If LEUNG Chun-ying is wrong, what is the point of sacrificing Mr Holden CHOW for LEUNG Chun-ying? Although both of them have done wrong, LEUNG Chun-ying has exercised the strongest will and made all the amendments, and he has even interfered in secret.

If we allow such interference to continue in the Legislative Council, we can no longer tell who to trust in the future. When pro-establishment Members speak later on, we may wonder if they are asked by LEUNG Chun-ying to make that speech. This kind of dissension has far-reaching implications. Even after LEUNG leaves office, his spirit will remain and the Council will inherent a kind of hidden dissension. For example, Members may suspect that the scripts of their colleagues have been amended by LEUNG Chun-ying, or even the first sentence has been revised by him. This is precisely the case of Mr Holden CHOW. Should we hold the culprit accountable? We should not allow him to disrupt the system of Hong Kong in an unabashed and relaxed manner and to argue in a cheeky manner that he is innocent and has done nothing wrong.

President, I so submit.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, as the saying goes, "when not a thing ever really mattered, where could dust have gathered and lain?" The impeachment motion merely aims at demanding the Chief Executive to step 9414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 down, but in fact, LEUNG Chun-ying will not serve another term as the Chief Executive, the remainder of his term is less than three weeks, and he will not hold any other public office in Hong Kong. That being the case, why would opposition Members waste the Council time and initiate an impeachment motion in an attempt to impeach a Chief Executive who is about to leave the SAR Government?

Opposition Members said that one "should not fail to commit an act of kindness just because it is insignificant", I wonder whether they understand the meaning of this expression. This expression refers to insignificant kindness, but not meaningless deeds. Insignificant kindness, though insignificant, is still meritorious at the very least, but the motion today is obviously meaningless. I recollect that according to a non-official survey, around $1 million is spent on each Council meeting. Should we spend the Council time on discussing such a meaningless issue?

Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen have just accused the pro-establishment camp of defending LEUNG Chun-ying, but the debate today is not about defending LEUNG Chun-ying but whether it is worthy of spending the Council time and public money on investigating a Chief Executive who will leave the SAR Government in two to three weeks. A value judgment is involved. President, the pan-democrats consider it worthwhile, but I do not. If LEUNG Chun-ying had, as accused by pan-democrats, really received money from UGL, committed serious dereliction of duty and failed to be a person of integrity; or if there are conclusive evidence to support the above accusations, as indicated by Mr KWONG Chun-yu just now, law enforcement agencies in Hong Kong would definitely take enforcement actions. In fact, law enforcement agencies had taken enforcement actions against senior officials who committed dereliction of duty.

Mr WU Chi-wai, Chairman of the Democratic Party, queried whether amnesty would be granted to LEUNG Chun-ying after he became Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. His query has fully demonstrated the ignorance of the Democratic Party. Haven't they watched the news? Do they not know that even the Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission was investigated and prosecuted for corruption charges? LEUNG Chun-ying is just a chief executive of a special administrative region; if there are problems with him, will the Central Government turn a blind eye and not initiate an investigation? If, as indicated by Mr Andrew WAN, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying was caught red-handed, how could he possibly get off the hook? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9415

I have also heard opposition Members say that LEUNG Chun-ying must have concealed certain things. Did these things actually exist? Were such things fabricated or created out of suspicion? After citing a number of cases in the debate, several barristers from the opposition camp acknowledged that the Legislative Council is not a court. Since the Legislative Council is not a court, how come all opposition Members spoke as if they were judges? They have all drawn the conclusion that LEUNG Chun-ying is guilty. In that case, does it make sense to conduct an investigation or impeachment?

President, as the impeachment of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying is a matter of significance; it shall not be initiated casually. An opposition Member has quoted Dao De Jing to support a meaningless impeachment motion, but he has apparently distorted the intent of Laozi. I would also like to quote a passage from Dao De Jing to share with Members: "Those sharp weapons are instruments of evil omen, and not the instruments of the superior man; he uses them only on the compulsion of necessity"2. The same line of reasoning is applicable to impeachment: we initiate an impeachment only on the compulsion of necessity. The opposition camp has arbitrarily charged Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying with serious breach of law and dereliction of duty without sufficient factual evidence, which is an abuse of the power to initiate an impeachment motion conferred by the Basic Law.

In the ancient book 《菜根譚》(Tending the Roots of Wisdom), there is a saying which reads: "An evil person's learning serves to abet evil." The author adds an explanation to this line: "Only pure in heart, can a person engage in learning from the past", meaning that only a well-disposed person can learn from ancient books, and an ill-disposed person will only distort the teachings provided in ancient books for his selfish interests. I ask opposition Members to reflect on this saying.

President, I have recently met with a group of young people from the business sector and I invited them to visit the Legislative Council, but they all rejected my invitation. When I asked them for the reasons, they told me that the Legislative Council has become a place for senseless and meaningless debates but not for handling serious matters. President, hearing such remarks, I was

2 9416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 ashamed, embarrassed and dismayed for I could not stop senseless and meaningless things from happening here. The senseless and meaningless motions today are not proposed by pro-establishment Members. Who have put up this spectacular show today? Opposition Members.

President, there are 50 livelihood-related projects in the current legislative session involving $140 billion, and 36 000 jobs can be created. However, due to the obstruction of opposition Members, the funding applications for only four or five projects have been approved so far, and some 20 000 jobs have yet to be created. Today, we still have to spend the valuable Council time to discuss such a senseless impeachment motion, but opposition Members said that this is a very significant matter as if nothing is more important than the UGL incident. Can we live up to the expectation of the public and society?

President, let me reiterate, we are not shielding anyone as opposition Members have said. Rather, this impeachment motion is indeed senseless and unnecessary. Apart from taking into consideration the issue of justice as claimed by them, the legislature also needs to take into consideration efficiency and the use of public money. A mistake often committed by pan-democratic Members is that they only see the errors and weaknesses of a certain person, and they will thoroughly investigate and affix responsibilities at all costs. As responsible Members, we should not be so biased and we should act in a more mature manner.

With these remarks, President, I oppose the original motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr Martin LIAO, please speak.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, today 28 Members initiated a motion to impeach the Chief Executive under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. This is the second impeachment motion initiated since the reunification and also the second impeachment against Chief Executive C Y LEUNG during his term of office. Two impeachment motions were initiated within the tenure of a chief executive and both motions were initiated mainly by the opposition Members. What does this imply? The community will have a judgment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9417

In fact, since Chief Executive C Y LEUNG took office, the opposition Members have frequently moved motions against him, such as the motion of no confidence in the Chief Executive, or the motion to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to investigate him. At a time when his term of office is about to end, they once again initiate an impeachment motion. What is their purpose? The community will also have a judgment.

The opposition Members said they wanted to put the incident on the record of the Legislative Council. However, they are only trying to deceive themselves and others, and this is not the purpose of Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. They pay no heed to whether the incident is really serious enough to activate the impeachment mechanism and they have also ignored the solemnity of the 10 powers and functions empowered to the Legislative Council under Article 73 of the Basic Law. In particular, Article 73(9) is a rather solemn provision among the 150 provisions of the Basic Law. In exercising its impeachment power, the Legislative Council must have conclusive evidence to prove that the Chief Executive has committed substantial and serious breach of law or dereliction of duty. However, the opposition camp wilfully initiates this most solemn procedure on the pretext of being accountable to the public and putting the incident on the record of the Legislative Council. As such, the solemn impeachment power of the Legislative Council has been degenerated into their political tool for making history.

President, in the case of major overseas countries, the British Parliament and the United States Congress may impeach their head of state or head of government for offences such as "misapplication of funds", "abuse of official power", "neglect of duty", "treason", "practice of favouritism" and "disclosure of state secrets". As far as I can recall, two impeachment procedures had been initiated in the United States in contemporary history, one against President NIXON in connection with the Watergate scandal and the other against President CLINTON in connection with the LEWINSKY scandal. Both impeachments involved serious breach of law and serious breach of credibility. As for the United Kingdom, I cannot recall any example in this regard.

Nevertheless, Members of the opposition camp claimed that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying's act of providing views on the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee to Inquire into Matters about the Agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and the Australian firm UGL Limited ("the Select Committee"), through Mr Holden CHOW, former Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee, is 9418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 an attempt to frustrate, deflect or affect the direction, course and result of the inquiry to be carried out by the Select Committee; they hence charge the Chief Executive with violation of oath, serious breach of law or dereliction of duty. Yet, when initiating the impeachment procedure, they have never given a clear account as regards which laws the Chief Executive has breached. They have escalated the above acts without restraints, which are totally irrelevant when compared with the various serious offences that I mentioned just now. Being suspicious of the motive of the incident cannot form the basis to initiate the impeachment procedure. I faintly recall that Mr Paul TSE, Chairman of the Select Committee, once said openly that it was not necessary for Mr Holden CHOW, the former Deputy Chairman, to submit the proposed amendment because such amendments had already been incorporated into the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee. In other words, the amendments proposed by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying are actually consistent with the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee. If Mr TSE's remarks are correct, how can we talk about interfering with or affecting the direction of inquiry?

President, the document on the Select Committee's scope of inquiry is open to the public and accessible via the Internet. If the subject of inquiry thinks that the scope of inquiry proposed in the document is not comprehensive enough, he can surely express his views. It is also appropriate for the subject of inquiry to write to either the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee to voice his proposals. Certainly, the letter will normally be written to the Chairman, and then the Chairman or the Deputy Chairman will forward the views to members of the Select Committee for discussion and decision. This is also done as a matter of course.

The key issues of the current incident are: first, there is no evidence indicating that LEUNG Chun-ying has explicitly requested Mr Holden CHOW, the former Deputy Chairman, to forward his views to the Select Committee for follow-up actions; second, Mr CHOW did not candidly inform the Select Committee that the views were raised by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, hence, he made a mistake. If Mr CHOW had informed the Select Committee accordingly, there would be no problem at all. The whole incident is whether the Chief Executive and Mr CHOW … I should say whether Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and Mr CHOW had, as pointed out by me just now, taken appropriate actions in respect of the submission and handling of the document. The current incident does not involve the issue of interference, let alone serious breach of law or dereliction of duty to warrant the impeachment of the Chief Executive.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9419

President, in this motion debate, the remarks made by some opposition Members are really an eye-opener. A Member said: This is just an investigation, why is it not possible? What is wrong with an investigation? Members who make this remark either completely fail to understand the nature of the motion initiated under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law, or they have the ulterior motive to mislead people. A motion under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law is to initiate the mechanism to impeach the Chief Executive; it is not as simple as a mere investigation. Investigation is just a part of the procedure; other actions have to be taken, leading to the final step of the stepping down of the Chief Executive. If Members support the motion or even speak in support of the motion without fully understanding its nature, the result is indeed horrifying. If a Member who well understands the nature of the motion and speaks to mislead others, it will be even worse.

Another Member said that as the Chief Executive was unpopular and members of the public disliked him, the motion to impeach him should be supported. The implication of this remark is: as the subject of inquiry is not well-liked by society, hence the motion should be supported regardless of whether there is sufficient justification and evidence. This kind of remark, which is immature, or even close to naïve, is very dangerous; it well illustrates that the impeachment procedure is being exploited as a tool of political attack.

According to some other opposition Members, as the procedure was initiated in accordance with the authority conferred to the Legislative Council by law, there was nothing improper, and the purpose was to regain the dignity of the legislature. The fallacy of this argument is: first, the purpose of Article 73(9) of the Basic Law is not to uphold the dignity of the Legislative Council, but to provide for the initiation of the impeachment procedure when the Chief Executive is charged with serious breach of law or dereliction of duty; second, opposition camp's filibustering has brought harm to society, yet they are conducted in compliance with laws and rules. For those judicial reviews that aim to obstruct infrastructure projects, which one of them are not filed in accordance with the law? This does not mean that the law will not be exploited as a political tool. This is precisely the situation that the Chief Justices of two terms of Government had sincerely reminded us to watch out.

Four years ago, Members of the opposition camp attempted to initiate the impeachment mechanism and vowed to be antagonistic towards the Chief Executive. Today we are still affected by the impasse and the normal operation 9420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 of this Council in considering economic and livelihood affairs has also been undermined. If the opposition camp still adopts the attitude of political struggle surpassing everything, the development of Hong Kong will be stagnant.

President, it is a solemn constitutional act for the Legislative Council to exercise its power to impeach the Chief Executive under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. Such a power is no trifling matter and should not be exercised lightly or wilfully. However, the opposition camp has time and again abused the impeachment mechanism under the Basic Law; it not only disrespects the legislature but also acts irresponsibly.

With these remarks, President, I oppose the motion.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, there is only a few weeks left before LEUNG Chun-ying's tenure ends. Frankly speaking, many people do not want to talk about this man any more, be it in this Council or in the Hong Kong community. Since LEUNG Chun-ying announced on 9 December last year that he would not seek re-election, many people were relieved. Since then, members of the public have refrained from talking about this man and they lead a happier life.

Recently, although the UGL incident in which LEUNG Chun-ying is involved caused a stir, people do not really want to talk about it. I initially did not want to discuss about LEUNG Chun-ying in this debate. After the new Government assumes office, we will have to undertake a lot of work, especially in education. The problem is, LEUNG Chun-ying has recently done something so terrifying that we are compelled to take actions.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, Ms Starry LEE, took the Chair)

Today, we have no alternative but to speak on the motion. We understand that given the political groupings of Legislative Council Members, the chance of passing this impeachment motion is very remote. However, we must speak for historical record purpose. We must draw a clear line which people must not go beyond. In other words, the Government as a whole must follow a set of standards and limits.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9421

The question we must ask today is: Has LEUNG Chun-ying committed any fault? If so, is the fault acceptable? Our view is very simple. He obviously has committed a fault which is unacceptable and the Legislative Council will not silently condone it. If we condone this kind of interference today, how can the people trust the Legislative Council and the Chief Executive in the future? How can the balance of powers between the executive and the legislature be maintained?

The question under discussion today is whether a document of the Legislative Council should be drafted by the Chief Executive. The document in question is a paper of the Legislative Council submitted in the name of a Member. However, it turns out that the document is actually drafted by LEUNG Chun-ying. Certainly, the first question we ask is: Why did LEUNG Chun-ying attach so much importance to the document? Why did he stay up late to amend the document? Did he think he did not have enough part-time jobs and want one more? This part-time job would be different from those he had previously because it would not provide any income to him and the job could not be done in his name. Why did he have to get engaged personally in the inquiry? Of all businesses of the Legislative Council, why did he interfere only with this matter? I hope that this is the only matter with which he had interfered. Considering the great importance he attached to the matter, did it mean that the UGL incident had very serious implications on him? In the last couple of months of his term of office, why did he still directly interfere with this matter?

Let us leave these questions for the moment. I would like to ask whether he can draft a document of the Legislative Council in this way. As all Members are aware and as mentioned by a Member earlier, LEUNG Chun-ying had other options. If he had different views regarding the document of the Legislative Council, those views could be expressed in many ways by the Executive Authorities in accordance with the established practice. In fact, many documents of the Legislative Council have been prepared by the Executive Authorities, and it will be stated clearly which Policy Bureau has drafted or prepared the document or which Director of Bureau will respond.

There are designated seats in the Legislative Council for representatives of the Executive Authorities to respond to questions raised by Members in the Chamber. Public officers can defend the Government in many ways. If a public officer disagrees with the views of Members, he can say so in his response. 9422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

As many Members have said earlier, if LEUNG Chun-ying had views about the scope of inquiry, he could have written to the Legislative Council and formally put forward his views. Instead of taking these options, he had deviated from the usual practice and adopted a very strange approach of discussing with a Member and drafting a document in the name of that Member.

In fact, many of the facts are very clear and well substantiated. First, the document concerned is a paper of the Legislative Council and this point is agreed by everyone. Second, the document was submitted in the name of a Member and that is obviously a fact. Third, the person who drafted the document is apparently not the Member but LEUNG Chun-ying. This point was respectively admitted by both the Member in question and LEUNG Chun-ying. Fourth, in the entire process, the Member had not taken the initiative to disclose the facts and subsequently, the matter was somehow uncovered. Fifth, after the matter was revealed, the Member did not admit his fault immediately. In fact, he had not admitted any fault. He only said that the incident had given the public a bad impression and so he resigned from his position in the Select Committee. Sixth, the Chief Executive had also not admitted any fault in the incident; he only diverted the public attention to Mr Kenneth LEUNG and said he had the right to express views.

These facts clearly show that the two persons in question neither consider nor admit that they had committed any fault. If the Legislative Council did not censure such acts, it would be tantamount to tacitly approving similar acts in the future.

As Mr Abraham SHEK pointed out yesterday, Members of the Legislative Council are not servants of the Chief Executive and they should show their independence. No matter Members belong to the pro-establishment camp or the pro-democracy camp and no matter how different their views are, they should think independently to perform their due responsibilities as Members of the Legislative Council. A very important function of the Legislative Council is to monitor the work of the Government, and so a distance must be kept among the three powers respectively. These are the basics which all politicians must know. It is not possible that LEUNG Chun-ying, being a veteran politician, is not aware of these basics, and yet he had chosen to interfere with the business of the Legislative Council in this way. Eventually, the matter was revealed by "Deep Throat".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9423

LEUNG Chun-ying claimed that he had the right to do so and that is really worrying. Let us think about it. Suppose a member of the British Parliament or the United States Congress submitted a document and it was discovered that the document was actually written by the President of the United States or the British Prime Minister, do Members think that this will be acceptable to the British and Americans? If your answer is in the negative, you should vote in favour of the motion today.

Let us consider the matter further. If this approach is acceptable and adopting the same principle, would members of the public find it acceptable for former Chief Executive Donald TSANG to similarly submit a Council document in the name of a Member? Alternatively, we can look forward instead of backward. Will members of the public find it acceptable for the Chief Executive-elect Carrie LAM to express her views on a Council document in the name of a Member? If we accept such an act today, it would mean we have to accept the same approach in the future.

Let me emphasize that we must draw a clear line to avoid the recurrence of similar incidents. This is a very serious issue. Considering that there are various kinds of Council documents, apart from those written by Members, some are written with the support of the Legislative Council Secretariat. If different Policy Bureaux of the Administration can swap their identities in the documents submitted to the Legislative Council, can people still trust the signatures in the documents used by Members at meetings?

If Council documents are no longer trustworthy, how can the Legislative Council continue with its normal operation? The Member involved should bear a great responsibility in the incident. Members should understand and be aware that they have the right to accept or reject any request. The proper approach is to take active steps to uphold the dignity and the role of Members of the Legislative Council.

Members should know what should be done at a certain time and the Chief Executive should know what should not be done at a certain time. In this incident, the Chief Executive has obviously stepped over the line. When the Chief Executive has acted totally beyond his powers, how can the Legislative Council turn a blind eye?

9424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Today, we are definitely not discussing the question of abuse of power, but how to uphold the system of the Legislative Council so that it can continue to operate in a dignified and proper manner. That is a very serious subject.

A Member said that this debate might involve an abuse of power by some Members. I cannot agree with it at all. We must exercise the powers given to us as Members to perform our due responsibilities. The Basic Law clearly provides that the Legislative Council shall seriously monitor the work of the Executive Authorities. Thus, we have to uphold the existing system.

Although the incident of LEUNG Chun-ying's interference has been uncovered, I did not want to talk about matters which concern him. When LEUNG Chun-ying attended the Question and Answer Session of the Legislative Council earlier, many Members were not too enthusiastic to ask him questions. Members hope that matters concerning LEUNG Chun-ying will fade out in the history of Hong Kong and will no longer plague Hong Kong people. Initially, I did not want to speak today, but as Mr CHAN Hak-kan said, sometimes we had no alternative but to take certain actions. For this reason, we have to propose this impeachment motion.

Although this impeachment motion may not be passed, we must leave a record in history to tell members of the public clearly that we definitely do not accept this kind of approach. I hope that this kind of interference will disappear in the Legislative Council and the Executive Authorities from now on.

I so submit.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): Regarding this motion initiated by pan-democratic Members, I do not really want to criticize them for wasting the Council's time, or for doing it just for the sake of doing it, because many of my Honourable colleagues have already made such criticisms. They can initiate this motion for debate under the Rules of Procedure, but this idea of impeachment is apparently a pseudo-proposition. Everything has its purpose. According to the contents of this motion, the purpose of this impeachment proposal is to demand LEUNG Chun-ying's resignation for his dereliction of duty. However, as we all know, he has only 22 days left in his tenure as the Chief Executive. In fact, they have been staging this farce for 1 804 days ever since LEUNG Chun-ying was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9425 inaugurated on 1 July 2012. From day one, the pan-democrats have been calling him "CY the Wolf" and "689" and demanding his stepping down. The public is really fed up with this.

I now come back to this motion. It is simply impossible to complete the whole impeachment procedure in such a short time frame. This is unthinkable. Members from the opposition camp are really at their wits' end. What they are saying is nothing new. Also, they may have realized that they are incompetent and cannot do anything for the public. That is why they have resorted to using this rather disgraceful matter to attack the Government, so as to score political points for themselves. They have been playing up social discontent and fanning negative energy with a view to gaining political mileage.

Deputy President, Article 73(9) of the Basic Law provides that if the Legislative Council is to impeach the Chief Executive, one fourth of all the Members of the Legislative Council shall jointly initiate a motion, which must be passed before the Legislative Council may give a mandate to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to form an independent investigation committee. If the investigation committee, upon completion of its investigation, considers the evidence sufficient to substantiate the relevant charges, the Legislative Council shall discuss further, and may pass a motion of impeachment by a two-thirds majority of all its Members and report it to the Central People's Government for decision. Hearing this, everyone should know that it would take at least a year or so to complete the whole process. Even if we went through this bothersome process, we would not see a different result but would only waste the precious money of taxpayers and the valuable time of this Council.

If the pan-democrats really think that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying was in the wrong in the UGL incident and engaged in misconduct in this fiasco involving the Select Committee, they can accuse him in realistic ways, such as reporting him with evidence to the Inland Revenue Department, or reporting him to the Independent Commission Against Corruption for the offence of misconduct in public office―Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is now being prosecuted for the same offence―so that the law enforcement agency can conduct investigation, instead of turning the Legislative Council into a court for political trials. This Chamber is not a courtroom. The functions of the Legislative Council are to monitor the Government, provide the Government with good advice, and improve people's livelihood. These are what the Legislative Council should do. The public does 9426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 not want to see farces of political mud-slinging being staged in the Legislative Council every day. That being the case, why do the pan-democrats still pursue this unrealistic impeachment bid?

Deputy President, as I said just now, they have demonized the Chief Executive right from the outset. Given their position as the opposition camp, it is perhaps understandable for them to do so. This is some kind of veto politics; if they do not attack the Chief Executive, how can they play their role as the opposition camp? But then, to be honest, I think opposition Members should set higher standards for themselves. In foreign countries, a motion of impeachment is a very serious matter that must be handled with great caution. Abusing the impeachment mechanism would give the impression of being captious or puerile.

Earlier on, a Member mentioned that there had been two presidential impeachments in the history of the United States: one being the impeachment of Bill CLINTON over his affair with Monica LEWINSKY, and the other being the impeachment of President Richard NIXON over the Watergate scandal. In South Korea, one of our neighbouring countries, President PARK Geun-hye was impeached by the National Assembly for serious corruption. All these incidents involved extremely serious graft, dereliction of duty or abuse of power. We, of course, do not want our Chief Executive to end up like them, and so far there has been no evidence showing that he has such problems. It is fortunate that over the years, the previous Chief Executives of Hong Kong … Take Donald TSANG for example; his case can be handled through legal proceedings. To abuse the impeachment mechanism is not only a puerile act as described by me just now, but also an act aimed at struggling for the sake of struggling.

Many pan-democratic Members are fond of saying that LEUNG Chun-ying is pugnacious. But to be frank, not even Hercules could contend against two at once. Facing not only two but scores of pan-democrats in this Council, LEUNG Chun-ying is simply outnumbered. There is no way he can out-argue them, no matter how pugnacious or how good a "fighter" he is. After all, it takes two to tango. As I said just now, as soon as the Chief Executive took office, Members from the pan-democratic or opposition camp started to assail him with a view to bringing him down. Their wish has now come true, as the Chief Executive is not seeking re-election. I do not know whether this has anything to do with the pan-democrats' persistent attacks on the Chief Executive, but during the past few years, people clearly saw them hurl objects at the Chief Executive in this Chamber and insult him verbally in public. When the Chief Executive attended LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9427 his last Question and Answer Session in his term of office, a Member called him "scumbag", which is an extremely vulgar word. I find it regrettable that the President did not enforce the Rules of Procedure to deal with this at that time.

Opposition Members often criticize the Chief Executive for not visiting the districts with a pen and a notepad anymore after his assumption of office. They call him a liar. But do they recall how they attacked the Chief Executive every time he visited a district and how they stormed the venue, rendering him unable to reach out to the public or listen to people's views? If it is said that the Chief Executive deserves to be impeached for dereliction of duty and breach of oath, then I would say opposition Members should also be impeached and censured for various acts on their part.

As the saying goes, "When you point a finger at someone, you have four fingers pointing back at yourself." Have the pan-democrats reflected on their own acts? Let me causally cite several examples. Just now I mentioned that Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is currently being prosecuted. This is one example. He is suspected of accepting a donation of $250,000 from Jimmy LAI without making declaration, and failing to declare his interest when discussing matters relating to Jimmy LAI and Apple Daily. Have the pan-democrats said a word about these problems? They act as if nothing has ever happened. The pan-democrats often say that people standing on the political high ground should be whiter than white. I want to ask them one question: If we, pro-establishment Members, propose a motion to impeach Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, will they support it? They should use the same yardstick for dealing with his problems. LEE Cheuk-yan, a former Member, was likewise alleged to have accepted a donation without making declaration.

The illegal Occupy Central is another vivid example. Those Members participating in Occupy Central staged a so-called protest against the Government and social injustices under the banner of "civil disobedience", but their acts were actually illegal. First, they went back on their word. They had promised that they would surrender themselves, but they did not do so in the end. This was a breach of trust. Second, their acts were illegal. Admittedly, our prosecuting agency was very inefficient in handling this issue. Some of the cases in question have yet to be brought to court.

Do they not deserve to be impeached for engaging in such acts? But why is it that the pro-establishment camp does not want to spend time taking this course of action? In fact, many members of the public have asked us why we do 9428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 not impeach these opposition Members. Given the current political reality, the impeachment threshold of "a two-thirds majority vote of the Members present" is just unattainable, otherwise we would really like to impeach these Members for dereliction of duty and breaching the Legislative Council Oath, which contains a pledge to act "conscientiously", "dutifully" and "in full accordance with the law". Deputy President, have these opposition Members acted in full accordance with the law? The answer is obvious to the public. Sadly, today's political ecology is "only about political stands without regard for the rights and wrongs". It is basically impossible to get the support of a two-thirds majority of the Members present. What we can do is try our best to maintain order in this Council, so that we can help promote social development in relation to people's livelihood and the economy, which is of great concern to the public.

Deputy President, we always say that Hong Kong has sunk into a quagmire of populism. One manifestation of populism is the creation of an enemy or a straw man known as the "Other". Having constructed the "Other", the populists will oppose, resist and reject it in order to win over public opinion. The stronger or the more evil the "Other" or the opponent is, the easier the populists can drum up support for themselves and seize a higher moral ground. This is exactly the approach or strategy that the opposition camp has been using all along.

However, can they possibly tell others what to do if they do not do things the right way? Many opposition Members are actually lawbreakers lacking in integrity, yet they have the cheek to make a fuss about a minor issue. In my view, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying and Mr Holden CHOW undoubtedly deserve to be criticized for not being thoughtful enough in this fiasco concerning the Select Committee's inquiry into the UGL incident, but they have already accepted criticisms and suffered political consequences. Just think of a football match; should every foul warrant a red-card expulsion? If the pan-democrats consider it the right thing to do, they should apply the same standard to themselves. They must not be lenient with themselves but strict with others.

Lastly, I wish to look ahead. With only 20-odd days to go before the new Government takes office, the public really hopes that our society can let go of past baggage and free itself from dissension. Nonetheless, given the opposition camp's continual smearing tactics marked by political mud-slinging and objection to everything proposed by the Government, it seems that this good wish of the public cannot be realized easily. This motion initiated by the oppositionists is just a political farce or political "bad debt" which serves to benefit themselves at the expense of others. People are sick of it. Now, the whole community has to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9429

"foot the bill" and the Legislative Council has to spend two days discussing it. This is practically meaningless, as far as I am concerned. I do not agree to this impeachment motion, and I will vote against it.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my mother once told me that "if you don't want people to know, you'd better not do it". I always bear that in mind. The teaching is simple enough. A person should be accountable to himself for what he does. He should not do a wrong thing secretively in the hope that no one will find out. This actually does not work. First, we have to be answerable to ourselves. Second, as public officers, everything we did would certainly be uncovered. LEUNG Chun-ying had worked through Mr Holden CHOW to secretively amend the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council to inquire into matters about his acceptance of HK$50 million from UGL. Yet, justice has long arms. LEUNG Chun-ying's teammate Holden CHOW submitted the original marked-up version of the document and fortunately, staff members of the Legislative Council Secretariat told Members what happened and the matter was thus exposed. It can be said that there is divine justice after all.

In fact, the motion on impeachment initiated by us at this stage really will not produce any substantial effect. I will explain later why that is so. However, we want to state clearly the significance of initiating the impeachment motion at the very last stage of LEUNG Chun-ying's term of office and the actual facts involved. First, when LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, we certainly knew that he had been a director of DTZ Holdings plc, but we did not know the details of his shareholdings, etc. We assumed that as the Chief Executive, he would surely handle his dealings or funds in business properly, and he would give a clear account and make proper arrangement in that regard. As the Chief Executive, he is ultimately responsible for all matters in Hong Kong, particularly matters which involve public policies, the distribution of public resources and even legislative amendment exercises.

The Australian media uncovered that after LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office as the Chief Executive, he received HK$50 million from the Australian corporation UGL. The reason was that he was a party to a contract and the 9430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 effective period of which overlapped with his tenure as the Chief Executive. The contract required him to perform certain responsibilities in return for receiving HK$50 million. As referee and adviser of UGL, LEUNG Chun-ying had to refer business to or promote business for UGL. That created a big problem. As the Chief Executive, he was concurrently a party to a contract under which he had to fulfil certain responsibilities to a private company and received interests in return. Had he declared interests? No. Evidently, he had not declared interests to the Executive Council.

Deputy President, I do not know if you were already a Member of the Executive Council back then, but I believe you knew that LEUNG Chun-ying had not declared interests and he clearly stated that it was not necessary for him to do so. How come he was not required to declare interests? He said it was not necessary. Is it true that there were no conflict of interests? It is not. It turns out that UGL has worked with the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") on many projects and for many years too. Before LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, UGL had signed business contracts with MTRCL, including a contract on railway construction and operation in Sydney, Australia. In what way was it related to MTRCL? MTRCL was responsible to carry out the work and so MTRCL and UGL were business partners. Moreover, MTRCL has taken up an operation concession of Melbourne's metropolitan train network and the HKSAR Government, which owns more than 70% of MTRCL's shareholdings, is its biggest shareholder. In Hong Kong, UGL has assisted in maintaining the Kwun Tong Line and designing the Light Rail system. UGL had given direct pecuniary interests to the Chief Executive who is the representative of the HKSAR Government; the SAR Government is the biggest shareholder of MTRCL, and MTRCL has direct business dealings with UGL. Is there any chance that a conflict of interests may arise? There is a prima facie case, but the Chief Executive opines that there is no problem. Had the Australian media not uncovered the incident, the Chief Executive would not have mentioned anything about it.

We have to criticize and impeach LEUNG Chun-ying for his lack of credibility. Certainly, the royalists will shield him and when the motion is put to vote, the democrats will lose. We can do nothing about him. Last year, we demanded to establish a Select Committee to inquire into the matters of UGL, but LEUNG Chun-ying tried to amend the scope of inquiry through the Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee. The whole incident was done secretively LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9431 and LEUNG Chun-ying did not want anyone to know about it. After the matter was uncovered, he was left with no other alternative but to admit that he made the amendments.

Anyone with common sense will understand that LEUNG Chun-ying was trying to interfere with the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee. As the Chief Executive and the subject of inquiry, he tried to amend the scope of inquiry. How could he do so? Yet, the royalists said that the democrats have created the trouble and made a fuss out of nothing. LEUNG Chun-ying's act has given rise to a scandal, right? In court, his act would amount to perverting the course of justice. That is general knowledge, isn't it? Yet, the royalists now berate us for being shameless, as well as for initiating this motion on impeachment and creating a big trouble. A shameless person is really unbeatable. Having been a Member of the Legislative Council for more than half of my life, I finally understand what is meant by "shameless". The royalists have demonstrated to us the meaning of "most shameless". They have provided the best negative examples to teach children. If children grow up and become adults without credibility like them, it would be disastrous. People will have no sense of shame. If we have done anything wrong, we should humbly admit and correct our mistake. If we have done anything wrong, we have to accept punishment and promise not to do it again.

As public officers, we should be whiter than white. We should avoid doing things which arouse suspicions, and more importantly, we should avoid engaging in the above mentioned matter which obviously involved pecuniary interests. LEUNG Chun-ying said that it was not necessary to declare interests and he did not declare interests. What can we do about him? We asked him whether he had paid the relevant tax; he said he did not have to answer the question. We demanded to establish a Select Committee; he secretively amended the scope of inquiry. Is it possible that the amendment will not have any effect?

Deputy President, Kevin LAU said that in 2011 when LEUNG Chun-ying ceased to be Chairman of DTZ Holdings plc, he signed a secret agreement with the Australian corporation UGL. It was stated in the agreement that LEUNG Chun-ying would receive HK$50 million (£4 million), and he could sell his shares of DTZ Japan Limited to UGL or another designated party within seven years. Besides, he could also receive at least £200,000 (about HK$2.5 million) and profits of the company during the said period. In other words, when 9432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

LEUNG Chun-ying is acting as Chief Executive, he might have some other dealings with UGL too. LEUNG Chun-ying tried to amend and narrow the scope of inquiry so that these areas would not be covered. I believe even a primary school student will understand what is happening.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Yet, the royalists are bold enough to say that we are shameless, frivolous, looking up trouble and making a fuss out of nothing. They are formidable! One can hardly imagine that they can be so shameless. If children learn from them when they grow up, it will be disastrous. Our society will be doomed. If the royalists want to protect someone, they should pick a better man to protect. At least I heard some reasonable remarks from Mr Abraham SHEK earlier. He said that any reasonable man would not do what LEUNG Chun-ying did.

High stakes are involved in this matter. The Chief Executive conspired with a Member of the Legislative Council in an attempt to interfere with the inquiry of the Legislative Council. That is a very important matter. LEUNG Chun-ying set a bad example and a very bad precedent. Do we have to drop the matter and regard it as trivial just because LEUNG Chun-ying will step down soon?

Mr LUK Chung-hung said that Members have proposed a pseudo-proposition. At this stage when the Chief Executive's tenure will end in less than a month, it will be a waste of effort to impeach him. Mr LUK Chung-hung queried why it was still necessary to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying as he will step down. Yes, we cannot impeach LEUNG Chun-ying, but even so, we have to put things on record. President, we are having this discussion in the Legislative Council today mainly because we want to put things on record. I have been telling my students all along that I have contributed most of my effort, time and life to the historical records. Even if I cannot change anything today, I must put our present views on record.

It is true that this may be a pseudo-proposition which will not produce any results. However, we have fought for many things and may not have achieved any results. For example, we have asked the Government to provide free medicines to patients; we have asked the Government to improve services for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9433 elderly, persons with disabilities and patients; and we have asked the Government to improve home care services and day care services. We have been making these demands for years, but the Government has not taken any actions and even if it has, it has been taking small steps like ants. How many people died while waiting for places in residential care homes for the elderly each year? The Government said that there was a shortage of land in Hong Kong and later, it said that all services have been provided. Nevertheless, all services have been insufficiently provided. People have to wait a year or so for services and some died while waiting.

For record purpose, we commit that will continue to fight for getting things done. We feel rather helpless because we are fighting for democracy under an unfair and distorted political system in a totalitarian society. It seems that our goal can never be reached, or at least it cannot be reached instantly. However, we have faith and the confidence that we can succeed. Perhaps in the years of my life, I may not see a society with a greater degree of justice, but we will make it and we can put our hopes in the next generation.

This UGL incident has now turned into an "UGLY" incident. It is indeed a very ugly scandal. The Chief Executive tried to divert people's attention, and the Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee even conspired with the Chief Executive to interfere with the work of the Legislative Council. Moreover, the royalists have come forward to shield them. A Member suggested dissolving the Select Committee and another proposed to assail Mr Kenneth LEUNG. I cannot bear to see the behaviour of these people!

DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I wish to respond to the points made by certain pro-establishment Members in their speeches and then I will talk about why I support this motion.

Just now, Mr LUK Chung-hung said that this farce has lasted for over a thousand days, close to five years, and after 20-odd days, LEUNG Chun-ying would step down. He was right. Ever since LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, hardly has one day gone by without him launching verbal and physical assaults. The people have had enough. They wish to recuperate from such turmoils. I fully understand their thoughts. Had we the choice, who would want to talk about this person again in these 20-odd days? It is a shame that he still haunts us like a phantom and continues to stir up trouble before his departure, and that is what the people are most sad.

9434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

If I could, I would rather concentrate on elderly care. Recently, there was another incident in which an elderly man, being unable to bear the pressure of life, killed his wife and then turned himself in to the Police. If I could, I prefer to do my utmost to improve elderly care services. The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge is rife with scandals and its future safety is at stake. If I could, I wish to concentrate my efforts to deal with it. I also wish to do my very best to promote the policy on bazaars because a seemingly small policy may benefit many in society. However, I cannot help but support this motion because LEUNG Chun-ying has never stopped destroying Hong Kong's core values and depriving this Council of its dignity. To safeguard the dignity of the Legislative Council, I must support this motion. There is really nothing else I can do.

Mr LUK Chung-hung has just said something like, "After much ado, the result is just the same." It is true that with the pro-establishment Members constituting the majority in the Legislative Council, they will win in every vote, but does this mean "the result is just the same"? It might well be in their eyes because all they can see are benefits and power. Hence, they think the result is just the same. However, to us it is not so. Dr Junius HO has blabbed about "knowing the impossibilities but persevering", the meaning of which he cannot tell clearly, but it is the principle that we hold onto. To us, the result is different. Justice needs to be served and some principles need to be stated. However, the pro-establishment Members like to gloss over their mistakes and cover up their wrongdoings.

As a matter of fact, I do not like to describe certain colleagues "harbouring" LEUNG Chun-ying as what has happened is more than mere "harbouring" but collusion. In this Council everyone has become LEUNG Chun-ying as their documents are directly amended by LEUNG Chun-ying. How can we put up with such shameful deeds? Some say that we have demonized LEUNG Chun-ying but how can a demon be demonized? We only need to give a plain account of his evil deeds, and people will see that he is a ferocious demon.

Ever since he assumed office, LEUNG Chun-ying has never stopped launching verbal and physical assaults. The ranking of our freedom of press has dropped to the 73rd place. Mr LUK Chung-hung was right in saying that it took two to tango. There are comments that the democratic Members like to criticize and denounce LEUNG Chun-ying, but had he not done those things, how could LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9435 he be criticized and denounced? Had he done nothing wrong, why would he be reproached? In the face of such a despicable person, had I the choice, I do not even wish to reproach him.

I really do not wish to reproach LEUNG Chun-ying. During the last discussion of the motion to censure Mr Holden CHOW at the House Committee meeting, though I pressed the "Request to speak" button, I did not have the chance to speak due to the time limit. When I returned to the college where I work to pick up some papers that evening, several security guards asked me as soon as they saw me, "'Teacher Siu-lai', why didn't you reproach Mr Holden CHOW? You have to give him a good dressing-down for us. What did he think he was doing?" Many members of the public did watch the broadcast of that meeting. They are even angrier and more concerned about that incident than I expect. Some members of the health care sector told me that no matter how busy they were, they watched the broadcast of the House Committee meeting during lunchtime to see how we sought justice for them. Even their parents watched that meeting to see if we could express their heartfelt wishes. When I went to see a doctor, the doctor asked me, "Miss LAU, I just realized that there is such a bad and stupid guy in the Council. After doing such an outrageous thing, he is stupid enough to let others find out. What kind of Council is it?"

Do Members know how angry the public are? Hence, no matter how reluctant I am to talk about LEUNG Chun-ying again, I must speak for the people. But if I could, I would rather commence the discussion on the motion about the 4 June incident as soon as possible and I also eager to discuss elderly care, but I just cannot do so.

Some people always criticize us for making unfair accusations against LEUNG Chun-ying and trying to punish him, but in dealing with a person who is in complete dereliction of duty, is it unfair to expose his wrongdoings? What is wrong with initiating a motion to impeach a person who committed dereliction of duty? What is really unfair is that pro-establishment Members gloss over his mistakes and make this incident seem frivolous and trivial. What is most absurd is that they accuse us of repeating the same old stuff. Maybe I am inexperienced in the political work; I do not realize that our accusation that the Chief Executive directly amended a document and manipulated a Member into doing what he wanted, even lying to the Council, saying that it was all his own ideas, is just repeating the same old stuff in the eyes of these Members. To me such deeds are something new and unheard of.

9436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

When I first joined this Council, some colleagues told me that the questions and speeches of pro-establishment Members were very often written by government officials on their behalf, I did not fully believe at that time. But today when they said that our accusation of the Chief Executive directly amending a Member's document is repeating the same old stuff, I believe that the above saying may be true. As they are so used to that practice, it is no big deal to them. Actually every one of them can be LEUNG Chun-ying, and the practice is nothing special and novel. I can see such hints in their responses and that saddens us even more.

This farce has been running for five years. Is it merely a war of words? I believe the general public have a pretty good idea about it. People have been living in dire conditions in the past five years. The Government may have tried to improve their conditions, but it has done even more evil things which are utterly abhorred and detested by the people. How can we turn a blind eye to that? In respect of the UGL incident, we do not know if LEUNG Chun-ying has committed the offence of misconduct in public office, and that is why we have to inquire into it. No one has made a conclusion here. If a conclusion is made, do we still need to investigate? In the process of the inquiry, both sides are bound to have different views. It is most saddening that during this process, the subject of inquiry did not openly tell the public how he thought the inquiry should be carried out, which was a reasonable act. Instead, the subject of inquiry worked through the former Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee to distort the scope of inquiry. If that was not abuse of power, what was it? If I amend a document and then ask Mr Holden CHOW to tell everyone that the document is amended by him, will he do so? If the person were not Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying who may become the supreme ruler one day, would Mr Holden CHOW agree to do so? If that was not abuse of power and dereliction of duty, what was it?

