LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5589

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Friday, 19 February 2016

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5591

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, 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 GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

5592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

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

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

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

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5593

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSANG CHUN-WAH, G.B.M., J.P. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY

THE HONOURABLE RIMSKY YUEN KWOK-KEUNG, S.C., J.P. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE

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

THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

THE HONOURABLE RAYMOND TAM CHI-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

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

THE HONOURABLE EDDIE NG HAK-KIM, S.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

5594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS W. YANG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY

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

THE HONOURABLE CLEMENT CHEUNG WAN-CHING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE

MR SHIU SIN-POR, S.B.S., J.P. HEAD, CENTRAL POLICY UNIT

MR YAU SHING-MU, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

MR JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, P.D.S.M., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

MR GODFREY LEUNG KING-KWOK, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

MR RONALD CHAN NGOK-PANG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5595

MEMBER'S MOTION

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members. This Council will now continue with the debate on the Motion of Thanks and proceed to the fifth debate session on the theme of "Rule of Law, Governance, Elections and District Administration".

This session covers the following seven policy areas: Constitutional Affairs; District Administration; Civic Education; Administration of Justice and Legal Services; Human Rights; Security; and Public Service.

Will Members who wish to speak in this session please press the "Request to speak" button.

MOTION OF THANKS

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 17 February 2016

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the Financial Secretary proposed the "0-1-1" envelope savings programme in mid-2014, requiring government bureaux and departments to reduce the expenditure in their financial envelopes by 1% annually in the following two financial years. The fiscal prudence demonstrated by the Financial Secretary to ensure continuous stability and healthiness of the public finances of the Special Administrative Region has my understanding and support. But I am worried that it may not be opportune to reduce public expenditure when the Government is now enhancing its administration by introducing a number of policies and measures across different areas. It may add further pressure to the resources and manpower of the departments, thereby affecting service quality while undermining the morale of the Civil Service.

President, in response to the rising aspirations and expectations of the people, the Government needs to keep enhancing its effort in a number of policy areas and accord top priority to housing in its administration. In order to meet the target of housing construction, the Government has formulated a number of short-, medium- and long-term measures to accelerate and increase land and housing supply, thereby significantly increasing the workload of those departments related to land planning, development and housing construction, and so on. In the past, many architects, surveyors, planners and landscape architects 5596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 working in the Government relayed to me that they had difficulty coping with the significant increase in workload due to manpower shortage in their departments. As staff members from a wide range of grades have to work long hours, their life has been affected in one way or another. The Government must look squarely at the pressure they face.

In recent years, the occurrence of a number of incidents, including the incident of lead in drinking water in public rental housing estates, the harassment, verbal abuse and attack on Mainland visitors by self-proclaimed localists, and the illegal Occupy Central incident has aroused widespread concern in society. And in the Mong Kok riot last week, a large number of police officers were attacked, while firemen and ambulance personnel were obstructed in the performance of their public duties. Civil servants from a number of departments had to face and handle these incidents. We may not be able to fully feel and appreciate their physical and emotional stress, especially those police officers who became the targets of violence by rioters in maintaining law and social order. In the face of such irrational acts of violence, they still stood fast in their post without backing down. We should salute and commend them.

For these reasons, I hope the Financial Secretary can exercise flexibility in the Budget to be released next week when it comes to the original cost reduction arrangements by allocating additional resources to those departments in need, enhancing manpower provision and alleviating the pressure on the Civil Service, so as to avoid undermining staff morale.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my gratitude to all accountability officials and the Civil Service for the effort they made. At the same time, I also wish to say this to them: "Keep it up".

Thank you, President.

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

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, yesterday I heard Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung talk about the problems with governance in Hong Kong in the previous session. He has probably used up his speaking time and actually he should talk about them in this session.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5597

I must say that I have great feelings. First, concerning the violent clashes that occurred in Mong Kok recently, if the Government should determine the nature of the incident as a riot, I think it has to bear an even heavier responsibility. Over a period of time after the incident occurred, government officials seemed to have adopted a uniform line that the incident has nothing to do with the Government's governance. The position of the Democratic Party is very clear. We do not approve of violent charging acts, and we were the first political party to state our position. That morning I was the first to express views on behalf of the Democratic Party. It is because these acts cannot make the majority of people follow or understand their course of actions.