What has LEUNG Chun-ying amended? First, we have to find out why he was so afraid. He was afraid because the agreement he made with UGL was not merely a resignation agreement as he always stressed to be. If it was a resignation agreement, why did he not sign with DTZ but with UGL? I really do not understand. But obviously, as the agreement stated certain services to be provided later, it was a service agreement. It was a service agreement signed by the Chief Executive with a company during his tenure. Does it mean he was having a part-time job? Did he have to declare? I really wonder why he did not need to declare.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9437

I am not saying that LEUNG Chun-ying will certainly be found guilty but at least he should be inquired into. Do not tell me: As "Grandpa" or the Central Authorities think that I have no problem, then I have no problem. Under the principle of "one country, two systems", two separate legal systems are in practice in both places. I only want to know the findings of the inquiry. However, during the inquiry process, LEUNG Chun-ying has secretly done something to directly blur the focus of the inquiry. The inquiry into the contents of the agreement has changed, for no reason, to the inquiry into the authenticity of the document, and the inquiry is restricted to only one document. In fact, a number of colleagues have said that many documents are involved and those documents are the most important. On the face of it, the scope of inquiry has been expanded, or "more open" as Ms Starry LEE claimed, but actually the focus has been blurred, so that we cannot conduct an effective inquiry within the limited time, especially with the help of pro-establishment Members in filibustering.

LEUNG Chun-ying is a shrewd expert in "hypocritical rhetoric". After his amendment, one of the areas to be inquired into is whether he has breached Article 47 of the Basic Law and whether he has declared interests under the system of declaration of interests by Members of the Executive Council. Declaration of assets is slightly different from declaration of interests. He has distorted the concept and shifted the attention. That is a really clever move. Just by changing the numbers, he could lower the efficiency of the Select Committee. No matter you call him a demon or an expert in "hypocritical rhetoric", it is really hard to tell what kind of person he is. After what has happened, if this Council does not make a proper move in response, how can we do justice to the people? If we do not conduct a proper inquiry and make a proper accusation, and accept the fact that pro-establishment Members can continue to be props of LEUNG Chun-ying all the time, are we doing justice to the people?

It is true that the impeachment motion will never be passed but at least we have expressed the heartfelt wishes of people and given a clear account of this principle. We have told LEUNG Chun-ying and the like that Hong Kong people do not accept what he has done. We have told the Chief Executive-elect that we will not tolerate such incidents to happen again. If she really wants to reconcile and improve the relationship between the executive and the legislature, then she must respect this Council, does not turn it into a rubber stamp and deprives it of its dignity. That is what members of the public wish to see.

9438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

President, in respect of the crimes of LEUNG Chun-ying, I do not see the need to expound on them here as after all, what matters now is whether we support the motion to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying. Having said that much, I just want to tell everyone that not only I support the motion, but many people on the streets, be they intellectuals, the grass roots and people from various walks of life and of different generations, have told me that I have to speak on the motion and support the motion to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying, no matter how many days have left in his tenure. We cannot let him off the hook so easily, as if nothing had happened. We have no idea whether he will be punished for that but we have to put it on record that the people of Hong Kong do not accept such behaviour of his. As long as we are here, we will continue to uphold Hong Kong's core values.

I so submit.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, just now Mr IP Kin-yuen said that the impeachment motion under discussion today is a very serious matter. I do agree that it is a very serious matter, and this is why the wordings of the motion must be very precise so as to ensure that the discussion can be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). However, after listening to the speeches made by Members last night and this morning, I notice that many colleagues are indeed experts in "hypocritical rhetoric" as they have added many different attributes to this Council.

The committee involved in this case is actually a select committee, but many Members have given different names to it, such as Mr HUI Chi-fung called it an investigation committee, and Dr YIU Chung-yim called it a select investigation committee. Neither of them conforms to RoP. Back then, a total of 28 Members presented a petition in the Legislative Council Chamber, requesting this Council to deal with matters that they would like to deal with. It does not matter what request these 28 Members have put forward because they have acted according to RoP. And yet, such an approach is nothing more than handing the matter over for a group of members to "consider". The word "consider" is exactly the translation used in RoP. Since the audience may not fully understand what I am saying, I would try my best to explain more clearly, otherwise people may get confused with so many different concepts.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9439

This select committee merely considers things that fall within a certain scope, which is similar to the consideration made by panels, except that the work of select committee is more focused. On the other hand, investigation committees, such as the one set up to investigate former Member KAM Nai-wai and Dr CHENG Chung-tai, are tasked to conduct an investigation on dereliction of duty based on the prime facie evidence. Therefore, investigation committee is different from a panel. In the present case, however, the select committee only considers one thing and a report will then be submitted to this Council for discussion. Thus, although the Chinese name of the select committee contains the term "調查", the English rendition is "inquire", which is of a lower degree. Generally speaking, the term "調查" is translated as "investigate" but not "inquire". I therefore do not think that the Chinese renditions of the terms "investigation committee" or "subject of inquiry" would cause any misunderstanding about the nature of the committee.

The issue under discussion is whether there is any problem with Mr LEUNG Chun-ying providing certain information to Mr Holden CHOW. This is the major reason why we have to discuss whether or not to support the impeachment motion today. Mr LEUNG Chun-ying is one of the stakeholders of the entire case. There are actually many stakeholders, including Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, UGL, DTZ Group, Secretariat of the Executive Council―there is a question on whether the Secretariat has put in place an administrative system for declaration of interest―and the Inland Revenue Department ("IRD"). If Members agree that LEUNG Chun-ying is the subject of inquiry, so are IRD and UGL. And yet, we understand that he has only fallen within the area of study and is not the subject of inquiry. Any attempt to portray Mr LEUNG Chun-ying as the subject of inquiry and even go further to depict him as a suspect facing charges in court is inconsistent with the original intent of establishing the select committee to inquire into the matter.

I studied philosophy and if I look from a philosophical perspective, such an interpretation will keep revolving and people of different background will make their own interpretations. Worse still, people having ill intentions towards the current-term Government will even keep making malicious interpretations. And yet, this is an unchangeable fact and so I will not blame them.

We must therefore look at the original intent and see if there is any serious problem with the operation of this Council. Take for example the issues being considered by other committees of the Legislative Council, such as trade in 9440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 elephant ivory or waste charging. If owners of refuse collection vehicles liaise with us, will this give rise to collusion? If after discussing with people who oppose trade in elephant ivory, we accepted and relayed their views to the Council, will this be seen as collusion? I do not consider that this is collusion because if the views expressed by the relevant deputations during the discussion are consistent with mine, I would surely relay their views in my capacity as a Member of the Legislative Council. This is the established practice of this Council. It would be too ridiculous if the Government is not prepared to discuss with any stakeholder when a certain matter is brought to a particular committee for discussion. Can this Council continue to act as people's representative? How can this Council discuss or liaise with other people? This is downright impossible. Following this logic, I think it makes no sense at all for Members of the opposition camp to say that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying should not relay his views to any member for reference purpose.

Of course, regardless of whether Members accept his views, they will have to bear the consequences on their own. And yet, whether the Member has provided the entire document to LEUNG Chun-ying or just briefed him orally, this has all along been a part of parliamentary politics. I believe colleagues of the opposition camp should have numerous exchanges with various stakeholders on different issues, I therefore do not think there is any problem with this.

If we use this kind of exchanges as the reason of impeachment and, as stated in the wordings of the motion, consider whether LEUNG Chun-ying being the subject of the inquiry has dereliction of duty, then following the above mentioned logic, I do not think he has committed dereliction of duty. Firstly, this kind of exchange does not breach the law. Secondly, I fail to see why expressing views to Mr Holden CHOW is a dereliction of duty. This is no different from the practice of the Government to provide us with basic information on public works projects before the discussion. The purpose is to give Members a better understanding of the works before they speak in the Council, thereby enhancing the overall efficiency. Thus, according to the opposition camp, the Select Committee's inquiry into Mr LEUNG Chun-ying is similar to putting him on a public trial. I do not think this is the original intent of the Select Committee. Hence, according to this logic, I do not understand and endorse the rationale of opposition camp in initiating this motion to impeach the Chief Executive.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9441

The parliamentary system has become more and more transparent since the inception of Hong Kong. Some colleagues said this is the biggest ever scandal in Hong Kong, I nonetheless completely disagree because in the absence of a transparent system, no improvement could be made over the past 150 years since inception. Of course, we may request the Government to further enhance the transparency, but I think rational people would understand that any attempt to further enhance the transparency of the system would end up undermining the efficiency of the Government. As in the case of our declaration system, we can certainly make it more specific, but I do not think this is what an ordinary member of the public would wish to see. Another example is, will we ask our mother to clean the windows every day to make it as clean as a whistle? I also take up some household chores, but I will not spend the whole day cleaning the windows to make it as clear as a whistle.

Colleagues of the opposition camp have stated very clearly that they hope to put on record every single word of their remarks. Yet, they do not care if this is beneficial to the entire SAR Government or the Hong Kong community at large. Therefore, I oppose the impeachment motion, and I also hope that opposition Members will not hold society back. Economic development and infrastructure for improving people's livelihood should be put in the first place. If we do not take any initiative to make progress, we will certainly be left behind. If we put all our efforts on political wrangling and spend as long as five years engaging in some unsettled political arguments, our social development will be stagnant and we will lag behind other neighbouring regions―not to mention the Mainland―such as Singapore. I hope that Members will oppose today's impeachment motion so that this Council can move on and discuss matters that should be discussed.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please speak.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): The time is almost noon now. The views I intend to raise have already been covered by a number of Honourable colleagues, and I do not know if the several Members now present in the Chamber would speak on the motion or not.

9442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

First of all, I am grateful that Honourable colleagues have not caused the abortion of the meeting, so that we can have a full debate on this matter. Although I do not know if the entire debate will really be completed or what will happen when the motion is put to vote, at least for the time being, Members have the opportunity to speak and present their arguments on the motion. That is … Although there are serious flaws in Hong Kong's political system, Members can still hold debates in the Council, so that members of the public can understand our views. I think it is something we should all cherish.

I would like to respond to the speeches made by some Honourable colleagues this morning. Firstly, pro-establishment Members criticized the pro-democracy camp for playing with populism. To them, playing with populism is everything about finding an opponent, the bigger the opponent, the better. I think pro-establishment Members may be wrong about something. In fact, politics is always about finding opponents, and it is never a solo game. As different people have different ideas, politics is about what means should be used to find the answer. To say that populism is about finding an opponent, I would rather say that a more prominent feature of populism is oversimplifying all issues, such that people start becoming irrational and then emotional.

In politics, populism is always a substitute for democracy. Actually, which ruling regime in the world is the best player of populism? The answer is the Communist Party of China ("CPC"). If a ruling party is unwilling to relinquish its political powers, what can it do? It resorts to populism. For example, it puts a label on all democratic movements in Hong Kong, saying that "anti-communism" is equivalent to "Hong Kong independence" or separatism. So Chinese people must never mix with Hong Kong people because that will mean supporting separatism and advocating "Hong Kong independence". Such political jargon is so effective in the Mainland that many Chinese people actually believe that Hong Kong is in a terrible situation. CPC even says that no support should be given to Hong Kong. So people should no longer ask the question: why is there no democracy in China? It is because they have more important things to do: they have to build the Chinese dream.

In Hong Kong, populism can also arise in different issues in similar form, such as the question of "bogus refugees" often mentioned by pro-establishment Members. Moreover, pro-establishment Members would often say that the democrats reject any development and hence, they filibuster to stall the works projects. All these are oversimplified, false or misleading statements motivated politically to prevent democracy from taking root in Hong Kong. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9443

If pro-establishment Members really want to have democracy in Hong Kong, we must go back …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I would like to remind you that according to Rule 41(1) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), a Member shall not introduce matter irrelevant to the subject under discussion. I have already given you time to respond to the question about populism. Please speak on the subject.

In this debate, Members must speak in relation to the charges set out in the motion and discuss whether they support giving a mandate to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to form an investigation committee to investigate the relevant charges.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, whenever I respond to the speeches made by other Members, you would stop me by citing the provisions in RoP. Please apply the same yardstick to all Members.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I have already allowed you to speak for five minutes before reminding you that you should focus your speech on the subject of debate.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Okay, I will speak on the subject of this debate. But how can it be a debate if I do not respond to the points raised by Honourable colleagues? Should Members only say why they support or oppose the motion and nothing else? In that case, how can it be called a debate? President, we are now having a debate.

We long for democracy. And what are the most important elements of a democratic government? President, they are openness, transparency and a deliberative decision-making process. So, regarding LEUNG Chun-ying's UGL incident, the aim of what we have done so far since the incident come to light, including our attempts to conduct a statutory investigation by invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, is to enhance the transparency of the entire process.

9444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

But the proposal was rejected by Honourable colleagues from the pro-establishment camp. We have no choice but set up a non-statutory select committee to conduct the investigation. Although the Select Committee is vested with less power, it is still better than nothing. The Select Committee only seeks to conduct its inquiry on the basis of transparency and openness, so that a decision can be taken after thorough discussion.

But even at this stage, who would have thought that LEUNG Chun-ying still tried to interfere with our inquiry by colluding with Mr Holden CHOW. Every move they take has departed further and further away from the principles of democracy as we generally recognized. If pro-establishment Members can be level-headed and consider the matter from its beginning step by step, they would have noticed that democracy has been overtaken by populism in Hong Kong nowadays. The only way to slightly reverse the trend is to point out the wrongdoings of the culprit in no uncertain terms.

Surely, the culprit has the right to defend himself. But I must stress that what LEUNG Chun-ying has done to the Select Committee should never be regarded as a legitimate way of defending oneself. According to Mr HO Kai-ming, LEUNG Chun-ying, as the subject of inquiry, certainly has the right to defend himself; otherwise, how can the Legislative Council operate? No, this is not the case because LEUNG Chun-ying himself has public powers. He is the person with most powers in Hong Kong. As the person with most powers, LEUNG had abused his public office and colluded with a Member of the Legislative Council―I stress again, they have colluded―with the direct intention of influencing the inquiry of the Legislative Council. If such actions could still be regarded as reasonable, I do not know how far Mr HO Kai-ming must go to package the theory he just mentioned with philosophy.

Earlier, when responding to Mr WU Chi-wai's speech, Mr CHAN Hak-kan said that even if LEUNG Chun-ying is a Vice Chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, it does not mean that he has full immunity because even the Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission must also step down because of corruption. In fact, Hong Kong people or even the people of China know very well that anti-corruption campaigns in China are only meant to target political enemies and never friends. If friends could also become the target, how come current Members of the Politburo Standing Committee are still safe and sound? Who doesn't have relatives that are filthy rich?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9445

In Hong Kong, we can see the same phenomenon emerging. Fortunately, the Legislative Council can still take this final step in accordance with the Basic Law. We still have the powers conferred under Article 73(9) to conduct investigation. In fact, we can see clearly that over a period of time in the past, LEUNG Chun-ying, as head of the Hong Kong SAR, has prohibited any investigation on him. Hence, it is absolutely not the case as described by Mr CHAN Hak-kan that we can freely report the case to the Police, the Inland Revenue Department or the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). The fact is that the case had already been reported to ICAC, but eventually even its Head of Operations must resign after demotion.

Hong Kong people have also become aware of such a situation. Hong Kong has copied the Chinese style of fighting corruption among its high ranking officials, that is, only officials in the lower ranks or political enemies can become the target, but never the highest ranking officials, not even relatives under their protection. That is precisely why our debate in the Legislative Council today is so precious. Honourable colleagues, we have only come this far after overcoming numerous obstacles. When we formally reported the case to ICAC, the head of its investigation department must eventually resign. When we tried to investigate the incident in the Legislative Council by invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, our attempt failed due to obstruction by the pro-establishment camp.

Now, we have come to the final stage. As the saying goes, "you can't wrap fire in paper". We all know what has happened. What is left to do today is to hold the culprit accountable. What was LEUNG Chun-ying's wrongdoing? A moment ago, Mr Martin LIAO quoted some examples from the United States, which I think we should make reference to.

President, in the history of the United States, there are two incidents of impeaching the President. The second one involves Bill CLINTON. What was that impeachment case about? Mr Martin LIAO did not give us the details just now. What was actually Bill CLINTON's wrongdoing? He was wrong for his involvement in sex scandal, but that was not why he was impeached. He was impeached because he lied to the Congress in order to cover up his involvement in the sex scandal, such as denying having any relationship with Monica LEWINSKY. That was why the impeachment process was triggered against him.

9446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

To me, Mr Martin LIAO seems to think that the United States has taken the impeachment of Bill CLINTON seriously, and that he was wrong for his sex scandal and perjury. Okay, let us go back to Hong Kong. What was the Chief Executive's wrongdoing? As I have said numerous times, he was wrong because so far, he has yet to give us a clear explanation of his involvement in the UGL incident. The questions raised by Prof Eric CHEUNG, who is also a lawyer, are perfectly clear. The questions we have been asking so far are all perfectly open and clear. Every time our list of questions can be as long as several thousand words. But his reply is invariably that, "I have already explained everything that needs to be explained. How come there is anything wrong about it if no investigation has been conducted by tax authorities in overseas countries and Hong Kong?"

President, we have already exhausted all ways and means to activate an investigation, but to no avail. Even though the Select Committee established does not have statutory powers, LEUNG Chun-ying still interfered our work through secret dealings. That is why his wrongdoing must be many times more serious than those of Bill CLINTON because LEUNG Chun-ying did not only lie to this Council to conceal his wrongdoing and deliberately interfere with the operations of the Legislative Council, he also tried to cover up the matter through collusion, concealment and lies. His wrongdoing must be a zillion times more serious than Bill CLINTON's. That is why I hope Honourable colleagues will support this motion to activate the impeachment process, so as to give the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal the mandate to form an investigation committee to investigate the incident.

Thank you, President.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, many colleagues have put forward their arguments on the incident involving LEUNG Chun-ying and Mr Holden CHOW in the past two days, analysing whether their acts were proper and whether impeachment procedure should be initiated. I am not going to repeat the relevant arguments.

I only wish to reiterate that I am speaking in support of initiating the impeachment procedure. I myself have co-signed the petition. In fact, the Legislative Council has the constitutional duty to perform the role of checks and balances and monitor the performance of the Chief Executive and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9447

Government. To both the pro-democracy camp and the opposition camp, the incident is seemingly open to question indeed. In accordance with common sense, while the Select Committee set up for the investigation of the UGL incident ("the Select Committee") is not given any statutory power to investigate any person, it is established under the statutory power conferred on the Legislative Council by law, but not formed in a hasty manner. In such case, in the event of any unnecessary interference by someone, regardless of the role of the Chief Executive therein, dereliction of duty is obviously involved as long as there is a breach of trust or abuse of power.

As to whether the incident is serious enough to warrant the initiation of impeachment procedures, the views of different parties vary. I find this understandable and reasonable. This debate has precisely highlighted the role of checks and balances of the Legislative Council which I have mentioned just now. A Member from the legal sector has mentioned the problems with the impeachment procedure just now. Precisely due to the special role of checks and balances of the Legislative Council, we have the responsibility to bring this incident to the attention of the public. Members from the pan-democratic camp are of the view that the incident, which involves integrity, dereliction of duty and abuse of power, warrants the initiation of the relevant procedure.

Whether the procedure will be initiated in the end will be decided by the voting to be conducted soon. In fact, it will certainly not be passed. We are in the minority, while the pro-establishment camp is in the majority. However, this is not the main point. The main point is to let the public know that the entire system of Hong Kong is still founded upon separation of powers. The main reason for me to support this motion is to let the public know that the Legislative Council has a constitutional role of checks and balances, thereby highlighting the independence of the Executive Authorities, the legislature and the judiciary. Even if, as suggested by the pro-establishment camp, the motion gets passed unfortunately, what follows is simply the initiation of the procedure. As one Member has pointed out just now, the case has to go through a series of procedures before eventually being handed over to the Chief Justice for investigation. After that, the Legislative Council would debate on whether to impeach the Chief Executive. A Member has questioned whether it is necessary to put in so much effort, noting that the debate on impeachment will finish after 30 June, by which Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying will be out of office and it will not make any sense to impeach him. However, I think this argument is tantamount to putting the cart before the horse.

9448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Sitting in this Chamber, Members precisely have the responsibility to perform their constitutional duty by letting the public know that Hong Kong is still upholding separation of powers nowadays. This is exactly the role we play under this system. Of course, this incident can justifiably be called a political incident if it is viewed from another perspective, such as the political perspective. According to a Member, since the pro-democracy camp, which is known as the opposition camp, does not belong to the pro-establishment camp, we would definitely get hold of the Achilles heel of the Chief Executive and take the opportunity to attack him, and would play political games under the system to prove to the public that he should not assume the post of Chief Executive.

The so-called political games are not exclusive to Hong Kong. As mentioned by a Member just now, impeachment procedure has recently been initiated in North America, South America and Asia. As we all know, given the absence of political party law in Hong Kong, political parties are not registered under political party law; and two camps, the pro-establishment camp and non-establishment camp, have apparently been formed at present. It is understandable that the two camps regard this incident as a political incident and a political tug-of-war. I consider it natural and reasonable for them to have different views on political issues, which should be submitted to the Legislative Council for discussion. Under the current system, I have reiterated just now that it is necessary to submit the incident to the Legislative Council for discussion so as to help highlight the constitutional duty of the Legislative Council. Members have the responsibility to dispel the misgivings of the public. While some people have proposed the cooperation of the three powers, as long as we are still in office, we will definitely try our utmost to safeguard the separation of powers. This point is very important.

Regarding some legal issues, such as how impeachment procedure should be implemented, I am not going to repeat what colleagues have previously discussed. However, it is absolutely necessary to consider the whole incident from different perspectives. There are divergent views on such issues as whether the Select Committee has been given statutory power, which Member should be notified, whether the remarks made by a certain Member are important, whether this incident involves attacks between political parties and party politics, and whether the incident should be submitted to the Council for handling. All these issues should be debated by the Legislative Council.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9449

One of the main reasons why I support this motion is that I, as a Member, have the constitutional duty to safeguard the current regime. I have to raise this point and I hope you would understand.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Dr Helena WONG, please speak.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I am speaking in support of the motion to impeach the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying according to Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. I am also one of the signatories to initiate the motion.

In these two days, the Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew CHEUNG and pro-establishment Members have spoken to oppose the impeachment motion. I would like to respond to the arguments made by the Chief Secretary and the pro-establishment Members before explaining why I support this impeachment motion.

First of all, Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, acting on behalf of the Government, asked the Legislative Council to veto the impeachment motion. When he spoke yesterday, he commended LEUNG Chun-ying for working conscientiously and dutifully, he also said that LEUNG Chun-ying had already explained a number of times regarding the improper interference with the Legislative Council's inquiry into UGL. The Chief Secretary stressed that impeachment was a very solemn matter; and unless there was sufficient justification to prove that the Chief Executive had acted in breach of the laws and committed dereliction of duty, a motion of impeachment should not be moved arbitrarily as a political tool. He also urged Members to veto the motion since it was not sufficiently justified.

Although the Chief Secretary said that LEUNG Chun-ying had explained a number of times regarding the UGL incident, I believe he should be aware that LEUNG Chun-ying had never admitted that he had done anything wrong and that he had improperly interfered with the work of the Select Committee to Inquire into Matters about the Agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and the 9450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Australian firm UGL Limited ("the Select Committee"). Over these five years, has he ever admitted that he has done anything wrong? As far as I remember, he has not, not even once.

Recently, I helped in selling raffle tickets at a street booth to raise funds for the Democratic Party. As a Member said earlier, members of the public approached us, telling us not to let LEUNG Chun-ying get off the hook even although he would step down soon. They asked us to continue to pursue the inquiry on the UGL incident.

Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG also said that as the subject of inquiry, LEUNG Chun-ying had the right to require the areas of study of the Select Committee to be comprehensive, fair and accurate. This impeachment motion is not about whether LEUNG Chun-ying has the right to express his views on the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee. That is not the contents of the impeachment motion. We are discussing whether LEUNG Chun-ying had used a proper channel to express his views. Thus, the Chief Secretary has not actually commented on whether the action taken by LEUNG Chun-ying to express his views regarding the scope of inquiry was appropriate. We are not discussing whether LEUNG Chun-ying has the right to do so, but whether it is proper for him to interfere with the inquiry.

However, the Chief Secretary has deliberately evaded the question. I can well understand that LEUNG Chun-ying is his boss. As LEUNG has not stepped down, he is still the Chief Executive and as such, the core issues cannot be touched upon, just like a tiger's tail should never be pulled. Being a public official for 30 years, Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG probably knows how to "take the right course" and that is why he can now be the Chief Secretary, and may still serve as the Chief Secretary in the next-term Government. This is the mentality of a typical technocrat who knows how to "take the right course". Given his position, he has to defend his boss, but does that mean he is asking 160 000 civil servants under him to do the same? It seems that he is in a difficult position. I do not know whether the Chief Secretary has said those words contrary to his own conscience.

If Matthew CHEUNG still acts as the Chief Secretary in the next-term Government, I do not know if his stance will change a little with a new boss. Nevertheless, if he told me that being in that position, it would be difficult for him to say things according to his own conscience, differentiate right from wrong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9451 and distinguish between black and white, I did not know how he could, together with the new Chief Executive, lead 160 000 civil servants. Is it that we can no longer discuss what is right and wrong? Is it that we do not have to comply with the established procedures? Is it that we cannot discuss the mistakes made by someone and cannot pursue responsibility? If so, the discipline of the entire Government will be ruined.

Since the tiger's tail cannot be pulled, the core issues cannot be squarely addressed and discussed. The Chief Secretary then told us the good things done by the Government under the leadership of the Chief Executive over the past five years. The focus of this debate on the impeachment motion is not what good or bad things the SAR Government has done under LEUNG Chun-ying's leadership. Thus, the Chief Secretary has not, in his speech, made fair comments on the motion of impeachment initiated by 28 Members.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, Ms Starry LEE, took the Chair)

The pro-establishment Members have at least put forward four arguments. First, there is the problem of time. There is not much time left before LEUNG Chun-ying's departure. Initially, LEUNG certainly wished to seek for re-election. If LEUNG Chun-ying was really so brilliant, had done so many good things for Hong Kong and led the Government to make commendable achievements as claimed by the Chief Secretary, he should be able to serve as the Chief Executive for the second term in accordance with the Basic Law. Why was a ban imposed all of a sudden? Was it really because of the problem with his daughter? As we all know, LEUNG Chun-ying has torn society seriously apart, caused harm by stirring up internal conflicts and led to serious social dissension. He kept on stirring up conflicts. If he was allowed to serve as the Chief Executive for five more years, Hong Kong would be shattered by internal conflicts. I believe it is only through Beijing's intervention that LEUNG Chun-ying can be deterred from seeking re-election, and a change of leadership is made possible.

At a time when there are only 22 days left in LEUNG Chun-ying's term of office, we initiated the motion of impeachment and moved it jointly by one fourth of all the Members of the Legislative Council according to Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. In fact, 10-odd Members would be sufficient. Among 70 9452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Members of the Legislative Council, 28 have jointly moved the motion. The number has exceeded the requirement of the Basic Law. This jointly moved motion charges Chief Executive Mr LEUNG Chun-ying with serious breaches of law and/or dereliction of duty and gives a mandate to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to form and chair an independent investigation committee to investigate the alleged serious breaches of law and/or dereliction of duty and report its findings to this Council. Can this be completed in 22 days? In fact, regarding the power of impeachment of the Legislative Council, Article 73(9) of the Basic Law does not say that a motion of impeachment cannot be moved when the remaining time of the term of office of the Chief Executive is less than a month. Thus, even if the Chief Executive has to step down tomorrow, a motion of impeachment can still be moved today. Therefore, I do not think that moving this motion is redundant.

A pro-establishment Member suspected that pro-democracy Members had abused the mechanism of impeachment under the above mentioned provision and said that it was not necessary for us to invoke the provision because we could have asked the Inland Revenue Department ("IRD") or the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") to investigate the matter. The Member questioned why there was the need to investigate through the Legislative Council. Certainly, I am also aware that people had already reported the matter to IRD and ICAC, and ICAC had opened a file to initiate the investigation on LEUNG Chun-ying. However, I do not know the progress of investigation; probably the case is still under investigation. But, we noticed that in the interim, one of the most high-ranking officials had stepped down, and that is the incident of Rebecca LI. Why do we have to invoke the provision of the Basic Law on the platform of the Legislative Council? The reason is that other people had already tried or are trying to use other channels to investigate the matter and the results have not been released. Does it mean that we should not take further actions? I believe Members will know that IRD and ICAC are in the same position as Matthew CHEUNG in that their boss is LEUNG Chun-ying who is the subject of investigation. Thus, as long as LEUNG Chun-ying has not stepped down, it may be very difficult to conduct a serious investigation. If someone wants to conduct a serious investigation, he or she may even lose the job. That is very sad.

Some pro-establishment Members and Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG said that although we had initiated the impeachment procedure, there was no specific evidence, justification or supporting facts which clearly showed that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9453

LEUNG Chun-ying had committed serious breaches of law or dereliction of duty as the Chief Executive. In fact, is there evidence or is there not? We certainly would not make up evidence to falsely accuse LEUNG Chun-ying. How can we arbitrarily use the power given to the Legislative Council by the Basic Law to impeach the Chief Executive? I have been a Member of the Legislative Council for five years. It is true that Members do not often invoke the provision on impeachment. If there was no evidence, we really would not have taken this action because we would not act wilfully and we have to be accountable to the public. However, on this occasion, when the Select Committee to Inquire into Matters about the Agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and the Australian firm UGL Limited ("the Select Committee") formed by the Legislative Council just started to conduct the inquiry, the incident involving Mr Holden CHOW and LEUNG Chun-ying occurred.

Do we have evidence? In fact, there is conclusive evidence. The focus of this impeachment is not to pursue the bad things that LEUNG Chun-ying has done over the past five years, nor to discuss whether he has done any good thing; we are mainly saying that problems arose when the Select Committee was discussing the document entitled "Proposed major areas of study". We should note that the Chairman and Deputy Chairman as well as the large majority of members of the Select Committee are pro-establishment Members. They snatched most of the seats, leaving only four for pro-democracy Members. Then, they tried to determine the direction of inquiry. As Deputy Chairman, Mr Holden CHOW can respond to the Legislative Council Secretariat or take the initiative to raise his views on how to conduct the inquiry, but why do we have to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying? I must say that the staff members of the Legislative Council Secretariat are conscientious and dutiful in supporting the work of the Legislative Council and they deserve commendation. They incidentally noticed the markups of the word document submitted by Mr Holden CHOW to the Select Committee and tracked the changes made, as marked in red on this document which I have with me. The most laughable thing is that the track changes feature of the document honestly tells us who has made the amendments. Actually, the amendments were made by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying who subsequently admitted this fact. The point is that if people think we do not have evidence, the above is the evidence.

We are not discussing whether the Chief Executive has provided his views on the scope of inquiry, as the Chief Secretary said. The issue before us is whether the Chief Executive had used Mr Holden CHOW. Mr Holden CHOW, 9454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 who is willing to be LEUNG's pawn, told the Select Committee at the meeting that the document was amended by him, and he did not disclose that the 40-odd amendments were actually made by LEUNG Chun-ying. The act of conspiracy is an act of deception. LEUNG Chun-ying had improperly circumvented the Select Committee. He did not express his views directly to the Select Committee; instead, he circumvented the Select Committee and made amendments through the Deputy Chairman in an attempt to change the direction of inquiry, blur the focus of the inquiry. That is serious dereliction of duty. (The buzzer sounded)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, your speaking time is up.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now Dr Helena WONG has spoken passionately. She started off by saying that the purpose of forming an investigation committee is to investigate whether the Chief Executive had acted appropriately in the incident. Article 73(9) of the Basic Law provides that if the Chief Executive is charged "with serious breach of law or dereliction of duty and if he or she refuses to resign, the Council may, after passing a motion for investigation, give a mandate to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to form―an independent investigation committee". I think it is inappropriate to give a mandate to the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal to investigate.

Considering the incident, Mr Holden CHOW said that he had not breached any rules, broken any laws or concealed anything. It is not that I do not trust him, but I think he had acted inappropriately because the matter is related to a politically sensitive issue. I often advise him to act carefully and pay attention to public perception because we are pro-establishment Members. As Prof Joseph LEE said, once people got hold of some unfavourable information against you, they would assail you till you fell. Since Mr Holden CHOW has little experience in politics, he has not behaved in a mature way, and we must give him advice in the hope that he will improve. It is not necessary to invoke Article 73 against LEUNG Chun-ying.

Furthermore, some self-proclaimed non-establishment democrats have put forward a number of justifications to accuse the Chief Executive of performing poorly over the past five years or even before he assumed office. I found it really surprising because Members were not debating this motion. One of these LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9455

Members, surnamed LAU, spent five minutes of her speaking time to tell us in what areas she wanted to focus on her work. She was eager to set up bazaars, monitor the progress of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and ask the Government to introduce certain social benefits. If she really wanted to practically do these work, she should not use five to six minutes to read out her affirmation containing dozens of characters. Her behaviour had annoyed Hong Kong people and challenged the Basic Law. If she wanted to do these work, she should have taken the affirmation in a practical manner and move motions at meetings of the Legislative Council. That will be a practical approach. However, she did not do so. Instead, she has been reprimanding others all along without saying anything pleasant or constructive. In relation to the issue of setting up bazaars, she even persuaded more hawkers to participate in illegal hawking activities and refused to sit down for discussion. She will use any chance to take advantage of the situation.

Moreover, she mentioned freedom of the press. Did she reprimand Jimmy LAI for threatening a reporter earlier? Not a word. Why? The reason is that Jimmy LAI is the paymaster; how can she reprimand him? Dr Helena WONG said earlier that "the chair of the Chief Executive cannot be touched, and so are his buttocks". Similarly, Jimmy LAI's buttocks cannot be touched because the pan-democrats are very afraid that he will take actions against them. Furthermore, Dr Fernando CHEUNG said that all public officers should be whiter than white. When I criticized Ms Claudia MO at a meeting of the House Committee, Dr CHEUNG was also present. While he said that public officers should be whiter than white, he supported a Member who could not clearly explain why there were several hundred thousand dollars in her bank account to join the Select Committee to Inquire into Matters about the Agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and the Australian firm UGL Limited ("the Select Committee"). What exactly is Dr CHEUNG's position in this regard? A former Member of the Legislative Council in Dr CHEUNG's political party obtained money from another person, and kept it in his bank account for nine months and subsequently returned the money and registered his interests. Was any conspiracy or connivance involved in that matter?

Although I did not support the proposal of forming the Select Committee, I was compelled to participate in its work. Do you think I wanted to join the Select Committee? Someone asked me whether this challenge was an unwelcome job. I would say to myself that it certainly was an unwelcome job. I did not endorse the setting up of the Select Committee. After the Select 9456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Committee was set up, it only provided a platform for opposition Members to berate others and it is not useful in promoting economic development or social stability. Thus, I did not want to waste my time. I have even said many times that some people are treating the Legislative Council as a court or an organization of investigation, but in fact, Members of the Legislative Council do not have such powers and the Legislative Council is being treated as an organ for political propaganda.

I agree with Prof Joseph LEE and Mr CHU Hoi-dick that politics is always about finding opponents. Prof Joseph LEE also said that this was a political game; if people obtained information against the opposite side, they would certainly vigorously pursue the matter. I also agree. Today I participate in this debate to explain why I oppose the impeachment motion. After the debate is over, people's lives remain unchanged. In fact, over a long period of time, the select committees formed in the past started out well but finished off poorly. Many people agreed to form a select committee at the outset, but after the commencement of the work, no one would remember the process or the findings of the inquiry. Thus, what matters most is to conduct political propaganda at the outset, and the opposition Members have achieved this objective.

I believe it is now time to let Hong Kong people have a break, and it would be best to let me have a break as well. As Dr LAU Siu-lai has said, I hope to do some practical work for the benefit of society, such as formulating policies on bazaars or preventing the recurrence of problems similar to those of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge which had arisen earlier. I am a person who always looks forward. If we always look back, hold others responsible for their faults and impeach him, it will not bring benefit to society. Certainly, experience may be learnt after the discussions. Nevertheless, no one is perfect, and being the Chief Executive of Hong Kong is particularly difficult. The former Financial Secretary John TSANG also said earlier that it was not a good job to be the Chief Executive. Under the current political system, the Chief Executive cannot belong to any political party and he or she will be subject to the attack of 69 Members when attending the Council meeting. Even if I strongly support LEUNG Chun-ying, I have to reprimand him for there are areas which he has not done well. That is the political reality.

There are indeed inadequacies in our political system and we want to make improvement. I even agree that some changes should be made to functional constituencies. However, if we propose any change, opposition Members will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9457 ask for the abolition of functional constituencies and there is no room for coordination at all. That is another political problem. We are not trying to protect our vested interests, instead we only seek to make changes in a rational manner. Yet, the unyielding stance of opposition Members has made us unable to make any changes. We hope that in the future, we can discuss political issues and even the way forward in a harmonious and rational manner. I am willing to negotiate with Members, but it would be best if Members can refrain from making malicious speeches. Yesterday, a Member said at a meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee that if Members were not allowed to use terms such as "despicable", "shameless" and "a plaster saint", it would in effect be limiting their freedom of speech. I hope that Members can refrain from using malicious terms.

I hope that if we form any select committee in the future, Members will not take the established stand that the Chief Executive must be guilty. To me, LEUNG Chun-ying is neither my relative nor my friend. Although some people consider me a "LEUNG's fan", I honestly say I am not. If he has done something right, I will support; if he has done something wrong, I will oppose. However, in the recent election of the Chief Executive, I actually hoped that LEUNG Chun-ying could remain as the Chief Executive. The reason is that a person who tries to accomplish any task will surely offend groups with different interests and one simply cannot obtain the support of everyone. Thus, I hope that the society of Hong Kong can become more tolerant and understanding. If LEUNG Chun-ying has committed any fault, we can criticize him, but we do not have to push him to the dead end.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, originally I did not intend to speak because many people around me persuaded me not to speak. They said that since LEUNG Chun-ying is about to step down, it would not do us any good to speak in favour of him. We will only be attacked online viciously by thuggish writers. This is rather frightening. Therefore, some clever Members have arranged to travel abroad this time. As the Chinese ancient saying goes "a gentleman will not stand beneath a dangerous wall". These years, not only "a gentleman will not stand beneath a dangerous wall", even "a lady will not stand beneath a dangerous wall".

9458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Back to this impeachment farce, actually we all know that this is a political farce. Why do I call it an impeachment farce? If the impeachment motion is passed, the Chief Executive will step down, but in less than three weeks, the tenure of the Chief Executive will end. Thus, what purpose does the impeachment serve? The impeachment procedure will be terminated prematurely. So, the impeachment does not have any meaningful purpose and it just gives opposition Members the last chance to set up a platform to denounce LEUNG Chun-ying, curse him viciously and insult him. The impeachment can only achieve this purpose at most.

In order to achieve this objective, opposition Members have to boast how great and righteous they are, and they have blown up the incident inappropriately. I do not think they have to do so, why not honestly … Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung was very honest when he spoke yesterday. He said that the impeachment actually gave the media a chance. For what? A chance to hold a media trial. In fact, if we have the courage to step forward and speak something in fairness, we will be attacked online by thuggish writers, and some media will also ingeniously act in coordination, putting pressure on us.

Deputy President, yesterday morning, I suddenly received an SMS message from a person who claimed to be a reporter of Radio Television Hong Kong working on the A Week in Politics programme. He asked for my views on whether sections 3 and 8 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance should be applied to the Chief Executive. This question sounds normal. However, as it has been a long time since this Council last discussed the subject, if the media wished to follow up, why did they not ask me earlier? I remember that about two or three years ago, when the media asked me this question, I already expressed my views. Why do they ask again? The reporter brought up this subject at a time when we have a debate on the impeachment motion, and he asked me to reply before noon yesterday; did he want to guide the public to associate impeaching the Chief Executive with prevention of bribery and receiving bribes? Is that fair? Is such act of coordination too obvious? Deputy President, I would not make further remarks on this point; if I make further remarks, I may be accused of interfering with the freedom of speech, and small potatoes like me can hardly bear the burden. Yet, to be honest, we keep fairness at our heart and we have to make comments when necessary.

I would like to talk about the justifications for the impeachment. In expounding on the justifications for the impeachment, many opposition Members have mentioned that LEUNG Chun-ying had received money in the UGL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9459 incident, and he was alleged to receive bribes or receive payment inappropriately. But as many Honourable colleagues have pointed out, the UGL incident occurred a few years ago and if there were any later development, they should have taken place. How come the same old stuff has been mentioned time and again? Today, they make use of the last chance to put him on the spot and attack him once again. What are the problems with the UGL incident? I think Mr Charles Peter MOK made a fair comment yesterday that the matter should be handled by law enforcement agencies and the court, but not by the Legislative Council which is a "political tank", and "mud wrestling field" and no result will arise after one round of wrestling.

Another reason for the impeachment given by them is that LEUNG Chun-ying has interfered with the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee to inquire into matters about UGL. Deputy President, this is downright misleading. We should bear in mind that LEUNG Chun-ying has not amended the scope of inquiry but the proposed the scope of inquiry, and a final decision has not been made. The proposal is made open online and all members of the public, including LEUNG Chun-ying can give comments. As LEUNG Chun-ying had not formally written to the Select Committee to raise his views, his improper act had given people a bad impression.

It is perfectly alright for LEUNG Chun-ying to discuss the matter with Mr Holden CHOW. When Mr CHOW agreed with and accepted the proposal of LEUNG Chun-ying and submitted the document to the Select Committee, if he had informed the Committee that the amendments were made by LEUNG Chun-ying, there would not be any problems. Legally speaking, there are no problems for them to do so, but as they had not handled the matter well, they gave people the impression that they were conspiring. However, as I have just said, LEUNG Chun-ying had not amended the scope of inquiry but the proposed scope of inquiry. The proposal has to be discussed and adopted by the Select Committee before the scope of inquiry can be finalized. That is just a proposal and the Select Committee has not made a decision. Is it a big deal to amend a proposal? Is this interference?

Mr LAM Cheuk-ting said that this was the most serious interference with the Legislative Council since the inception of Hong Kong. I would like to remind Mr LAM, perhaps he is too young and he does not know much about history. In the past, Members of the Legislative Council were appointed by the British Hong Government and the Governor was the President. The Governor 9460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 did not need to interfere with the Legislative Council as he was in control of the Legislative Council. Mr LAM, are you aware of that? Will this excessive exaggeration do you any good? You have just mentioned part of the history to mislead young people; will this do you any good? How can this be the most serious interference with the Legislative Council since the inception of Hong Kong? Is it necessary to make such serious allegation?

In addition, Mr LAM often says that the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") has opened a file to investigate LEUNG Chun-ying. I would like to remind Members that ICAC's investigation threshold is very low. If opposition Members pay a visit to ICAC, I believe they will see a big pile of files relating to them. I do not think that is surprising. Even if ICAC is investigating a person, it does not mean he is guilty. Even if ICAC formally institutes prosecution upon the completion of investigation … take Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung as example, I do not think he is now guilty, as that will be decided by the court. Even if ICAC is investigating LEUNG Chun-ying, is that a big deal? Can this sufficiently prove that he has problems? We should not make a judgment before trial. Today, opposition Members are exactly making judgment before trial in the Legislative Council. If so, what is the point of having the Select Committee to inquire into matters about UGL?

Deputy President, this is one of the reasons why I have always advocated the dissolution of the Select Committee and the re-election of its members. The credibility of Committee is not high and it does not represent the views of the majority of Legislative Council Members. It is set up by a small number of Members by petition and now this incident has happened. Moreover, Mr Kenneth LEUNG apparently has a conflict of roles but, being shielded by the pan-democrats, he has adamantly refused to withdraw from the Select Committee. As the Select Committee is riddled with problems, is it meaningful for it to continue with its work? Now that opposition Members have made a judgment before trial and have determined the nature of the matter, will the Select Committee's inquiry be fruitful?

I think too many "spectacular shows" have been staged in the Legislative Council. On the eve of LEUNG Chun-ying's departure, the opposition camp still set up a platform to humiliate and attack him. Politically, they may feel gleeful but is it beneficial to Hong Kong? They frequently tell part of the truth but not the whole truth and mislead Hong Kong people, is it beneficial to Hong Kong as a whole?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9461

Deputy President, I have made some heartfelt remarks today and I may be besieged later but there is nothing I can do because someone must step forward and express his views. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions opposes this impeachment motion. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please speak.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I want to tell Mr WONG Kwok-kin that what he said makes perfect sense. Speaking after him, I will only make commendation and will definitely not attack him.

Deputy President, as we can see, this is merely a "spectacular show", a symphony played by the opposition camp and the "double agents". After the matter came to light, the opposition camp immediately condemned such act angrily in front of the media. Another group of people appeared as angels and vowed righteously to report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"), while one other group of people condemned Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying and Mr Holden CHOW in this Council. Subsequently, at the end of the day, they initiated a motion jointly. They wish to condemn everyone, and even the pro-establishment camp was condemned in these two days. I find these people extremely ferocious.

Deputy President, I have been pondering a question since this morning and I must report it to you. I have genuine reasons to suspect that the Legislative Council is having some kind of unofficial debate contest these two days, whereby the winner will receive a huge sum of money or prizes. Why would I say so? I think members of the public who have been watching the live broadcast these two days may notice that Members who rose to chide the Chief Executive became more and more fierce and scathing. They even gnashed their teeth in criticizing, as if the Chief Executive is their irreconcilable enemy. It seems that they were having a competition on "stabbing" the Chief Executive, who is like this puppet, with knives stabbed all over his body. Deputy President, a friend gave me this puppet, which was originally stabbed with genuine knives. He reminded me to use the knives to stab evil Members who have done bad things. And yet, since I am a righteous person, I would certainly not stab anyone. However, when I saw this puppet yesterday, I couldn't help but feel very sad.

9462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

As we all know, the opposition camp has already moved eight such motions since Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office five years ago, and so far the Legislative Council has spent more than 100 hours to discuss such motions. The reasons of moving these motions include to censure, to express no confidence or to impeach, in the hope of urging him to step down or resign. Were there reasonable grounds for moving each and every motion? For example, soon after the Chief Executive took office, the opposition camp moved a motion of no confidence on 12 December 2012 because of a trellis erected in the garden of his house. On 19 December 2012, LEE Cheuk-yan moved another motion seeking to inquire into matters relating to the trellis. Subsequently, on 9 January 2013, LEUNG Kwok-hung proposed to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying for his trellis. Again, on 20 February 2013, Ms Cyd HO moved a motion under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into matters relating to his trellis. How many hours had we spent in total on the relevant discussions? Were they really that important? As Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has said, there were really some ambiguities in his replies and he had apologized for that. Members likened this case with the Watergate scandal, South Korea's recent impeachment case and CLINTON's case, but do they know that the subjects of these cases had actually committed criminal offences?

If we were to impeach the opposition camp, do they know how many of them present at the meeting have committed criminal offences? There are plenty of them. Just as Mr LUK Chung-hung has said earlier on, we may likewise impeach the opposition camp and then spend a few days chiding them, but what good will that do? What good will it do to Hong Kong? Why is there such deep animosity between the opposition camp and the Chief Executive? Didn't they say just now that they were delighted that the Chief Executive would leave office pretty soon? Nonetheless, just now a journalist reminded me that the question is not related to LEUNG Chun-ying not being the Chief Executive. The opposition camp is unhappy because soon after LEUNG Chun-ying steps down, he will become a state leader, and this makes opposition Members even more outrageous. Is this the reason?

Mr LAM Chuek-ting said that Members should not make specious remarks, though his sophistry is all too common. I am going to tell Mr LAM Cheuk-ting the truth―but he has left. Is the present impeachment proposed out of hatred in the hope of settling personal scores? If I am to state the reasons behind those 28 Members, I can explain one by one, but time does not allow me to do so.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9463

First of all, I have to take out this thing again as I was not allowed to show it last time. Honourable colleagues, this man is called LAM Cheuk-ting. He went to ICAC in person to make a report concerning LEUNG Chun-ying in October 2014, but he said no one laid charge for him. He was infuriated and thus lodged a complaint to the supervisor, but I have no idea to whom he had complained. In fact, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting did not need to be so furious. As Members may recall, when a Member cast doubt on LAM's departure from ICAC at the House Committee meeting held last week, he was furious and responded that ICAC was a very respectable institution to him. Given that he respects ICAC so much, he must have faith in its decisions, am I right? Why was he throwing his tantrum then?

Deputy President, the person in this photograph is Ms Claudia MO. I wonder if Members are aware that Ms MO and I had met with Members of the Australian Parliament in 2015. When she saw them, she immediately requested them to open a file to investigate LEUNG Chun-ying. However, those Members ignored her request and replied that no investigation would be conducted unless there was evidence. Unlike some Members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, they would not arbitrarily carry out investigation.

Deputy President, if there is evidence, I think Ms MO should have handed it to Members of the Australian Parliament back then. Now that more than two years have passed, have they submitted anything? Nothing at all except empty words.

Deputy President, the person in this photo is Kenneth LEUNG, who is a member of the Select Committee to inquire into the case of LEUNG Chun-ying. However, as we all know, he himself is being sued by LEUNG Chun-ying for defamation in relation to the UGL saga. Kenneth LEUNG was pretty upset, which proved that there is something wrong with him in the case. So why does he still remain in the Select Committee? In fact, he wants to withdraw and many people can tell from his face that he is very eager to withdraw, but he cannot as he is now kept as hostage by Members of the opposition camp. As a matter of fact, he was indignant and very frustrated. Therefore, it is difficult to tell if he would seize the opportunity to "stab" LEUNG Chun-ying, but I am pretty sure he will.

Deputy President, this person is your old friend, a former Member surnamed HO who is a "big brother" of the Democratic Party. As known to all, he boldly sued LEUNG Chun-ying earlier on but lost the case and had to pay a 9464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 lawyer's fee of more than $2 million. He is now complaining about the expensive lawyer's fees day after day. Deputy President, I am sure you know what profession that he is in. Given that the lawyer's fees is as high as some $2 million, people like KWONG Chun-yu immediately fell out with him as the $2-odd million could better be used as the funding of the party instead. How can his buddies not stand out and join hands to "stab" LEUNG Chun-ying?

Deputy President, there is one more person whom I wish to talk about. This person is now in court being prosecuted by the Government. I am not in a position to disclose any detail, but in a nutshell, he hates LEUNG Chun-ying very much. I want to ask him, "'Long Hair', why do you hate LEUNG Chun-ying so much? It is not LEUNG Chun-ying who sued you, but the Government. You will be fine so long as you have not accepted any 'black money', right?"

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a point of order …

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Just now, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan mentioned that in these two days, a lot of time has been wasted but to no avail …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please hold on while.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): … and meaningless. Three weeks later, the new-term Government will take office and by mid-July, this session will also come to an end …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please hold on as a Member has raised a point of order …

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we hope that Members will save their energy and focus more on work that is beneficial to people's livelihood …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9465

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, please hold on because I have to deal with the point of order raised by a Member.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): … I so …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, please raise your point of order.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I just want to highlight that if a case is being tried in court, Members should not talk about or discuss it in the Chamber.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, please speak.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in the five-hour debate yesterday and the debate lasting nearly four hours this morning, I have been listening to the remarks made by 41 Members. As I stated in my opening speech yesterday, it was a very serious matter for Members to initiate a motion under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. Before determining whether they will support or oppose the motion, Members must consider carefully whether there are sufficient justifications for charging the Chief Executive with serious breaches of law or dereliction of duty, because this is an important basis for initiating the procedure prescribed in Article 73(9) of the Basic Law.

During the debate, some Members said that the Chief Executive has improperly interfered with the work of the Select Committee of the Legislative Council to Inquire into Matters about the Agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and the Australian firm UGL Limited ("the Select Committee"). I 9466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 would like to reiterate that the Chief Executive has given detailed responses in the past three weeks, which included attending the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session on 1 June. Regarding the work of the Select Committee, the Chief Executive has also stated his two principles. First, the inquiry should be completed as soon as possible and the matter should not be delayed; second, the scope of inquiry must be comprehensive because he does not want any omissions that have not been looked into. In addition, the Chief Executive considers that the proposed areas of study of the Select Committee are worth consideration. He has the right to express views to the Select Committee on the proposed areas of study and he also has the right to provide the relevant facts to the Select Committee when it conducts the inquiry. The Chief Executive also sent a letter to the Select Committee on 18 May to officially express his views on the areas of study.

While a number of Members may disagree with the way in which the Chief Executive expressed his views on the proposed areas of study of the Select Committee, to charge the Chief Executive with serious breaches of law or dereliction of duty is another thing. As I heard yesterday and earlier today, no substantive arguments were made by Members to illustrate that any acts of the Chief Executive warrant the initiation of the impeachment procedure against the Chief Executive in accordance with Article 73(9) of the Basic Law. Evidently, the impeachment procedure lacks justifications.

Moreover, I have noticed that some Members have commented on the personal performance of the Chief Executive and they have even made personal attacks. As I said in my opening speech yesterday, regarding a motion initiated under Article 73(9) of the Basic Law, Members' consideration and discussion should focus on whether charging the Chief Executive who has refused to resign with serious breaches of law or dereliction of duty is established. Unless there is substantial evidence to support the charge, it is not justified to activate the impeachment procedure.

In fact, the debate has so far been inseparable from "politics". I sincerely hope that we can put aside political disputes and objectively examine the overall results of the work of the Chief Executive and the fourth Government before considering the impeachment motion. But I must emphasize that, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Chief Executive has implemented many measures benefiting the people within the current term of office of the SAR Government. I did not intend to divert attention or water down the incident but I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9467 want to state clearly that, under the leadership of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, the Government has made substantive efforts to develop the economy and improve people's livelihood. It has made some progress with initial achievements and laid a solid foundation for the long-term development of Hong Kong.

Let me give a brief account of the specific achievements in this respect. Under the leadership of the Chief Executive, the current Government has gradually implemented the commitment that it must be "appropriately proactive" as stated in the Chief Executive's manifesto when he ran in the election and in the five policy addresses. Concerning economic development, besides focusing on Hong Kong's traditional industries, we have not forgotten to nurture new industries, such as innovation and technology, with a view to widening our economic basis and providing young people with more opportunities for employment, starting up businesses and upward mobility. Economic development should be complemented by infrastructural development; the current Government has promoted the development of many transportation and cultural infrastructure projects, many of which will be completed soon. We have continuously expanded and optimized the Mainland/Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement; promoted the establishment of seven new Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices in foreign places and the establishment of eight new liaison offices under the Mainland offices, as well as negotiated and signed free trade agreements and Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements with many economies, expanding and deepening the economic links among Hong Kong, the Mainland and foreign places.

Housing supply has always been given top priority by the Government. To solve the housing problem, while vigorously increasing the supply of land and housing, the current Government has introduced a number of demand management measures. In regard to the supply of land such as private residential land and business land, land sold by the current Government in the past five financial years within its term of office can be used for the construction of units …

(Dr Fernando CHEUNG stood up)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, please hold on. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, what is your point of order?

9468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the debate today is about LEUNG Chun-ying privately collaborating with Mr Holden CHOW to amend the scope of inquiry of the Select Committee to Inquire into Matters relating to UGL, but the Chief Secretary has been making remarks that are entirely irrelevant to the subject …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please state your point of order as soon as possible.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Have his remarks entirely digressed from the subject? Deputy President, my point of order is that the discussions in this Council must be relevant to the subject and they cannot digress from the subject.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, you have clearly stated your point of order, please sit down. Chief Secretary for Administration, you should be clear about the scope of the subject for your response today, please focus your remarks on the subject.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Yes, I know that, I will be brief. I have just said a lot, please allow me to briefly express my views; I have tried my best to be concise.

In addition to housing, poverty alleviation, elderly care and support for the disadvantaged are the highlights of the current Government's work but I am not going into the details. But I would like to say that these measures are the fruits of the concerted efforts of the fourth government team and all civil servants under the leadership of the Chief Executive

Some Members have elaborated their views on the respective roles of the Executive Authorities and the legislature. I must seriously state once again that the political system is designed to be executive-led under the Basic Law. The constitutional roles of the Executive Authorities and the legislature have been defined in the Basic Law and both parties must discharge their duties and serve LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9469 the community in strict compliance with the Basic Law. The SAR Government attaches great importance to the relationship between the Executive Authorities and the legislature. We have always been committed to strengthening communication with Legislative Council Members from various political parties. Government officials at various levels have attended various meetings of the Legislative Council to explain the Government's positions and recommendations on individual policy areas, and legislative and funding proposals, and respond to Members' questions and listen to their views with a view to improving various policies and legislative and funding proposals. We have also spared no effort to dovetail with the work of the Legislative Council and provide information required by Members. We also specify in the policy agenda each year that the Policy Bureaux will continue to work closely with the Legislative Council in formulating policies and plans.

Deputy President, lastly, I would like to point out that several Members have just mentioned that the term of office of the current Government has only 22 days left. Objectively, any inquiry cannot be completed before the end of the term of office of the Chief Executive. This shows the political motive of the impeachment motion today. In fact, nearing the end of the current term of office, the SAR Government is racing against time and striving to meet the commitments and work objectives set by the current Government, in the hope of laying a good foundation for the next government and ensure a smooth transition. At the same time, we clearly know that there is a serious backlog of Legislative Council business and I earnestly hope that we will no longer be entangled in political disputes. Internal political attrition must stop and the Executive Authorities and the legislature should work together and focus on promoting the long-term development of the SAR, alleviating people's hardship and working hard for the well-being of the public.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I implore Members to vote against the motion jointly proposed by 28 Members and moved by Mr Alvin YEUNG. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr Alvin YEUNG to reply. Thereafter, the debate will come to a close.

9470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today's impeachment motion is initiated by non-establishment Members from various political parties and groupings. This reflects the gravity of the incident, as well as the concern of at least 28 Members about the dignity of the Legislative Council and their determination to safeguard its monitoring power and prevent it from becoming a rubber stamp.

In the following, let me refute briefly the arguments of certain Members. First, Mr CHAN Hak-kan quoted from Tending the Roots of Wisdom to criticize a certain Member of this Council who quoted from Dao De Jing. Although Mr CHAN did not name the Member, I believe he referred to me. Deputy President, I admit that when it comes to the study of ancient books, it is never my strength but I have come across a certain remark which I hope politicians in Hong Kong will take it as a warning. It reads, "Only pure in heart, can a person engage in learning from the past". This reminds us that if we do not have a pure heart, quoting from ancient books will defend the wrongdoings. I wonder if the saying rightly describes the present situation of the pro-establishment Members. In the past one and a half days, many pro-establishment Members have defended the wrongdoings of LEUNG Chun-ying and Mr Holden CHOW.

I wish to take this chance to quote another remark from Tending the Roots of Wisdom to remind Mr CHAN, "evil should not be concealed; goodness should not be publicized; thus exposed evil cause less harm, but hidden evil cause great harm". The meaning is quite simple. We should not conceal one's faults and praise one's good deeds; otherwise there will be great harm. In this incident, it is an undisputable fact that CHOW and LEUNG had colluded, and pro-establishment Members have scrambled to whitewash their wrongdoings. Their efforts in concealing their faults and praising their good deeds will lead to endless troubles …

(Mr CHAN Hak-kan stood up)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan, what is your point?

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, please look at the timer. It had stopped for some time and just restarted again.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9471

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please ask the technicians to see what is wrong. Mr Alvin YEUNG, please continue with your speech.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHAN for caring so much about my speaking time.

Deputy President, I wish to continue to take this chance to respond to Mr CHAN's "theory of meaninglessness". He asked if the moral conduct of the Chief Executive was really that important for he regarded this debate meaningless. Deputy President, I wish to point out that if this debate is truly meaningless, does it mean we can treat the moral conduct and ethics of the highest leader of the SAR casually?

Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew CHEUNG has once again chanted the merits and accomplishments of the incumbent Government, especially that of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. The logic and direction of this speech is the same as the one delivered yesterday morning. However, it is interesting to note, first, is everything the Chief Secretary said the true facts? Has the incumbent Government truly made great contributions? We certainly disagree. Even if LEUNG Chun-ying has made tremendous contributions during his tenure, does that mean the Legislative Council should tolerate the collusion between LEUNG, the subject of inquiry, and the inquirer? Deputy President, is this the logic of Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG? Is Chief Secretary trying to persuade people of Hong Kong to tolerate: since the Chief Executive has done so well and made so many contributions, why not put up with a little defect in his personal conduct and dereliction of duty? Deputy President, I believe that Matthew CHEUNG, who is highly likely the Chief Secretary in the next-term Government, does not think so; and if he really thinks so, that will most worrisome.

Deputy President, you said yesterday that democratic Members kept stirring up political conflicts to topple LEUNG. I wish to point out that in so saying, you are putting the cart before the horse. If LEUNG Chun-ying's integrity has never been in serious doubt in many incidents since his assumption of office, how can we have the chance to move motions of no confidence or even the impeachment motion? May I also take this chance to ask whether the pro-establishment Members genuinely support LEUNG blindly or they dare not say anything? Of course, there are only 20-odd days left before he steps down and the pro-establishment colleagues have no need to bear with him too long.

9472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Deputy President, in your speech yesterday, you said that the only mistake Mr Holden CHOW made was he was too much of a "LEUNG's fan" that he did not know how to "say no" to LEUNG Chun-ying. I will wait till I have the chance in the next debate session to present my views about Mr Holden CHOW, but I wish to make a point. I am very glad when you, Deputy President, spoke in the capacity as a Member yesterday, you at least said Mr Holden CHOW has made a mistake, at least you were willing to say that he was too much of a "LEUNG's fan" that he dare not "say no".

However, there is an issue about logic that I would like to discuss here. What are the Deputy President's reasons for thinking that Mr Holden CHOW should "say no"? Certainly, he should "say not" for that was not the right act. It takes two to tango. If she thought that it was wrong for Mr Holden CHOW not to "say no", then was the person who colluded with Mr CHOW doing the right thing? I really do not understand the logic. But I believe you meant to say that collusion was wrong, and you should refuse to collude with anyone. I believe that is the right way to handle the matter.

Deputy President, I must point out clearly that in respect of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying colluding with Mr Holden CHOW in an attempt to interfere with the inquiry of the Select Committee into LEUNG's acceptance of £4 million from UGL, no matter how LEUNG Chun-ying or the royalists defended the act, the attempt of LEUNG Chun-ying to frustrate, deflect or affect the direction of the inquiry could be clearly seen. Such acts constitute serious dereliction of duty on the part of LEUNG Chun-ying, whether as the subject of inquiry or the Chief Executive.

On a personal level, as the subject of inquiry, his inference with the inquiry can well constitute the offence of perverting the course of public justice, which is a criminal offence. In respect of the constitution, as the Chief Executive, his acceptance of private interests and attempt to interfere with or affect the legislature's inquiry constitute the violation of his constitutional duty under the Basic Law, which requires him to be a person of integrity, dedicated to his duties. These two offences are sufficient to form the legal basis of impeachment against LEUNG Chun-ying. Based on this point, I also wish to refute the argument of most pro-establishment Members that we do not have adequate justification to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying.

Deputy President, please allow me to repeat once again that the most important meaning of today's impeachment motion is not to embarrass LEUNG Chun-ying but rather to make Members of this Council and the general public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9473 realize, seriously and solemnly, that the dignity of the Legislative Council as a monitoring organ is inviolable, because once its power is violated, weakened or compromised, the Executive Authorities will be connived, giving rise to despotic rule.

Hence, Deputy President, to keep silent in front of justice is to connive crime. Hong Kong can no longer afford to bear the consequence of tolerating despotic rule. Owing to that, I hope that all Members present will vote in favour of this motion to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying. I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Alvin YEUNG be passed. Those in favour please raise their hands.

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Alvin YEUNG rose to claim a division.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

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

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

9474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the motion.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Kenneth LAU voted against the motion.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 34 were present, 11 were in favour of the motion and 22 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 17 were in favour of the motion and 12 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9475

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Motion under Rule 49B(1A) of the Rules of Procedure to censure Mr Holden CHOW.

I call upon Ms Claudia MO to speak and move the motion.

MOTION UNDER RULE 49B(1A) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I pass the motion … I should say I move that the motion … I really hope that the motion would be passed.

(Some Members clapped hands in their seats)

MS CLAUDIA MO: Thank you, thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. This is only a Freudian slip; I really hope that the motion could be passed.

This motion was seconded by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr Nathan LAW and the Rules of Procedure specifies that four Members are required to sign. We have to censure Mr Holden CHOW for misbehaviour and breach of oath but some said that breach of oath needs not be censured. He has breached the oath and I will elaborate later.

In addition to censuring him, we eventually want to disqualify him from office. Pro-establishment Members often talk about oath-taking, disqualifying Members from office and someone being shameless; these are all related to oath-taking. Hong Kong people have seen how pro-establishment Members have searched high and low for excuses to absolve Mr Holden CHOW of responsibilities. Ms Starry LEE, Chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"), has been very frank in saying that Mr Holden CHOW is a newbie in this Council who lacks experience; therefore, he did not say no to LEUNG Chun-ying. What she said was not right; 9476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Mr Holden CHOW had not pointed out that the 44 amendments were made by LEUNG Chun-ying. These are matters to be investigated by an investigation committee.

First, why did Mr Holden CHOW not say no to LEUNG Chun-ying? Second, why did he not explicitly tell the Select Committee at the outset that the amendments were made by LEUNG Chun-ying, the subject of inquiry? The saying that he lacks analytical power, common sense, commitment and credibility is a mere criticism. As understood by ordinary people based on common sense, LEUNG Chun-ying is the "Father of Hong Kong Independence", his five-year governance has brought five-year catastrophe to Hong Kong, resulting in the plummeting reputation of the Hong Kong Police Force and the Independent Commission Against Corruption. We owe all this to LEUNG Chun-ying. As LEUNG Chun-ying is about to depart, why did Mr Holden CHOW stay by his side? The reasons we can think of are: first, "the excitement of getting close to people in power"; second, saying yes to LEUNG Chun-ying may get some advantages and benefits; third, Mr Holden CHOW has limited knowledge and experience, so he is happy to sell his credibility. Of course, these are speculations; we do not know to what extent these common sense speculations are true or false; thus, an investigation committee should be set up for further discussion.

Since the outbreak of the scandal, Mr Holden CHOW has plenty of time to clarify the ins and outs of the incident. The television programme City Forum also invited him to attend but he declined. Regarding the point on "the excitement of getting close to people in power", my friend LEE Yee once said, 30 years ago in the 1980s, Beijing sent a representative to Hong Kong, and he was XU Jiatun, Director of the Hong Kong branch of the Xinhua News Agency. At that time, when XU Jiatun appeared on a public occasion, LEE Yee saw how exited people were to get close to people in power. They flocked to XU Jiatun, flattering, bowing and scraping, assuming that if they could gain his favour, they would have unlimited benefits in the future. This is the fickleness of human friendships!

What are the advantages of saying yes to LEUNG Chun-ying? Mr CHOW can continue to serve as a member in the Equal Opportunities Commission ("EOC"), but is this an advantage? We have to discuss further. Will all public offices bring advantages? This is subject to debate. Yet, the problem is that Mr Holden CHOW, being an EOC member, once organized a large group of people to protest against same-sex marriage at the head office of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9477

EOC. Oddly enough, he protested against equal opportunities at EOC. Some said that the protest did not involve interests and he was just expressing his personal opinions. However, among the people who participated in the protest; how many of them are his electorates and is political interest involved? We do not know and that may require further investigation.

Lastly, regarding his knowledge and experience, I wonder if he has wrongly interpreted the Basic Law. While the Basic Law specifies that the Government shall be accountable to the Legislative Council, he may wrongly think that the Legislative Council shall be accountable to the Government. If the Government shall be accountable to the Legislative Council, it means that the Chief Executive shall be accountable to the Legislative Council. But he has turned it the other way round. As the Basic Law mentions that Beijing may issue directives to the Chief Executive when necessary, he may think that the directives he now received from LEUNG Chun-ying indirectly come from Beijing, as Beijing has issued directives to LEUNG Chun-ying and then LEUNG Chun-ying has given directives to him, hence those directives may come from the supreme ruler. Although the mountain is high, the emperor is not too far away and he really feels honoured. There may also be some deferred benefits, will he be highly honoured? We do not know the truth because he is not willing to tell us.

Mr Holden CHOW still insisted that he has not concealed anything, and has not breached the law and regulations. Even Mr Abraham SHEK cannot accept his act. He thinks what Mr Holden CHOW has done is completely unreasonable and without logic, and he allowed himself to be manipulated as a puppet. Evidently, as they are peers, it is not necessary to tell what is right and what is wrong; even if there are conclusive evidence, Ms Starry LEE said that Mr Holden CHOW should admit that he has not done his job well. Honestly, the only thing that he has not done well is that his deed was uncovered by others. If he was not caught, nothing would have happened and he would have done a good job. They are conspiring and colluding, or to put it in a more elegant way, they are exchanges glances of silent understanding. As a Member of the Legislative Council, what is wrong with him?

When pro-establishment Members spoke on the motion to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying just now, they said that the ultimate purpose of the impeachment was to make the Chief Executive step down but his term of office has only some 20 days left, so they query what tricks we are playing. We are going to censure Mr Holden CHOW with the ultimate aim of disqualifying him 9478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 from office. The above reason concerning a short tenure does not apply anymore, right? There is no time limit, right? If Mr Holden CHOW takes the blame and resigns, we will all be happy and we do not need to discuss the matter anymore. But he stubbornly refused to admit his mistakes and adopted an attitude of "boot-licking is not wrong" and "I have reasons to yield". They said that we do not have time to deal with the impeachment motion, but there is plenty of time to deal with the motion to censure Mr Holden CHOW. Although the summer recess is coming, we can continue in October.

Ms Starry LEE advised Mr Holden CHOW, in the tone of a nanny, "rise from where you fell". This illustrates that Mr Holden CHOW has made mistakes; if he has not made mistakes, he does not need to "say no" to LEUNG Chun-ying. Ms Starry LEE has indirectly admitted Mr Holden CHOW's mistake, but Mr Holden CHOW has not apologized. He has made mistakes by not doing a good job, but he has not apologized and admitted that his act would undermine the reputation of the Legislative Council. There are problems with his personality as a Member; he cannot be accountable to his electors and has even done injustice to those who voted for him.

Mr Abraham SHEK is very reasonable but when he spoke on the motion to impeach LEUNG Chun-ying, he said that the incident was awfully appalling and absurd, but not serious enough to have someone beheaded. Ms Starry LEE said that Mr Holden CHOW has not done well in some areas, and he should do a better job next time. Is this not a serious offence? We do not wish to see someone beheaded; we do not have a lust for blood. They think it is acceptable to censure Mr Holden CHOW, but disqualifying him from office is over the top.

Let us speak our mind. For example, the Member who turned national flags upside down had misbehaved. In fact, misbehaviour is not protected by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance; but first, he had not deliberately concealed his acts, he did that under the watchful eyes of all people as there was live television broadcast; second, are interests involved? I do not think anyone will be benefited? Who is he flattering? Are there any deferred benefits? Of course, owing to his misbehaviour, an investigation committee has been set up and he may eventually be disqualified from office after a spectacular show. Since an investigation is conducted on that incident, why should some Members say that the procedure under 49B(1A) of the Rules of procedure will be abused to deal with the trivial matter relating to Mr Holden CHOW? It is not a problem if the procedure is abused by them but they are blaming others for abusing the procedure.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9479

Ms Starry LEE advised Mr Holden CHOW to admit if he has not done his job well and that he should not be discouraged. Oddly, was DAB including Ms Starry LEE aware of the scandal beforehand? I had repeatedly asked TAM Yiu-chung this question in public but he had not answered me. I later figured out that by common sense, it is really difficult for him to answer this question. If he said that he was aware of the scandal beforehand, it would be terrible because he would be conniving at the misconduct of collusion; if he said that he was not aware, the problem with Mr Holden CHOW would be even more serious. Having committed such a serious and dirty act, he may be subject to party disciplinary sanctions for putting the party to shame. Therefore, those who protected LEUNG Chun-ying or Mr Holden CHOW have been too faithful to and worked too hard for their master. Their criticisms were vicious as if they wanted to cut off others' heads.

Regarding the motion to censure Mr Holden CHOW, we hope that an investigation committee can be set up to investigate what should be investigated. I believe all the pan-democratic colleagues will render support and I hope that pro-establishment Members will not give up their dignity for a lackey.

Thank you.

Ms Claudia MO moved the following motion:

"That this Council, in accordance with Article 79(7) of the Basic Law, censures Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding for misbehaviour and breach of oath under Article 104 of the Basic Law (details as particularized in the Schedule to this motion).

Schedule

Details of Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding's misbehaviour and breach of oath under Article 104 of the Basic Law are particularized as follows:

Improperly interfering with and obstructing the Select Committee's inquiry

(1) As a Legislative Council ("LegCo") Member and the Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee to Inquire into Matters about the Agreement between Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and the Australian firm UGL Limited (the "Select Committee"), Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding discussed the major areas of study of the Select Committee 9480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

with the subject of inquiry, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, and further conspired with and assisted Mr LEUNG Chun-ying to improperly involve in and interfere with the investigation. At his own risk, Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding accepted Mr LEUNG Chun-ying's request to amend the major areas of study of the Select Committee, and directly submitted the amendments made by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying to the proposed major areas of study to the Select Committee for discussion at its meeting on 25 April 2017 (the "Amendments"), in an attempt to obstruct and pervert the course of the open inquiry proceedings, and conspire with Mr LEUNG Chun-ying to create results advantageous to Mr LEUNG. Such behaviours seriously obstruct the Select Committee in the proper discharge of its duty, violate procedural justice and damage the independence, impartiality and legitimacy of the investigation of the Select Committee. Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding fails to fulfil the obligation of a committee member. This incident clearly involves role conflicts and/or even conflicts of interests since the aforementioned behaviours are in favour of Mr LEUNG Chun-ying and lead to the suspicion that the cooperation between Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding and Mr LEUNG Chun-ying may involve transfers of benefits.

Contempt of the LegCo

(2) As a LegCo Member, Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding conspired with and assisted Mr LEUNG Chun-ying to involve in and interfere with the matters of the LegCo in his capacity as the Chief Executive. Such behaviours damage the dignity, autonomy and independence of the LegCo, amounting to contempt of the functions and powers of the LegCo, bringing shame on the LegCo and seriously undermining the public's confidence in the LegCo and LegCo Members.

Making false representations in the LegCo

(3) As a LegCo Member and the Deputy Chairman of the Select Committee, Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding intentionally and repeatedly made false representations in relation to the origin of the Amendments at the meeting of the Select Committee on 25 April 2017, with the intention to mislead the Select Committee and the public into believing that the Amendments were genuinely raised by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9481

Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding himself. He refused to admit until the fact that the Amendments were made by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was revealed. Such behaviours completely fail to meet the level of the credibility, integrity and dutifulness expected of a LegCo Member.

The aforementioned conduct amounting to misbehaviour and breach of oath

(4) As a LegCo Member, Hon Holden CHOW Ho-ding committed the aforementioned misbehaviour for Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, clearly indicating that he has breached the oath he made on 12 October 2016 under Article 104 of the Basic Law and the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap. 11) that he will "serve the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity", which is a basic duty of a LegCo Member."

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 49B(2A) of the Rules of Procedure, the debate is adjourned and the matter stated in the motion is referred to an investigation committee.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debate on motion with no legislative effect. The motion debate on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident".

Since Dr Helena WONG is not present, this Council will not deal with the motion proposed by her.

(While the President was speaking, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting stood up)

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.

9482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, Dr Helena WONG returned to her seat and stood up)

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I am present.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, when I called on you to move the motion, I did not see you in your seat.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I did not hear you, because you often …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members should stay in their seats so that the meeting can proceed; otherwise the meeting cannot proceed even if Members hear what I say.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I did not hear you speak because you spoke too softly.

(Ms Claudia MO indicated a wish to speak)

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

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I notice that the screen at my desk still shows motion on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident". Why did you say that this Council would not deal with the motion?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As I said earlier, since Dr Helena WONG was not present at the time, this Council would not deal with the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9483

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): You would not deal with the motion for that reason, that is outrageous.

(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting had already stood up to request a headcount before you finished your sentence. At that time, you had not finished making your ruling. Please listen to the audio recording to ascertain whether you had finished your sentence or not.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Earlier, I was making my ruling and after I finished the sentence 

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): You have not finished your sentence, please listen to the audio recording.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): After I finished the sentence, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting …

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): That is not the case. Mr LAM Cheuk-ting had already stood up before you finished your sentence. You can check the video recording.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As I was speaking earlier, I did not notice that Mr LAM Cheuk-ting had stood up. When Mr LAM Cheuk-ting requested a headcount, I immediately instructed the Clerk to do a headcount.

(Some Members continued to comment on the President's ruling in their seats)

9484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We are doing a headcount now. I will deal with this matter after a quorum is present.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council will now suspend.

1:29 pm

Meeting suspended.

1:45 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, under normal circumstances, when I announce that Council will proceed to a debate on a certain motion, the mover of the motion should be present. If the mover of the motion is not present, the motion will not be dealt with. I have reviewed the relevant video recordings earlier and I now allow Dr Helena WONG to move her motion this time.

NOT FORGETTING THE 4 JUNE INCIDENT

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, this year marks the 28th anniversary of the 4 June incident. I move that the motion that the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

President, over the past 28 years, the pro-democracy Members moved a motion debate on vindicating the 4 June incident or the 1989 pro-democracy movement before or near 4 June every year. But unfortunately, over the past three years, we could not match the schedule of the Legislative Council and the pace of debates to conduct a debate motion on vindicating the 4 June incident LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9485 before 4 June. In the evening on 4 June which has just past, I attended the candlelight vigil in Victoria Park. This year is not only the 28th anniversary of the 4 June incident; it also marks the fifth anniversary of LI Wangyang's death. On Tuesday night this week, I also attended another candlelight vigil at the Star Ferry organized by the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions to commemorate LI Wangyang who was "being suicided" five years ago. In what way was LI Wangyang related to the motion on vindicating the 4 June incident today? Members would be aware that LI Wangyang was a worker in Shaoyang, Hunan Province; and why was a Hunan worker "being suicided" eventually?

In fact, the patriotic democratic movement in 1989 started in April that year. Back then, students of tertiary institutions in Beijing gathered at Tiananmen Square to mourn the death of HU Yaobang. They discussed national issues, the future of China and the situation after the opening up and reform, and so on. Subsequently, a large group of people who cared about the future of China gathered at Tiananmen Square. Over a period of two months, the movement developed from one localized in Beijing to one which extended to 200 or 300 cities across the country, including Hong Kong.

At that time, Hong Kong was not reunified with China yet. Many people learned about the mass democratic movement in Beijing on television and from various sources. The initiators of the movement were students of tertiary institutions in Beijing. Back then, many people in Hong Kong were concerned about the movement. On three occasions, more than 1 million people took to the streets and some of them even braved the stormy weather when Typhoon Signal No. 8 was in force. Finally, this patriotic democratic movement was violently suppressed. The Chinese People's Liberation Army entered the city in tanks. These were not troops of Beijing; they were deployed from other cities. Members of the troops who did not know much about the situation were instructed by some veterans of the Communist Party of China ("CPC") to enter Tiananmen Square violently. Finally, an unknown number of students, workers and members of the public sacrificed their lives in an attempt to stop the tanks from entering Tiananmen Square.

Like many Hong Kong people, LI Wangyang in Shaoyang, Hunan Province, learnt what happened in Beijing. He returned to his hometown in Shaoyang to support the student movement in Beijing. Nevertheless, we knew that this movement was suppressed with violence, to be followed by a clean-up operation across the country and those who had supported pro-democracy activists were arrested and imprisoned. Many of these people were workers and 9486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 others included students and members of the general public. After 28 years, the Central Government has not conducted any comprehensive investigation, has not paid any compensation to family members of the deceased and has not made any fair comments. The Central Government does not want to mention the 4 June incident and many who have participated in the pro-democracy movement have been arrested and imprisoned.

LI Wangyang was imprisoned on two occasions for a total of 20 years. After he was released, he told others that he was inhumanely treated in prison. He endured 20 years of imprisonment and was locked in a small pet cage. All these years, he was not allowed to see daylight and he became blind. He lost his hearing, his teeth fell off and then he was released. Would a man who could endure imprisonment and torture for 20 years commit suicide when he was detained in hospital? What had actually happened is still unknown even today. The man who stayed in the same room with LI Wangyang suddenly went missing and dared not come forward to say a word. However, rumour has it that he had acquired money to build a big house.

We see that justice has not been served and that the patriotic movement has been smeared as a disturbance. In 1989 when the democratic movement first started in China, the Chinese Government initially described it as a counter-revolutionary riot, or a "disturbance". After the 4 June incident was suppressed, the Chinese Government called it the 4 June turmoil. It has gradually watered down the terms used in describing the movement. If we search on the Internet or read documents or books produced on the Mainland, we would notice that the Chinese authorities have described the democratic movement which happened in Beijing and across the country in 1989 as "a political turmoil between spring and summer of 1989". From such a description, one will not be able to tell what had happened. Why do we have to propose time and again that the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated? The reason is that the movement was not a "disturbance" from beginning to end. Right from the outset, the students had very consciously adopted a peaceful, law-abiding and orderly approach. They had not directly condemned the regime of CPC. Instead, they adopted terms often used by CPC, sang the popular revolutionary songs and supported the movement with their love of the country. But unfortunately, their patriotism, their love of the country and their dreams of democracy had been violently shattered.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9487

In these 28 years, many people, including LI Wangyang, lost their lives. Some said that LI Wangyang was "being suicided", but he was actually murdered. No investigation into the whole matter had been conducted at all. Many family members of those who died in the 4 June incident wanted to commemorate the dead, but video cameras were set up at the cemetary to check who have pay respect to the dead with a view to pursue responsibility. What kind of a government is that? We are greatly perplexed by the situation in China. China has made rapid improvements and developments in these 28 years, but only in terms of economic development. When compared with the circumstances 28 years ago, is there any political improvement or has the country become more democratic? We fail to see any.

In 1989, the demands made by the students include democracy and constitutional reform, but they were also concerned about problems such as corruption, official profiteering and inflation in China. They also considered there was a need for reform in education despite a lack of resources. They wanted democracy and asked to have a dialogue with government officials, but such a humble request had finally been interpreted as a disturbance. That is absolutely unfair to the students.

Here in Hong Kong, why do we again have to discuss time and again the democratic movement which happened on the Mainland 28 years ago? In recent years, I have gradually become aware that some young people wanted to dissociate themselves from China and focus their attention on local issues. In fact, all of us are very concerned about local issues. In Hong Kong, we are concerned about various issues including water safety, food safety, fighting bid-rigging, protecting animal rights, issues related to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and educational reform, but does it mean that issues in China do not concern us at all? I do not think so. In particular, it is important for us to uphold the Basic Law. Article 1 of the Basic Law provides that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China". Back in 1989, there were three occasions on which 1 million people took to the streets in Hong Kong. As what happened on the Mainland was broadcast live on television, the people knew that the student movement was never a disturbance. It was only an attempt to promote democratic reform in a peaceful, rational and non-violent manner, but DENG, LI and YANG had broken the hearts of these patriotic students and violently put an end to the movement.

9488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

The 1989 pro-democracy movement was ended with violence, but does it mean that we have to forget it? Today, there is still no democracy in China. Considering the democratic development in Hong Kong, we cannot envisage when dual elections by universal suffrage can be implemented. The Basic Law provides that the Chief Executive and all Members of the Legislative Council shall be elected by universal suffrage, but these provisions have not been implemented even up to this date.

Thus, I very much hope that we will remember the martyrs of the democratic movement of China and what LI Wangyang said five years ago. When LI Wangyang was asked whether he regretted supporting the pro-democracy movement back then, which caused him to be imprisoned twice and severely tortured, his answer was, "I do not regret. Even if I were beheaded, I would never retreat. His movement has my unwavering support".

President, looking back at the democratic movement in Hong Kong today, we have encountered many setbacks, but our sufferings are far less than those endured by LI Wangyang. I very much hope that Members can participate in this debate today. I would also like members of the public who are now watching the television broadcast to consider the following questions together: How important is democratization to China? Is it true that the "China Dream" can only be an economic dream and not a democratic dream? Will Hong Kong people be encouraged so that we can continue to work hard for the future of democracy in Hong Kong and China despite all kinds of pressure?

President, I will deliver my concluding speech later. I implore Honourable Members to support this motion.

Dr Helena WONG moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That this Council urges that: the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated."

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am grateful to Dr Helena WONG for moving this motion on vindicating the 4 June incident.

My generation experienced and witnessed the tragic 4 June pro-democracy movement in 1989. It started in April 1989 when students mourned HU Yaobang and levelled the severest accusations at the Communist Party of China LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9489

("CPC") for its corruption and official profiteering, which had left people in dire straits. What started out as a rally at Tiananmen Square gradually spread from Beijing to the rest of China, evolving from a student movement into a labour movement, and then a movement involving all Chinese people.

The 4 June incident in 1989 was a watershed for Chinese pro-democracy movements. Between the downfall of the Gang of Four and the 1989 massacre, some senior members of the CPC Central Committee, including DENG Xiaoping, had actually benefited from a short-lived pro-democracy movement. Members may recall the Xidan Democracy Wall. After the Gang of Four was overthrown, DENG Xiaoping and his henchmen managed to regain power on the back of a transient political movement which started at the Xidan Democracy Wall. But unfortunately, the 4 June incident in 1989 did not make China more democratic, nor did it lead to the implementation of all the civil rights stipulated by CPC in the constitution. It culminated in a massacre.

Every time the Mainland leaders criticize Japan for invading China, they are bound to say that Japan is a shameless country or nation that does not respect history. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in the Nanjing Massacre. The Japanese invasion of China is a historical fact, but it has been distorted by Japanese textbooks which misrepresent it as Japan's entry into China. However, is CPC any better than the Japanese? The massacre on 4 June 1989 was not only witnessed by Hong Kong people. At that time, thanks to the newly developed global news broadcast network―I believe Members still recall the live broadcast by CNN―people all over the world saw the victims, dead and seriously injured, being transported by wooden carts to major hospitals in Beijing. I saw some Beijing doctors in white coats covered with blood coming out of hospitals, saying in tears that they could not save the students and all those people around them.