Certainly, I understand that some people said that history will pass its own judgment, and the winner will be crowned a king and the loser branded as a bandit. But the fact is that the majority of the people of Hong Kong maintain that peaceful and rational means should be adopted to fight for democracy and motivate advancements in society. I am well aware that the dominance or hegemony of the Government, especially LEUNG Chun-ying, has really aroused great resentment and resistance among increasingly more people.

I know that a survey is conducted regularly, in which the public are asked whether they accept the use of violence to change the institution. Actually, in a normal society, or a democratic, mature society, it is not surprising that several percentage points of the respondents would agree to it. But as far as I know, this survey using the entire population as the sample has found that people agreeing to it already exceeded 10% and actually, this is already a warning. Recently, a veteran member of the pro-establishment camp told me about a survey conducted within the Government. I am still trying to find out about the details, and as he is not someone who shoots his mouth off, I have attached quite a lot of importance to this. The Government can explain this a bit if it does have this information. He said that the findings showed that people agreeing to it already exceeded 20%. Let us bear in mind that this is a survey using the total population as the sample. This percentage in the young age group is even higher, which stands at 30% or 40%. I hope that the Chief Secretary for Administration or other officials will not say that I am finding an excuse for violence or trying to beautify or whitewash it. What I wish to say is that when the Government said that this incident has entirely nothing to do with its governance ― I stress that it has entirely nothing to do with its governance ― is this Government not completely hopeless? If this is the way that the Government thinks or this is the way the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary and the Secretary think and talk, they are really hopeless.

5598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Of course, human nature is good. This is why I thought that perhaps the Government has no other alternative but to vigorously enforce the law during those several days in order to stop society from becoming violent, but they do know deep in their hearts that there are significant problems with their governance. I thought although they made that comment verbally, they were actually doing something to make improvement. Even if that is true, the point is that government officials have to convey an message, and if the message conveyed by them is that this incident has entirely nothing to do with the Government's governance, what will society, especially the middle-liners, think? Certainly, the middle-liners definitely dislike violence, but the point is that they will think: Has this Government reflected on itself and made improvement? Is there room for improvement? Can it be truly effective in carrying out its work?

President, I think the question remains whether the Government can truly see what is going on in society now. LEUNG Chun-ying's response is simple. He said that the Government has done a lot in respect of poverty alleviation, education and public housing. I do not deny the efforts made in these areas, because with so many officials and so many systems and so much expenditure in the entire Government, how is it possible that we do not see a bridge being built here and a road being built there or some improvements made to the system and consultation documents being published? Certainly, these efforts have been made. But I hope the Government can realize the core problems and the deep-rooted conflicts that we are talking about. President, perhaps let me try to throw a sprat to catch a mackerel.

President, I have seen in some cases that the Government has specifically chosen to do things that will antagonize people. The Government has precisely done what people find most infuriating, most abhorrent and most unacceptable. Let us bear in mind that I am not talking about what the Government has done to offend the youngsters or the younger generation. Simply enough, a case in point is the Government's appointment of Arthur LI as Chairman of the Council of the University of Hong Kong (HKU). Why am I mentioning this? I hope the Government will understand that even if it thinks that Arthur LI has unparalleled competence, that he is most brilliant and that there is no match for him, should the Government, when making this appointment, consider one thing? That is, if the University of Hong Kong Convocation comprising of over 10 000 members ― Members must not forget that these are not young lads. They are all mature adults in Hong Kong society. They are people who have made some achievements in various trades and industries, and they are reasonable, sensible people. Are they also poisoned? If these 10 000-odd HKU alumni are said to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5599 be poisoned, by whom they are poisoned? Are they poisoned by Mr IP Kin-yuen? Is Mr IP Kin-yuen that awesome? They specifically arranged for a vote to be taken on a particular date in opposition to the appointment of Arthur LI to be the HKU Council Chairman. I hope the Government will think about this. Its polices have not only offended the young people and they are not only so detached from the public that they do not understand what the young people are thinking but worse still, even for those ― President, I dare not say "elites", for it seems to be self-glorification ― at least they are people who are a bit more educated and who think with reason. They are not people who like violence. But why are they driven to the wall? That is the HKU Convocation comprising of more than 10 000 members, and voting was conducted twice. Over 10 000 people voted on one occasion and a few thousand people voted on the other. Then the Government said that those who did not vote should be taken as supporters of Arthur LI. Its logic has gone to the extreme as such. How hopeless is this Government! In other words, no matter what policy it is ― I believe the decisions are made by LEUNG Chun-ying personally ― the Government's attitude is that the more you dislike it, the more I have to do it.