As we have seen, over the past 28 years, the Tiananmen Mothers have been speaking up for their deceased family members, requesting the vindication of the 4 June incident, and demanding that CPC should admit responsibility. After 28 years, China has now become richer and more overbearing. Just name any Chinese state-owned enterprise; I am sure it has assets worth trillions of dollars. China is most adept at "giving out money" in the international arena. When you look at the Belt and Road Initiative, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and the election of Margaret CHAN as Director-General of the World Health Organization, you will find that all these are the results of putting in heaps of money. Yet, as far as we can see, does the international community have great respect for China as the world's second largest economy? No. 9490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

If a government does not respect history, does not learn any lesson from history, does not respect its people, and does not apologize to those we regard as patriots who lost their lives 28 years ago, then there is no future for its country or nation. History tells us that a country or nation can progress only if it is willing to admit responsibility for its mistakes and turn over a new leaf.

Today's China is merely a self-styled great power. XI Jinping has visited many countries in the world, including some Western countries that seem to be on friendly terms with China; but as soon as XI Jinping left, these countries declared their hope that China would respect human rights and stop oppressing dissidents. From the "709 crackdown" two years ago, we can see how the government of XI Jinping responded to the appeal made by foreign countries. Not only has CPC refused to ease its oppression of all human rights activists and denied them their constitutional rights, but it has oppressed them even more severely. Worse still, any person who casually posts a harmless picture on WeChat or Weibo to show support for Hong Kong's Umbrella Movement may be put behind bars for a few years.

While the 4 June rally this year was held in unsettled weather, it was still attended by 110 000 Hong Kong people. Hong Kong people should be proud of themselves. This can never happen on the Mainland. Chinese people in other places are dissociating themselves from China. If you ask the Taiwanese, they will tell you that they have no relationship whatsoever with China. The same goes for the people of Macao. But in Hong Kong, 110 000 people still attended the 4 June rally this year, and I believe the number of future attendees will not be small. It is true that some youngsters have expressed a dissenting view this year, but I have this to say to these youngsters: you do not have to be a Chinese to have a clear understanding of this episode in history, for everyone has a conscience. Would a person of conscience feel nothing when he saw unarmed young people being killed by guns, cannons and tanks? In the 4 June incident 28 years ago, almost 10 000 people lost their lives. Could this not make Hong Kong people reflect? Our pro-democracy movement today is actually a legacy of the 4 June incident in 1989.

With these remarks, I support the motion.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Many young people of this generation hold the view that the 4 June commemorative activities over the past 28 years have invariably been brimming with Greater China complex, which is certainly neither LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9491 an accolade nor a positive saying. That said, as a person of my years, that is the case. Being a full-time journalist back then, I could vividly recollect what happened in those days. During the four hours when I rushed to buy an air ticket to Beijing, my mind was only filled with a Chinese communist song "My Motherland" that I learnt to sing earlier. The first line of the lyrics is "a great river flows, its waves wide and calm". That was a very traditional Chinese song. Some say that young people these days lack a sense of Chinese identity, and they are repulsed by the saying that they are Heirs of the Dragon. The problem of generation gap seems to be serious, but that may not be the case.

The feelings we harboured back then were attributable to the ambience and ideological trend at the time. The year was 1989, and there was still some time before the handover of sovereignty in 1997. Looking back, one may say that Hong Kong people were too naïve and too simple-minded, but most of the people back then did believe in democratic reunification. I still worked as a full-time journalist then. History has proved that colonialism cannot possibly be a good thing. Is there still any colony in any corner of the world? My parents came to Hong Kong with the intent for a short stay. They originally intended to go to Taiwan, but things did not always turn out as one wished. Since they lived under another's roof in Hong Kong, they had to resign themselves to adversity.

Has the sentiment of being Chinese vanished nowadays? Not absolutely. Speaking of sentiment in Hong Kong, after the outbreak of the Sichuan earthquake in 2008, many organizations, including the Red Cross and political parties―that year was an election year―solicited donations on the streets. The words frequently said in those days were "blood is thicker than water". Many members of the public did endorse this remark, and they put $20, $100 and $500 into donation boxes. It is now 2017, we are talking about incidents that happened some nine years ago. Certainly, to some people, nine years may mean two generations. What has actually happened over the nine years such that young people nowadays are so repulsed by the Chinese identity?

There is a saying that it does not matter whether you are Chinese or not, if you believe in universal ethical values, you should attend the 4 June commemorative activities. Hong Kong people have been commemorating the 4 June incident for many years. Regarding the slogan "remembering the compatriots killed in the incident", young people nowadays think that they are called compatriots when benefits are involved, and if there are no benefits, they will be criticized for not loving the country. In universities, Mainland students are considered international students. To treat Mainland students as 9492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 international students is like advocating Hong Kong independence in university campuses. By international, it should involve countries and nations. How come Mainland students are treated as international students? Are they not compatriots?

Another slogan for the 4 June incident is "build a democratic China" which Members must be very familiar with. However, for some young people, this slogan has been chanted for 28 years and they are fed up with it. What else can be done besides merely chanting this slogan? Their mentality is that Mainland China is now a big cruise ship; it is difficult to make the ship turn even one degree, so we should first take care of ourselves. On 4 June this year, the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China made a compromise and stopped singing Roman TAM's "A Chinese Dream", the lyrics of which involve the Yellow River and the Yangtze River, with the hope of narrowing the distance with Hong Kong's young people. Well, we must not attribute all problems to young people, as young people constituted the majority of those present at this year's 4 June candlelight vigil. Personally, I feel very disgusted with the radical words used by the students' union of a certain university, such as "piggybacking on 4 June and following the ritual". We all follow certain ritual every day, such as combing, bathing, tooth brushing and attending meetings here. That said, what about our daily life? Shall we not live a life? To say that the 4 June commemorative rally is merely following the ritual will not stop people from not talking about the 4 June incident.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I absolutely support the motion moved by Dr Helena WONG. "That the 4 June incident be vindicated and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be not forgotten" is not only a slogan, but a necessary obligation which needs to be upheld. It is essential to seek justice for those people who were sacrificed in the massacre. However, when we chanted "the 4 June incident be vindicated" in the past, we were targeting the regime in most cases. Twenty-eight years on, many words have already been spoken. In my opinion, what we are saying today is not only targeting the regime, but also Hong Kong people, we hope that they will continue to strive for the vindication of the 4 June incident and do not forget the 1989 pro-democracy movement.

On the evening of last Sunday, Hong Kong people supported the 4 June rally organized by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China ("the Alliance") in the Victoria Park, which has been held LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9493 annually regardless of the weather conditions. However, this year's turnout was record low, which has to do with the current problems in our community. Many people consider that we should not commemorate or mourn the 1989 pro-democracy movement again because the current division between Hong Kong and Mainland China has to be mended, and the 4 June incident in 1989 is related to Mainland people but not Hong Kong people. Some people also consider the vision of building a democratic China unrealistic, claiming that the progress of democracy in Hong Kong may even be ruined if we persist. Some people have even suggested that the annual 4 June rally organized by the Alliance is merely a formality which is the same every year, leaving people tired and enervated.

However, among the Hong Kong people who have experienced the 4 June incident in 1989, some were witnesses, some were bystanders, and still many of them were participating supporters. Hong Kong is the place with the highest number of supporters outside Mainland China. In fact, if you still remember, Hong Kong was unprecedentedly united back then―1 million Hong Kong people took to the streets, a territory-wide fundraising campaign was held in support of the Chinese students, and many Hong Kong people also went to Tiananmen Square in person to express their support. It is absolutely not an overstatement to say that the 1989 pro-democracy movement was an unprecedented political enlightenment movement of the Hong Kong people. Hence, it is incorrect to say that we have nothing to do with the 4 June incident in 1989.

Whether Hong Kong people admit it or not, the fates of Hong Kong and of China are closely intertwined. The reasons for that include not only political sovereignty, but also geography and history. In the wake of the 1989 pro-democracy movement, Hong Kong has all along been affected by the tightening up of freedom of speech, stagnant reform of the political system, unbalanced economic development, etc. In addition, in view of the arrest and sentencing of some Mainland intellectuals by the authorities for supporting the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong, how can we still say that their matters have nothing to do with us?

Furthermore, the 1989 pro-democracy movement is a nationwide campaign directed at the central regime and the national system in contemporary history since the Community Party has come to power. Although it has been ruthlessly suppressed in the end, it is very much worth reflecting on the significance and the strategies of the movement. Currently some Hong Kong people have called for independence, some have called for autonomy, and some have called for 9494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 recapturing Hong Kong. Such demands are precisely directed at the distant regime in Beijing. If we wish to change the Beijing regime, or hope that the regime will change for the people, the students, workers and masses in the 1989 pro-democracy movement are respectable role models for us to learn from.

As an important participating supporter of the 4 June incident, Hong Kong is the only city within the territory of China where the 4 June incident can be publicly commemorated. It is indeed incumbent on us to shoulder the responsibility of preserving the history without any hesitation. There is a saying that "the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting". The candlelight vigil held every year is precisely the ground for struggle of memory against forgetting. LAM Yiu-keung, a former member of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, said at the 4 June rally this year that the masses of Beijing have escorted him back to Hong Kong with their lives because they wanted him to return alive and tell the world the truth. If anyone does not endorse the commemorative rally of the Alliance, they are welcome to organize another rally or commemorative ritual on their own initiative. However, we should absolutely never forget, despise, or remove this incident from our history.

In recent years, the scope of freedom of speech in Hong Kong has been gradually narrowed. Take the incident on a bookstore in Causeway Bay as an example. The shareholder, manager and a staff member of the bookstore have been arrested in succession after the Mainland authorities have enforced laws across the boundary. Although national education has been shelved amid opposition, it has stealthily staged a comeback under the banner of Basic Law education. While the enactment of legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law remains unsettled, it has become a nightmare haunting Hong Kong people. In such case, the truth seems to have become a luxury. Beijing has all along regarded the Alliance as a thorn in the flesh and wished to see it dissolved. If we discontinue mourning, the communist regime will definitely be most delighted. Thus, in such case, it is all the more necessary for us to persevere and not to let the regime achieve what it wants.

This year marks the 28th anniversary of the 4 June massacre, and the fifth anniversary of the "staged suicide" of LI Wangyang. In an interview with the i-Cable News Channel, LI Wangyang said that he would "never retreat even if beheaded". While we can mourn and discuss the 4 June incident in Hong Kong, not everyone is required to have the determination of risking his or her life for doing so. We only hope that we can at least exhibit the power of collective LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9495 memory once a year, and make it clear to the regime which had massacred the civilians that we have never forgotten and we will persevere until the incident is vindicated.

President, I so submit.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would like to quote a passage as follows. "To realize constitutional government, we must first have the prerequisites of implementing a constitutional government. We consider the three most important prerequisites are, firstly, the protection of people's democratic freedom, secondly, the lifting of the ban on political parties, and thirdly, the practice of local self-government. There are many forms of people's rights and freedoms, but what the whole nation urgently needs now are the freedom of movement, the freedom of assembly and association, as well as the freedom of speech and of publication. If the homes of people are subject to arbitrary and unlawful search, or if people are subject to arbitrary and unlawful arrest, or secret interrogation or killing, or forced training, or if people's freedom of assembly and association is prohibited, or their speech and publication are subject to the most extreme restrictions and checking, how can people's freedom be safeguarded when they discuss or express views on constitutional government?"

President, the above passage looks as if they are the words spoken by a person striving for democracy and freedom at our time. But it actually comes from an address titled "A true republic is where people of the country truly have the right to speak" given by Mr ZHOU Enlai, before he became the Premier, at a meeting held on 12 March 1944 for all sectors of Yanan to commemorate the 19th anniversary of the death of Dr SUN Yat-sen. This passage is important because those are the words spoken by one of the founding fathers of the People's Republic of China ("PRC") and one of the first-generation core leaders, before the founding of PRC. Given the background of our time, we may find it difficult to believe that the Communist Party of China used to show such a democratic and open side to the people.

On 1 May 1989, the Beijing University Students' Autonomous Federation mentioned in its "Letter to Compatriots in Hong Kong" that, "The goals of our democracy movement are to promote the democratization of China, expedite the pace of political and economic reforms, fight against graft and corruption, and 9496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 reaffirm people's freedom. We do so out of our strong sense of participation and dedication to promoting democracy as Chinese intellectuals. We students not only criticized the blunders made by the Government in its 10-year reform, but also forwarded reasonable and constructive ideas on the government's work. What we expressed is the strong call from hundreds of millions of people for consolidating and further promoting democracy and reform."

These two passages are indeed quite similar. The founding father of PRC and students in the 4 June movement shared more or less the same call for the government to fight against graft and corruption, as well as autocracy, and to bring about real freedom and democracy. It has been 68 years since the founding of PRC in 1949, and 28 years since the 4 June crackdown. Regrettably though, China's political reform and opening-up has hardly made any progress. So far, Chinese leaders have yet to fulfil the solemn undertaking given before the founding of PRC. In recent years, particularly the past two to three years, many different views have been expressed about the form of commemorating the 4 June incident in Hong Kong, such as what kind of commemorative activities should be organized, or whether any commemorative activity should be held at all? Nonetheless, I think such discussion or disagreement is inconsequential because it just shows that over time and space, different generations will have different views on the same matter.

Our insistence on vindicating and not forgetting the 4 June incident is significant on two counts. Firstly, Hong Kong people as citizens―both of China and of the world―are showing respect for past history, basic human rights and universal core values. We can still vividly recall the determination and sacrifice of Beijing students and citizens back then in their fight for democracy. It is not something we can forget as a person, a member of international civil society and a Chinese citizen.

Secondly, apart from reviewing history, we must understand the experience and lessons to be learnt from the pro-democracy movement or this tragic history, so that we know how to face the challenges ahead. We must be vigilant. No matter what good intentions a government has, it can still use its powers arbitrarily and wilfully if there are no checks and balances. Without checks and balances, all rosy promises are nothing but lies. People's freedom and basic rights should be protected. This is the lesson we learn from the history of the pro-democracy movement in 1989. This is also the undertaking made by the founding father of PRC to all people in China.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9497

I support the motion moved by Dr Helena WONG today. President, I so submit.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): A magnificent pro-democracy movement took place across China in 1989, only to end on 4 June by a bloody crackdown. This movement exposed the most barbaric front of the regime of the Communist Party of China ("CPC"). I remember I was abroad on that day, watching television and discussing with my school-mates about the direction of the democratic movement. We had never expected that unarmed students and members of the public would stand upright to face millions of soldiers of the People's Liberation Army ("PLA"), and resist the autocratic powers. However, we were worried how the movement would develop. At that time, we thought that since there were millions of PLA soldiers deployed in the vast north-western region of China, we anticipated that would be large-scale arrests and white terror would reign. It had never crossed our mind that PLA would point their weapons and guns at unarmed students and ordinary people. The fact that PLA killed people is definitely an unremovable blemish over the 70 years after CPC had seized power.

Over the past 20-odd years, CPC has used various means, such as censorship of thoughts and speech to stop people from getting the true picture of this movement, to stop people from learning about the murders committed by the regime, and to block all information about PLA's bloody crackdown in Tiananmen Square. Through education, CPC has gradually obliterated the younger generations' memory of the 4 June massacre. Against such a background, it is even more important for people of Hong Kong to attend activities to commemorate the 4 June patriotic pro-democracy movement because we have to exhibit, record and help people remember the bloody crackdown of the movement.

Over the past 28 years, CPC has successfully obliterated from history the bloody crackdown of the 4 June movement. Today, many surveys today find that people in the Mainland have no idea about what had exactly happened on that day. The CPC regime employs every means to wipe away the people's memory of its atrocities, and the whole nation has forgotten the history. But history has repeated itself; and today corruption is even more rampant than the time of the 4 June movement. As the CPC regime ignores history, it has never reflected on 9498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 its deeds, and worse still, as the regime needs not face any political pressure and condemnation by history, it has become more and more authoritarian and has deployed various kinds of sophistry to whitewash the heinous crimes it committed.

For the past 28 years, being conscience minded and armed with moral courage, Hong Kong people have persisted in ascertaining responsibility for the massacre and seeking justice for the compatriots who were killed in the 4 June incident. By persevering, we want to prevent CPC from successfully making people forget the atrocities it had committed under the authoritarian rule. We persevere so that people of Hong Kong under "one country, two systems" will not forget the history of the massacre.

Someone has asked me what the point of our perseverance. If people think that CPC is not concerned about our act of ascertaining responsibility for the massacre, it would not step up control around 4 June each year, and would not ban Tiananmen Mothers from erecting a monument in the vicinity of Tiananmen to commemorate their beloved ones. If the CPC regime does not care, why does it not allow its people to access online information related to the 4 June incident, so that they would not be aware of the atrocities committed by the CPC regime?

Hong Kong is the only place in the "one country" that can freely record, commemorate and mourn for the 4 June massacre. On account of this reason, we must make CPC understand that there will always be people ascertaining responsibility for the massacre and in the course, when one falls, another one will take up his place. Over the past 28 years, Hong Kong people have lighted up candles each year to continue ascertaining responsibility for the massacre. We must persist in this course. Only in so doing can we make the CPC regime bear responsibility for the massacre and only through this can the country face its people frankly and openly.

Men must learn from history to progress forward. The objective of CPC is to make Hong Kong people forget about the 4 June incident under "one country". As such, Hong Kong people have a great responsibility under "two systems". Some find it a burden but since we live in Hong Kong under "one country, two systems", we must, with the greatest moral courage and strength, force CPC to face up to history and do justice to the compatriots who were killed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9499 in the incident. Only in so doing can we contribute to the political development within the "one country", making it possible for the democratization of the political system in Hong Kong under "two systems" one day. Hence, we must persist in vindicating the pro-democracy movement in 1989, ascertaining responsibility for the massacre and ending one party dictatorship.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Twenty-eight years, may I ask how many things one can persist for 28 years in his life? Back then on 4 June 1989, I had just joined the workforce in the United States for less than two years and was busy with my work and life. I did not care too much about society, politics, China and Hong Kong. However, when I saw the 4 June massacre on television, I immediately put aside my work and started to show concern for and give support to the pro-democracy movement.

The 4 June incident has changed my life. There must be some incidents that change the life of people in every generation, or there must be some incidents that inspire them. To Hong Kong people and even some Chinese people, but Hong Kong people in particular, the Diaoyu Islands incident might affect or inspire people of the last generation, the 4 June incident for this generation, and for the younger generation, it might be the demonstrations held on 1 July, the movement against national education or the Umbrella Movement.

People of my generation has a particular perseverance regarding the 4 June incident, and compared with other matters, the 4 June incident is really very special to Hong Kong people. At that time, 1 million people took to the streets when typhoon signal No. 8 was hoisted. Yet, I was not at the scene. However, whoever saw the scene or learnt about it would be sadly moved even though they were not there. We were not in Hong Kong back then, but activities commemorating the 4 June incident have been organized in different cities year after year. Today, many Hong Kong people staying abroad still continue to do so.

With regard to the 4 June incident, Hong Kong people have all along played a very special role. Every year, the activity that has the highest attendance is the one held at the Victoria Park to commemorate the 4 June incident, and it has been held for 28 years. Hong Kong students had gone to 9500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Beijing for support as early as 28 years ago. People who are relatively younger or have not experienced the 4 June incident may ask: what does this incident have to do with Hong Kong people? Firstly, only Hong Kong people can speak freely according to their conscience, and of course that depends on how many people are willing to do so. Over the years, before and after the reunification in particular, Hong Kong people have come across a lot of unfairness and injustices. It seems that unfairness has never ceased, especially after the reunification.

Twenty years have passed, but we still do not have genuine democracy. Some people thus think that we are like frogs being cooked in lukewarm water, and there is no hope for young people of this generation as they have been brainwashed by the authority. Nonetheless, the Umbrella Movement and the anti-national education movement have proved that this is not the case. I remember the words said to me by a very respectable predecessor. He said we must have faith in Hong Kong people because they will stand up at critical moments. I think young people of today do not differ much in nature from our generation 28 years ago. It is only that 20 years after the reunification, whenever they saw injustices in Hong Kong or injustices brought about by the Beijing regime to Hong Kong, they would be impatient and come up with some new reactions, which is understandable. Notwithstanding that, I believe one day when the critical moment comes and people have to rise against the powerful, autocratic and murderous regime and various injustices, Hong Kong people of different generations will surely stand up in unison.

At present, the most difficult situation to deal with is that there are people who only care about immediate benefits, and they have therefore cast aside the basic conscience of human beings to tell right from wrong. Among these people, there are of course Members of the pro-establishment camp who should have stayed in this Chamber to discuss this subject but have all left. Some of these Members were students who had taken part in the student movement back then, including our incumbent Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. It is true that some Hong Kong people have given up justice for economic interests, but so long as we know the nature of these people, it is not difficult to tell the objectives behind their words and deeds. To them, the 4 June incident is something they eagerly want to forget but dare not forget. However, to us and many other Hong Kong people who have persevered unremittingly as well as those who have tied their hearts with us even though they have not participated in the commemorative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9501 activities in Victoria Park, we must be outspoken and fight for the vindication of the 4 June incident. We dare not forget, will not forget and refuse to forget.

It seems that the number of people taking part in the commemorative activity in Victoria Park has dropped this year. Many people, and even the media, are very eager to compile statistics of the number of participants of each year. After all, it has been 28 years. Who would have expected that there would still be 110 000 people taking part in the commemorative activities held this year back in 28 years ago? Of course, some people might have thought that the 4 June incident should be vindicated many years later, which is the wish of many people. And yet, the wish has yet to be fulfilled. I remember when Mr Albert HO was interviewed on that night, he made a very good remark, saying that pursuing something which we considered right for 28 years does not mean anything. Why should we not persevere? In fact, we should persevere beyond this life. Let me supplement by saying that if I have to specify a period, I would say at least 10 000 years.

Have Members ever imagined for issues that young people now attach great importance to, what would happen 28 years later? How would they think 28 years later? Looking back, 28 years ago, I did think in the first few years that the 4 June pro-democracy movement would not be vindicated within my lifetime. And yet, I would persevere with my mourning, and persevere with my challenge against an autocratic regime that lacks conscience and committed the evil deeds of massacring the people. This is something that all people with conscience would have to persevere. Therefore, today, I will continue to support Dr Helena WONG's motion urging that "the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated". So long as this motion can be moved, I will continue to make my voice heard in this Chamber and continue to denounce such a regime until the pro-democracy movement is vindicated. And, even after it is vindicated, we will still persevere with our mourning for those people. (The buzzer sounded)

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

(The President noticed a display board in the seat of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung)

9502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretariat staff will please remove the display board in the seat of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung as it obstructs my line of sight.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, on 13 May 1989, the Beijing college students going on a hunger strike issued an announcement known as the Hunger Strike Manifesto, which I think is well worth a reread around 4 June.

"In this bright sunny month of May, we are on a hunger strike. In this the best moment of our youth, we have no choice but to leave behind us everything beautiful about life. But how reluctant, how unwilling we are!

"However, the country has come to this juncture: rampant inflation; widespread illegal business dealings by corrupt officials; the dominance of abusive power; the corruption of bureaucrats; the fleeing of a large number of good people to other countries; and the deterioration of law and order. Compatriots and all fellow citizens with a conscience, at this critical moment of life and death of our people, please listen to our voice:

"This is our country. The people are our people. The government is our government. Who will shout if we don't? Who will act if we don't?

"Although our shoulders are still tender, although death for us is still seemingly too harsh to bear, we have to part with life. When history demands us to do so, we have no choice but to die.

"Our national sentiment at its purest and our loyalty at its best are labelled as 'chaotic disturbance'; as 'with an ulterior motive'; and as 'manipulated by a small gang'.

"We request all honourable Chinese, every worker, peasant, soldier, ordinary citizen, intellectual, and renowned individuals, government officials, police and those who fabricated our crimes to put their hands over their hearts and examine their conscience: what crime have we committed? Are we creating LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9503 chaotic disturbances? We walk out of classrooms, we march, we hunger strike, we hide. Yet our feelings are betrayed time after time. We bear the suffering of hunger to pursue the truth, and all we get is the beatings of the police. When we kneel down to beg for democracy, we are being ignored. Our request for dialogue on equal terms is met with delay after delay. Our student leaders encounter personal dangers.

"What do we do?

"Democracy is the most noble meaning of life; freedom is a basic human right. But the price of democracy and freedom is our life. Can the Chinese people be proud of this?

"We have no other alternative but to hunger strike. We have to strike.

"It is with the spirit of death that we fight for life.

"But we are still children, we are still children! Mother China, please take a hard look at your children. Hunger is ruthlessly destroying their youth. Are you really not touched when death is approaching them?

"We do not want to die. In fact, we wish to continue to live comfortably because we are in the prime years of our lives. We do not wish to die; we want to be able to study properly. Our homeland is so poor. It seems irresponsible of us to desert our homeland to die. Death is definitely not our pursuit. But if the death of a single person or a number of persons would enable a larger number of people to live better, or if the death can make our homeland stronger and more prosperous, then we have no right to drag on an ignoble existence.

"When we are suffering from hunger, moms and dads, please don't be sad. When we bid farewell to life, uncles and aunts, please don't be heartbroken. Our only hope is that the Chinese people will live better. We have only one request: please don't forget that we are definitely not after death. Democracy is not the private matter of a few individuals, and the enterprise of building democracy is definitely not to be accomplished in a single generation.

9504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

"It is through death that we await a far-reaching and perpetual echo by others. When a person is about to die, he speaks from his heart. When a horse is about to die, its cries are sad. Farewell comrades, take care, the same loyalty and faith bind the living and the dead. Farewell loved ones, take care. I don't want to leave you, but I have to part with life. Farewell moms and dads, please forgive us. Your children cannot have loyalty to our country and filial piety to you at the same time. Farewell fellow citizens, please permit us to repay our country in the only way left to us. The pledge that is delivered by death will one day clear the sky of our republic."3

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, on the 28th anniversary of the 4 June incident, our most important task is to insist on telling the people and the next generation what really happened back then and what is happening now. The 4 June incident all began with a group of students with vision who noticed the dreadful conditions of society. Apart from having no democracy, there were problems of corruption, underhand dealings and official profiteering. Basically, official profiteering means that prices of important resources were controlled by public officials. When China began to move toward capitalism, a market was formed. Public officials used their power and status to buy goods at specified low prices and sold them in the market. They used their power and status to achieve their purpose through their own network. Basically, all of them were corrupt. Thus, the spirit of the 4 June movement was to combat corruption and underhand dealings and establish a democratic political system. To our great regret, this spirit and wish have still not been manifested to date.

Back then, the group of unarmed students had innocently put forward their requests only to reason with the government. Their actions had, however, led to a movement which aroused the concern of the whole country and finally resulted

3 Daniel Brook. (2005) Hunger Strike Announcement [from the Chinese Students]. Modern Revolution: Social Change and Cultural Continuity in Czechoslovakia and China (pp. 187-189). The United States of America, University Press of America. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9505 in a bloody crackdown. At that time, I was not in Hong Kong. Like Mr Charles Peter MOK, I was in California in the United States. When we learnt what happened, we were very anxious. What did we ask people to do urgently at that time? Since we were so far away from China, we could not participate in the activities or protests in Hong Kong in which 1 million people attended.

Back then, what we could do was to make use of all fax machines available to send photographs and reports of the killings by tanks and troops we got from international media and Hong Kong media to all the fax numbers in China which we knew because the Internet was not so popular then. In fact, sending documents by fax was the cheapest way of communication then. What was the purpose of our actions? We wanted to expeditiously tell all Chinese people what really happened. For we knew that a clean-up operation would commence soon after the crackdown, and then there were reports that no one died, nothing happened on 4 June, the then the incident would vanish.

Today, we are aware that many young students from the Mainland may not even have heard of the 4 June incident and they did not know what had happened at that time. That is the reason why we propose this motion today. We are the only people in the territory of China who can still insist on not forgetting the 4 June incident; and we definitely cannot allow anyone to wipe out our memories of this incident.

However, it is very sad for me to say that after 28 years, no improvements have been made in any of the areas which the students had hoped to see, and things have even regressed. Has corruption in China become less serious as compared to 1989? Has the current situation in China developed into a state in which public officials of all rankings are basically corrupt?

We are aware that XI Jinping is "hunting big tigers" to combat many corrupt officials. Nevertheless, are the public officials under his supervision or is he himself clean? In the Panama Papers incident, many Chinese leaders are involved and it has been disclosed that there are many intrinsic connections. Some people own many properties and assets through offshore companies, or the so-called British Virgin Islands ("BVI") companies. At present, have public officials in China engaged in anything like official profiteering or corruption? I am afraid that such incidents will only be on the increase.

9506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Besides, what had XI Jinping done in 2013 which resulted in GAO Yu, a reporter being accused of disclosing a confidential paper, found guilty of "publishing state secrets" and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment and is serving sentence now? The paper she disclosed back then was Document No. 9 of the General Office of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, which basically relates to the "seven topics not to be mentioned". The "seven topics not to be mentioned" are constitutionalism and democracy of the Western world; universities, major research organizations, the media and universal values; civil society; neoliberalism; Western views of journalism; historical nihilism (i.e. history of the Communist Party of China); and doubts about opening up and reform. These topics should not be mentioned so that people's memories can be wiped out and the younger generation can be brainwashed. People are told that these topics are irrelevant, but in fact, they are relevant to everyone.

Responsibilities for the 4 June massacre must be pursued, the 4 June incident must be vindicated and one party dictatorship must be brought to an end.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, it has been 28 years since the 4 June incident happened. All along, the Legislative Council has held motion debates on this matter for 20-odd years. However, the motion could not be debated in Council last year due to prolonged filibustering. I think our motion debates on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" have become an important tradition of the Legislative Council. As in the past, Members of the Liberal Party will reaffirm our position through speaking and voting on the motion.

I think many Chinese and Hong Kong people share the view that the 4 June incident is a tragedy. At that time, I was a young man in my twenties, and I witnessed the incident. I was also one of the 500 000 people who took to the streets. So, even to this day, I still have a vivid memory of those events. I think no Chinese people would like to see the recurrence of similar incidents. Regarding the causes, consequences and happenings of the incident, there are still many puzzles or questions left unanswered. That is why I think as far as this incident is concerned, only time will tell. I believe that a fair judgment will be made eventually by society and history.

Nonetheless, we should always look ahead. It is especially true if we consider the history of China from its reform and opening-up in the 1980s to the pro-democracy movement in 1989. In 1992, DENG Xiaoping toured South LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9507

China to kick-start China's reform and opening-up, with particular emphasis on Shenzhen. Do Members still remember what the situation in Shenzhen was back then? At that time, I started setting up factories in the Mainland, though in Dongguan and not Shenzhen. At that time, Shenzhen was just a rural area with hardly any development. But what is Shenzhen now 25 years later? Some even say that Shenzhen will soon overtake Hong Kong in terms of gross domestic product ("GDP"). Hence, it is most important for a country to look forward and maintain economic development. But we will also not forget what happened in the past.

Let us take a look at China's current economic development. Ten years ago, China's GDP was only about $22 trillion. But 10 years later, China's GDP has increased by a staggering 3.4 times, amounting to $74 trillion. Such progress will not only help improve people's livelihood and drive further economic development, but it will also create impact on the world in various ways. That is why we all agree and support that China should move forward and achieve further development. In future, the country will promote the implementation of the Belt and Road Initiative. Apart from eagerly anticipating the achievements to be made in the future, say, 30 years later, we must also do our part to actively support this initiative.

Of course, many people say that economic development should not be the only matter of concern for the Chinese government. But as we can see, President XI Jinping has adopted a tough stance against graft and corruption after taking office. Regardless of their ranks, officials in the Communist Party of China, the military or state-owned enterprises have all been targeted, or in the President's own words, it is a matter of "hunting tigers and flies". I hope we can all see that China is also aware of problems in other areas, apart from reform and opening-up, and that these problems would have to be resolved one by one. Hence, we should give the country more time to stabilize the political and economic situation, and more time to introduce democratic reform. I also hope that through our democratic process, Hong Kong can set a good example and lead China's gradual democratic process in the future. Therefore, let us leave the right and wrong of the 4 June incident to history. We hold that history will give us an objective and impartial conclusion eventually. As in the past 20-odd motion debates on the subject, the Liberal Party will continue to cast an abstention vote on the motion. Thank you, President.

9508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan of the Liberal Party for his speech. As a pro-establishment Member, he had the courage to at least express his arguments and views, which I believe many of his peers do not dare do in the Chamber today because the rights and wrongs of the incident cannot be clearer. But of course, I do not agree with what Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan said, that is, that China's economic development has achieved great success, so we have to look forward and let history be the judge of these tragedies.

President, I was 11 years old studying in Primary Six that year. When I was in primary school, many of my teachers, schoolmates and relatives emigrated. My family told me that the Communist Party of China ("CPC") and the Cultural Revolution were horrifying, but I had yet to feel how horrifying that was. At the beginning of that year, I felt hopeful when I saw young people daring to come forth in Beijing to protest against corruption and official profiteering. The hope of children is very simple. I just hoped that my mother would not talk about emigration anymore, that my teachers, schoolmates and friends would stay with me. Nevertheless, relatives, friends and family members around me kept talking about having to emigrate despite their great reluctance. I did not completely understand their decision back then, but it has been my hope that CPC regime could listen to the voice of the people, that Hong Kong people did not need to be afraid of the reunification in 1997 and that the people around me could stay in Hong Kong. However, when May and June arrived, we saw that the mouthpiece of CPC kept criticizing the peaceful demonstrators, calling the movement a "riot" in the editorial of the People's Daily on 26 April. I was getting more and more worried that suppression would occur because my parents and many elders told me so, but no one told me that CPC would shoot at the people with machine guns and run over them with tanks. On the night of 3 June, gun fires which shot through the body of many young people and broke the hearts of many, including that of Hong Kong people, sounded on Chang An Avenue. It can be seen that the brutality of CPC can be devoid of humanity. It is prepared to exhaust all means in order to remain in power and suppress dissenting voices.

A few years ago, Mr LI Wangyang, who had been inhumanely detained in a so-called "coffin house" for years, was "suicided by suspension" for complaining the injustice over the years after his release. What changes have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9509 taken place with this regime after so many years? There has been essentially no change at all. Anyone who questions this regime or voices any opinion will be suppressed in the most brutal way.

The rights and wrongs of the 4 June incident cannot be clearer, and there is no need to let history be the judge. I was 11 years old that year and I could already tell who killed the people and the reasons for that. I just did not know how many people they had killed, but certainly not a few. Are the rights and wrongs not clear enough like this? Why should we still let history be the judge? Looking forward means learning from past experiences. How can we do justice to the compatriots killed and look forward to the future if such a painful tragedy in history and serious massacre is not pursued until the very end?

The Chinese economy has been undoubtedly developing rapidly in recent years, but does rapid economic development justify killings? Should such logic hold water, would we say that the 4 June incident was wrong when the Chinese economy regresses, and the incident was right when the economy booms? This logic should not apply. We should approve of what is right and condemn what is wrong. Although China has become an economic giant under the CPC rule, as long as the 4 June incident is not vindicated, the CPC regime remains a midget in terms of the morality of mankind. We will insist on vindication of the 4 June incident until it is achieved. Thank you, President.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, people of a particular generation are obliged to do certain things for their generation. I belong to the "4 June generation", so I must do something for the 4 June incident.

Mr LAM Cheuk-ting said just now the night of 3 June marked the beginning of the massacre on Chang An Avenue in Beijing. I was born on 3 June. During the 28 years since 1989, I have refrained from celebrating my birthday because the night of 3 June was the time when the massacre began. And, I have even embedded the two digits of "six" and "four" into my daily life and included them as part of my telephone number. A few decades down the line, I finally have the opportunity to express my views in the Legislative Council today.

9510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

This year, some university students feel that they should detach themselves from the 4 June vigil. This really gives me a feeling of speechlessness despite all my emotions. They have asserted that we need to put a stop to the commemoration of the 4 June incident, saying that the 4 June assembly organized by the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China is unable to inspire young people. They also believe that after a couple of years, student organizations will probably cease to regard the "commemoration of the 4 June incident" as an important issue. According to them, the candlelight we see in the candle-lit commemorative activity in the Victoria Park is a mere ritual, one which is not always necessary. To put it bluntly, I will say that in their view, the assembly is rather a rigid ritual, and they no longer wish to participate in this routine commemorative assembly. As a person from the "4 June generation", I wish to say that this routine assembly has actually shaped my life.

The 4 June incident in 1989 was not merely an incident which took place in a neighbouring region or an instance involving a tyranny's brutal killing of its people in our long history. Neither is it a mere complex for China among people aged above 40. The way we inscribe or embed the 4 June incident into our lives determines our beliefs, allegiance and also our love or otherwise.

Recently, LUNG Ying-tai, a Taiwanese cultural practitioner with a sharp tongue, compiled a book called Listen comprising a collection of her speeches. One of the articles is entitled A wooden schoolbag, and it depicts the relationship between an individual's memory loss and collective memory. During a trip to her hometown to visit her relatives, LUNG Ying-tai suddenly found a wooden schoolbag used by her mother in childhood. Even though her grandmother had to move from one place to another due to social chaos, she still managed to keep the schoolbag somehow and only let go of it when she passed away. But LUNG Ying-tai was baffled, wondering why her grandmother was such a stranger to her, and why she had no memory of her. She said, to this effect, "I do not know my grandmother's name, her place of birth and death, the places she once visited, or her family background. I do not even have any rough idea about her entire life. But she was the closest person of my mother, who is my closest person. My memory link has been completely severed."

Due to her shocking loss of memory, she began to ponder over the notion of collective memory. She quoted from a book entitled Collective Memory. According to her, "an individual's personal memory" is never something which LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9511 merely concerns that particular individual, and "it can only be 'retrieved' from the broad framework of collective memory as the carrier". On the contrary, an individual's failure to depict what is in his memory has nothing to do with his language or memory abilities. The reason is he is "suddenly uprooted and thrown into a totally unfamiliar environment", thus resulting in the "severing of his link with his collective memory associated with the community to which he originally belonged".

One will experience numerous events in one's life, literally as numerous as the stars in the sky. Our memory of certain events is very often constituted by the frequent allusion to those events by people around us, or the very fact that we are actually living in sort of a memory framework which turns individual episodes into part of our memory. So, "personal memory" as we call it is actually interactive with society. In the case of outliers or those whose links with their collective memory have been severed, their personal memory abilities will be lower.

LUNG Ying-tai said with a heave of sigh that she once dropped out of her collective memory due to the severing of her memory link. She said, to this effect, "Why am I unable to recall anything about my grandmother, who should be a very intimate person in normal circumstances? Because of wars and the resultant disconnection. I have lost my grandmother, together with the collective memory associated with her―her overall life in Southern China during the first half of the 20th century."

We know that our memory is very fragile and easy to lose. But we have to make tremendous efforts to recover it. Some have struggled to grow up in a prosperous and stable environment, and they have gradually or unknowingly lost their memory of the 4 June incident subsequently. At the same time, some are trying very hard to retain their memory of it. These days, some may allow their memory of the 4 June incident to sink into oblivion unawares. Up to this point of my speech, I must say that I honestly find it saddening to see all this. We will have to pay a price if we lose our memory of the 4 June incident. It is not true to say that even if the memory link is severed today, we can recover it tomorrow if need be. I am afraid it will entail a disastrous event if we wish to recover our memory of it.

President, during the 4 June vigil this year, we held a fund-raising campaign for the Tiananmen Mothers Movement. Members must know what 9512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 the Tiananmen Mothers Movement is all about. Over the past 28 years, Tiananmen Mothers have been deprived of the right to shed tears for their deceased family members, mourn their deaths or pay respect to them because so doing will turn into the greatest accusation of CPC. They have been subjected to all sorts of persecution over the past 28 years, and 48 of them have died so far. But they will remain steadfast as long as they still have one breath left. They merely demand three things: the truth, compensation and accountability. Because of these three demands, I support the motion today (The buzzer sounded) … The 4 June incident shall not be forgotten, and the 1989 pro-democracy movement shall be vindicated.

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

DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Cantonese): President, I support this motion on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" moved by Dr Helena WONG. I will talk about what the 4 June incident is to me.

Everyone has to face the history. What is history? History is literally "his story". It is the story and experience of every community, nation and society. Hence, to be an upright man, one must face all he has experienced honestly.

What is my experience in the 4 June incident? Back then, I was a Form One student. Since I was only in Form One, I had a lot of free time to watch television, unlike the students nowadays who have to learn an array of things such as musical instruments, chesses, reading and drawing. I remember, one day, the momentous news that HU Yaobang, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China ("CPC"), died of an illness was announced on the television. The news was greeted with strong responses by the people in Beijing. At that time, I was only a student of 13 years of age in junior secondary school, I did not understand that. I then asked my father what was so important about the death of HU Yaobang and why the people would become so emotional. I learnt that HU Yaobang was an honest and upright official. At that time, the anti-corruption spirit on the Mainland was at its highest, which formed the foundation, and the general public were in abject poverty. Against this background, they were deeply grieved by the death of HU Yaobang.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9513

On 16 April, opinion posters were posted in the Peking University, the Tsinghua University and the Renmin University of China in mourning of HU Yaobang. The next day, thousands of university students marched to Tiananmen Square and stayed there overnight. After that, tens of thousands of students gathered at Tiananmen Square to put forth seven requests on democratic reform and the vindication of HU Yaobang. On 19 April, the students went to Xinhuamen and held a sit-in there demanding a dialogue with the leadership. They were dispersed by force by public security officers and more than 300 students were beaten up. So on 21 April, students went on a class boycott to protest against the Xinhuamen incident, and the Hong Kong Federation of Students ("HKFS") also sent four representatives to Beijing. Back then, when I watched the relevant reports on the television, I wondered why these events would occur in a country which we considered as a country behind the Iron Curtain and why people would react so strongly. For this reason, I kept an interest in the development of the incident.

Then, on 22 April, a memorial service for HU Yaobang was held at the Great Hall of the People. However, students were denied admission, and 200 000 students thus gathered at Tiananmen Square. I think this is really a monumental incident in the modern history of the Communist Party of China. During the time, three student representatives sank to their knees for half an hour, yet the Government gave no regard to them. Hence, on 24 April, all high schools in Beijing staged a class boycott which made a stir. After that came the "26 April editorial", a strongly worded editorial titled to the effect that "It is necessary to take a clear-cut stand against disturbances" was issued by the People's Daily, branding the student movement a disturbance.

Regarding the course of events which occurred during my adolescence, my memory fades with the passage of time. Yet when I review these historical events year after year, I gain an increasingly clearer picture of them. Back then, I pondered: Why could these university students, elder brothers and sisters have such courage? Was that not a country behind the Iron Curtain that played hardball? What were they doing? So, I started to think about all this. I then learnt that intellectuals had their commitment to society, they should aspire to and advocate social reform, and then put it into implementation. These events have enlightened me, and I understand that as a man and an intellectual, one must commit to making contribution to society.

9514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Then, on 27 April, over 200 000 students marched on the streets and they were supported by a million citizens. The Government sent in the military and police forces to stop the students, but the students together with the supporting public charged against the barriers laid by the military and police forces. On 28 April, the Beijing Students' Autonomous Federation ("BSAF") (北京高校學 生自治聯會) was founded. On 1 May, BSAF issued the "letter to compatriots in Hong Kong" (致香港同胞書), urging Hong Kong citizens to support the student movement. HKFS announced the setting up of the Fund for Democracy in China (中國民主基金) and launched fund-raising activities. From that point of time or even earlier, the people of Hong Kong were in communion with this movement in Beijing, we were breathing the same air. For each and every event that happened in Beijing, we watched them on the television and we beat the same pulse.

On 4 May, students mobilized a large-scale demonstration at the 70th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement, and it was greeted with country-wide support. At the same time, 13 tertiary institutions in Hong Kong, for the first time, joined hands to organize assemblies and demonstrations to support the student movement in Beijing, with around 3 000 students and 2 000 citizens taking part. On 13 May, prior to the visit of Mikhail GORBACHEV, students began a hunger strike at Tiananmen Square, with some 3 000 students and people joining the hunger strike. Eventually, CPC had to stage the welcoming ceremony at the airport. Then, on 14 May, the April Fifth Action went on a hunger strike at the Star Ferry Pier, and HKFS sent two representatives to bring $140 000 to Beijing to support the student movement. As things occurring in Beijing were actually things occurring in Hong Kong.

Starting from 16 May, the hunger strike was escalated to the omission of both water and food, and over 500 students collapsed. We all know that the situation intensified after that and things became intractable. General Secretary ZHAO Ziyang visited Tiananmen Square to show compassion to students, and he apologized to them in tears, to the effect that, "Students, we came too late; sorry, students." Yet the visit could not help.

On the following day, LI Peng gave a speech of strong wording. Then on 4 June, as we all know, a bloody massacre was carried out at Tiananmen Square. The troops opened fire in areas around Muxidi, Fuxingmen, Liubukou and Jianguomen along Chang An Avenue, inflicting heavy casualties. At that time, the six of us in our family, for the first time, learnt what it was like to "be at a loss LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9515 of words but choked with tears". My father reminded us to keep all the evidence, for CPC would definitely make all sorts of denial.

By now, many years down the line, I have never forgotten that, for on the 3rd, 4th and 5th of June at that time, I believed the several millions of people in Hong Kong were all (The buzzer sounded) … crying in their hearts.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LAU Siu-lai, please stop speaking.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Dr Priscilla LEUNG is one of the authors of People Will Not Forget, a book which documented the memories of reporters who had covered the 4 June Tiananmen Incident back then. When a debate on this topic was last held in this Council in 2013, she was absent at the time of voting. I wonder if she can now reclaim the courage of working as a reporter back then to convert what she witnessed in Beijing during that incident to attending the debate in this Council today and vote for the motion.

There is another person whom I would like to mention in particular, namely the incumbent Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. In 1989, he was the secretary-general of the Basic Law Consultative Committee and he once published a statement in newspapers to condemn the massacre. Nowadays, LEUNG Chun-ying is a State leader and, among the current leaders, he is the only one who had condemned the 4 June incident in public. I wonder if he has the courage to express his anger at that time to his colleagues.

President, nowadays, after a lapse of 28 years, many people who once disapproved of the decision made by the Communist Party of China ("CPC") are now using excuses such as the economic take-off and prosperity of the country to try to justify that decision at the time. I wish to point out that, President, after these 28 years, is it true that the changes in society of China or even the change in public sentiments and the low national morale in China are entirely irrelevant to the 4 June incident? I hope those people can ponder and reflect on this question.

More importantly, President, the lives of individual persons were actually sacrificed in that incident. Nowadays, regarding those young people, their surviving parents are still forbidden from commemorating their departed sons and daughters in public. Is this actually a humane approach? For those people who 9516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 once disapproved of the actions taken by the CPC but have now changed their stance and support those actions, I really wish to know what they are thinking today.

President, I would also like to take the opportunity of today's debate to talk about whether the relationship between Hong Kong and the 4 June incident only remains at the stage of commemorating the incident? Does it only remain at the stage of holding the 4 June candlelight vigil every year at the Victoria Park? I wish to take this opportunity to explore this issue with the people of Hong Kong. The 4 June incident is, in fact, closely related to Hong Kong. Such a close connection is not only an outcome of our participation in two million-people marches―one of which was the first million-people march held in Hong Kong―as well as the sit-in in Happy Valley and even the outbreak of the Pitt Street riot, and so on, as these events have also influenced the destiny and future of Hong Kong actually.

Let me use the Basic Law as an example. There are two items in the second draft of the Basic Law promulgated in February 1989 which are closely related to Hong Kong nowadays. The first one is Article 23. The second draft did not set out the seven offences nor stipulate the provision of "subversion against the Central People's Government" and two offences related to foreign governments. The provisions on these three offences were included only after the final draft of the Basic Law was officially finalized in April 1990. Such an addition was certainly made under the direct influence of the 4 June incident. The Central People's Government might have lost its confidence after seeing the proactive engagement and sentiment of the people of Hong Kong during the 4 June incident back then and therefore added the offence of "subversion against the Central People's Government", an offence which does not exist under the concept of common law, and incorporated it into the Basic Law. Nowadays, can the people of Hong Kong state that such an incident is irrelevant to us? Certainly not.

The second one is related to universal suffrage. President, it was mentioned in the second draft of the Basic Law, that is, the version published in 1989, that the progress of implementing universal suffrage in Hong Kong should be handled by the third-term SAR Government by way of voting by all eligible electors. It is actually the concept of a referendum. If a proposal was formulated in the end, what would be the time for implementation? The fourth-term Government. President, in retrospect, were it not for the 4 June LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9517 incident, we probably would have implemented universal suffrage and it might even have taken place for two terms. Yet, as a result of the occurrence of the 4 June incident, this idea, which seems rather liberal now, had certainly turned into dust in the course of history in the final version published in 1990.

President, the 4 June incident brought about a strong sense of unity among the people of Hong Kong that both LEUNG Chun-ying, who was pro-China back then, and Dr Priscilla LEUNG, who covered the news in Beijing as a reporter, stated their support for the students and approved of the students' actions at that time. However, where are these people now? What are the changes in their stances? I do not wish to take the opportunity of this debate to lash out at each and every one of them. I am only asking them to, granting the opportunity, examine their conscience and ask themselves after these 28 years, what actually caused the change in their stances.

President, I all the more wish to raise another point, that is, the interpretation of history. As this year happens to mark the 50th anniversary of the 1967 riots, we can notice that many organizations which participated in the riots at that time are now trying to whitewash this episode in the history of 1967 by exercising their power of say. Why should I mention this issue? After a lapse of 50 years, while many people of Hong Kong who witnessed the riots back then are still alive and living in the city, some people are actually trying to whitewash the relevant history. If the people of Hong Kong no longer persist in remembering the 4 June incident, we cannot rule out the possibility of the authorities using the same approach several decades later. He may not be afraid to talk about it with the people in future but he will talk about his own version, a whitewashed version. Is this a desired outcome we wish to see? If we hope to prevent this from happening, I believe we have a greater responsibility to protect this period of history. It is precisely the reason for my support for the motion today.

MR NATHAN LAW (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I believe I am the only person in this Chamber who was not yet born in 1989.

As far as I can remember, I participated in the 4 June vigil in the Victoria Park for the very first time around five or six years ago. Having read certain articles on the 4 June incident during that vigil, I came to realize that some values actually transcended the human life, and some people were prepared to face death 9518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 courageously in return for justice rather than any personal gains. Since then, striving for the greatest interest, justice and democracy for the people on this land has turned into a conviction taken root in my life.

Nowadays, many people wonder whether young people have forgotten the 4 June incident, and whether they are walking farther and farther away from it. I for one am an exception. I support Dr Helena WONG's motion on vindicating the 4 June incident. I must hold the Chinese Communist Party responsible for the massacre. Besides, as we have learnt from certain public opinion surveys, young people have shown the greatest support for vindication of the 4 June incident among people of various age groups.

Many people have asserted that our support for vindication of the 4 June incident is based on our patriotic sentiments. Then I must ask, "If this is the sole reason, should it not be true to say that those older than us who experienced the 4 June incident should show even greater support for vindication of the 4 June incident than we do and the pro-democracy movement back in that year?" The answer is certainly in the negative. Young people are walking farther and farther way from the Chinese Government and recognition of the Chinese identity, rather than the 4 June incident. We have seen clearly from many public opinion surveys that fewer and fewer young people regard themselves as Chinese people, and fewer and fewer young people feel a sense of identification with China.

At the time, the 4 June incident did reinforce the sense of recognition of the Chinese identity in those Hong Kong people from that generation. I have read an article on the Internet, and a remark of the writer has left a deep impression on me. He says that at the time, he had a strong feeling of being a Chinese because those Chinese people from that generation were still prepared to sacrifice their lives and shed their blood in order to strive for their ideals, and what they could see was a China filled with idealism. But young people in Hong Kong nowadays can only see the ugly faces of many Chinese officials who seek to suppress Hong Kong people, while also witnessing the emergence of China-Hong Kong conflicts and various disputes resulting from ineffective policy implementation.

At this moment, we must admit that young people are seemingly walking farther and farther away from the recognition of the Chinese identity and identification with China. But this does not affect our commemoration and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9519 mourning of the 4 June incident or our fight for its vindication. The reason is that even if we refuse to regard the students and those who died in the 4 June incident as our comrades, we as people in pursuit of freedom also feel the kind of self-awakening and echo with them, along with a sense of connection with those who are likewise under oppression by the Chinese Government. Whether we regard ourselves as Hong Kong or Chinese people, we can feel the same agony and will continue to keep a commemorative heart as long as we persist in the fight for democracy in Hong Kong and the legitimate dignity for Hong Kong people. This understanding is certainly founded on truth and history.

I also wish to tell young people not to take history and the truth for granted. As George ORWELL once said, the author of Nineteen Eighty-Four, all history is contemporary history as it is compiled by the incumbent ruler who may blatantly distort it to serve his political interests.

As we can see, many historical facts in which we are well-versed have begun to grow obscure in Hong Kong. In the May Fourth Movement, people struggled for sovereignty externally, strove to get rid of the national traitors at home, and burned down CAO Rulin's house. But some have argued that its significance merely lies in the advocacy of respect and tolerance. Speaking of the 1967 riots, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions has come forward, in a bid to do justice to the 1967 riots. They have asserted that it was a brave protest and a patriotic movement, in an attempt to do justice to the 1967 riots and wash away the blood stains on the hands of those people who planted homemade bombs in Hong Kong. Speaking of our discussion on the 4 June incident at the 4 June vigil this year, some people from groups with names beginning with the word "love" showed up at the venue and challenged us by saying that nobody was killed in the 4 June incident.

Honourable Members, history is not easy to come by; neither is the truth. In China just across the boundary, people were barred from posting any related messages and photographs on Weibo on 4 June. Even if the pro-establishment Members wanted to post photographs to reprimand pro-democracy Members, they were unable to do so. This explains why the inheritance of memory is such an important task. And, our memory of the 4 June incident is also hard to come by. When LAM Yiu-keung, a representative of the Hong Kong Federation of Students, left Beijing back in that year, many Chinese students came forward to shield him against gunshots, hoping that he could make this incident known to the whole world.

9520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

For these reasons, can Hong Kong people put aside this obligation? Can Hong Kong people put aside their obligation to strive for the vindication of the 4 June incident? "Pursuing responsibility for the massacre; ending one-party dictatorship"!

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Holding a debate in the Legislative Council on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" cannot be taken for granted. Due to a huge backlog of bills, this Council was unable to conduct a debate on the 4 June incident last year. We nearly missed this chance again this year.

I recall that the debates conducted on this question years ago, though it was the shortest question, had given rise to enormous controversies. I also recall that the question of a debate conducted in a certain year on the 4 June incident was changed to "The 4 June incident be not forgotten", because the question of a debate conducted in the Legislative Council must not pass any value judgment and must maintain neutrality. As a result, the word "incident" had to be added. Nevertheless, we considered that doing so would cover up the truth. We had also debated the word "vindication" because some Members doubted if vindication of the 4 June incident was necessary.

The focus this year seems to be placed on whether or not the 4 June incident should continue to be commemorated in the traditional manner or through participation in major events. In particular, young people will cast doubts on it. Speaking of "not forgetting the 4 June incident", it is most unlikely for the Communist Party of China ("CPC") to forget the incident. Whenever 4 June is round the corner, stability preservation campaigns will begin. For instance, information about 4 June cannot be uploaded onto or sent through Weibo and WeChat. As such, what CPC wants most is that everyone forgets the 4 June incident. On the other hand, CPC also finds the incident most unforgettable.

The number of people attending the candlelight vigil this year to mark the 4 June incident is indeed not large, and the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China has reported the number as 110 000. Nevertheless, I believe each flicker of candlelight is a thorn in the eyes of CPC, or a thorn in its side. I have to tell Members that the conduct of a debate on the 4 June incident cannot be taken for granted. Holding major events in Hong Kong to commemorate 4 June cannot be taken for granted, either. I believe CPC LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9521 will continue to suppress the freedom of speech and assembly enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong. Come to think about this. If major events cannot be held in Hong Kong to commemorate 4 June one day, what will the world be like? What will Hong Kong be like? Will people who say that they disapprove of participation in these major events today voice approval by then?

A lot of evidence shows that CPC is actually tightening its grip on Hong Kong, and the leeway given to the people of Hong Kong in terms of speech and assembly is narrowing, too. Let me cite a few examples. In order to suppress the voices calling for vindication of the 1989 pro-democracy movement, the CPC Government has striven to disqualify four Legislative Council Members. Let me cite one such example. One of the justifications held by the Department of Justice ("DoJ") for requesting the Court to disqualify Mr Nathan LAW was that, before taking his oath, he claimed he would not swear allegiance to a regime that brutally killed its people. Although he did not specify which regime he was referring to, his words were taken by DoJ as evidence of his refusal to swear allegiance to the People's Republic of China, and it was also regarded as a precedent in law. Should any Members raise objection in their speeches in future to the CPC regime for butchering its people in the 1989 pro-democracy movement, they might be accused by the Hong Kong communist regime or the pro-Government camp of breaching their oaths or even disqualified from office as Legislative Council Members.

One of the purposes of abusing judicial reviews by the Hong Kong communist regime is to silence voices calling for apportioning responsibility for the massacre. The CPC Government's attempt to suppress moves to pursue responsibility for the massacre is not only found at the levels of the Legislative Council and its Members, it can also be seen from public officers. Earlier, ZHANG Dejiang talked drivel in a so-called seminar on the Basic Law in language close to intimidation, saying Hong Kong's governing team should comprise patriots who respect the Chinese nation and sincerely uphold resumption of exercise of sovereignty by the Motherland over Hong Kong without undermining Hong Kong's prosperity and stability. Are the Central Authorities monitoring if public officers in Hong Kong uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") and swear allegiance to SAR? If Mr Nathan LAW's refusal to swear allegiance to a regime that brutally killed its people can be interpreted as not swearing allegiance to the People's Republic of China, then will civil servants or judges stand a chance of being regarded as not swearing allegiance to the nation, thereby being stripped of their 9522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 public office, for shouting "putting an end to one-party dictatorship and pursuing responsibility for the massacre" in a 4 June gala?

President, apart from trying every possible means to prevent acts of supporting the 1989 pro-democracy movement and pursuing responsibility for the massacre from re-appearing in this Council and government departments, the Hong Kong communist regime and CPC have also taken full control of the media and created white terror in the community. Under the pressure exerted by CPC, many movie stars in show business cannot but keep their mouths shut about the 1989 pro-democracy movement. As for those artistes who still dare say "No" to China, they will even be banned by the Chinese Government on all fronts, which is most regrettable. Where have all those singers and artistes who attended the Concert for Democracy in China or entered the studio to take part in recording the song "Love freedom; For freedom" gone? Although I will not blame them, I will express my deep respect for those in show business who still prefer not wearing masks or face masks and are still willing to go to the Victoria Park to attend the candlelight vigil.

In a statement issued last week, the Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong urged members of the public to stop mourning 4 June, saying that the 4 June gala is meant to exploit the 4 June incident and exchange the moral sentiments of the general public for political capital. The logic of the statement can be described as extremely confused. Nevertheless, I have no intention to make further comments here or blame these young people. Though I understand their thinking, I do not consider it correct. Furthermore, they should not harbour such thinking. We must have some knowledge of history about 4 June. Perhaps we should also be held accountable if these young people do not show any interest or have any feeling, but they should definitely not sever their tie with 4 June. Moreover, it has nothing to do with recognition of the Chinese identity.

The people of Hong Kong would care about incidents that occurred in Taiwan, such as the "sunflower students' movement". Likewise, Taiwan people would care about the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong. We Hong Kong people will also feel happy about the legalization of same-sex marriage in Taiwan, even happier than the legalization of same-sex marriage in the United States. That is due to our proximity and mutual influence. Regardless of whether or not Members agree, we should care about and support each other.

With these remarks, I support the motion today.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9523

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): To begin my speech, I would like to quote an email addressed to me by a Primary Three student yesterday. It is a genuine email, unlike the letter from a five-year-old LEUNG Chun-ying once quoted. This email really touched me, and I quote, to this effect, "Why does politics give people an impression that people should try hard to avoid it? When I asked my teacher in school, 'Do you think the Department of Justice should prosecute the four Members?', my teacher answered immediately 'Yes, of course.' But when I ask why, my teacher said that 'the school is politically neutral and no discussion need arise on it'. Hence, I could only do some research on the Internet. Mr KWONG, what is the 4 June incident? Why did the 4 June incident happen? General Studies books have never mentioned it. Teachers have never talked about it with us. Some people said they were burning refuse in Tiananmen Square on 4 June, but that sounds strange because refuse should not be burnt in Tiananmen Square and tanks are not needed for burning refuse. Mr KWONG, why do teachers not discuss with us about it? Is it because the Education Bureau ordered them to hush up? Look forward to seeing your reply." (end of quote)

While the sender of this email may be only a Primary Three student, he was willing to write to a Legislative Council Member. I did not have time to reply him in writing, but I would like to give him a reply on this occasion. Why is there so little information about the 4 June incident for discussion in schools? Teachers refuse to discuss it probably due to different political positions? This is precisely the reason for Dr Helena WONG moving the "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" motion, that is, we refuse to forget the incident that happened in 1989.

Honestly, I was only six years old in 1989, so I might not understand clearly what was happening at the time. Please allow me to quote a line of LU Xun, and it reads "Petitioning is common in every country, an action which does not result in death. But China is an exception."4 LU Xun wrote this in respect of the "18 March massacre", who would have guessed that the line still applies nowadays as we refuse to forget the bloody suppression of the 4 June incident. The pro-democracy movement in 1989 was a movement by the Chinese people fighting for democracy and freedom, as well as opposing corruption and dictatorship by the Communist Party of China ("CPC"). Under the dictatorial leadership of DENG Xiaoping, CPC refused the proposal of the then General Secretary ZHAO Ziyang for resolving the conflict by having dialogues with the

4 Page 51 9524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 students on the basis of democracy and the rule of law. The pro-democracy movement in 1989 eventually ended with a bloody crackdown ordered by the "Deng, Li and Yang clique".

In Hong Kong, candles are lit every year on 4 June at the Victoria Park. Some people said that the 4 June incident should come to an end as it has been 28 years, and that it is a matter of China instead of Hong Kong. But the 4 June incident has absolutely influenced the democratic movement in Hong Kong. For us, the movement in which students and workers protested against corruption and aspired for true democracy 28 years ago in Beijing bears a close resemblance to the current situation in Hong Kong.

Let us look at the situation in Hong Kong. The "LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL incident", the "Causeway Bay Books incident", the "Independent Commission Against Corruption and Rebecca LI incident" and the "31 August Decision" made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress denying Hong Kong a genuine universal suffrage all show that Hong Kong is subjected to increasing suppression. As the saying goes, "looking into history to catch a glimpse of its vicissitudes". The 4 June incident in 1989 has not yet been vindicated. The incident in Beijing witnessed by many Hong Kong people propelled us to safeguard the system painstakingly built up over the years in Hong Kong where democracy and freedom still remain. The belief of the Chinese people who braved the bullets and blocked the tanks on 4 June 1989 was very clear. They hoped that this city and this country can become a genuine powerful one with democracy, peace and advancement, instead of the so-called powerful country that it has now become. Why should we refuse to forget? It is because we have the conscience that we should have. We should bear this incident in mind while fighting for its vindication, so that the blood of the Chinese people in this movement was shed not for no reason.

In The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, Milan KUNDERA wrote: "the struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting." We might not be there or be the first-hand victim. Many people learnt about the 4 June incident through the media, so does my generation who learnt about it through videos and archived records. Some people chose to forget, just like Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying who declared to support this patriotic movement in the newspapers back then but acts against his conscience today as if nothing has happened. But we cannot do that. Hong Kong people choose to pass down the vindication of the 4 June incident because for them, it is a huge wound. We have to bear in mind at all times that this belief should be (The buzzer sounded) …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9525

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

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): … passed down to the next generation.

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

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it has been more than two decades since 1989. Many people may ask: Does it still carry any meaning to hold a commemoration? On 4 June every year, we continue to chant "Do not forget the 4 June incident" and "Vindicate the 4 June incident". Some young people even ask for what purpose we hold a commemoration as a matter of ritual every year. Deputy President, my answer is simple. We need not be responsible to anyone; we need not explain it to anyone; and we need not care about what other people say on Facebook. We need only be accountable to our conscience, and that should suffice. If our conscience holds that what happened on 4 June 1989 was wrong, then we need no reminder and will definitely remember 4 June every year and we definitely have a part to play in the candlelights lit at the Victoria Park on the night of 4 June.

Hong Kong is the one and only place in China where a mass movement of such a large scale can be held on the night of 4 June, telling people all over the world that Hongkongers have not forgotten this incident, that Hongkongers care about this incident. So long as we care about this incident, we definitely will not forget what happened in the 4 June incident. To many people, the 4 June incident may be very remote or something that left them a deep impression. But to me, it has changed my entire life.

In 1989, I was only in Secondary Two, and in the wake of the 4 June incident, my family sent me overseas like making an escape from a disaster. I do not come from a rich family but my family expended all the chattels and was almost reduced to poverty in order to send me away. It was out of fear and apprehension. They did not know what would become of Hong Kong after the reunification in 1997. They felt as if the Earth was going to explode and so, they pulled all stops to send their son away from this Earth on the verge of explosion, putting him on a spaceship and sending him away. They pinned all their hopes on me and it changed my whole life.

9526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Many people asked: What does the 4 June incident have to do with me? They said that the 4 June incident happened in the Mainland whereas we are in Hong Kong. Yet, it has affected several generations of people. Many people had emigrated with the whole family and left Hong Kong because of the 4 June incident in 1989, and of course, some people returned later. Besides, many enterprises had withdrawn from Hong Kong due to the 4 June incident. Many things can be forgotten easily, and memories of them can fade away easily too. I actually do not wish to remember it either. Nobody wants to remember it; nobody wants to commemorate it; nobody wants to come forth and talk about it here every year. It is because every time this incident is brought up, every time when we think of this incident and every year when 4 June draws near, the scenes that we see on Facebook or the television re-runs of what happened on 4 June all pound against our heart. Those vivid, living souls can be you and me.

We can also see that the 4 June incident is a demon-spotting mirror reflecting the true faces of many people. In 1989, LEUNG Chun-ying placed in newspapers the comment of "deep grief and profound agony". What about today's LEUNG Chun-ying? In 1989, in "City Forum" TAM Yiu-chung condemned the brutal regime of the Communist Party of China for massacring the people. Where is TAM Yiu-chung today? What did he say? History brooks no distortion. It is not the case that when you are in power today, you can change something that has happened. Many colleagues said that history is written by those in power and this we certainly know. But there is one thing that not even the powers that be can change and that is, our conscience, our scruple. If conscience is buried arbitrarily and if people were clearly killed but it could be said that no one died, and if there was clearly suppression but it could be said that there was no suppression, and if a tank had clearly run over a living man and it could be said that no such thing had happened, what conscience is this? These people are simply not humans, not to mention whether or not they have brought disgrace to Hongkongers.

In fact, I think "not forgetting the 4 June incident" should not be the topic of a debate because if all the people of Hong Kong think that this incident should not be forgotten, why should we bring it up for debate? But much to our regret, in Hong Kong there are exactly these people who have buried their conscience by describing this incident as if it has never happened. They have described this incident as if it was invented some two decades ago with the use of computer technology, and a sheer fabrication. Deputy President, do we see the picture LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9527 more clearly back in those years or do we see it more clearly today? I believe the answer is obvious. I hope Members will support this motion: Do not forget the 4 June incident. Vindicate the 4 June incident.

I so submit.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this question has been discussed in the Legislative Council for many years. I would find it strange if we were still arguing today whether the 4 June incident took place or not. As a teacher, or―in more pleasing terms―a scholar, I think it is a historical fact. Around a certain time every year, China grieves for the victims of the Nanjing Massacre. Some Honourable colleagues have mentioned it, which is a part of Chinese history.

When we studied Chinese history as kids―now it seems that Chinese history is no longer a compulsory subject―we learnt about many different incidents. For example, the burning of books and burying of scholars by Qin Shi Huang is what we have learnt, which is also recorded in books. I think not many students in Hong Kong like to study history as a subject because they think it does not have much use. From the perspective of Hongkongers and in a more colloquial way, studying history will not "bring home the bacon". Students do not know what jobs they can do after studying the subject.

However, in foreign countries, such as European countries and the United States, studying history is useful because history makes us contemplate many things and also presents before us some facts. The motion proposed by Dr Helena WONG today, which is indeed proposed by a Member of the pro-democracy camp every year, was not given the opportunity of discussion in the Legislative Council for probably a year or two for some reasons. Whether Hongkongers or other people like to hear it or not, we will tell them it is a fact.

On 4 June 28 years ago, the communist government in power sent in troops to shoot at its own people. Whether some people like it or not, it is a fact. Other people can try to say no such thing happened, question if anything happened and maintain that no one died. I remember 28 years ago a person by the name of YUAN Mu made such a claim. He certainly could say that, but to us it is a fact.

9528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Just as some Members have said, our generation experienced this fact. Our next generation is perhaps lucky―not sure if they are lucky; it may not be a very good word―to not have experienced this fact. It is a fact nonetheless. We are discussing the motion of "Not forgetting the 4 June Incident". Should the discussion be extended to the vindication of this historical event? It is another issue. Some people may not agree and ask: Why does history need vindication? However, we can exactly see that it is the very incident that has inflicted a historical wound on our generation, because the government in power sent in troops to shoot at its own people for various reasons. I believe it is a fact.

I have stated these many facts only to make the point that, given that it is a historical fact, we cannot forget it and need not forget it. One good thing in Hong Kong is we were allowed to keep restating this fact in the past 28 years to "rub salt into our wound" so that we could remember that such an incident had happened. Some mourn and feel tormented; some choose to forget; some put up different looks and faces. It is a personal choice. But here I wish to clearly tell the general public, especially the younger generation who may not have experienced this incident, that it is a historical fact.

People born after 1990 may have only heard of this incident. Just like us studying Chinese history, I do not know what burning of books and burying of scholars is all about, and I have also not experienced the Nanjing Massacre. But we can look at related photos and illustrations. The events had been put in writing and historians have also recorded them. Ancient history and modern history are all history. Nowadays, young people may choose to look at this incident in a different light. But in the history of China, while we should not forget this historical fact, luckily in Hong Kong, over the last 28 years we have been very freely recapping this historical fact. Be it mourning, rubbing salt into the wound or whatever it is, we are still able to do so.

On 4 June every year, I hope the people of Hong Kong still have the chance to bring up again and discuss this incident to state that on 4 June of how many years ago such a historical event happened, supplemented by their own feelings, using words such as "sorrowful", "unhappy" or "we want vindication". Therefore, Dr Helena WONG's motion today is worthy of our support. We must revisit this historical fact without tampering with it. This is the first point.

Second, should we forget this incident? It is quite difficult. I think it should be vindicated. It is what we all long to see as Chinese.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9529

Third, I hope we can continue to enjoy freedom of speech so that this incident will continue to spread in Hong Kong, without being tampered with and forgotten. In Hong Kong, being able to do so every day and every year exactly tells Hongkongers that we still have freedom of speech.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today, this Council is discussing the motion on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident", which has a special meaning to me. On 20 May 1989, I took to the streets for the first time in my life. On that day, the Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 8 was hoisted, and now, the uncle who brought me to the protest has passed away. I still remember my first-ever march started from the Victoria Park and ended at the Xinhua News Agency on Queen's Road East on my knees―the place has been turned into a hotel now. At that time, tears were mixed with rain, and I spent the night there on my knees. It was an indelible and unforgettable night.

The 4 June incident is an experience of profound enlightenment to me. Yet, I believe that to many people of Hong Kong, it is not merely an enlightenment but a deep wound that a scab can hardly form despite the passage of 28 years.

In 1989, students, citizens and the people who protested against corruption and profiteering of government officials and demanded democracy and justice were greeted with tanks and rifles by the dictatorial and autocratic regime. Today, 28 years after the incident, this regime soaked with the blood of the people has grown stronger, yet it still lacks the courage to face the history squarely. A group of members from the pro-establishment camp in Hong Kong, including the former Chief Executives, TUNG Chee-hwa and Donald TSANG, have told us to put down this baggage and look at the prevailing economic development in China. They say that had China fallen into chaos back then, we would not have the good days now. However, who is authorized to sacrifice the lives of people for economic benefits? I cannot agree with such remarks that go against one's conscience.

Deputy President, in fact, the suppression of the 4 June incident has not come to an end today, only that it is carried out in a different form. On this day, 28 years later, the room of freedom and human rights of the people on the 9530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Mainland is even smaller than that in the past. Back then, there was the "Xidan Democracy Wall" where people might post posters on the wall stating different political views, and after the death of HU Yaobang, the public might mourn openly on the street. However, today, that is, on 4 June this year, when scholar CHOW Po-chung posted the following question on Weibo, to the effect that, "What is the date today", his post was deleted by the manager. It transpires that the word "today" has also become a sensitive term. Over the years, Tiananmen mothers have been subject to strict surveillance and prohibited from paying open tribute to their children died in the 4 June incident. Years later, parents of students perished in tofu-dreg projects and parents pursuing accountability for milk powder causing big-headed babies have either failed to redress the wrong or been regarded as picking quarrels and provoking troubles. As for the civil rights activist CHEN Guangcheng who is determined to strive for the rights of persons with disabilities in Mainland China and initiated lawsuits against illegal forced abortion, the Chinese Government cannot accommodate him either. As a result, he has to flee to the United States. The village leader of Wukan village, LIN Zulian, has been fighting against the government-business-rural-triad collusion involved in land grabs. Last year, he was prosecuted for the fabricated offence of accepting bribes and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and one month.

The so-called economic development in China in recent years has been extremely rapid, yet people are not allowed to criticize the Government, and many remarks are prohibited. It is true that they do not have to worry about their living. Yet, in my view, a truly powerful nation should trust and respect its people, enabling them to breathe the air of freedom. Without democracy, there cannot be good governance. The pro-establishment camp hopes that Hongkongers will set their eyes only on the economic development in the Mainland. However, I am more concerned about people who have been striving for democracy and speaking for justice on the Mainland. A nation with money but no justice is not truly a powerful nation.

How can the democratic development in Hong Kong be segregated from the Mainland? How can we strive for democracy in Hong Kong out of thin air? In recent years, some strange theories have emerged, saying that Hongkongers do not have to care about things that happened in the "neighbouring country" for those issues are not related to Hongkongers. Sorry, I cannot deceive myself. There is no genuine universal suffrage in Hong Kong, for the 31 August Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress prevents Hongkongers from attaining democracy. Moreover, due to the SAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9531

Government's urge for Hongkongers to accept the pocket-it-first proposal and the pro-establishment camp's advocacy of the so-called "quality democracy", democracy in Hong Kong has made no progress at all to date.

In the year 2014, the Umbrella Movement striving for genuine universal suffrage broke out. Some people in Mainland China rendered their support from a distance. Eventually, the six Mainlanders were prosecuted for the offence of inciting subversion of State power and sentenced for imprisonment terms ranging from 1.5 years to 4.5 years. Moreover, this devil's hand of the regime, the Communist Party of China, has long since extended to Hong Kong. The Causeway Bay Books incident that occurred last year brought shock and outcry to the people of Hong Kong, even those who were not concerned about politics. Though the persons involved have only published books in Hong Kong, they have infuriated the Mainland Government. As a result, they were lured into arrest and required to make a video-recording to plead guilty. Mr LEE Po returned to Hong Kong to cancel the missing person report under strict surveillance and then returned to the Mainland. Yet, the most intriguing point is that the Hong Kong Government has hitherto not followed up on how Mr LEE had left Hong Kong in the absence of the required travel document. The authorities have not explained the case to the people of Hong Kong. Recently, a worker of a non-profit-making organization of Taiwan, LI Ming-che, was arrested some time ago for inciting subversion of State power. This case has similarly aroused a great controversy.

We strive for democracy and freedom in China, and at the same time, we strive for democracy and freedom in Hong Kong. Our commemoration of the 4 June incident and the candles lit in the Victoria Park mean more than paying tribute to those who died 28 years ago. It also means to caution the ruling today that we will continue to persevere in striving for democracy, freedom, human rights and justice, we will not back down and we do not fear political suppression at all. I so submit.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I rise to speak in support of this motion. "That the 4 June incident be not forgotten and the 1989 pro-democracy movement be vindicated" has all along been a very significant issue to individuals in society, the community, pro-democracy movements and the country alike.

9532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

What is the 4 June incident? To me, the 4 June incident is a huge sorrow. It is a deep rift and wound to society, the country and the people. We can still remember the violent treatment and massacre of those unarmed students and people by the country's military forces. All such episodes are still vivid before our eyes. Some may ask: "Mr HUI Chi-fung, how old were you when the 4 June incident took place?" I was seven years old at the time. But I can still remember very clearly all those scenes. I can still remember what my parents said at home. They said that they must record such scenes on videotapes, or else they would vanish in the future and people would not remember them because the Government ban any discussion by the people.

The 4 June incident has brought such fear to people. The Government attempted to create fear and silence people with its violent crackdowns. Therefore, to many Hong Kong people, the 4 June incident is a deep wound, one which has remained not healed even today, after the passage of 28 years ever since. The reason why people think so is that up to this moment, justice and a fair judgment have yet to be passed on those martyrs, and the country has not given a proper conclusion which tells the whole world that the people who died that year actually sacrificed themselves for the cause of democracy and freedom. Today, their family members and parents are still under surveillance or even house arrests. Those surviving must continue to live in the shadow of the 4 June incident for the rest of their lives.

What is also the 4 June incident? The 4 June incident is about an attitude, the persistent pursuit of the truth and justice. Even in the face of the autocratic regime, people could pluck up the courage all the same and come forward with the intention of telling it that it was wrong and enabling the whole world to know that they would persistently uphold such values and their courage till the end. The 4 June incident itself is a reflection of such persistence. I believe that apart from politicians, many people also uphold such persistence. This is why they go to the Victoria Park every year, and this is also why more than 100 000 people still want to commemorate this incident every year. Such persistence is an attitude.

What is also the 4 June incident? The 4 June incident is a bitter lesson, one which has enabled autocratic regimes to realize that they cannot possibly silence their people by violent crackdowns. The 4 June incident is a bitter lesson which has enabled us to understand that in a place without any democratic political regime or democratic system, those in power can commit the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9533 unacceptable evil deed of killing and doing cruelty to people. We must firmly remember this bitter lesson. It has served to remind us of the reasons why we want to strive for democracy today. Democracy is not a solution to all problems. But democracy can certainly constrain those in power and ensure that such massacres and slaughters will never ever happen again.

What is also the 4 June incident? The 4 June incident is a political enlightenment to many young people, including me. The 4 June incident has enabled me to see clearly how valuable democracy and freedom of speech are, and also how precious the freedoms of assembly and of association are. Since the incident, Hong Kong has remained a major place in the international Chinese community and also the only place in Chinese territory where discussions on the 4 June incident are not unlawful, and where assemblies and commemorative activities can be held for the 4 June incident. All these are precisely the result of the fight involving those people and youngsters who lost their lives in Tiananmen Square that year. Therefore, the 4 June incident is a profound lesson and wound to every individual, the community and the country alike.

I call upon Hong Kong people to persist in their demand for vindication of the 4 June incident and commemoration of it. People should remember the 4 June incident as a profound lesson and constantly remind themselves through related discussions on the sacrifices made by the deceased for the value of democracy, for the conviction of freedom, and also for their rejection of corruption and regression.

I also wish to make an appeal to young people. The generation to which I belong or the new generations should remember the 4 June incident as a matter concerning everybody. The 4 June incident is a reflection of one's conscience and ethical values, or even the ethical bottom line of a politician. Due to its sensitive nature, the 4 June incident can precisely serve as a test or challenge of the bottom line and ethical values held by a politician or an individual and enable us to see whether he is brave or courageous enough to speak the truth. Therefore, I hope that despite their dissenting political views, the young generation to which I belong and even the generations of people younger than me can inherit our persistence in vindicating the 4 June incident. With such persistence, democracy shall win and come to us.

Deputy President, I so submit.

9534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it has been 28 years. Today when we talk about this day of 4 June, we are still overwhelmed by unspeakable sadness and grief. To many Members in this Chamber and many members of the community, I believe when they talk about the 4 June incident or when their memory flashes back to 28 years ago, many, many scenes will once again spring to their mind. These scenes once brought forth a great hope but then it was dashed, leaving a wound in us that still hurts even now.

Twenty-eight years have passed. When we talk about this day again, apart from the pain, we, being Hongkongers, also feel particularly honoured. Among all the Chinese communities worldwide, where else is like Hong Kong where a commemoration of the 4 June incident can be held freely and assemblies of such a large scale can still be found? This demonstrates the perseverance in upholding the truth and our freedom of expression, and we are still attached to it, an attachment growing out of what is so deeply engraved in our mind. We feel honoured also because every year we come together in an assembly of a scale of over 100 000 people attending, and this assembly is actually not arranged by any stringent planning but because a great majority of the participants will, at a time around 4 June, think of what happened many years ago and then take the initiative to go to the Victoria Park with their friends or families and relatives, or they go there alone or in small groups to light the candles that are living in their memory in commemoration of the incident that happened 28 years ago. This assembly of such a large scale still goes on among the people of Hong Kong without any sign of cessation. It means that our care for the 4 June incident can stand the test of time, and our thoughts and profound concern for it will go on and on.

Many youngsters may not understand why this group of people who experienced the 4 June incident have been emotionally attached to it for so long. There are many things in life that we may consider unforgettable but they will be out of our mind two years or even a year down the line. But the 4 June incident is different. Back then we were not in the least prepared for it and it happened, and we have since commemorated it year after year for altogether 28 years now. This is commemoration of a kind that springs from our hearts, and this spontaneity bears vigour born of that unforgettable incident of 28 years ago, and this is why our commemoration of it will persist into eternity. How vigorous were these strong feelings of ours? I think it is unimaginable to many young people who did not experience the 4 June incident. Back then one after another rallies were held, with as many as 1 million people taking part in them. By LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9535

"1 million people", how should we understand it? Back then Hong Kong had a population of 5 million to 6 million, and after deducting the elderly, the vulnerable and children, it can be said that almost all adults with the ability to come out had taken to the streets.

In her speech earlier Ms Tanya CHAN said that she was a matriculation student back then and it was during a rainstorm she took part in a 4 June rally for the first time. At that time, many people took to the streets for the first time, especially as most people of Hong Kong usually did not have too strong an interest in politics. But that was the first time they came forth, and that was the first time we felt agitated and shed tears for people who were so remote from us. At that time, we teachers knew the situation in schools. The months of May and June were the time for public and school examinations, but many students lost motivation for taking them. In May, before the 4 June incident broke out, the situation in Beijing was broadcast on television. We saw the army besiege the city and in order to protect the students, the public, in an attempt to persuade the army, expressed their concern for the army in an effort to soften them up. These scenes still remain vivid in our mind even now. At that time, every one of us was gravely worried. We were worried about what would bode for tomorrow when we woke up the next day. Our concern showed that we were not onlookers but like the local citizens of Beijing. At that time, the two cities of Beijing and Hong Kong were closely connected with each other.

Recently, Mr LAM Yiu-keung has told of what tearful students in Beijing said to him 28 years ago. They said, to this effect, "Go back. You Hongkongers have already done a lot. You must go back alive and tell the world everything." We have not let them down. For the last 28 years we have continuously told the world this incident. We have not forgotten. We must continue to follow our conscience and we have to tell our next generation (The buzzer sounded) …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, you speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): … and pass it down.

9536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, many Honourable colleagues have shared their personal experiences of the 4 June incident in 1989. Same as Ms Tanya CHAN who has just spoken, I was a matriculation student at the time and it was my first time taking to the streets and walking to the Victoria Park under Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 8. I think most Hongkongers among these few generations remember back then a million people took to the streets, a scene that still plays vividly in the mind of many Hongkongers today. The 4 June incident in 1989 was very important not just in the history of Mainland China but also in local history, which has inspired many generations of Hongkongers to appreciate how precious democracy is, how precious freedom is and how important the pursuit of truth is.

Deputy President, on the website of the "Tiananmen Mothers", Mr FANG Zheng, who was injured in the 4 June incident, gave his testimony: "I noticed that a tank was charging rapidly from East to West towards the procession of students, so I pushed this girl student with all my might to the railings on the edge of the pavement. In no time, the tank had pressed close to the pavement, closing in on me. Its barrel seemed to be just right in front of my eyes. Failing to dodge, I rolled on the ground, but it was too late. My upper body was caught between the two tracks of the tank and both legs were ran over by the tank. My legs and trousers entangled with the links of the tracks, which dragged me for a long stretch on the road. I fought to struggle free and roll to the side of the road, but at this point I had already passed out. I found out only afterwards what happened next. I was sent by citizens and students for emergency treatment at Jishuitan Hospital, where I received an amputation surgery of my legs. My right leg was amputated one third down my thigh and my left leg 5 cm down the knee. I recuperated at the hospital until 24 June 1989. Around 11 June, the Xicheng branch of the Public Security Bureau initiated an investigation into me for filing. After discharge and return to the school, I continued to be subjected to questioning and investigation by the school for as long as a few months. They wanted me to remain silent about tanks running over students."

In 《尋訪六四受難者》 (In Search of the Victims of June Fourth) published in 2005, Ms DING Zilin found a total of 186 victims whose names were known. But in history, to date, there has been no concrete count of the true number of casualties in the incident, no matter how countless it must be. However, the 4 June incident is an irrefutable fact. Deputy President, undoubtedly the 4 June Incident in 1989 was a tragedy in the history of China, also a tragedy that pulls the heartstrings of Hongkongers. It has not only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9537 aroused our interest in our national and ethnic identity, but also served as the enlightenment of social and democratic consciousness; it is even an anti-human, anti-human rights and anti-democracy tragedy that involved the entire human race.

Deputy President, we need to seek the historical truth, not forget the 4 June incident, vindicate the 4 June incident, pursue responsibility for the massacre in Beijing, end one-party dictatorship and safeguard the historical truth, because we have a conscience and moral duty towards these people who unfortunately died for the cause. Hong Kong is one of the few places on Chinese soil where such a large-scale activity to commemorate the 4 June incident can be held. For the sake of our own conscience and history, we have no excuse to escape.