When the entire community considered that a licence should be granted to Hong Kong Television Network Limited, hoping to have one more choice and one more television station providing programmes for their viewing, and even though the Government could clearly see the public view, and do not forget that those are only television viewers, not people using violence or having been poisoned … Who would poison them? Was it Ricky WONG poisoning the people of Hong Kong in a bid to force the Government to issue a licence to him? This really beats me. They are only ordinary members of the public. They only wish to have one more television station and more drama series for them to watch. They are only viewers who wish to watch drama series, and from the angle of narrowcasting, they are only ordinary citizens.

President, as for Commercial Radio, its licence will expire in six months. I really find this incomprehensible. Only six months are left in its licence term and it has done very well, and no matter from which angle, or according to the surveys conducted, does any of the findings show that Commercial Radio has to be culled? It really beats me. Why is it that there is still no news with only six months left? Could it be that a decision will be made only when three months or two days are left? He has exercised his powers to the fullest extent, manipulating people to see how their performance is. Then what should they do? Which programme should they cancel?

5600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

President, this really beats me. I am sorry that I, being a Member, have kept saying that this beats me. But what exactly is it that I do not understand? I do not understand what the Government is doing. I do not understand what kind of governance it is. Why should it deliberately make itself the enemy of all the people of Hong Kong? If the Government deliberately refrains from renewing its licence even if only six months are left and keeps stalling and hence making Commercial Radio feel at a loss, not knowing what to do, what does it mean? It means the Government making itself the enemy of Commercial Radio and the enemy of all of its audience.

We must bear in mind that the situation now is that this policy is making the Government the enemy of this group of people, while the other policy is making it the enemy of another group of people, and this group of people belong to the upper echelons of society or the management level, or they are leaders in various sectors of the business community, and the Government is precisely turning itself into their enemy. In fact, it is very difficult to come up with an issue that can make the Government the enemy of these people collectively but he managed to come up with one, that is, the incident concerning the HKU Council. Good gracious! This aside, when the ordinary citizens wanted to have one more television station to produce drama series for them to watch, he again made himself the enemy of the people. President, bear in mind that there are not only these three examples that I have cited. In fact, there are many cases in which the Government has invariably done things to the dislike of the public, and if such being the case, that would really be a big problem. This is where the deep-rooted conflicts and distrust stem from.

What do these examples mean? In respect of popularity rating, we all know about it as the overall popularity rating of the Government has actually all collapsed. Certainly, the Government will always argue that OBAMA's popularity rating is not high either, and is that of CAMERON high? But let us bear in mind that they are returned by elections. When he is not returned by an election or when this Chief Executive is not chosen by us … If people can choose their leader, they will still have hopes in the next election. But what hope is there for the community now? The community feels almost hopeless. Why? Because we feel growingly concerned that LEUNG Chun-ying would be re-elected. What we see now is already a big problem. What should we do? What will happen when the community learns of the re-election of LEUNG Chun-ying? President, I am gravely worried indeed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5601

President, the day before yesterday I bumped into a pro-establishment Member, and I will not say who he is. We bumped into each other in the elevator and chatted for about two minutes. This pro-establishment Member suddenly said, "James, I really do admire you." I asked him for what he admired me. He asked me if I remembered that in January 2014, we had dinner with the Chief Secretary. The whole Legislative Council attended it in several groups. While I usually do not say much about political analysis or forecast, I said a lot with great feelings on that day. As he was a newcomer to this Council then and he thought that I am a quite veteran Member, he, therefore, listened to what I said attentively. He said that I predicted serious problems in the coming two years, but he considered that I was just scaremongering, thinking that I should not have said those things. Therefore, he had a very deep impression of my remarks back then, thinking that I was talking nonsense, but he could do nothing about it.