In the annual debate on the 4 June incident, I see many Members of the pro-establishment camp adopt an attitude of evasion. Deputy President, I find it rather strange. These Member can make some grandiose speeches outside the Chamber, saying the 4 June incident should no longer be the subject of a debate. And according to them, such a long time has passed since the incident, so there is no need for continual discussion. Some Members also said we should look ahead and take a broad view of the current economic development in China. Some Members even said social harmony is very important. Deputy President, in recent years, we have even seen some pro-establishment organizations, or what I refer to as pro-Sai Wan satellite organizations or "love Hong Kong" organizations, come forward and claim without any shame that no evidence points to the fact that the 4 June incident happened and the massacre and deaths happened. Such distorted remarks only seek to whitewash the dictators.

Deputy President, a lie told a hundred times may not become the truth. I hope Honourable colleagues from the pro-establishment camp will dare confront the political reality and historical reality. I have noticed only one Member from the pro-establishment camp, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, dare make a record in history.

Deputy President, 28 years have passed and the situation in China has worsened. Despite the economic development, the conditions of human rights and overall protection of rights remain most undesirable. Our party comrade Albert HO has organized the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group to assist people on the Mainland in defending their rights. The situation in Hong Kong is not much better than China. No doubt we have not yet successfully 9538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 striven for democracy, while human rights, the rule of law, freedom and our core values are in imminent danger. Deputy President, the controversies in society in recent years, the topics we have just discussed in this Council, as well as the discussion on UGL and the conduct of LEUNG chun-ying and many Members from the pro-establishment camp, are indeed challenging and eroding the core values of Hong Kong.

It has come to our attention that, in recent years, more and more young people have raised doubts about the 4 June incident. With the rise of the advocacy of "independence of Hong Kong" and separatism, the pro-establishment camp often blames these people for not holding correct views. I hope these pro-establishment organizations can carry out an in-depth review and reflection of what is happening right now to make some people hold such resentment and distrust of the Chinese Government.

Deputy President, I have spoken in support of Dr Helena WONG's motion. I hope we will all continue to protect history and not forget the 4 June incident. Thank you, Deputy President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, you still have 2 minutes and 13 seconds to reply. The debate will come to a close after that.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to thank the 22 Members for speaking on the motion on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" and vindication of the 1989 pro-democracy movement.

However, it is most regrettable that only one Member from the pro-establishment camp―Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan―has spoken on the motion. I also wish to ask a question: Where are the pro-establishment Members? As they have claimed that they love the country and Hong Kong and pursue quality democracy, why did they not return to the Chamber to speak on the motion on vindication of the 4 June incident and support the patriotic pro-democracy LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9539 movement? While they have claimed that they are extremely righteous, why did they not make some righteous remarks with a good conscience to do justice to the martyrs who died for democracy? It has revealed the hypocrisy of the pro-establishment Members. Where are the pro-establishment Members?

Over the last 28 years, while the Communist Party of China has accelerated the economic reform, it has also reinforced its political dictatorship without making any progress in political reform and even kept tightening up the control on the civil society, suppressing human rights activists and detaining human rights lawyers.

Deputy President, I am speaking with a good conscience by proposing this motion in the Council. We urge Members to support this motion because the 4 June incident should be vindicated. Nowadays, Hong Kong still faces the same totalitarian regime with the people in the Mainland. Today, I call on Members to refuse to forget. We should stand at the forefront of democracy, human rights and freedom, unite the people of China, end one-party dictatorship and strive for democracy, and the 4 June incident will definitely be vindicated.

I urge Members to support my motion on "Not forgetting the 4 June incident" to demand the release of pro-democracy activists, vindicate the 1989 pro-democracy movement, pursue responsibility for the massacre, end one-party dictatorship and build a democratic China. I urge Members to support my motion. Thank you.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr LAM Cheuk-ting claimed a division.

9540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Dr YIU Chung-yim voted for the motion.

Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr CHAN Chun-ying and Mr LAU Kwok-fan voted against the motion.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr SHIU Ka-fai abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr Junius HO, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9541

Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Nathan LAW and Dr LAU Siu-lai voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan voted against the motion.

Mr Michael TIEN abstained.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 9 were in favour of the motion, 14 against it and 5 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 26 were present, 16 were in favour of the motion, 9 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

(Some Members talked loudly and clapped their hands in their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debate on motion with no legislative effect.

The motion debate on "Combating bid-rigging to defend the rights and interests of property owners".

(Some Members talked in their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

(Mr LAM Cheuk-ting stood up to speak)

9542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, please wait a minute. I have not called upon you to speak yet.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members who wish to speak will please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon Mr LAM Cheuk-ting to speak and move the motion.

COMBATING BID-RIGGING TO DEFEND THE RIGHTS AND INTERESTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

President, recently, Members of the pro-establishment camp have frequently questioned my work in the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). Let me take this opportunity of the motion debate on combating bid-rigging to talk about it.

During the last two years of my work in ICAC, one of my main tasks was to participate in investigations into bid-rigging. I remember very well that at that time my supervisor designated me as the leader of team one in a large-scale enforcement operation. The leader of team one was responsible for arresting the head of a bid-rigging syndicate with triad background. I arrested him in his luxury flat of some 3 000 sq ft with a panoramic view of the Victoria Harbour. After boarding the ICAC transport, he said he wanted to return home. I asked why he wanted to do so. He said he wanted to return home to change his shoes because he had been arrested by ICAC a number of times before, and on each occasion, the ICAC officers would remove his shoestrings to prevent him from committing suicide. Since he had already put on his shoes, of course I would not let him return home. He kept insulting me with vulgar language. He said that ICAC had arrested him so many times, but not once did it succeed in initiating prosecution. He also wanted to file a complaint against me.

President, this is true. ICAC had indeed arrested him a number of times, but it never succeeded in initiating any prosecution, or it can be said that actually ICAC had never tried to prosecute him. Why? Because it could not find LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9543 sufficient evidence for initiating a prosecution. However, although it could not find sufficient evidence, does it mean there was no bid-rigging? Certainly not. Why could such a person get away scot-free? Because behind him, there were lawyers, former law enforcement officers, a large group of professionals, staff members of management companies and corrupt members of owners' corporations ("OCs") who formed a highly organized bid-rigging syndicate to seize the hard-earned savings of minority owners.

President, actually in recent years, we have seen the bid-rigging problem become rampant, and for this the Government has an unshirkable responsibility. Over the years, the Government has been compelling minority owners to carry out maintenance works. Such an initiative is not wrong by itself, but the Government should supervise the market. At present, the whole building maintenance market in Hong Kong is worth $10 billion to $20 billion a year. The net profit amounts to billions and even tens of billions of dollars. Seeing such a big cash cow in the market and noting that it is coveted by bid-rigging syndicates, the Government is just like an ostrich having buried its head in the sand, turning a blind eye to the bid-rigging problem.

There are many loopholes in the existing law. The Building Management Ordinance ("BMO") allows many bid-rigging syndicates to influence the votes in general meetings of property owners through manipulating OCs and even proxy instruments, thus facilitating the smooth passage of many projects suspected of involving bid-rigging. Meanwhile, a number of government departments are responsible for dealing with property management, buildings maintenance and enforcement against bid-rigging, including ICAC, the Hong Kong Police Force, the Home Affairs Department, the Buildings Department and the Competition Commission of Hong Kong ("the Commission"), but each department only minds its own business. There is no centralized or pooled strength to combat bid-rigging, thus enabling the bid-rigging syndicates to continuously expand in recent years, seek exorbitant profits and seriously undermine the interests of minority owners.

Some minority owners are elderly people who do not have a lot of savings and only hold their properties for self-occupation. Once there arises the need to carry out maintenance works, it is likely to cost them $100,000 to $200,000-odd. Their children may not be able to pay this maintenance fee for them. What can they do? They will have to mortgage their properties to contribute to the maintenance funds of the buildings. These maintenance fees have caused many elderly people and minority owners to exhaust their life savings and mortgage 9544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 their properties for the maintenance works. Apart from minority owners at the grass-roots level, actually middle-class owners as well as owners of luxury flats have also suffered serious losses.

President, an owner living in a multi-storey building on the Peak has told me that his flat is 3 000-odd sq ft. Just for the maintenance of the external walls alone, each household has to contribute $700,000-odd. Indeed, his flat is a luxury unit of 3 000-odd sq ft, but no matter how big the flat is, the amount should be reasonable, should it not? For a luxury flat of 3 000-odd sq ft, why does the maintenance of the external walls cost $700,000-odd? With what is it plastered? Is it plastered with gold tiles? These middle-class people or the wealthy class living in luxury flats also consider it very unfair. In some middle-class housing estates on Hong Kong Island, the asking price of a maintenance project can be $600,000 to $700,000 per household. In fact, the maintenance price is extremely unreasonable.

President, facing such a serious bid-rigging problem, the Government not only looked on with folded arms a few years ago. It even denied there was such a problem. Some three years ago, I exposed the severity of the bid-rigging problem to the media for the first time. At that time the media asked me, "LAM Cheuk-ting, I believe what you said, but can you produce one page of document as proof?" I said, "Sorry, all the documents are in ICAC. I do not have a single page. If you believe me, just report it. If you do not, I cannot help it." Eventually, members of the media reported this case. Later, many victims in such cases contacted us. We set up the Property Owners Anti-Bid Rigging Alliance ("the Alliance"), consolidated the efforts of minority owners and kept exposing maintenance projects suspected of involving bid-rigging. We conducted campaigns one after another, making continuous efforts on public education and publicity and exposing the dark side of the industry.

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

Deputy President, among these people in question, apart from professionals and staff members of management companies mentioned by me just now, who else were there? There were also triad members. Over the past few years, we have been making efforts in the community to pull this market back onto the right track, but what we can do is actually too little. Over the past few years, the Alliance has assisted hundreds of housing estates, and the amount involved in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9545 scuttled projects reached billions of dollars. However, the Government should not solely rely on us community groups to expose maintenance projects with astronomical prices one after another. This is very passive. As a matter of fact, holding the greatest public powers and the largest amount of resources, the Government can help the minority owners. After years of our efforts, about two years ago the Government started to admit the existence of the bid-rigging problem and launched some work to address our demands, including the present review of BMO, with a view to combating bid-rigging. The Urban Renewal Authority has introduced the "Smart Tender" scheme, while the Police have launched the RenoSafe Scheme to assist in the fight against bid-rigging activities involving triad members. I know that ICAC has also adopted new measures to combat bid-rigging, and the Commission has conducted an in-depth study on bid-rigging activities. Nevertheless, Deputy President, this problem remains unsolved. Many minority owners are still suffering, losing tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

As I mentioned just now, in the past, the maintenance market was worth as much as $20 billion a year. The annual net profit of the bid-rigging syndicates headed by triad members amounts to several billion dollars and even exceeds $10 billion. Over the years, they have been well fed and have expanded with great financial strength and power. They have triad members and lawyers at their service. The minority owners will endure great pressure if they come forward to raise any objection by themselves.

Deputy President, since I exposed the bid-rigging problem several years ago, I have assisted many housing estates, causing great losses to many bid-rigging syndicates. Someone said to me, "LAM Cheuk-ting, you have got to be careful about your own safety." It was well-intentioned, not a warning from any triad member. Since then, I would carry a backpack when I was travelling outdoors because it could at least shield me from a couple of slashes in case I was assaulted by someone with a knife.

However, Deputy President, today I have already put down my backpack, since it is useless to assault me LAM Cheuk-ting. This movement has already taken shape and gathered momentum. The minority owners have already awakened. Assaulting LAM Cheuk-ting will only make more people become aware of the harms done by these bid-rigging syndicates and understand that our entire community and the Government must unite together to combat bid-rigging.

9546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

I implore Honourable colleagues to support my motion today. Thank you, Deputy President.

Mr LAM Cheuk-ting moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That in recent years building maintenance works in Hong Kong have been monopolized by bid-rigging syndicates involving triad members, and such syndicates manipulate tendering process by unlawful means, including significantly inflating maintenance costs to make huge profits, thus causing property owners to suffer losses of tens of billions of dollars, and arousing widespread grievances among members of the public; in order to combat the illegal activities of bid-rigging, this Council urges the Government to:

(1) expeditiously plug the relevant loopholes under the Building Management Ordinance to safeguard the rights and interests of property owners;

(2) step up law enforcement to deter bid-rigging syndicates;

(3) enhance public promotion and education to enable members of the public to understand the perils of bid-rigging and take precautions;

(4) provide property owners with professional support to enable them to comprehensively grasp the correct information on building maintenance works; and

(5) set up a 'building maintenance works authority' to centrally monitor the conduct of the industry and quality of maintenance."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting be passed.

Four Members will move amendments to this motion. Council will conduct a joint debate on the motion and the amendments.

I will call upon Members who move the amendments to speak in the following order: Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr KWOK Wai-keung; but they may not move amendments at this stage.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9547

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, based on a building condition survey conducted by the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") in 2015, 3 000 or so of the 21 000 or so buildings aged 30 years or over across the territory require maintenance per annum, involving more than $10 billion. Therefore, the maintenance market must be a cash cow. Naturally, bid-rigging syndicates will be lured to put a hand into this. In recent years, Hong Kong has repeatedly seen maintenance works charging astronomical fees. For instance, the judge responsible for hearing the $260 million bid-rigging case involving Garden Vista openly criticized the Government for its lack of monitoring, thus making it possible for unruly elements to take advantage of the maintenance works.

Undeniably, bid-rigging in connection with maintenance works is commonplace in Hong Kong, and the Government should be held accountable for this. Some people in the industry reveal that the operational practices of bid-rigging syndicates are highly sophisticated, with very good rapport between consultancies and contractors, too. Some unruly elements even collude with owners' corporations ("OCs"), management companies or even triad members to monopolize the market in a "through train" manner. Even after the establishment of the Competition Commission, the bid-rigging situation has not been alleviated significantly. Instead, bid-rigging syndicates have become even more professional. To avoid detection, bid-rigging is now conducted in a more covert manner.

Deputy President, despite the increasing number of buildings with OCs in recent years, the support provided by the Government to OCs is still seriously inadequate. For instance, liaison officers ought to be deployed by the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") to attend OCs' meetings. Nevertheless, HAD faces a shortage of resources and manpower as more building maintenance works have to be carried out in recent years. As a result, less experienced community organizers have to be assigned instead to attend OCs' meetings. Some kaifongs have relayed to me that should bid-rigging or difficult problems be encountered in the meetings, liaison officers, not to mention community organizers, might not know how to handle the situation. Furthermore, liaison officers attending OCs' meetings usually can tender some opinions only, or tell property owners to seek assistance from other government departments at the most.

Deputy President, in order to provide residents with building management support, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") offers assistance to a number of OCs. Moreover, a concern group has 9548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 been set up to handle public requests for assistance. The concern group mainly provides residents with building management support, including providing them with knowledge of "344" and relevant assistance, assisting property owners and OCs in understanding and comply with the Ordinance, facilitating communication among property owners, strengthening trust among various parties, encouraging residents to unite, expressing concern for building affairs, and making joint efforts in resolving building management problems.

Naturally, some cases we have received involve bid-rigging, while some involve illegal acts. We take these cases very seriously and have liaised with various relevant government departments to help the public resolve these problems. Nevertheless, some of these cases are caused by inadequate communication or misunderstanding between property owners and OCs. Actually, we have often been told by some property owners that their OCs have nothing to do with bid-rigging and might be one of the victims, too. However, they will often become exceptionally nervous whenever maintenance works involving large amounts of money are mentioned. No matter what explanations are given by OCs, infighting among property owners can easily occur, thus making them extremely worried. On the one hand, they are under the watchful eyes of bid-rigging syndicates and, on the other, they lack government support in dealing with affairs involving their housing estates. However, whenever OCs propose carrying out some urgent works, particularly as certain buildings have been required to carry out maintenance in accordance with the Government's order in recent years, small property owners often query if OCs are suspected of bid-rigging when it comes to the spending of money. As a result, the harmony of housing estates will be compromised. Some people will even intervene in affairs related to housing estates on the pretext of combating bid-rigging. Hence, some OCs considered to be unfriendly will, on the contrary, accuse small property owners of bid-rigging and make them extremely worried, or even call for the replacement of OCs.

We hope that owners and OCs can put down their prejudices and engage in communication frankly when there are differences. A lose-lose situation will eventually arise if they do not trust each other in the face of problems. We have seen quite a number of cases involving property owners who should originally be prepared for communication but, due to mutual distrust, eventually take their cases to court. The spending of money by property owners to fight court battles will only lead to a lose-lose situation in the end.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9549

To combat bid-rigging, Deputy President, I have the following suggestions: first, the "Smart Tender" Building Rehabilitation Facilitating Services Scheme launched by URA in recent years has assisted building owners in acquiring more information about building rehabilitation and the market. But basically, the services provided by the "Smart Tender" scheme can only reach the stage of "successful tender selection". Apparently, property owners have to follow up the monitoring of the progress and acceptance of works on their own after the selection of contractors. Should there be any problems concerning quality or quantity, owners will have to initiate legal proceedings on their own. This is why many property owners consider that the services provided by the "Smart Tender" scheme are far from adequate. We hope that the authorities can expand its scope of services to cover the entire maintenance works project, including monitoring the progress and acceptance of works, so as to give property owners more comprehensive protection.

Second, owing to the Government's lack of commitment to maintenance works in the past, not only were the public unable to get the right kind of assistance, but various departments were also unable to coordinate their efforts. Such being the case, we hope that the Government can establish a "building maintenance authority" and invite the Buildings Department, URA, the Independent Commission Against Corruption, HAD, the Police, and so on, to participate in it and provide residents with professional advice, assistance and reliable support with regard to building maintenance problems encountered at different levels.

Third, quite a number of residents have relayed to us that some unruly elements will collect proxy instruments from property owners through the offer of advantages or entertainment, with a view to manipulating the intention of OCs. Although newspapers have repeatedly reported relevant incidents in the past, the existing Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and legislation related to building management can still not cover such conduct. Neither has the Government addressed these problems squarely. It is certainly a good thing for the Home Affairs Bureau to propose some amendments to "344" lately. Nevertheless, it has yet to conduct studies on legislative amendments. We have therefore put forward our views to the Bureau at the consultation stage in the hope that its amendment proposals can be improved so as to prohibit agents from collecting proxy instruments through the offer of advantages or entertainment and prevent the manipulation of OCs by unruly elements.

9550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Lastly, the manpower shortage problem faced by HAD has actually existed for a long time. We request that the Bureau recruit additional manpower expeditiously, upgrade the quality of services provided by Liaison Officers, and adopt a dedicated approach to enable Liaison Officers to focus on building management work without performing other work of HAD or deploying other manpower. Meanwhile, the authorities should provide more training related to building management and maintenance to enable Liaison Officers to address management problems faced by different types of buildings.

We consider it very important for the Home Affairs Bureau to be given additional resources because it remains the public's only counterpart. Actually, the Bureau has heeded the views put forward by us on the Building Management Ordinance ("BMO") and undertaken some improvement tasks, including heeding our suggestions on the design and contents of the proxy forms, properly undertaking the filing of according to years, and so on. Nevertheless, even if there are good amendment proposals, adequate manpower must be provided before implementation and monitoring work can be carried out.

Deputy President, to live in peace and work with contentment is everyone's dream. Bid-rigging syndicates must not be tolerated by society because they undermine the interests of property owners in general and corrupt the social atmosphere. We hope the Government can unite all sectors of the community, proactively take measures and adopt a multi-pronged approach to combat bid-rigging in order that small property owners can be protected against further exploitation.

Coming back to this motion, it is the unanimous hope of the original motion of Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and the amendments of Mr Alvin YEUNG, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr KWOK Wai-keung to plug the loopholes in BMO, establish an organization for the monitoring of building maintenance, provide property owners with professional support related to maintenance works, step up law enforcement against bid-rigging, and so on. I also believe these suggestions will contribute significantly to eliminating bid-rigging. Hence, although we hope the Government can double its effort, we also hope that all sectors of the community can unite together and make joint efforts in combating bid-rigging. We in DAB will also support the relevant amendments.

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9551

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the property prices in Hong Kong have increased by 60% in the past five years. Nowadays, we would congratulate anyone who can feel relieved by buying his first home. But is owning a property really a relief? Of course not, especially for those who have owned properties for several decades, the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme ("MBIS") is a time bomb in their mind as they often worry about the huge maintenance fees which can be as much as hundreds of thousands of dollars.

According to the figures given by the Government in 2015, there are around 5 900 buildings aged 50 years or above in Hong Kong, and this number will increase by around 580 every year. There are even as many as 20 000 buildings aged 30 years or above, and the number is expected to reach around 30 000 by 2025. In these 30 000 buildings, there are countless owners who might have spent their lifelong savings on purchasing a small flat of 600 sq ft to 700 sq ft for forming a middle-class family. A maintenance bill of $200,000 to $300,000 all of a sudden will indeed exert immense pressure on them.

All of these originate from MBIS introduced by the Government in 2012. The original intent of the introduction of MBIS was that owners should assume the responsibility of inspecting their own buildings, in order to ensure that older buildings are structurally safe. While the Government requires mandatory inspection of buildings aged 30 years or above, some housing courts would carry out large-scale maintenance before being selected since the owners worry that maintenance fees will increase every year. This well-intentioned scheme has brought forth some side effects, providing contractors opportunities to make profits, thus resulting in corrupt bid-rigging.

Deputy President, the problem of bid-rigging under discussion now often starts from small beginnings. Some people known as "corporation rats", whom I have come into contact with when handling community work, purchased two to three small flats in buildings aged 20 to 30 years a few years ago when property prices were relatively lower and thus joined the owners' corporations ("OCs") as owners. As many Hong Kong people may not care about the building in which they are living or participate in OC's work, these "corporation rats" can influence the OCs as members, or even collude with companies outside so that these companies can win the tenders for building maintenance works, charging much higher fees than the market prices.

9552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Deputy President, precisely for this reason, regulation of the building maintenance market is clearly necessary. In the past few years, the Civic Party has proposed the establishment of a "building repair works authority", a statutory body of which the functions include introducing a registration system for the building maintenance market under which all engineering consultancies and contractors must be registered before they can undertake any works projects. Meanwhile, the "building repair works authority" should be vested with the statutory function of punishing, by means of public reprimand or even revocation of licence, consultancies and contractors violating the guidelines or the code of practice. These measures can effectively regulate the quality of the building maintenance market and prevent the emergence of black sheep in the industry. Members of the public will also have accessible reference on the quality and reputation of contractors and consultancies on which they can rely in making choices.

At present, the Building Maintenance Ordinance ("BMO"), commonly known as "344", regulates more than 1 000 OCs throughout Hong Kong. This legal basis is closely related to all owners in Hong Kong.

It is well known that since its enactment, BMO has been riddled with flaws and loopholes. The Home Affairs Bureau has conducted a consultation on "344" for the purpose of reviewing and improving BMO. Nevertheless, we believe it is still not satisfactory, as the recommendations made by the Home Affairs Bureau still fall far short of our vision. We hope to persuade the Home Affairs Bureau, through the existing long process, to consider making amendments to BMO in a more diverse and progressive manner. For instance, in respect of the guidelines on authorization in the existing BMO, we have the following suggestions: first, a list of flat units that have signed a proxy instrument (without publishing the names of the owners) should be posted at conspicuous spots in the housing court 48 hours before the OC meeting; second, a list of the individuals who have obtained the authorization of more than 5% of the total number of owners or of the total ownership shares should also be announced, so that owners can know whether their units have given authorization without their knowledge, and people who have obtained a large amount of proxy instruments can be identified. It is a different matter if the owners know these people. Otherwise, if the owners do not know them or if these people have a bad reputation, owners may monitor the situation as early as possible. This practice can prevent the abuse of proxy instruments and prevent elderly owners from being "represented" unwillingly.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9553

In addition to addressing the loopholes of the proxy instrument, we also suggest raising the quorum threshold of OC meetings required for handling relevant works under BMO from 10% to 20%. This will oblige more owners to care about their own property and encourage them to attend meetings, which is one of the ways to prevent bid-rigging.

Deputy President, the Civic Party requests the Administration to raise the quorum threshold based on a good intention. We understand that many owners may worry that a higher threshold will make the convening of meetings even more difficult. We would like to remind owners that people should not mind attending meetings and raising the threshold if they really care about their own purse.

Another measure we hope to introduce is a cooling-off period. Deputy President, there is a cooling-off period when we take out an insurance policy or purchase beauty products, then why is there not a cooling-off period for works projects costing hundreds of thousands of dollars? We hope the authorities can consider introducing a cooling-off period such that owners can rethink, after voting at on OC meeting, whether the relevant works is worth carrying out. In this way, many disputes can be pre-empted.

Another problem that owners have been complaining about is OCs and the Lands Tribunal. At present, if owners want to sue the OC, it is often "their own money against their own money", because owners must, of course, file the case at their own expense, while the money of the OC also comes from owners who pay management fees. The exorbitant litigation costs in Hong Kong may eventually scare off many owners.

As far as I understand it, the Home Affairs Bureau has introduced a mediation procedure to be conducted by former judges or persons with legal background in order to solve this problem. I agree that this is a good direction, but more importantly, the Lands Tribunal should, first, establish a building management tribunal similar to the Small Claims Tribunal, where no legal representation is necessary. Legal fees can thus be reduced in a large measure and make owners feel at ease. This may be the first direction.

Second, we hope that the Home Affairs Bureau can work or discuss with the Judiciary on an increase of the resources of the Lands Tribunal so as to shorten case listing time and allow owners access to justice expeditiously. As 9554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 far as we understand it, many cases have to wait months even years before they can be heard in courts. The situation is most unfair to owners. We hope that the aforesaid two suggestions can help solve the problems faced by owners downstream.

Deputy President, I appreciate that it is not an easy task to make amendments to "344", but I believe the Legislative Council will try to facilitate the relevant work if it is founded on a good intention, as this is about the purse and the rights of many property owners in Hong Kong.

I so submit.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, workers in Hong Kong are hard-working. Many people will spend all of their lifetime savings or wealth they have made with toil on a property. This is a typical story of the people of Hong Kong. Certainly, if one has a property, his living is protected in some measure, particularly when rents and property prices are surging these days. Persons with properties will hopefully have a more stable life in old age.

However, as in the case of the families I mentioned earlier, when the conditions of the properties of these elderly persons deteriorate over time and require maintenance, their nightmare begins. These maintenance works at an astronomical cost which actually involve bid-rigging will make their life miserable. Some elderly persons do not have much savings, perhaps just enough for them to spend most cautiously. As for other elderly persons, they may not even have enough for them to make any cautious spending. If these elderly persons are frequently required to pay tens of thousands of dollars or even hundreds of thousands of dollars unexpectedly, it is like killing them.

We know that many elderly owners feel extremely troubled and worried in these circumstances, where some have fallen ill because of the worries and some have eventually died. I learnt from certain owners' organizations that in the course, the parents of certain representatives (who are the owners) have passed away. Hence, there is no reason for the authorities to turn a blind eye to this situation. In fact, stories involving bid-rigging are numerous. Yet, I would only talk about the case at Allway Gardens.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9555

In 2005, a large-scale maintenance works project was completed at Allway Gardens. Yet, not long after that, just 10 years later, the owners' corporation ("OC") proposed to carry out another large-scale maintenance works project. A consultancy was employed at a low cost and the terms of the tender were drafted carelessly. They also refused to disclose the details of the maintenance works and the price quotation was much higher than that suggested by the Hong Kong Housing Society. The proposal was eventually voted down by owners. However, the OC put forth another bid-rigging proposal last year. Finally, the OC was removed by 1 600 owners through an election. Yet, after the removal, the OC refused to hand over the account books to the new OC. In April this year, it even froze the bank account, causing the estate to default on payment for security and cleaning service charges of a few million dollars. Actually, the operation of the new OC was almost paralysed, and certain contractors had reduced the scale of service provision, including cleaning services.

How can the previous OC be so unreasonable? The new OC has sought assistance from government departments, yet they suffered a setback every time. Regarding the blatant violation of laws by the previous OC, the District Office ("DO") would only act as a mediator. The chairman of the new OC could only express regret that the interests of small property owners were not protected at all. One of the owners, Mr WONG, pointed out directly that DO has utterly no ways to deal with the previous OC, for in the several meetings held, DO had only appointed junior officials to attend the meetings and they failed to offer any assistance. To recover the account books and reactivate the frozen bank account, the new OC had no way but to raise funds to bring the previous OC to court. It was only after they had won the case that they could press the previous OC to return these properties to the new OC in two weeks. Yet the litigation had cost them over $1 million. Deputy President, this is exactly the most painful scenario as pointed out by Mr Alvin YEUNG, where the costs of both parties are charged to their own accounts. Since the previous OC was involved in corruption, the new OC had to bring the case to court against it. However, the money spent by the previous OC on the litigation belonged to the new OC. So the new OC was facing a lose-lose situation.

Against this background, Deputy President, a few Members have proposed amendments today. I would like to thank Mr LAM Cheuk-ting in particular for proposing the motion today on bid-rigging, so that we can address this problem squarely. In the face of the problem-fraught Building Management Ordinance ("BMO"), amendments should be made immediately. Apart from increasing the 9556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 penalty in terms of criminal liability and defining the powers and accountability of relevant government departments properly, the authorities should allow the formulation of some other arrangements, such as the introduction of a cooling-off period. For instance, for large-scale maintenance works projects costing over $1 million or exceeding 30% of the budget of OC, a cooling-off period of two weeks or so should be allowed to set up. Moreover, Mr Alvin YEUNG proposes that the threshold for passing large-scale works projects should be raised in terms of the quorum required or the number of owners participating in the voting. This is also a very important point. The "Smart Tender" scheme is a desirable arrangement. I hope the authorities will implement it as soon as possible. In fact, the scale of the "Smart Tender" scheme should be expanded to enable more owners of old buildings to have access to some primary assistance.

We strongly support all the amendments proposed by Members today, as well as the original motion. For small property owners, particularly the elderly owners who are gripped by the fear of bid-rigging in old age, we consider that bid-rigging is completely avoidable. We understand that old buildings require maintenance or even partial redevelopment, yet we still hope that rehabilitation can be made the mainstay. We also hope that the community will assist these owners of old buildings in renovating their buildings, so that their living environment can be brought on par with the economic condition in Hong Kong.

Hence, Deputy President, regarding the various measures for combating bid-rigging activities, amending BMO and assisting owners in taking precautions against bid-rigging activities, we do not see various political parties and groupings have any conflicts over these today. I thus hope that the motion and the amendments this time around will be passed by the whole Council, and I hope that the Government will give a positive response. It is regrettable that in the past, even though certain motions were passed by this Council, the Government would either procrastinate in taking action or give perfunctory responses, saying that the authorities have taken note of the issue, everything is alright or all arrangements are proven. I do not wish to see these responses again.

We should combat bid-rigging so that those unruly elements will be punished and reoccurrence of these cases can be prevented. These tasks are extremely urgent. Though the new Government will soon assume office, yet I hope that the incumbent Government will heed the views of Members. It seems that Secretary LAU Kong-wah plans to continue to serve in the next Government, so I hope that he will listen to the opinions expressed by Members today. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9557

Deputy President, we can seldom foster a consensus of such a large scale. Bid-rigging should be wiped out for it is turning Hong Kong into a backward city. We cannot condone the collusion of a small number of owners, triads and certain unscrupulous and mercenary professional consultancies, which seek to exploit owners through the chain-organization approaches and cheat owners out of their wealth.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, what kind of a situation do we find in Hong Kong nowadays? It is a state where people with a property feel upset and people without any property feel upset just the same. People without any property are upset certainly because they are at a loss as to how they can buy their first home, whereas people with a property are worried about being ripped off. Why? Because they are worried about falling prey to bid-rigging.

The Government implemented the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme ("MBIS") in 2012. Under MBIS, owners of buildings aged 30 years or above are required to carry out an inspection once every 10 years. The owners, on receiving notices from the Buildings Department, are required to appoint a Registered Inspector to carry out an inspection on all the places, including the external walls, projections or signboards of the buildings. The original intent of MBIS is good and it is conducive to resolving the problem of building neglect. But ineffective regulation has resulted in bid-rigging, the adverse effects of which are most worrying to the owners. Many members of the community even draw an equal sign between maintenance and bid-rigging, making people frown on hearing building repairs and maintenance.

I am worried that if the Government continues to refrain from taking actions, astromical maintenance costs would no longer be news in future. As a matter of fact, in the cases that happened before, such as $260 million of maintenance costs incurred by Garden Vista, $150 million incurred by Dragon Court, and $17 million incurred by Tai Wo Estate, Tai Po, for repairing the external walls, a flat often has to take up a share of the costs to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The small property owners feel to be at the mercy of others because the Home Affairs Department simply does not care and the Police refuse to follow up their cases, and 9558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 investigations by the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") take time. If, at the end of the day, their cases have to be taken to court, the owners' corporations ("OCs") and small property owners will have to run around to make preparations, meaning that they will equally suffer.

Deputy President, a key focus of the Competition Ordinance ("the Ordinance") is to fight bid-rigging, and the Ordinance has been fully brought into effect since 14 December 2015. On the surface there seems to be a lifebuoy now but we all know that it is extremely difficult to gather evidence against bid-rigging. Earlier on Mr LAM who used to work in ICAC personally recounted a case in which a person had been arrested many times but there was simply no way to lay charges against him, and this is actually pathetic. Therefore, it was only in March this year that the Competition Commission responsible for enforcing the Ordinance filed for the first time a case in court to sue five information technology companies for bid-rigging, but as for cases of bid-rigging relating to building maintenance, not one single case of prosecution has been seen.

More unnerving is that cases of bid-rigging relating to building maintenance often involve manipulation by crime syndicates. Therefore, when small property owners raised queries or objections to exorbitant maintenance costs, they may, in minor cases, fall victim to paint-splashing or have their keyholes blocked, whereas in more serious cases, their personal safety may even be at stake. However, the owners are in great miseries because as they own their flats, there is no way for them to evade such threats, whereas the crime syndicates know who they are and where they live. Their sufferings are unspeakable indeed. Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails, and while the gangsters used to make lucrative gains from engaging in robberies with high risks, no one could have imagined that building maintenance has now become a way for them to make lucrative gains with low risks. So tell me, with regard to our society that upholds the rule of law or the rule of law spirit, what is left of it?

The Government has, through the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA"), put in place the "Smart Tender" scheme for the prevention of bid-rigging. The scheme mainly aims to arrange independent professionals for OCs and owners' committees. The independent professionals will provide assistance in respect of the estimate, comments on the condition survey report, tender documents, cost estimate and tender analysis report, and will also provide independent LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9559 professional advice. URA will act as an agent of OCs and owners' committees to facilitate the use of an electronic tendering platform for appointing building contractors and certified public accountants for the administration and supervision of the tender opening process. These measures of URA are helpful to owners' committees or OCs because the appointment of consultants, accountants and contractors by separate tender exercises can prevent one-stop monopolization by bid-rigging syndicates which would otherwise leave owners with no choice but to succumb.

Having said that, Deputy President, it seems to be inadequate to have in place only this scheme for the number of people benefitting from it is limited and the scheme itself is fee-charging. In this connection, I propose to establish a one-stop maintenance information platform and database. The database will collect information on all building maintenance works, including the market costs of various maintenance works items, the records of building maintenance works undertaken by qualified contractors, and so on. With the opening up of such information, the owners' committees can make a price comparison prior to the maintenance works and better understand the details, thus enabling them to find out which companies are in collaboration, or which companies are asking excessively high prices, or which companies have shown particularly good performance, or which companies are in a dubious relationship. All such information can enhance the vigilance of the public and besides, there is also a way for the public to lodge complaints. Why? Because the database will play the role of compiling a scoring sheet after completion of the maintenance works on each building. The scope of assessment will cover the prices, standard and quality of maintenance works, and whether the works progressed on schedule because, as we all know, in some cases, while the contract signed before the commencement of works clearly stipulated the completion of works in six months or a year, it eventually took a few years for all the works to be completed.

Moreover, some of the works made a fine start but ended in a shabby way. Why? Our guess is that―it is just our guess―the consultant and the contractor may not agree with each other in the beginning and the consultant naturally dealt with all matters rigidly, and when they subsequently made a deal, even the unfinished works were endorsed and funds were approved but it eventually turned out that not all of the works were completed and worse still, some works were left unfinished.

9560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Therefore, an assessment system is most important as it enables owners and OCs to "take a revenge" by making a write-up of the actual situation without having to make a compromise passively, and when they come across scrupulous companies, they can extensively advertise for them, so that these well-performed consultants and contractors can have more opportunities of taking up such works.

Deputy President, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions already proposed many years ago the setting up of a tribunal for handling building affairs. We proposed that cases relating to the Building Management Ordinance currently under the charge of the Lands Tribunal be transferred to this tribunal. Disputes over building maintenance that do not involve corruption and bid-rigging can also be transferred to this tribunal because as the litigants in cases handled by this tribunal are not required to appoint legal representatives, this can greatly reduce the legal costs and hence alleviate the burden on small property owners.

Deputy President, in my amendment I propose the deletion of the first line of the original motion about monopolization by bid-rigging syndicates involving triad members. Why did I delete it on purpose? Because as far as I understand it, while it is true that triad members were involved in some cases, many contractors may not have triad background but were forced or tempted by the crime syndicates to take part in bid-rigging. How did they take part in it? They may have made adjustments to the prices and divisions among themselves, so that they could have control over their respective zones. These situations have already impacted on the normal operation of the industry. This is why I replaced the wording by "crime syndicates" in my amendment.

On the other hand, Deputy President, Members may have noticed that some buildings with a maintenance fund face a big headache now. People may think that reserving funds for this purpose can reduce the amount of money to be payable for future maintenance works, but there are now increasingly more cases of bid-riggers setting eyes on these maintenance funds. Knowing that a certain building has a maintenance fund, they will deliberately join the OC of the building and even replace all OC members with their own people to form a new OC in an attempt to carve up the maintenance fund. This situation has now become a bad headache to the people.

Deputy President, Hong Kong is a society where the rule of law prevails, and we do not allow these reckless, unrestrained bid-rigging syndicates to do whatever they like. To combat these unlawful bid-rigging activities, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9561

Government must assist owners and OCs to face up to and address the problem, and also punish these bid-rigging syndicates. In particular, the Competition Commission and ICAC must carry out work expeditiously and take preventive measures before any problem arises. The "Smart Tender" scheme of URA is a preventive initiative but the scheme needs to be enhanced by, among others, establishing a one-stop maintenance information platform as I proposed earlier to provide the public with clear data and information.

Thank you, Deputy President.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government attaches great importance to the concerns expressed in society about suspected bid-rigging in building maintenance works. I am grateful to Mr LAM Cheuk-ting for moving the motion and Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr KWOK Wai-keung for proposing the amendments for they have given the Secretary for Development and me an opportunity to exchanges views with Honourable Members on the relevant subject. In fact, besides the Development Bureau and the Home Affairs Bureau, relevant government departments and organizations, including the Hong Kong Police Force, the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"), the Competition Commission, the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA"), the Hong Kong Housing Society, and the Home Affairs Department ("HAD"), have been making concerted efforts to prevent and combat bid-rigging with a multi-pronged approach.

The causes of bid-rigging are quite complicated, for various professional disciplines such as tendering, works quotations, works supervision, and so on, are involved. To effectively prevent and combat profit-making by unruly elements through bid-rigging in maintenance works, targeted strategies must be adopted through law enforcement, professional support, and publicity and education to provide small property owners with appropriate support.

The Government has been providing a legal framework through the Building Management Ordinance ("BMO") to assist owners in carrying out building management properly. Meanwhile, HAD also provides owners' corporations ("OCs") and owners with appropriate support and conducts publicity and education, endeavouring to assist owners of private buildings in discharging their responsibility of building management. Through raising the concern of 9562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

OCs and owners about building maintenance works, we hope to enhance participation of owners, protect their rights and interests in building maintenance affairs, minimize disputes, reduce the chances of maintenance works of being manipulated and, when needed, provide owners with appropriate information and referral services.

In response to the public concerns about building management, particularly disputes arising from large-scale maintenance projects, we consulted the Panel on Home Affairs again in March this year on further legislative proposals and administrative measures related to amending BMO, covering procurement and large-scale maintenance projects, proxy instruments, safekeeping and circulation of records, accounts and financial statements, non-performance of management committees ("MCs") and powers of the Authority, criminal sanctions, technical amendments, and so on, subsequent to our notification to the Panel in May 2016 of the outcome of the public consultation on the review of BMO and the making of a number of targeted recommendations.

Through enhancing the transparency of OCs in arranging building maintenance projects and owners' participation, we hope to lower the chances of maintenance projects being manipulated by a few people with ulterior motives and reduce disputes among owners, OCs and property management companies ("PMCs") in future over large-scale maintenance projects. Given the time required to amend BMO, HAD will include those proposals, which are not in conflict with BMO, in the Codes of Practice, in order to respond to public concerns as soon as practicable and encourage OCs to adopt those proposals as far as practicable.

On support for OCs and owners, given that "three nil" buildings might encounter more difficulty in making maintenance preparations, HAD has launched a Building Management Professional Advisory Service Scheme Phase 3. Under the Scheme, PMCs are engaged to provide owners of old buildings (buildings aged 30 years or over or of low letting value) with free professional support services, including assisting owners in forming OCs, improving building management, embarking on maintenance projects, applying for relevant subsidies, and so on.

In April this year, the Pre-meeting Advisory Service for OCs was launched to provide enhanced support services to OCs to target at (i) newly formed OCs, (ii) new-term OCs, and (iii) meetings with expected dispute items. Under the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9563 new Service, the District Building Management Liaison Teams set up under District Offices will explain to and advise MC members on the conduct of MC and OC meetings before the meetings are held. As of late May, HAD has organized more than 600 advisory services.

In the event of disputes arising in meetings or the building maintenance process, HAD will strive to resolve the disputes and introduce to OCs and owners various professional advisory services, including Free Legal Advice Service on Building Management, the Panel of Advisors on Building Management Disputes and the Free Mediation Service for Building Management, whereby free professional advice will be offered by neutral and professional persons to owners, or voluntary service will be provided by accredited mediators to assist in mediation in order to resolve disputes.

Furthermore, in response to the concerns about the cost and time taken to resolve building management disputes through the Lands Tribunal, HAD proposed in March this year that the Building Management Dispute Resolution Service ("BMDRS") be launched. The new BMDRS will operate as a pilot scheme for two years, under which a retired judge will be appointed to help facilitate the resolution of building management disputes without going through costly legal proceedings by offering neutral and authoritative advice.

On publicity and education, Guidelines on Proxy for the General Meeting of an OC and Guidelines on Procurement Process of an OC were issued in May last year to encourage OCs to adopt, among others, best practices on the handling of proxy instruments and procurement procedures.

Through organizing systematic training courses, HAD enhances the ability of MCs in building management and the handling of maintenance matters. Furthermore, seminars, workshops and talks on building management and building maintenance are held from time to time in collaboration with the Buildings Department, the Hong Kong Police Force, ICAC, URA, the Hong Kong Housing Society and relevant professional institutes to assist relevant organizations in distributing publications and provide OCs and owners with the latest information on building management, building maintenance, corruption and crime prevention, and so on. Furthermore, HAD also maintains close contact with OCs and owners intending to carry out building maintenance works and encourages owners to actively participate, particularly at the stage of making advance preparations for maintenance, in order to gain an understanding of details 9564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 of maintenance works at an early stage and actively attend owners' meetings for joint discussions to be held on maintenance proposals, so as to prevent the occurrence of disputes and even illegal activities. If needed, HAD may even refer them to participate in the various professional support service schemes provided by relevant organizations and professional bodies, such as the "Smart Tender" scheme operated by URA.

To enhance publicity and education, HAD already launched a new round of television, radio and advertisement publicity during the Chinese Lunar New Year this year to encourage owners to, for the purpose of safeguarding their own rights and interests, proactively participate in OC meetings in person, rather than attending meetings and casting votes by proxy. The slogan of the relevant Announcement of Public Interests aired since late March is "Active participation in building management benefits all". It is indeed the most important aspect of building management.

Deputy President, the Government takes bid-rigging seriously and has been adopting an open attitude in listening to views and proposals put forward by all sectors of the community on the handling of the relevant issues and introducing new measures in a timely manner to deal with bid-rigging. I will give a consolidated response after listening carefully to the speeches delivered by Honourable Members.

Thank you, Deputy President.

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as pointed out by the Secretary for Home Affairs in his speech just now, the Government takes the suspected bid-rigging activities in building maintenance works very seriously. In the speech delivered by the Secretary for Home Affairs just now, he has given Members a brief account of the Building Management Ordinance, public education as well as the related work of the Home Affairs Bureau and the Home Affairs Department. Before listening to the speeches of Members on this motion debate, I would also like to briefly explain the work of various government departments in combating bid-rigging as well as the technical assistance provided jointly by the Development Bureau and the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") for owners of private properties concerning the maintenance and repairs of buildings.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9565

Bid-rigging generally refers to the situation where two or more bidders, who would otherwise be expected to compete with one another, make a secret agreement that they will not compete with one another so as to secure particular projects. Bid-rigging activities in building maintenance works involve complicated problems. Apart from anti-competitive conduct, such problems may also involve collusion among consultants and contractors of maintenance works, property management companies and owners' corporations to manipulate the decision-making concerning building maintenance in an attempt to reap benefits, the process of which may even involve corruption offences and triad involvement.

There are mainly three organizations which carry out law enforcement actions against various offences concerning bid-rigging activities. The first one is the Competition Commission. The Competition Ordinance stipulates that an undertaking must not make or give effect to an agreement the object or effect of which is to prevent, restrict or distort competition in Hong Kong. Under the Competition Ordinance, bid-rigging is considered as serious anti-competitive conduct, and combating bid-rigging is the focus of the law enforcement actions taken by the Competition Commission. The second one is the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"). ICAC carries out law enforcement actions against corruption offences in bid-rigging activities. In view of the increase in the number of corruption complaints concerning building management and maintenance in recent years, ICAC established a nine-person special task force in April 2015 with a focus on conducting investigations into corruption complaints which may involve bid-rigging activities. The last one is the Hong Kong Police Force, which carry out law enforcement actions against criminal acts in bid-rigging activities (such as triad offences and violent acts).

The Government often emphasizes that it is the responsibility of property owners to repair and maintain private buildings. Notwithstanding this, the Government understands that as some property owners do not have the experience of arranging repairs and maintenance works for their buildings nor the relevant professional knowledge, they may feel clueless about what they should do about the works and worry that the works will be subject to bid-rigging by lawbreakers. In this connection, URA launched the "Smart Tender" Building Rehabilitation Facilitation Services scheme in May 2016 with its own resources. Under the scheme, eligible owners' organizations are provided with technical assistance and professional advice on the procurement of works contractor in carrying out building repairs and maintenance works.

9566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Under the "Smart Tender" scheme, URA will provide owners' organizations of buildings exceeding three storeys with a set of DIY tool-kits to guide them in organizing works. The tips set out in the DIY tool-kits will help minimize the risks of bid-rigging. URA will line up an independent third-party adviser to offer advice to owners' organizations, including an estimate on the cost of such works which can be used for assessing whether the tender prices received for the works are reasonable. Lastly, the "Smart Tender" scheme also provides an electronic tendering platform for owners' organizations to conduct the tendering exercise for engaging contractors. At present, the electronic tendering platform has obtained registration of around 200 registered general contractors which indicated an interest in undertaking maintenance works. The identity of contractors will remain anonymous when they submit tenders through that platform with a view to minimizing the risks of manipulation or interference during the tender process.

Currently, the fees of the "Smart Tender" scheme range from $25,000 to $160,000. Having considered that the scheme can provide appropriate assistance to property owners, the Government will allocate $300 million to subsidize owners of private buildings to join the scheme. After receiving the funding from the Government, the fees will be substantially reduced to the range of $1,250 to $80,000. We estimate that around 90% of residential and composite commercial/residential buildings which are over 30 years of age in the territory can join the "Smart Tender" scheme by paying a fee in the range of $1,250 to $32,000 only. We are discussing the details with URA and we plan to implement the concessionary rate in the next quarter.

Deputy President, I will pause here and give a further response at the end after listening carefully to the speeches of Members on this motion debate. Thank you, Deputy President.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as regards stepping up regulation on the repairs and maintenance works of private buildings to protect people's rights and benefits, there were two debates on Members' motions in the last Legislative Council. I find the general direction of and some main suggestions made in Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's original motion and the amendments of the other four Honourable colleagues worthy of support.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9567

The ageing of buildings in Hong Kong will become increasingly serious. There are about 20 000 buildings aged 30 years or above and the number will increase to 30 000 after 10 years. It is noteworthy that, according to the consultation papers of Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030, in 2046, the number of private residential units aged 70 years or above will reach 326 000, 300 times more than that in 2015, reflecting the importance and urgency of repairs and maintenance of buildings.

The SAR Government rolled out the "Operation Building Bright" in 2009, which is mainly implemented by the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") and the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") to provide subsidies and technical support to owners. It involves a sum of $3.5 billion for subsidizing the repairs of over 3 200 old buildings aged 30 years or above. The Buildings Department has implemented the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme since June 2012, targeting buildings aged 30 years or above. Every year, a few buildings will be selected to undergo compulsory inspection and necessary repairs. Moreover, HKHS and URA, through the Mandatory Building Inspection Subsidy Scheme, provide financial assistance to eligible owners. These schemes have obviously enhanced society's awareness of building and community safety.

Building maintenance works often involve huge sums, inevitably becoming the coveted prey of lawbreakers. In recent years, building maintenance works have given rise to many disputes and even bid-rigging, causing the tender prices to rise beyond the reasonable range and thus adding to the burden of small property owners. However, has the situation reached such a serious point that "building maintenance works in Hong Kong have been monopolized by bid-rigging syndicates involving triad members" as suggested in the original motion? Various sectors may have different views. Nonetheless, these black sheep, though small in number, can create such effects that even many honest businessmen and professionals back away from such kind of works. As law enforcement agencies have exposed, some owners' corporations ("OCs") or members of owners' committees and contractors, etc., allegedly engaged in bribery or conspired to defraud. I believe in the justice of law. Lawbreakers will receive legal sanctions.

As a matter of fact, building maintenance is a complex matter, involving many stakeholders, including owners, owners' committees or OCs, property management companies, engineering consultants and contractors, etc. We should suit the solution to the problem by strengthening regulation of the industry to protect the rights and interests of owners while maintaining certain flexibility 9568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 in providing a fair and just business environment for relevant industry practitioners. The Competition Ordinance came into force in the end of 2015, expressly stipulating that bid-rigging is "serious anti-competitive conduct". The Competition Commission published the Report on Study into Aspects of the Market for Residential Building Renovation and Maintenance in May last year to address public concerns over the alleged collusive activities in the market and provide reference for future enforcement and advocacy efforts.

Deputy President, the crux of the problem is the inadequate support provided to owners, owners' committees and OCs system-wise. Despite the Government's claim of encouraging the setting up of OCs, there are still around 6 000 "three-nil" buildings in Hong Kong, which have not formed any OC, not hired any property management company and not undergone proper repairs and maintenance. In March this year, the Administration made the latest legislative proposals in connection with the review of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344) to the Panel on Home Affairs of the Legislative Council, including the quorum of OC meetings, the percentage of shares of votes required for the passage of resolutions, as well as the definition of "large-scale maintenance projects". In my view, these issues should be gauged and handled pragmatically. A balance must be struck between the OC representation and the actual operation. The authorities should not only aim at setting up OCs while ignoring the provision of actual assistance to small property owners at the operation level.

To encourage public participation in building repairs and maintenance, the Government, HKHS and URA have successively launched some assistance programmes, such as the Integrated Building Maintenance Assistance Scheme, the Building Safety Loan Scheme, etc. With their focus on financial support, the age limit under the schemes should be appropriately relaxed to benefit more owners of old buildings. Moreover, since May last year, URA has introduced the pilot scheme of the "Smart Tender" Building Rehabilitation Facilitating Services to assist owners organizations in acquiring technical support and professional advice for building maintenance and repair works. The Government announced in the Budget this year that $300 million was earmarked for enabling owners to enjoy the services at a discount. It is expected that owners of about 4 500 buildings will benefit from it in the next five years. The scheme has replaced the "AP Easy" Building Maintenance Advisory Service Scheme jointly launched by the Home Affairs Department, the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers, the Hong Kong Institute of Architects and the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors from 2014 to 2016.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9569

Deputy President, given that URA has set up the "Building Rehab Info Net" to provide information and technical support to owners, I believe on this basis, URA should strengthen cooperation with different stakeholders and, in collaboration with relevant government departments, law enforcement agencies, individuals from professional sectors and building repairs contractors, provide a one-stop "building repairs platform" to assist owners in solving problems and difficulties related to building maintenance while enhancing the transparency of works.

As regards a Member's proposal for setting up a "building maintenance works authority", I have reservations. As the Competition Ordinance is in force and the Building Management Ordinance will also be amended shortly, the authorities can handle related matters with the powers (The buzzer sounded) … conferred by the relevant laws. At the present stage, it is unnecessary …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO, your speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): … to set up another independent authority so as to avoid duplication of structure.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I absolutely support the motion proposed by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting on combating bid-rigging. Since the problem of ageing buildings in Hong Kong is worsening and the building maintenance market is huge, many people would like to get a slice of the cake. Owing to increasingly rampant illegal bid-rigging, not only is the quality of maintenance works lacks assurance, but astronomical prices have repeatedly been paid for such works. Hence, the ordinary masses and small property owners have suffered great losses.

As we all know, the problem of bid-rigging is quite complicated. Not only are owners' corporations ("OCs"), management companies, and maintenance works consultants are involved, but triad members might also have a hand in it. However, individual small property owners with very limited power can hardly counter them. It is therefore most important for the Government to proactively intervene and offer assistance.

9570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Currently, the biggest problem lies in the fact that the many loopholes in the Building Management Ordinance ("BMO") have turned it into a toothless tiger. Why did I say so? It is because, according to the Home Affairs Department ("HAD"), BMO merely provides a legal framework to enable property owners to jointly discharge their building management responsibility. In other words, the Government merely plays the role of assisting property owners in building management and maintenance. Simply put, HAD merely plays the role of a middleman. Despite the penalties stipulated in BMO, the law is seldom enforced and its deterrence is very limited.

Although quite a number of provisions of BMO stipulate criminal liability, such as the provision of false documents or information, the failure to prepare financial statements within the specified time for submission to OCs for perusal, the failure to purchase third party risk insurance, and so on, BMO can absolutely not assist or protect property owners because its contents are unclear. Moreover, even if penalties for illegal acts are provided, the authorities have failed to enforce the penalties proactively. Instead, the authorities have all along relied mainly on mediation and the provision of advisory services to solve problems.

According to past records, during the period between 2004 and 2011, dozens of requests for instituting prosecutions against malpractices of OCs were received by the Home Affairs Bureau, but no prosecutions were instituted because the cases had to be "taken very seriously". Since the authorities did not want to aggravate conflicts among neighbours, they would strive to resolve disputes by giving advice only. Despite the penalties stipulated in BMO and the authorities having been conferred law enforcement power, such power was rarely exercised.

An owner has relayed to me that, on receiving complaints lodged by property owners about violations of BMO by OCs, HAD would, more often than not, merely remind OCs repeatedly to abide by the law, or request the owners to file a lawsuit with the Lands Tribunal without taking into account that small property owners simply did not have much money, time and energy to initiate proceedings. In the end, they were left to oppression by OCs. The Government is obviously given powers by BMO, but why does it not exercise such powers?

I once informed the former Secretary for Home Affairs of one of such cases in which a small property owner had requested HAD to take action because LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9571 an OC had failed to display its financial report. Since HAD had not taken any action, the unconvinced owner could not but initiate legal proceedings. In the end, he was ordered to pay more than $100,000 as compensation instead because he had not been granted any legal aid. But still, the Home Affairs Bureau insisted that the matter must be handled with prudence, and so no assistance would be offered. Despite the presence of BMO, no assistance is provided.

Even the Home Affairs Bureau has admitted that, on receiving a complaint from a property owner, such as someone was suspected of bid-rigging, as the two public officers mentioned earlier, the Bureau will only suggest the complainant lodge a complaint with the Competition Commission. If it is suspected that criminal offences are involved, the Bureau will suggest that the complainant report the case to the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") or police stations, or even file a writ with the Lands Tribunal. However, do these approaches work? Deputy President, they do not work at all.

Let me cite the nominators who attend general meetings as an example. Someone has been found counterfeiting signatures to authorize someone else to attend meetings. Although cases of people knowingly counterfeiting signatures had been reported, the Police insisted that no follow-up action could be taken if the identity of the person who counterfeited the signatures was not known. In other words, the Police could not take follow-up actions even though the cases are obviously criminal cases. Secretary, what is the point of making reports to the Police?

Although the Government has reiterated that the problem will be referred to relevant law enforcement agencies, how many cases have been successfully dealt with? I can tell Members that the number of successful referrals last year merely accounted for 22% of the total number of complaints. After all, as the executive arm of BMO, HAD can at most play the role of a "mediator" or, to put it bluntly, "sit on the fence". It can absolutely not protect the rights and interests of small property owners.

The problem of bid-rigging is even more acute, though the two Bureau Directors repeatedly said just now that assistance would be offered by the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA"). I am now dealing with a case involving a building situated in Hung Hom, also a participant of the Operation Building Bright. The complainant was only given a name list when he sought assistance from URA, 9572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 which said that there was nothing else it could do except providing more name lists. Is such so-called technical support not very disgusting? The authorities have absolutely not provided any practical assistance.

Speaking of the bid-rigging problem, sometimes the problem is not with OCs but with contractors. Failing to carry out monitoring properly, the Government has on the contrary appealed to the public to make reports. In particular, ICAC usually behaves in the most ridiculous manner. It has even asked the informers if they have any evidence, for no follow-up action will be taken if evidence cannot be produced. This approach is simply a waste of time. It is simply because the informers have no evidence or conditions to find proof of the crime committed that they have to seek assistance. On the contrary, they are requested to provide evidence. What does it mean by making referrals?

Insofar as the bid-rigging problem is concerned, if the Government merely refers the cases to the relevant departments, it is simply shirking its responsibility without addressing the gravity of the problem. It is simply insincere in assisting small property owners or OCs. With regard to these problems, the Government must come up with more solutions to really help small property owners counter bid-rigging. Furthermore, it must stop shirking its responsibility by making such a reckless remark as "follow-up actions will definitely be taken by the relevant departments".

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I support the original motion on "Combating bid-rigging to defend the rights and interest of property owners" and all the amendments.

Deputy President, according to the building condition survey conducted by the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") in 2015, there were around 21 000 buildings aged 30 years or above in the territory, and by 2046, the number will increase to 40 000. To maintain the condition of these buildings, owners of buildings aged 30 or above have to comply with the requirement of conducting inspections of their buildings once every 10 years. Hence, between now and 2046, there will be over 3 000 buildings requiring rehabilitation works every year on average.

Deputy President, as the age of buildings in Hong Kong increases and with the many aforesaid measures and schemes introduced by the Government, the market of building maintenance services is thriving in Hong Kong. Since the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9573 building maintenance works of old buildings entails a colossal or even astronomical amount of money every year, it has attracted some unlawful syndicates to enter the trade in order to seize the works projects through bid-rigging. As Honourable colleagues mentioned earlier, the maintenance services market has now been turned into a cash cow. Bid-rigging syndicates are running rampant now. They can manipulate the results of tendering exercises directly, seriously undermining the fairness and impartiality of tendering procedures. Sometimes, though property owners have made report to the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"), those syndicates will seldom be convicted in the lack of evidence. These works projects at astronomical costs have severely jeopardized the interests of small property owners and affected the normal operation of owners' corporations ("OCs").

Deputy President, action speaks louder than words. To deal with the bid-rigging problem, I think we have to be proactive in making suggestions to the Government. Hence, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") has raised some proposals and requests with the Government a number of times, and the Bureau has conducted extensive consultation exercises on certain proposals. On 1 March this year, the Home Affairs Bureau eventually took a step forward to propose amendments to the Building Management Ordinance ("BMO") to combat bid-rigging. We welcome this move. The new amendments will not only strengthen the protection for small property owners but also enhance the transparency of building management. As for one of the proposals on "raising the quorum of meeting for passing resolutions to 20%, and specifying that at least 10% of property owners have to attend the meeting in person", we think it will raise owners' concern about building maintenance and encourage owners to participate in the discussion on resolutions, thus minimizing disputes and increasing the credibility of the final decision. However, during the consultation, we heard many owners express the worry that raising the quorum might result in aborted meetings due to a lack of quorum. I think the Bureau has to pay attention to this point.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

President, in the newly proposed amendments, the Home Affairs Bureau further defines the uses of proxy instruments (commonly known as "proxy forms") and provides guidelines. This is a desirable direction. However, 9574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 according to many small property owners and members of OCs, some people with ulterior motives will deliberately gather proxy forms to manipulate results of tendering exercises, and the situation is quite common at present. These people with ulterior motives have taken advantage of the grey area in the validation procedures for proxy forms, and managed to further their purposes successfully. President, I would like to remind the Administration that it is good to introduce new amendments, yet the key is how to step up supervision by means of the amendments so as to prevent people with ulterior motives to get hold of a large number of proxy forms to affect the results of the tendering exercises.

President, we know that there are many problems in building management, yet we do not have a dedicated department responsible for effecting guidance and supervision now. The DAB thus urges the Government to actively consider the establishment of a "Building Maintenance Authority" ("BMA"). BMA should invite people from different sectors and departments, including professionals, the Buildings Department, URA and ICAC, to offer views on building maintenance to residents, OCs and small property owners and wipe out bid-rigging. Particularly when the report on maintenance items is drafted, BMA may help verify the authenticity and reliability of those consultancy reports, thereby assisting OCs and small property owners in handling maintenance issues.

In fact, URA which is now implementing the "Smart Tender" scheme is performing the functions of BMA temporarily. The scheme is well received at the district level. When I visit various districts to explain the "Smart Tender" scheme, many small property owners consider the scheme desirable. Hence, we hope that the "Smart Tender" scheme will continue to offer assistance to property owners, handle these issues with professional knowledge and use fairer and more open tendering procedures to resolve these maintenance problems.

It is most regrettable that the Government indicated only recently the allocation of another $300 million to subsidizing property owners in joining the "Smart Tender" scheme, and I think it is overdue. Yet, as I often stress, "late is better than never". I hope this initiative will attract more property owners to participate in and benefit from the scheme. According to our assessment, around 3 000 OCs or owners' organization or 4 500 buildings will benefit under the new concession scheme.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9575

President, we come across maintenance problems in the districts quite often. Some time ago, I handled a case involving On Kay Court in Kwun Tong. It was also about maintenance, where small property owners came together to oppose the works projects and raised queries. I think the Government really has to offer assistance in connection with these issues. Under the current practice, the Government will appoint certain officials from District Offices to render assistance in these cases. Yet I think the Bureau has to step up its effort in this aspect. It must identify ways to properly implement the arrangement of "designated officials for designated professions", so that officials may offer professional advice to the public.

Then, for law enforcement, the authorities should ensure that law enforcement agencies are provided with adequate resources for conducting studies and surveys with a view to wiping out serious anti-competitive conduct like bid-rigging. It should also reinforce the regime of criminal sanctions by increasing the penalty to achieve deterrence.

Lastly, President, public education is important and essential. Adequate promotion will not only raise the awareness of property owners, but also enable them to understand how best to safeguard their own interests. We hope that through this motion debate, the Administration will realize that it can brook no delay in handling these issues, and it must address the problems expeditiously, so that the public may be spared problems arising from bid-rigging.

With these remarks, President, I support the motion.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, today in the Legislative Council, we are discussing the issue of combating bid-rigging once again. Indeed, when it comes to the knowledge of building maintenance, the small property owners are actually not on a par with the bid-rigging syndicates. It is because in the bid-rigging syndicates there are professionals well versed in these types of works, and it is basically impossible for the small property owners to fight against them on their own. In recent years, the problem of bid-rigging has become syndicated and involved triad members. If the residents have only themselves to count on in mobilizing actions, how possibly can they put up resistance?

9576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

In many cases, when the bid-rigging syndicates learnt of plans to carry out maintenance works in housing estates, they might even purchase flats in these estates and then they would collectively take actions targeting the works. Why did they do so? Because the profit was substantial. According to some statistics, when bid-rigging is involved, the maintenance costs of a housing estate can be almost double the normal prices. In other words, for maintenance works costing $100 million originally, the bid-riggers can ask for $200 million. So, this "sky" of maintenance has long been blackened. Worse still, some professionals or authorized persons have conspired with others to provide one-stop services. It is because they can operate under the names of many companies, and even if their companies are revealed to have problems, they can simply change the names of the companies. Some time ago I provided evidence to the Chief Executive-elect, Carrie LAM, about a consultancy found to be a bid-rigging syndicate in bidding for engineering works. Subsequently, it changed the company name at the Companies Registry and again submitted a tender for works in the same housing estate and was ultimately awarded the contract.

Therefore, it has already become a very serious problem. In order to secure a works contract, the maintenance consultant obviously has to carry out a large amount of lead work in the housing estate whether by challenging the owners' corporation ("OC") or by driving a wedge between OC members. In short, they will do it by fair means or foul, and all the methods employed by them are meant to stake their claims. If they, during the tender procedures, managed to stake their claims, the pockets of the people are actually set to suffer great losses.

The residents have put up some resistance by, for instance, turning to government departments, such as the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC"), the Police or the District Offices ("DOs"), for assistance. But regrettably, these departments have their respective duties and work separately in their own way. When attending owners' meetings, the representatives of DOs said that they could do nothing, for they were attending the meetings not to provide legal advice and so, they just sat there. What use is it for them to just sit there? Nobody has any idea about the role played by them. Then, when the residents lodged a complaint with ICAC, ICAC said that they did not have any evidence. But they went to ICAC to make a report obviously in the hope that ICAC would carry out an investigation. Had they been able to produce the evidence, those people would long have been arrested. When they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9577 made a report at the police station, the Police told them that the officers responsible for the RenoSafe Scheme were busy and so, they should not come for them for minor issues.

Therefore, the entire situation has made the owners feel utterly helpless and this explains why some civil organizations have been set up in the community. But much to our regret, relying on these civil organizations alone may only help remind owners to be more vigilant. Besides, when a large number of civil organizations are involved in fighting bid-rigging, negative effects may sometimes arise. For instance, some people engaging in politics may seize the opportunity to hype up the issue and of course, I do not wish to see this happen. Moreover, after the residents have developed a stronger awareness of precaution, they may become suspicious of each other because they basically cannot tell who are involved in bid-rigging or whether bid-rigging is involved, thinking that people who hold different views are definitely bid-riggers. If such being the case, peace in the community would be jeopardized and neighbourhood relationship would turn sour as the residents suspect each other and may ignore their neighbours when running into them in the elevator because they do not see eye to eye with each other.

In fact, this was the case in many housing estates in the past. Some owners told us that they did not wish to see this happen in their estates. But what can they do to avert this situation? We consider that the Government cannot simply stick to the few measures that it used to adopt, including the "Smart Tender" scheme. The "Smart Tender" scheme may be helpful to only a small number of people, but is it possible to fend off these massive bid-rigging syndicates by relying on the "Smart Tender" scheme alone? I think there is a huge gap between them in terms of strength.

I hope that the Government will cease to turn a blind eye to this situation but focus on the procedures of the tender exercise. Is it a must to commission a consultant for the maintenance works? Can the Government engage people other than consultants to provide assistance to the owners? Earlier on Mr Wilson OR proposed the establishment of an independent authority. Truly enough, I think a bureau or a committee can be assigned to coordinate maintenance works and then there can be involvement by representatives from various departments, or URA can be tasked to identify people who genuinely have both the will and the ability to combat bid-rigging to chair this committee responsible for coordinating maintenance works and looking into ways of combating bid-rigging. We have approved the $300 million funding for the 9578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Government, and we do not wish to see these funds being thrown down the drain for no good cause. A lot of tasks can be accomplished with this $300 million but if all of it is spent on just one initiative, it is foreseeable that the situation where money is snatched from the pockets of the people through bid-rigging will remain serious.

Therefore, I hope that the new Government can have the resolve to combat bid-rigging and rescue the small property owners. There are now increasingly more problems concerning building maintenance, and the prices of such works may be fluctuating. We hope that the Government can provide assistance and establish a dedicated committee to coordinate maintenance works. I am full of expectations for the next-term Government. I hope the new Government will immediately announce the relevant measures after its assumption of office.

President, I so submit.

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, I must make a declaration before all else. I am the chairman of the owners' committee of a large housing estate comprising over 2 700 units on Hong Kong Island.

Bid-rigging has turned into a "malignant tumour" in society and the most thorny problem in building management. Busy at work during the daytime, Hong Kong people naturally want to take a bit of rest after returning home from work. If they are so unlucky to encounter bid-rigging and still have to be troubled by related matters after returning home, they will actually be unable to live a happy life. I know some victims who not only have to worry about an enormous amount of maintenance fees but also have to face various disputes long term. All this is an ordeal and absolutely a mental torture to them.

Bid-rigging has turned increasingly serious day after day mainly due to the colossal sums of money involved in maintenance. The amount can be as much as tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. This has naturally induced many unruly elements to set their eyes on such projects. Besides, some of the existing laws regulating building management are already obsolete or not stringent enough, thus enabling unruly elements to succeed without much difficulty. During my participation in the work of the owners' committee throughout all these years, I have personally seen some major loopholes in the building management system. Some examples concern the process of setting up owners' LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9579 corporations ("OCs"), OCs' passage of resolutions and the proxy instrument mechanism. I have come to realize that there is a persistent lack of regulation or checks and balances in these aspects, and this has enabled unruly elements to do whatever they want by exploiting the loopholes. As I have already discussed the relevant details on various occasions previously, I will not repeat them today.

In fact, this Council has actively followed up the issue of building management and held many related motion debates over all these years, including the debate on bid-rigging today, and Members have raised many proposals. In gist, the Government must amend the legislation in order to plug the loopholes. I have also conveyed my practical experience to the Government in detail. The consultation paper recently published by the Government on the proposed amendment of the Building Management Ordinance has also taken on board some of my proposals.

The amendment proposals put forth various measures targeting at bid-rigging. One example is that the quorum of a general meeting for the purpose of passing a resolution on endorsing a large-scale maintenance project will be raised from the original 10% to 20% of all property owners, at least 10% of whom shall attend the meeting in person, as a means of raising the threshold of approving a works project. Besides, in order to prevent an OC from endorsing a works project with the voting support of a handful of property owners holding large numbers of "proxy instruments" (commonly known as "proxy forms"), property owners will be allowed to expressly state their voting instructions on such authorizations, and the number of proxy forms held by each person must not exceed 5% of all property owners.

I generally agree to these directions of amendment. But speaking of the management standards and established practices that OCs must follow, the Government has said that it will adhere to the existing mode of issuing codes of practice setting out best practices only. I have great reservations about this approach because in practicality, such codes of practice are not legally binding. Even if anyone utterly fails to follow them, he will not have to bear any consequences or liabilities. Failing to achieve any practical effects, such codes of practice will be utterly unable to deter those parties with ulterior motives. The Government did not enact stringent rules and regulations in the past because it wanted property owners to form OCs on their own to take up the legal responsibilities for their buildings. The result shows that the Government has successfully achieved this objective, in the sense that OCs have been formed in 9580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 many buildings. But after the passage of some time, many shortcomings have emerged. The Government considers that the addition of criminal liability in such codes of practice may undermine people's desire to participate in OCs. But actually, as long as people do not break the law, they utterly need not worry about any subsequent criminal liability. We must realize that self-discipline alone is not sufficient to stop unruly elements (including OC members with ulterior motives) from committing forgery. Criminal liability should be added to certain codes of practice, to say the very least.

Besides, even if the amendment proposals are passed in the end, we still have to count on government departments to enforce the law properly and exercise regulation. At present, the Home Affairs Bureau and the Home Affairs Department are in charge of these tasks. But their workloads are already very heavy, so they will utterly be unable to cope if they are required to enhance their regulatory efforts. For this reason, I agree to setting up an additional dedicated department or even entrust an existing statutory body (such as the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA"), which is responsible for implementing the "Smart Tender" scheme) with the dedicated task of comprehensively overseeing building maintenance. I believe this can bring forth more effective law enforcement and even provide residents with comprehensive assistance in building maintenance.

Furthermore, the "Smart Tender" scheme is also an important tool for combating bid-rigging. The Budget delivered by Financial Secretary Paul CHAN this year specifically proposes to earmark $300 million for property owners participating in URA's "Smart Tender" scheme at a concessionary rate. It is projected that 4 500 buildings will benefit from this in the next five years. I think it is absolutely a benevolent measure. Meanwhile, URA has also relaxed the application requirements to enable an overwhelming majority of buildings currently with owners' organizations to make applications to the scheme. I hope the Government can undertake vigorous publicity, or even proactively invite the participation of buildings with such needs. I believe that after large numbers of buildings have conducted maintenance works with the assistance of the "Smart Tender" scheme, sufficient market information can be made available for property owners' reference. By that time, it will naturally be difficult for anyone to succeed in bid-rigging.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9581

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong now sees the most thriving need for building maintenance services, at its peak in history. So, bid-rigging is very likely to occur, and this problem has become most critical. Recently, the FactWire News Agency and an economics scholar called Prof Tommy LEUNG have analysed some 200 works projects and found to their surprise that these projects in general showed signs of bid-rigging, including unreasonably low consultancy fees, the award of works contracts to a handful of companies and contractors engaging in commercial behaviour in violation of normal competition. At least 75 housing estates or buildings involved in these 200 or so works projects were given government subsidies, accounting for one third of the total. Among them, 67 works projects were given subsidies under the Operation Building Bright, and 9 under the subsequent Integrated Building Maintenance Assistance Scheme ("IBMAS"). As found from the tender information concerning those 75 housing estates or buildings, there is little difference between government-subsidized housing estates and the overall market when it comes to bid-rigging. Members can imagine the severity of this problem as they can even notice the presence of bid-rigging under IBMAS.

As a famous quotation by Dayo WONG goes: "Do not restrain your appetite in buffets; do not get high scores when cheating in exams." Applying it to the case of bid-rigging, it will become: "Do not go too far in bid-rigging; do not let competition look so fake." So, companies participating in bid-rigging will very often adopt the tactic of submitting "accompanying bids", in an attempt to create the illusion of competition among various companies. Even if bid-rigging companies have already agreed among themselves on which company among them is to win a tender, the rest of these companies will submit higher bids all the same―But of course, they will not win the tender. In some cases, they will offer monetary advantages to other companies as a means of inducing them to submit "bogus bids", so as to create the illusion of competition.

As we have learnt from many cases involving maintenance works of housing estates, disputes resulting from bid-rigging include astronomical fees for maintenance works projects and unnecessary additional works items after works commencement. And, what is more important is the varied standards of works consultancy services. Since most housing estates seldom provide any information on works progress during the works process, all will already be too late when property owners notice anything suspicious in a works project.

9582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Under the Building Management Ordinance ("BMO") (Cap. 344), property owners may form owners' corporations ("OCs") on their own. But due to the concentration of powers in OCs and their substantial financial reserves, OCs are susceptible to manipulation by people with ulterior motives and may be turned into a shield for unruly elements. Small property owners as "the egg in the face of the high wall" can only succumb to their unreasonable demands.

Most property owners are not familiar with the construction industry and works requirements, so they very often have to rely on the advice of works consultants. We can see from this that if property owners inadvertently engage an unscrupulous consultancy and follow its advice very closely, those with ulterior motives may rest assured that the maintenance projects for the entire housing estate will definitely be awarded to them. The most classical example―I once received complaints and requests for assistance from the relevant property owners―is the complaint about bid-rigging involving Garden Vista and the resultant astronomical maintenance fees. In the end, it was found that a property manager in charge of property management on the housing estate and a senior staff member of the same company had received bribes respectively amounting to $2.6 million and $15 million (respectively being 1% and 6% of the total project fee for the renovation of the housing estate) from a maintenance company in suspected collusion with many others as rewards for their assistance to the latter in winning the works consultancy and renovation works contracts.

Besides, 60% of the buildings in Hong Kong are managed by property management companies. But the industry is marked by varied standards. Engaging a suitable management company can be likened to choosing a boyfriend or a girlfriend, in the sense that the choice of a good company can certainly avoid any worries and put the minds of property owners at ease. But in case a poor company is chosen, the building concerned may have to face various problems. Generally speaking, small property owners may be concerned about the arbitrary levy of fees by their management companies and in turn have to bear heavier expenses on daily management. In some more serious cases, they even have to worry about the risk of court proceedings against their buildings due to improper arrangements on the part of their management companies and contract disputes, and the resultant huge compensations.

Early this year, the Home Affairs Bureau announced the proposed amendments to BMO, including the introduction of a three-tier system for large-scale maintenance projects. As for the percentage of property owners LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9583 required for the passage of a resolution on a works project, it will be raised from 10% to 20%, along with the requirement for the personal attendance of at least 10% of these property owners at the relevant general meeting. Besides, the regulation of the use of property owners' proxy instruments will also be enhanced to the effect of requiring that each authorized person cannot represent more than 5% of all property owners.

But what is the reality? Disputes may arise between property owners and OCs during their discussions on works projects. After the endorsement of works projects, some OC chairmen and members may resort to every possible means to delay the holding of owners' general meetings or simply refuse to do so. Some OCs refuse to convene general meetings on the pretext that their chairmen have already resigned. If small property owners who see an urgent need to shelve a works project for suspicions that it involves bid-rigging face their OC's tactful delay in convening a general meeting, they will be unable to counter the situation when the works project has already commenced and become a fait accompli.

In its amendment of BMO this time around, the Government has not formulated any express rules or regulations targeting at collusion among OC members (or commonly known as "OC rodents"). At present, a small housing estate may consist of a few hundred households, and in the case of a large housing estate, there may be a few thousand households. Their expenses on the daily monitoring of works projects may range from a few million dollars to a few hundred million dollars. Managing tremendous resources for their housing estates, OC members should be given powers and bear responsibilities. Should we refrain from imposing heavy criminal liability on OC members who deliberately break the law and disregard the Government just because they are volunteers? That said, we cannot preclude the possibility that certain unruly elements may volunteer to take up the duty of monitoring the substantial expenses of housing estates for the purpose of facilitating their collusion with external engineering companies outside.

For these reasons, many Members have proposed that the Government should expeditiously set up a regulatory authority to take charge of the dedicated task of regulating building maintenance and confer on it the statutory function of formulating related maintenance guidelines and legally binding codes of practice. It may impose severe penalties on those consultancies and contractors in violation of such guidelines or codes of practice, such as making public condemnations and suspending their licences. All these can facilitate regulation of the quality of the 9584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 building maintenance market, prevent the black sheep in the industry from tarnishing the reputation of the entire building maintenance industry, provide people with objective criteria in selecting suitable consultancies or contractors, and mend the existing problem-ridden BMO. That way, all property owners in Hong Kong can receive safer, more comprehensive and building management services and protection of a higher quality and in turn truly live in peace and work with contentment.

DR YIU CHUNG-YIM (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I am speaking on today's motion in three capacities. I am a building surveyor who once have been in charge of building maintenance works. I also have many years of experience in the study of property management and tendering. Moreover, there has recently been a suspected bid-rigging incident in the housing estate where I live; as a victim myself, I have gained some profound experience from it. Combining my experiences in these three aspects, I see the crux of the problem and that is, on the one hand, the Government mandates building maintenance while owners have no choice at all; and on the other, the Government has turned a blind eye to, or even deliberately connived at, illegal bid-rigging activities. On the one hand, the Government pressurizes owners into carrying out maintenance, and on the other, it does not regulate illegal activities nor provide any assistance, and even encourage unlawful groups to engage in bid-rigging, turning owners into victims. One of the most serious loopholes, as many Honourable colleagues have already pointed out, is the falsification of proxy forms under the existing Building Management Ordinance ("BMO").

In fact, in the public hearing of the Legislative Council held last month, the attendees clearly and unanimously presented to the government representatives the myriads of problems surrounding the existing proxy form system and its lack of regulation. The Ordinance permits the proxy form system but totally evades the regulatory responsibility. The Government has refused involvement in the matter: it has not done a proper job of verifying the proxy instruments and also would not assist owners in the follow-up of questions or problems relating to the proxy forms. Even there are witnesses and evidence to prove the use of falsified proxy forms, the Government will not intervene. Even if a report is made to the Police, it will be left unsettled like a stone dropped into the sea. As a result, a number of cases involving falsified proxy forms have already helped unlawful groups identify the loopholes of the existing legislation, which they in turn exploit to defraud building owners of money or win the tender for maintenance works by deception.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9585

However, minority owners feel they cannot do anything and their complaints will not be accepted. The Government will not handle the complaints, only saying they are disputes among owners which can be resolved on their own. In many cases, the simplest request made by owners was to verify the authenticity of the proxy forms. When the request was not granted, they then requested to pass the forms to an independent professional who could verify the authenticity for them. But even such a request was not granted and the Government does not provide any assistance, thus aggravating the problem into an enormous black hole. When falsified proxy instruments appear in all owners' committees, unlawful groups can do whatever they want. Even if some very outspoken owners are willing to come forward and take the lead to question the proxy forms, the usual outcome is, given the infiltration of triad forces into these unlawful groups, owners who have taken the lead to question the proxy forms would often be subjected to intimidation, eventually making it impossible to find out the truth.

As a result, bid-rigging in the last few years has caused people to completely lose faith in the entire system which comprises owners' corporations, property management companies, consultants and contractors. People become anxious and even the trust among owners is gone. Yet the Government pressurizes them into carrying out maintenance. Under a totally collapsed system with complete loss of mutual trust, the only solution to the problem is enhancing credibility, in order that people's confidence can be restored. Therefore, we call on the Government to intervene and bear direct responsibility by assuming the role of a notary, including taking charge of the verification of proxy forms, presiding over tender exercises, as well as providing assistance in convening residents' meetings. The Government must intervene as a notary to reassure minority owners that they are assisted by a reliable organization.

The last point I wish to make is that I have been proposing the establishment of some professional teams under the District Councils to provide assistance in building maintenance. Equipped with professional know-how, members of these professional teams can properly monitor the maintenance works in the capacity of public officers. They can help with cost analyses to avoid bid-rigging and price manipulation by unruly elements and also monitor the quality of works, thus solving the problems of illegal construction such as unauthorized building works at the same time. Through professional teams of public officers who render assistance to owners in the community in the conduct 9586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 of maintenance works, the Government can command public confidence afresh and properly keep the gate for property management and building maintenance.

I so submit.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, in a blink of an eye, it has been nearly 17 years since I became a District Council ("DC") member in 2000. I am a DC member of the Kowloon City District, which is one of the districts in Hong Kong with the largest number of old buildings. Hence, in discharging my duty as a DC member over the past decade or so, I have spent a lot of time offering assistance in dealing with problems of old buildings, including their compliance with various maintenance orders issued by the Government and dealing with management matters.

In the face of this question, I have lots of feelings about it. Over the past decade or so, I can see that district issues have become more numerous and complicated. First, buildings are gaining years in age, which is also a natural phenomenon. Since I have been a DC member for a decade or so, buildings are naturally 10 years or so older now, and there is an increasing number of old buildings in the community, too. Moreover, based on the current pace of redevelopment by the Urban Renewal Authority and the private sector, I reckon that the phenomenon of ageing buildings will remain unchanged. What problems will arise in tandem with the ageing of buildings? Not only will water leakage worsen, but the problem of old buildings plagued with illegal structures will also remain unresolved. Furthermore, the incentive of sub-dividing a flat will become greater. As the size of old buildings is relatively large, the possibility of them being turned into sub-divided units for lease will naturally become greater. This explains why old buildings aged 40 or 50 years are often found to have water leakage problems, and a growing number of sub-divided units can also be found everywhere in the community.

Apart from facing more and more problems, buildings also face more and more orders issued by the Government―this relates to the Secretary for Development. In dealing with the work related to orders issued by the Government soon after I became a DC member, I was mainly responsible for assisting property owners in carrying out maintenance. Subsequently, with the endorsement of the building and window inspection schemes, the Government issued further orders for building and window inspections, which were followed by orders related to fire safety, illegal structures, and so on. All in all, the same LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9587 building in a district will often receive orders issued by different government departments at different times, not to mention the order issued by the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department on compliance with Form WR2 and many other orders. In order to comply with these orders, members of the public are literally kept constantly on the run. Moreover, a lot of grievances have been triggered because in order to comply with an order, money has to be spent. Members should be able to imagine that old property owners living in old buildings aged over 40 or 50 years do not have much money. As such, they will have problems whenever they are requested to make contributions.

It is also regrettable to find that the situation of bid-rigging syndicates infiltrating the community and buildings is worsening. I have mentioned this in the past, too. Simply put, these syndicates have indeed become more and more organized. Moreover, they appear to be operating in a "through train" manner. When some syndicates set their eyes on certain larger or older buildings―they are literally operating in a "through train" manner―they will first seek to become members of the owners' corporations ("OCs") of these buildings by way of proxy forms before pushing for building maintenance, and in doing so, some people will likewise participate in general meetings by way of proxy forms. When we attend general meetings as Legislative Council Members, we will often come across attendees who look familiar, because they will attend many general meetings. They will also cause a stir whenever discussions on maintenance are held. I believe the Legislative Council will invariably express strong views whenever these issues are discussed, because we have actually seen the infiltration of bid-rigging syndicates, which are operating in a "through-train" manner, into the community.

I also hope that the Government can address squarely the fact that, while the rising maintenance fees may be linked to bid-rigging, it is actually attributed to the exceedingly large number of orders and projects, as well as rising quantity, prices, and workers' wages. The maintenance fees, which ranged from $40,000 to $50,000 when I was a DC member, already caused an outcry among property owners. Now the project costs generally reach $80,000 to $100,000, or even exceeds $100,000, or $200,000. It is really impossible for old or honest property owners to bear the rising maintenance fees. I very much hope that the new-term Government can accord high priority to the handling of building problems or combat of bid-rigging. Otherwise, these "community time bombs" will only grow bigger and bigger and lead to the accumulation of grievances among the people.

9588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

As time is running out, I will only talk about the contents of some of the amendments proposed by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong today. First, to expeditiously plug the loopholes of the Building Management Ordinance ("BMO"). We should also be fair to the Government, for it has actually addressed squarely the changes in the community. As a member of the Review Committee on the Building Management Ordinance, I believe the Government has striven to respond to the aspiration of society by proposing these amendments. Although there are still some disputes in society, I think one of the core issues that the Government has all along refused to face is that there is actually no one to enforce the existing BMO.

Simply put, BMO requires OCs to give notices of meeting seven days in advance. However, if OCs do not comply with this requirement and complaint letters are sent to the Home Affairs Department ("HAD"), the only action that can be taken is to issue warning letters. In fact, owners can only make requests for law enforcement to the Lands Tribunal. Based on my experience accumulated over the years, no grass-roots owners in the old districts would be willing to spend money on requesting the Lands Tribunal to enforce these requirements of BMO. To put it in simple terms, obedient OCs will naturally comply with the relevant requirements, but disobedient OCs will only make owners angry. I hope the Bureau and particularly the new-term Government can address squarely the problem of there being no agency to enforce BMO. HAD is currently not responsible for law enforcement. Actually, it is in a very difficult position. Furthermore, in order to address this issue, I believe a "building affairs tribunal" should be set up to deal with the relevant issues as a court in a summary manner.

Lastly, I hope the Government can be more generous in offering subsidies. Given that the Government can provide so many subsidies for public housing maintenance and with a growing number of private buildings confronting us, why can the Government not offer subsidies to old occupier-owners through the "Smart Tender" scheme without requiring them to undergo any means test? In addition to substantive subsides, technical assistance is required, too. Currently, the "Smart Tender" scheme merely provides assistance in tender assessment without offering substantive technical assistance. I hope the Secretary can adopt a different mindset, otherwise public grievances will only continue to snowball. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms LEE, your speaking time is up. Please stop.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9589

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I will not repeat the comments already made. However, there is one point which I consider strange. We all know that Hong Kong is a society treasuring the rule of law and probity. We have the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") and many other law enforcement agencies. Yet in the domain of building maintenance, we have the impression that the Government has been weak, incapable and apathetic throughout the years.

In fact, bid-rigging is nothing new. The problem was exposed when the case of Garden Vista in Sha Tin, involving a maintenance cost of $263 million, was revealed and the persons concerned were subsequently imprisoned. Yet, the case of Garden Vista is only the tip of the iceberg. Bid-rigging practices have been carried on for so many years that it has seemingly become a usual practice.

I heard Members mention some cases of old buildings earlier. A few years ago, a friend of mine lived in a luxury flat in Ho Man Tin, that is, flats dubbed "crazily-high-price flats" costing tens of millions of dollars now. The building was aged around 10 years at that time, yet they were affected by bid-rigging. Some parties set eyes on that estate and bought one of the units and then joined the mutual aid committee. They spent a long time to establish their network and obtained proxy forms, and eventually, over a hundred million dollars were charged for maintenance fees. Subsequently, the case was made public and the property owners of the two opposing camps took the case to court.

I have quoted this case to point out that bid-rigging operators are making money by hook or by crook because the Government has condoned such practices for years. It is true that the Government has amended or reviewed the relevant legislation and tried to plug the loopholes by means of amendments to the Building Management Ordinance, which include raising the percentage of property owners attending the general meeting of an owners' corporation ("OC") to 20% and imposing more stringent procedures in handling proxy forms. However, these arrangements cannot help property owners. To most property owners who have to work every day, they can hardly attend to so many issues. Though they know a general meeting of the OC is to be held to discuss a works project costing tens of millions of dollars, they may find their proxy forms already taken away by others even though they can make it to the meeting.

The "Smart Tender" scheme implemented by the Government currently is somehow useful. At present, there are 10 000 OCs in Hong Kong. Since property owners are held accountable for the maintenance of their buildings under 9590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 a number of ordinances, such as replacement of windows, handling water leakage and fire safety, and so on, these OCs will have to face the problems of bid-rigging or maintenance in future even if they may not have to deal with them for the moment. Even for new buildings, property owners will be facing difficulties eight to 10 years later when they have to carry out maintenance works for windows and external walls.

Actually, in 2014, the Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors proposed to the Government that a building maintenance monitoring authority be set up. They pointed out clearly that the monitoring authority, as a public organization, would identify ways to bring these maintenance projects, which many people of Hong Kong are worrying about and in which they have lost confidence, back onto the right track. I do not understand why the Government has all along rejected such a well-intentioned suggestion. It is incomprehensible.

The Government may spend tens of billions of dollars on those "white elephant" projects and $600 million on activities celebrating the 20th anniversary of the reunification without a good cause, yet it is unwilling to undertake these simple tasks. They are not asking the authorities to provide subsidies but only urging them to set up a committee or a monitoring authority composed of professionals, law enforcement agencies like ICAC and voluntary organizations to offer assistance to all buildings.

Some people say that officials from the District Offices ("DOs") excel in playing the puppet at the general meetings of OCs. During the general meetings of OCs, they will merely sit there. Once the discussion at such meetings touches on Cap. 344, they will say that they are incapable of and not responsible for handling those issues. Such practices will only allow more bid-rigging syndicates to take advantage of these loopholes. These syndicates know the various scenarios well, and they know that DOs are useless and their staff will only sit at the meetings. So if they can obtain an adequate number of proxy forms, the DOs have no way to stop them. Even if a tendering exercise has to be carried out, it will not be a problem to them, for they can arrange for a consultant to submit a tender at a low cost and do the rip-off later. A pattern has been formed, and they all know this is a way to make money.

The Government is either foolish or deaf. It is foolish, that is why it knows nothing about the situation. It is deaf, so it cannot hear anything about the cases. The issue is straightforward. Political parties and groupings do not have any disagreement over the issue, and they all want the Government to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9591 intervene. In fact, it is not common for the people of Hong Kong to ask the Government to intervene, as we often ask the Government to keep its hands off. However, issues concerning building maintenance are thorny, for they involve legal aspects, professionals, tendering exercises and works supervision, and so on, and thus assistance from the Government is essential. At present, the best approach is to set up a monitoring authority or a register. In fact, certain societies and professional institutes have offered to provide assistance free of charge. Yet, they cannot intervene in those cases, for they also fear that ICAC may initiate prosecutions against them if they do so. The Government is the only party which can provide assistance to spare property owners worries in carrying out building maintenance works in future.

In my opinion, irrespective of the number of amendments we pass today, if the Government does not take any action, the problem will remain unsolved after one year, five years or even ten years. Hence, I hope the Government will do something about it seriously to help the small property owners. I so submit.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, there is a Western saying that goes like this: "A house is not a home". In Hong Kong, it is less often the case that people live in a house, so we had better say, "A flat is not a home". When the public can afford buying a flat after much sweat and toil, it nevertheless transpires that their nightmare is not yet over. It is because flats are sold in a very special way in Hong Kong as they have come up with the idea of dividing the ownership into numerous shares and then selling the flats one by one. This is different from foreign countries where people live in detached houses that are clearly located in certain places while the streets outside the houses are jointly managed by the residents. However, Hongkongers live in buildings and management is downright impossible because too many ownership shares are involved.

Therefore, as we discuss the motion on "Combating bid-rigging to defend the rights and interests of property owners" now, I think the word "small" should be added to make it "small property owners". The property developers are most despicable as they made small property owners sign lengthy, densely-printed agreements and regarding that Deed of Mutual Covenant ("DMC"), you simply cannot do anything about it. In most cases, DMC is a lot more favourable to the property developers and can hardly be overruled. This is one of the problems. For example, under the Building Management Ordinance, the number of shares taken up by the flats above makes little difference because the shopping mall 9592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 below them accounts for the largest number of shares. Simple enough, the shop owners lease their shops out for rent and they are set to make backroom deals with the property developers because their interests are closely related. This has led to a most undesirable situation where people doing business in the shops always hold more shares than the residents living in the flats above because it is not the number of flats but the number of shares that counts. It means that everything is done for the interests of those people downstairs and this has infuriated the residents above as they question, "What does the shopping mall downstairs have to do with me?" The maintenance costs are spent with undue emphases given to works or projects not related to the residents. This is only one example. There can be many types of owners, and the minority owners are most miserable.

With regard to this commercial or market-related problem, when housing is taken as an investment or when ownership was consistently divided for the purpose of sales back then, management has thus become impossible, and if, after several decades, the market remains unable to find a solution, government intervention is warranted. In other words, in view of the woes of numerous small property owners in Hong Kong, can the Government target this group of people and provide, in one go, services that the public are denied?

The Government always says that it gives a free hand to the market. Let me give an example. Just now Dr KWOK talked about the performance of the staff of the District Offices ("DOs"). If they saw people fighting and a woman being slapped, and she told me that someone had hit her and then escaped but the Police were far away and when the Police were called in, the staff of DO pretended to be unaware of what happened―Secretary, I am not referring to you; you were still a Member of this Council then―but such a situation can really happen. I asked them how come they did not see it whereas I saw it and so, I called in the Police, but that person is already long gone. Think about this: What will happen to that woman after she was slapped? It will create a deterrent effect on her. The staff of DOs refrain from getting involved in it because they said that they cannot take up this burden. They cannot take up this responsibility, and what if they got the law wrong? Buddy, they should provide assistance at meetings. Even if they made a mistake once and faced setbacks, the Government has many lawyers to back them up―currently I am involved in five court cases―How possibly can they lose in court? Are they afraid of those consortiums? Yet, they said that they have to remain neutral.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9593

Second, on the part of the Government, the public rental housing ("PRH") flats that have been sold are just the same. Upon the initial introduction of the sale of PRH flats, the Government injected hundreds of millions of dollars into a maintenance fund to provide guarantee for the maintenance costs incurred within 10 years after sale. This fund of hundreds of millions of dollars providing guarantee for 10 years is a cash cow and so, bid-rigging has emerged, prompting some unscrupulous people to purchase the flats and become owners as this can allow them flexibility to take either an aggressive or defensive approach. They definitely will not suffer any loss in buying residential flats nowadays and after becoming owners, they can join the owners' corporation ("OCs"), and this is how those people engage in bid-rigging. Wah Ming Estate in Fanling is the clearest example.

Despite the sale of PRH flats by the Government, not all of the flats are put up for sale and some are still excluded from sale. Therefore, the Government is the biggest stakeholder but it outrageously said that it has to remain neutral and that it will not interfere with the market. Buddy, when the market is helpful to you, you can leave it alone; when the market is not helpful to you, you certainly have to do something. This is like keeping a dog. If the dog is good to you, you get along with it well; if it falls sick, you have to treat it; if it suddenly turns mad and bites you, you have got to do something.

However, what is the position of the Government? With regard to those people who became small property owners after buying these flats, the Government said that the flats are their property and the Government just could not care less. Buddy, now that problems have emerged, and the Government must do something, such as making legislative amendments and then enhancing enforcement capabilities after the legislation is amended. When this is the situation even for public housing managed and mostly owned by the Government, can things be any better for other buildings?

Now the Government said that $300 million would be allocated. Buddy, as I told them outside this Chamber just now, there are certainly people who welcome this type of business but the Hong Kong Housing Society has set foot in this domain for no reason and now, even the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") is enlisted. Is this the job of URA? URA is responsible for acquiring lots and constructing housing flats and then putting them up for sale at market prices. While they may not get rich in developing housing projects, those people in the management are remunerated with high salaries and attractive perks, so how will 9594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 they bother to take care of these matters? It is a waste of time to make them take up this task.

To really tackle the problem, $300 million is not enough, and $1.3 billion should be provided. A committee must be established and a commissioner appointed to take up this job, similar to the Independent Commission Against Corruption. It is necessary to engage people with the skills and expertise. A committee should be set up to conduct consultations and introduce legislative amendments, followed by enforcement of law. All in all, $300 million is inadequate, and $3 billion should be allocated for this purpose. Money should not be spent on constructing the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridget. It should be spent for our own sake.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of Mr KWOK Wai-keung's amendment.

President, I am a District Council member serving a constituency which comprises Home Ownership Scheme estates. Bid-rigging is a major concern to our residents, particularly because the management company of one of our estates has also been a victim of a bid-rigging case. For this reason, our residents are very much concerned about bid-rigging.

Some time ago a news organization collected data and found that one third of the 200 works companies have actually won bids, of which 18 of them have taken up half of the 200 projects, while 15% of the consultancies have taken up 80% of the projects. So, what are the remaining companies doing? How do they carry on their business? Given our reasonable suspicions, we consider that these are actually shell companies engaged in bid-rigging, otherwise we cannot think of any reason why these unsuccessful bidders can manage to carry on their business. Therefore, such market ecology is actually most unhealthy.

In fact, bid-rigging in connection with buildings has been plaguing Hong Kong for years. Instead of showing any sign of improvement, the situation has gone from bad to worse. We need only take a look at the figures released by the Competition Commission in 2016 to find that the situation is far from satisfactory as it has received almost 300 bid-rigging cases. It seems that at present, members of the public can do nothing even if they know it full well that bid-rigging is unlawful. As regards the current market ecology in which LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9595 bid-rigging has become a norm, the Government should actually bear some responsibility for what it did back in the old days.

As far as I understand it, the Government actually seeks to enable property owners to manage their estates in the capacity as shareholders, just like company shareholders. But there are several particularly material shortcomings which have rendered the operation of owners' corporations ("OCs") unsuccessful. First, buying shares is an active act, while residents are in a passive position when they are forced to get involved in the work of OCs of their estates. Second, the management and control of general meetings are much laxer than that of shareholders' general meetings. The Home Affairs Department will monitor the formation of OCs in accordance with the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344). But it totally pales in comparison with the regulation of the management of listed companies or shareholders' general meetings by the Securities and Futures Commission, and it is actually impossible to achieve such a stringent level of monitoring. Third, minority shareholders are offered relatively fewer options at shareholders' general meetings. For example, in its last shareholders' general meeting, the MTR Corporation Limited allowed its shareholders to elect whether to take a special dividend, and the shareholders just needed to elect whether to take it or not.

Nevertheless, general meetings are far more complicated as they have to deal with items as trivial as the details of every single project, such as whether marbles or tiles should be used for the lobbies, or whether high-end or low-priced materials should be used. Choices have to be made on all such matters at general meetings. Hence, for those residents who have a regular job and only have time after work, will they still be readily available to attend to such matters? In fact, they can barely do so.

Fourth, actually the proxy forms for shareholders' general meetings are relatively more stringent and require choice making, just like the property owners' proxy instruments following the legislative amendment exercise that we are about to take forward now. But so far, the proxy forms for general meetings purely serve to appoint other persons who will then be free to vote. Hence, I can only say that the conduct of general meetings currently is so terrible that it can only be regarded as an inferior copy of shareholders' general meetings. As a result, no matter how shrewd Hong Kong people are, they cannot avoid falling victim to bid-rigging.

9596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

Another issue is that the flow of project information is actually grossly ineffective with extremely low transparency in the Hong Kong market, thereby rendering property owners unable to make rational choices. We offer no way for property owners to make an apple-to-apple comparison, and as they are unable to make such a comparison, how can they avoid bid-rigging? For example, if we make a comparison with a neighbouring estate which may have conducted a luxurious or mediocre maintenance project, while our own estate may prefer a luxurious maintenance project, it already involves choices at two entirely different price levels. While we are unable to make an apple-to-apple comparison, how can we know whether or not the tender prices received by our estate have been manipulated? Consequently, the prices of maintenance works of buildings have gradually become a cash cow in the eyes of unruly elements.

On the other hand, the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme and the Mandatory Window Inspection Scheme launched in 2012 are actually beneficial to members of the public. This is a proper approach particularly for those older estates in a state of disrepair. But it so happens that fuelled by market malpractices, bid-rigging has run rampant consequential to this, thereby creating a hotbed of bid-rigging which in turn facilitates its development into a norm.

President, I wish to point out that the Government is duty-bound to make a greater commitment to combating bid-rigging of buildings, and we also notice that the Government is not unaware of the crux of the issue. For example, the review of the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344) actually covers a number of areas in relation to bid-rigging, including the definition of large-scale works projects and the relevant definitions of OC meetings dealing with large-scale works projects. But I believe there is still a long way to go before bid-rigging can be eradicated.

I hope both the Secretary for Development and the Secretary for Home Affairs can complete the review of the legislation expeditiously, and also provide the Home Affairs Department with additional resources and manpower so as to cope with the future workload which will only increase because I know from first-hand experience that frontline Liaison Officers of the Home Affairs Department are really burdened with a heavy workload, with some of whom having to manage four or five estates. If they are asked to attend to every single matter, be it big or small, actually it will be a mission impossible. I hope the Bureau can increase resources in order to perfect the overall building management system and protect the rights and interests of small property owners.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9597

Furthermore, I very much agree with Mr KWOK Wai-keung, who proposes in his amendment that the Government should expeditiously establish a one-stop maintenance information platform and database, thereby enabling small property owners and OCs to make informed judgment and comparison about project prices and avoiding the unreasonable situation in which we are only offered durians and watermelons for comparison while we actually prefer apples today.

All in all, on tackling the bid-rigging issue, the Government must be determined to resume a leading role and commit more resources to it under a two-pronged approach, from educating property owners (The buzzer sounded) …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, your speaking time is up. Please stop.

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, bid-rigging has subjected many property owners and residents to immense financial and psychological pressure. Owners feel even more helpless about having to meet high maintenance fees while suffering the low quality of works. The bid-rigging incident of Garden Vista in Sha Tin in 2013 is a classic example.

Given the ageing of buildings, there is indeed no cause for complaint if owners are required to carry out maintenance of their residential buildings so as not to repeat tragedies such as the collapse of a tenement building collapse in Ma Tau Wai Road. The problem is the Government has shirked its responsibility of building maintenance and passed it to the owners' corporations ("OCs") so owners have to find works companies on their own. Unfortunately, many owners lack relevant knowledge of or sensitivity in the issue but only keep authorizing OC members as proxy, creating opportunities for unruly elements to cheat to win building maintenance contracts by bid-rigging.

Formed specifically for different maintenance works, these bid-rigging syndicates submit bids in the names of completely unrelated companies and let building renovation consultants and contractors collude to take full charge of the through-train fraud operation. In the light of these problems, the Liberal Party considers that the authorities should plug the loopholes of the Building Management Ordinance ("BMO"). Though the authorities have earlier made 9598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 amendment proposals for BMO, the Liberal Party remains doubtful about the feasibility of the proposals, let alone their effectiveness of eradicating bid-rigging.

As regards the passage of resolutions on "large-scale maintenance projects", the proposed amendment raises the quorum of OC meetings from 10% to 20% and the shares of votes for passing resolutions from 50% to 75%. The original intent is to increase participation of owners so as to prevent unruly elements from exploiting opportunities. However, the proposal presents considerable difficulty in execution, eventually leading to either the adjournment of OC meetings due to a lack of quorum or undecided resolutions. Hence, the operation of OCs even becomes more difficult.

In fact, the authorities have been undertaking perfunctory enforcement of law regarding the regulation of OCs. From 2011 to 2015, there were 3 800 complaints about corruption in building management and maintenance, but only 121 people were successively prosecuted, in which only 106 cases were convicted, indicating a pretty low prosecution rate. It is one of the causes for the increasingly rampant bid-rigging problem today. Therefore, the Liberal Party considers that the Government must dial up the vigour of law enforcement currently so as to protect the rights and interests of owners.

The Liberal Party proposes imposing criminal sanctions on OCs which are suspected of violating BMO to create a deterrent effect, thus eradicating the formation of illegal bid-rigging syndicates. As building maintenance involves multiple works items and huge sums of money, the Liberal Party agrees to introducing a cooling-off period for owners so that they can examine the contract terms of the related companies within a reasonable period of time and unconditionally cancel the contracts with refunds, so as to protect the rights and interests of owners.

At present, District Building Management Liaison Teams have been set up in the 18 District Offices to provide comprehensive service on building management for district residents. But the Liaison Officers deal with a heavy workload. They promote good practices of building management, organize courses on building management for members of OC management committees and even give advice to OCs and owners. They also need to arrange for the provision of voluntary professional mediation service. In the beginning of 2015, the Government launched the two-year Free Mediation Service Pilot Scheme for Building Management, which ended in February this year. Though LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9599 well-intentioned, the Scheme was disappointing in actual implementation. Mediators could best be described as "spectators" when attending owners' meetings, completely failing to assist in the mediation of disputes arising therein. The Liberal Party hopes the authorities, apart from increasing the manpower for handling building management problems, will strengthen training for Liaison Officers on mediation of disputes, with a view to tackling the rising number of building management problems.

To minimize the intervention of bid-rigging syndicates in maintenance works of private buildings, the Urban Renewal Authority introduced the "Smart Tender" Building Rehabilitation Facilitating Services ("Smart Tender" scheme) in May 2016 to provide assistance to owners' organizations intending to carry out building maintenance so that owners can obtain information of building maintenance. To further promote the "Smart Tender" scheme, $300 million has been earmarked in the Budget this year for enabling owners of private buildings to use the "Smart Tender" scheme at a great discount. It is worth our support.

President, though the Liberal Party considers the establishment of a "building maintenance works authority" duplication of structure, given the increasingly rampant problem of bid-rigging, the establishment of an authority can standardize the codes of practice and maintenance quality in the industry, formulate practical standards and industry guidelines, and even set up a licensing regime. The Liberal Party does not oppose the establishment of such an authority. We hope that the Government will adopt a multi-pronged approach to solve the problem of bid-rigging.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, you may now speak on the amendments. The time limit is five minutes.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr KWOK Wai-keung for proposing amendments to my original motion. I also thank Members who have spoken in the debate.

9600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

President, I shall first talk about Mr LAU Kwok-fan's amendment. I noticed that Mr LAU proposes the establishment of a "database on building maintenance". Mr KWOK Wai-keung also made a similar proposal. President, this is also advocated by the Property Owners Anti-bid Rigging Alliance and me. We propose to establish a "building maintenance works authority", of which one of the functions is to provide market information for property owners' reference. I fully agree that there is a rather large gap in terms of access to information between owners and bid-rigging syndicates, in particular those with professional participation. Hence, a "database on building maintenance" can provide crucial reference to owners.

Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Dr Fernando CHEUNG's proposal for stepping up the relevant work of the "Smart Tender" scheme is also a right direction to go. The "Smart Tender" scheme was operated as a trial for a short period of time and proven helpful to owners. But does the scheme per se suffice to combat big-rigging? Naturally, the result will not be satisfactory, but at least professionals are there to help owners by providing relatively independent opinions for their reference. Therefore, we support the amendments.

Moreover, Mr Alvin YEUNG mentioned the issues regarding the proxy instrument, that is, the proxy form. In fact, a number of Members who have spoken earlier have touched on this issue. President, this is a very serious problem because the regulation on the proxy form is extremely weak. As I often said, if I participate in building maintenance bid-rigging, I will definitely succeed because the Government basically does not care about the proxy form. People are left to handle it how they want. Bid-rigging syndicates therefore exploit this loophole to manipulate owners' meetings. Therefore, we support this proposal.

Mr YEUNG proposes to introduce a cooling-off period, so did Dr Fernando CHEUNG. We believe it is appropriate to have a cooling-off period in the decision-making process, but how can confusion be pre-empted at the practical level? The Government will have to conduct detailed studies on this.

On the other hand, Mr KWOK Wai-keung proposes to strengthen the manpower of the Competition Commission ("the Commission"), the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the Police. I agree that law enforcement manpower is crucial, especially that of the Commission. When I made contact with the Commission in the past, they have clearly expressed that the legal action fund is financially tight. The Commission may face bid-rigging syndicates LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9601 when pressing charges against any anti-competitive conduct, in which case there may be a large number of defendants and the legal expenses incurred will be several times higher. Hence, we hope that the Government will heed the views of this Council and increase the manpower and resources of the Commission, so as to assist them in combating bid-rigging.

President, the proposal of some Members, including Mr KWOK Wai-keung, for setting up a "building affairs tribunal" is worth consideration. In this way, owners can adopt a more convenient solution in the face of disputes on building maintenance or property management, instead of having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on proceedings in the Lands Tribunal.

President, finally, a Member seeks to delete the phrase "works … have been monopolized by bid-rigging syndicates involving triad members" from my original motion. Some Members questioned whether there is so much triad involvement. I would like to tell Members that, without the backing of triads, it is extremely difficult to engage in the works, not to mention bid-rigging. We have witnessed owners being threatened or even stalked by the so-called neighbours with tattoos and blonde hair, who haven never been seen in the housing estate, when owners raised reasonable questions at meetings. These people intimidated owners so that owners do not dare oppose them anymore.

Therefore, President, we support these amendments. (The buzzer sounded) Thank you.

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

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I am very grateful to Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and the four Members for respectively proposing the motion and the amendments today. I also thank Members for pinpointing various kinds of difficulties faced by property owners in conducting building maintenance and making valuable suggestions about how to prevent and combat bid-rigging in their speeches just now. I will first focus on responding to the views on technical support. Later on, the Secretary for Home Affairs will respond to Members' views in other aspects.

9602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

President, the contents of the motion include the proposal for setting up a "building maintenance works authority" to centrally monitor the conduct of the industry and quality of maintenance, and establishing a statutory body for formulating standards of practice and industry guidelines to ensure fair competition, as well as setting up a licensing system.

As I pointed out in my opening speech earlier, currently a number of law enforcement agencies are responsible for enforcement against illegal activities involved in bid-rigging. The Building Authority and the relevant professional bodies also exercise regulation over the professional standard of related professionals and contractors. Apart from law enforcement and regulation, the relevant organizations provide owners with a lot of technical support in respect of bid-rigging, including codes of practice and individual consultation services. They also provide technical support to owners who need to carry out building maintenance. The Home Affairs Department also conducts extensive public education activities and encourages owners to actively participate in the meetings of owners' corporations, with a view to enhancing the protection of owners' interests in building maintenance. The Government will seriously consider the suggestions concerning law enforcement agencies and the relevant organizations made by Members just now. I also thank Members for asking in the motion about the adequacy of resources of the law enforcement agencies. The relevant law enforcement agencies will review the situation of resources from time to time and make arrangements under the existing mechanism.

The establishment of a separate authority or statutory organization entails cumbersome preparations. If it involves the formulation or amendment of legislation, it will take an extremely long period. In fact, it is distant water which cannot put out a fire nearby. The establishment of an authority or a statutory organization will inevitably incur extra resources. Part of the cost may need to be shifted onto the minority owners. It is necessary to give it careful consideration. Moreover, building maintenance often involves building management. Even if a separate authority or statutory organization is established, it is still difficult to intervene in the disputes over maintenance or other building management matters among the owners. More importantly, now there are already a number of dedicated organizations which respectively monitor building maintenance works with the powers vested by the relevant ordinances in their respective professional disciplines. The Government does not consider that the establishment of a separate authority or statutory organization will be more effective than the existing monitoring system.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9603

President, my colleagues in the Development Bureau and the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") and I consulted the Panel on Development on the "Smart Tender" scheme in March. We are glad to have the general support of the Panel members, and we have listened to the detailed suggestions raised by many Members on the "Smart Tender" scheme at the meetings on that day and today. As I mentioned in my opening speech, now we are discussing the details with URA. We plan to implement the concessionary rate to assist owners in the next quarter.

Here I would like to respond to a Member's suggestion in the motion on extending the scope of services of the "Smart Tender" scheme to include monitoring the progress and acceptance of works. I believe Members will agree that building maintenance is the owners' responsibility. Even if the owners use the services of the "Smart Tender" scheme, they will need to hire a project consultant and oversee the progress and quality of the contractor's works by themselves. If the owners have any doubts about the supervisory work of the project consultant, they may consider hiring a separate independent project supervisor to assist in the acceptance of works. The "Smart Tender" scheme mainly helps owners to conduct, with full information in hand, tendering exercises for engaging contractors through an electronic tendering platform which is fair, impartial, competitive and free from interference by any unruly element. This scheme cannot substitute for the owners' responsibility of ensuring the quality of works.

President, regarding the establishment of a one-stop maintenance information platform and database to enable owners to grasp the correct information on building maintenance works as mentioned in the amendment, now the website of URA contains the "Building Rehab Info Net" which carries an introduction of the subsidy schemes and technical support currently available to owners, the workflow of and frequently asked questions about building rehabilitation, experience sharing of actual building rehabilitation cases, total project costs broken down by age of the building, number of households and scope of works in various districts for reference, and relevant information about other government departments or organizations, including the List of Authorized Person/Registered Inspector provided by the Buildings Department. The contents are rich and practical. Commissioned by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, the University of Hong Kong has used the cost data from cases of the "Operation Building Bright" and launched a website with a building 9604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 maintenance cost estimator for use by the public. It offers considerable reference value in estimating the costs of building maintenance projects.

I would like to respond to the suggestion raised by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok on the one-stop platform. URA is now setting up a "building rehabilitation platform" to further enhance the support for owners. This platform will provide one-stop information on building rehabilitation and maintenance for reference by owners' organizations and property owners during their search for consultants, contractors, works inspectors, etc. when they are planning building maintenance projects. Regarding the comparison of project costs, since the cost of a building maintenance project is affected by factors such as the design and condition of the building, the required items, the selection of works materials, craftsmanship and the demand and supply in the market, the project costs will vary in a wide range, and it is difficult to compare individual cases. In view of this, one of the approaches currently considered by URA is to draft a standard tender document for common maintenance items and on this basis, provide information about the usual project costs for reference. Since the end of last year, URA has been communicating with the industry with regard to the "building rehabilitation platform" so as to expeditiously provide one-stop and more appropriate technical support for owners in need across the territory.

President, to effectively tackle the bid-rigging problem, the Government and various sectors in society must work together, and the relevant owners must also dedicate time and efforts to participating in the preparation for and supervision of building maintenance projects. The Government will maintain communication with various sectors in society, listen to their views and suggestions on the relevant issues and introduce new measures and support where necessary.

President, I so submit.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I once again thank those Members who have spoken for making lots of valuable and constructive suggestions on how best to combat bid-rigging in private building maintenance works to defend the rights and interests of property owners. Just now the Secretary for Development has explained in detail the Government's efforts in enforcement, technical support and professional matters relating to building maintenance and bid-rigging. I will respond to Members' views on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9605 other areas, including the proposed amendments to the Building Management Ordinance ("BMO"), support to owners' corporations ("OCs") and property owners, and publicity and education.

I must reiterate that the purpose of BMO is to provide a legal framework to assist property owners in managing their buildings properly, while the amendments to BMO seek to help reduce the chances of manipulation of maintenance works by a handful of property owners with ulterior motives and minimize future disputes among property owners, OCs and property management companies ("PMCs") over large-scale maintenance works through enhancing transparency of building maintenance projects arranged by OCs and increasing property owners' involvement.

Subsequent to the proposal for some 20 amendments to BMO last May, we again sought views on further legislative proposals to update BMO and the related administrative measures from the Panel on Home Affairs this March, and proposed a total of 34 new legislative and administrative measures in nine areas.

As regards large-scale maintenance projects, in addition to raising the quorum of general meetings for the passage of resolutions, we further propose that a certain percentage of the property owners have to attend such meetings in person, with a view to increasing property owners' involvement.

Moreover, we also refine the definition of "large-scale maintenance projects", setting amounts and adopting the average audited annual expenditure of OCs for the past three years as the benchmark, so as to prevent artificial inflation of the annual budget to circumvent the definition of "large-scale maintenance projects".

Under the existing BMO, if the cost of engaging a consultant is in compliance with the requirements of the procurement provisions, namely 20% of the annual budget of OCs, it shall be passed at an OC general meeting. If BMO requires that the engagement of consultants for large-scale maintenance projects, irrespective of costs, shall be decided by resolutions passed at general meetings, a number of OC general meetings may have to be convened in the period between selection of project consultants and passage of resolutions on "large-scale maintenance projects", which may in turn result in delay in the passage of such resolutions. For this reason, we have to carefully consider and study the proposal in this regard.

9606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

A Member has also proposed that amendments should be introduced to the use of proxy instruments as set out in BMO for enhanced assurance of the rights and interests of property owners. We fully concur that there is a need to refine the proxy arrangements under BMO.

To this end, we put forward a package of proposals last May, including (i) requiring the management committee ("MC") Secretary to display the list of flats with proxy instruments lodged in a prominent place of the building at least 24 hours before a meeting and until seven days after the meeting; (ii) requiring that the maximum number of proxy instruments a person can hold shall not exceed 5% of the property owners; and (iii) requiring the MC Chairman/convenor to announce the number of invalid proxy instruments and justifications for ruling the proxy instruments invalid before the general meeting, and allowing property owners, representatives of property owners and the appointed third party to inspect the proxy instruments ruled invalid by the Chairman, etc. Administrative guidelines have also been issued which OCs are encouraged to adopt as far as practicable.

As regards Members' concerns about the manipulation of proxy instruments, our further proposals introduced this March mainly include (i) allowing property owners to include their voting instructions in the proxy instruments; (ii) requiring the proxies to countersign the proxy instruments and make a declaration that the proxies they hold are honestly procured and are true and accurate representation of the property owners' voting instructions; and (iii) requiring OCs to keep the record of the proxies and the declarations for at least three years. Under section 36 of the existing BMO, proxy instrument holders who fabricate such instruments may be criminally liable for false declaration.

Subsequent to our introduction of a series of further legislative proposals in March, we have been maintaining communication with various stakeholders to listen to their views, seeking to include those proposals that are not in conflict with the existing BMO in the Codes of Practice or administrative guidelines where appropriate in the second half of this year, and encourage OCs to adopt them as far as practicable, so as to respond to the public concerns as soon as possible.

A Member has proposed empowering the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") to monitor building maintenance works carried out by OCs and institute relevant prosecutions. Our proposal for extending the powers of the Authority LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9607 and add appropriate criminal sanctions in BMO this March has answered some aspirations of Members.

To deal with such issues as non-performance of MCs and management vacuum, we propose expanding the powers of the Authority, empowering the Authority to, subject to certain objective and stringent criteria, (i) dissolve the non-performing MC and appoint an administrator to re-elect an MC; and (ii) appoint a building management agent to deal with a hiatus in management, the remuneration and expenses of whom shall be deemed to be part of the expenses of management.

We also propose adding appropriate criminal sanctions to BMO, so as to ensure proper safekeeping of minutes and tender documents by MCs, deed of mutual covenant ("DMC") managers and PMCs. Meanwhile, we also propose imposing criminal liability on DMC managers and PMCs in case of failure to produce annual audited accounts as required by contract.

In summary, we have proposed amendments to BMO mainly in three aspects: (i) encouraging more property owners to get involved in OC affairs in person; (ii) enhancing transparency of proxy instruments and procurement; and (iii) making the safekeeping of records by OCs, DMC managers and PMCs mandatory, so that they may be adduced as evidence when necessary in the future. I reiterate that while amending BMO is not the fundamental solution to bid-rigging and the associated criminal offences, through enhancing involvement, transparency and accountability, the relevant proposals can better protect the rights and interests of property owners and guard against bid-rigging.

President, as regards support for OCs and property owners, in addition to the existing support services of HAD mentioned by me in my opening remarks and the new "Building Management Dispute Resolution Service" proposed to be launched, HAD will also roll out a new initiative requiring MC Chairmen and PMCs to sign a "checklist on procedural propriety" confirming that the procedure for convening a meeting and the proper disclosure of the information on proxies for the OC meetings have been complied with. There should be explanation for any deviation from the requirements in the guidelines in the checklist for the sake of transparency and accountability.

On publicity and education, HAD and its District Offices actively work with other departments and relevant organizations to step up education and 9608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 publicity efforts and assist property owners in making proper maintenance arrangements. Over the past year, HAD has organized 124 corresponding workshops/seminars/courses. HAD has also joined hands with tertiary institutions since 2011 to offer systematic training programmes to OC members, so as to better equip them for building management and dealing with building maintenance. In the light of the latest proposed amendments to BMO, we are now taking forward a series of public engagement events in order to solicit the views of property owners, OCs and other owners' organizations, PMCs and other stakeholders on the proposed amendments to BMO. A number of Members here today have also put forward some concrete new proposals, which I consider invaluable. We will take these proposals into consideration as well, and Members will have the opportunity to discuss them again before our legislative amendment exercise.

President, bid-rigging can only be effectively combated through a multi-pronged approach with concerted efforts from all sectors in the community. Owners' participation is critical to effective building management. Let me once again call on and encourage property owners to work in concert, discharge their responsibilities as property owners and take an active part in building management. To practise what our slogan "Active participation in building management benefits all" preaches, HAD and its District Offices will stay committed to providing property owners with due support and assist them in discharging their responsibilities in building management.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr LAU Kwok-fan to move his amendment.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion be amended.

Mr LAU Kwok-fan moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add "bid-rigging seriously undermines the fairness and impartiality of the tendering process of building maintenance works, and also causes the price of the successful bid in maintenance works to far exceed the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9609

reasonable market rate, thus greatly increasing the maintenance expenses of property owners while the quality of maintenance works cannot be safeguarded;" after "That"; to add "the situation of bid-rigging in" after "recent years"; to delete "have been monopolized by bid-rigging syndicates involving triad members, and such syndicates" after "Hong Kong" and substitute with "has become increasingly rampant, and some bid-rigging syndicates even collude with owners' corporations, property management companies and triad members to"; to add "serious" after "suffer"; to delete "of tens of billions of dollars, and arousing widespread grievances among members of the public" after "losses"; to add "by requiring the election of consultants appointed for large-scale maintenance works be decided by a resolution at a general meeting of the owners' corporation, so as" after "Building Management Ordinance"; to add "ensure that law enforcement agencies have adequate resources to investigate bid-rigging activities and" after "(2)"; to add "provide more building management training programmes and seminars on the prevention of bid-rigging, so as to enhance the knowledge of owners' corporations, property management companies and property owners on the relevant subject and their understanding of the Building Management Ordinance, and at the same time" after "(3)"; to add "and establish a 'database on building maintenance'" after "support"; to delete "and" after "maintenance works;"; and to add "; (6) step up the promotion of the Smart Tender scheme, and extend its scope of services to cover the entire maintenance works, including monitoring the progress and acceptance of the works, so as to safeguard the quality of maintenance works; (7) increase the staff establishment of District Offices for building management work and enhance the functions of Liaison Officers, so that they can follow up the work relating to building maintenance works in a dedicated manner; and (8) set up a 'building affairs tribunal' to resolve existing problems of lengthy time and expensive legal costs required for handling disputes concerning building maintenance works" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr LAU Kwok-fan to Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion be passed.

9610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, as the amendment of Mr LAU Kwok-fan has been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion as amended by Mr LAU Kwok-fan be further amended by my revised amendment.

Mr Alvin YEUNG moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr LAU Kwok-fan: (Translation)

"To add "; (9) amend the Building Management Ordinance on the instrument appointing a proxy, so as to better safeguard the rights and interests of property owners; (10) set up a statutory body to formulate standards of practice and industry guidelines to ensure fair competition and set up a licensing system; (11) impose cooling-off periods for the tendering and appointment procedures of large-scale maintenance works, so as to enable property owners to review the relevant decisions; and (12) increase the manpower and resources of the Lands Tribunal to expedite the handling of legal disputes arising from building maintenance works" immediately before the full stop."

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9611

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Alvin YEUNG to Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion as amended by Mr LAU Kwok-fan be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, as the amendments of Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Alvin YEUNG have been passed, you may now move your revised amendment.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion as amended by Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Alvin YEUNG be further amended by my revised amendment.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved the following further amendment to the motion as amended by Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Alvin YEUNG: (Translation)

"To add "; and (13) empower the Home Affairs Department to monitor building maintenance works initiated by owners' corporations and residents' organizations and institute relevant prosecutions" immediately before the full stop."

9612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's motion as amended by Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Alvin YEUNG be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed, as Dr Fernando CHEUNG's amendment has been passed, Mr KWOK Wai-keung has withdrawn his amendment.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, you still have 4 minutes 41 seconds to reply. Thereafter, the debate will come to a close.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, I wish to give a reply to the earlier speech of the Secretary for Development. He showed much reservations about the proposal for setting up a "building maintenance works authority" ("BMWA"), thinking that there was no need to set up another regulatory authority because other law enforcement agencies, government departments and professional bodies were already entrusted to perform the relevant functions. He also pointed out that the setting up of BMWA would incur additional expenditures and might add to the already heavy burden of small property LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9613 owners. President, the Secretary for Development also said that distant water could not put out a nearby fire, so he did not support the idea of setting up BMWA.

I find it regrettable to hear the remarks of Secretary for Development Eric MA. Actually, who started this fire in the first place? The Government, in the sense that it forced small property owners to undertake maintenance works without imposing any regulation. Initially, it was just a small fire. But as it rages on, we can now see fires everywhere. As a result, many property owners have suffered huge financial losses. Initially, it was just a distant fire. But the Government has turned it into a nearby fire without making any efforts to put it out. Now, we have raised so many proposals. But the Government has nonetheless refused to consider the most important proposal of them. Actually, it is an idea of The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors. They have pointed out to me that every step will be difficult if sole reliance is placed upon their professional body which is not vested with any statutory power to take charge of this matter, rather than setting up a professional statutory body such as BMWA. The reason is that they have to face bid-rigging syndicates with enormous financial power and influence, and they very often worry that such companies may sue them for libel. I hope the Government can stop hesitating. If the Government feel concerned that a heavy burden will be brought to bear upon property owners, then I wish to tell the Government that small property owners absolutely do not mind paying an additional sum amounting to 1% or 2% of their maintenance fees to the Government as BMWA's operational funding. At present, the building maintenance market involves a sum ranging from some $10 billion to $20 billion. Will a payment of $100 million or $200 million be enough to the Government? If it is not enough, $300 million or $400 million should be enough, right? The Government may as well consider this idea and needs not shut the backdoor so very hastily.

President, I also wish to take this opportunity to urge the professional services sector to return to the building maintenance market. Over the years, we have seen how "bad money drives out good", in the sense that many companies without any professional ethics problems have withdrawn from this market as they are unable to stand the threats and pressure from triads and also the intimidation of bid-rigging syndicates. I wish to tell everybody that at present, many small property owners have awaken to the necessity of participating in owners' general meetings and realized that building maintenance faces a high risk of bid-rigging. Actually, it is now opportune for upright companies and 9614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 professionals in the sector to return to this market as soon as possible. Only genuine competition can bring the market price back onto the normal track and reverse the very absurd situation of astronomical charges for maintenance works being taken as the market price over the past few years.

President, when I decided to initiate this campaign to combat bid-rigging a few years ago, I knew that I had to be successful as there would be no turning back. Because the target of our battle is massive bid-rigging syndicates with enormous financial power and influence comprising triads, members of the professional services sector, property management companies, corrupt owners' corporations, and so on. We must win this battle, or else millions of small property owners in Hong Kong and their families will sustain losses. Since the launch of this battle, we are now actually moving towards success with many small steps. But if we want to sustain this battle, we must count on the Government's assistance. If the Government is not determined to combat bid-rigging with vigorous efforts, this problem will spring back to life somehow. I hope the Government can take on board the view of many Members of this Council on setting up BMWA as a show of care for the plight of small property owners and consideration for Hong Kong's overall interests.

I also wish to express my gratitude here again to those Members who have moved their amendments, those who have spoken and also those who support this motion.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, as amended by Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Alvin YEUNG and Dr Fernando CHEUNG, be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 8 June 2017 9615

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

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the meeting until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 14 June 2017.

Adjourned accordingly at 7:35 pm.