However, he said to me in the elevator the day before yesterday that he very much admired me because my guess about what happened in these two years was all correct. I was talking to the Chief Secretary that evening as the Chief Secretary was discussing the political reform at the time. I therefore took the opportunity to express my other views and made some comments. Usually I seldom talk that much, and even my party comrades found it strange that James had expressed his deepest feelings and spoken at length. I did not come forth to make those remarks in front of the reporters at the time because the focus of discussion back in mid-January 2014 was the political reform. In fact, some two years ago I already took the view that if our Government could not make people see hope and if the re-election of LEUNG Chun-ying would give cause for concern among us and if the business sector would feel hopeless as more and more members of the business sector and the professional sector and even people who used to support this Government are making an escape in panic … It would indeed be very difficult to attract people to join the Government. Sometimes I will ask: Why is cronyism always practised in the appointment of members to advisory committees? It boils down to a vicious cycle, because when somebody tenders LEUNG Chun-ying a piece of advice, first, he just will not listen to you as you are appointed only for window-dressing purposes and he will stick to his own way after listening to what you said. Worse still, he will specifically choose to implement the most undesirable and the worst policies. Buddy, why should I work for you then? Therefore, in this vicious cycle, only "LEUNG's fans" are willing to join the Government and the pool of candidates is getting smaller and smaller, causing the entire society to sink and be plunged in despair.

5602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

President, what can LEUNG Chun-ying say now? All he can say is that property prices will be falling, that land supply will continue in the next few years and that the elderly can receive more allowances to slightly improve their living. Frankly, all that he has said are no more than these few points. I do not mean to dismiss the possibility that some members of his ruling team are genuinely committed to doing a good job but in the end, these initiatives are distorted and twisted.

President, I would also like to talk about the implementation of "one country, two systems". The central leaders seem to have focused on two themes, namely, promoting democracy and fostering harmony. As Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung said yesterday, LEUNG Chun-ying, on his return to Hong Kong, cheated his boss by purposely omitting "fostering harmony" and making no mention of it. It was until the leaders issued a statement on their own that he reluctantly mentioned it in the Policy Address this year. President, our Government, especially LEUNG Chun-ying, knows it only too well that if the Central Authorities really want to change its policies by practically taking steps to promote democracy and foster harmony, how will they still let LEUNG Chun-ying act as the Chief Executive? He is downright a person who cannot wait to pick fights, doing only what the people dislike. So, how can he foster harmony? Therefore, when it comes to taking steps to foster harmony, he is actually totally at his wits' end; nor does his personality suit this task, and he will not be able to achieve anything. In saying this, I do not mean that all officials are incapable of doing it. At least I know that the several officials sitting opposite to me are not incapable of fostering harmony. But the problem is that when their superior holds such a view, how can harmony be fostered? He basically does not recognize the need for harmony. He thinks that only himself is right and if the public do not understand him, it only shows that the public have been poisoned. Therefore, he considers whatever he does is correct. Some people may say, "James, this is not true. Look, is it not true that the Avenue of Stars project has been called to a halt recently? Is this not harmony?" Concerning this project, Mr Albert HO has been helping the relevant parties with the judicial review but interestingly enough, over the past two days he has come forth not to claim credit for successfully compelling the Government to make this change of mind. He only said that it was all because the real estate developers have put their hands to it. Property developers have put their hands to it not because they have filed a judicial review, but because real estate developers fight among themselves and dislike one another.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5603

President, I can tell you that I did hear an aide who is close to real estate developers say a month ago that this project would not come to fruition, and I even questioned that this could not be true. He said that it had really been scrapped, and I just did not believe it because I thought that I always was privy to information and I should at least get wind of a bit of this news. But the subsequent announcement proved its cancellation. As the real estate developers fight among themselves, the Government has to secure the support of the pro-establishment camp and this is particular so for the incumbent Chief Executive because he must secure 601 votes for re-election, which is a tall task indeed. Even if he is the only candidate ― assuming he made everybody feel uninterested in contesting the election with him ― he still needs to obtain 601 votes from the 1 200 members of the Election Committee. Can he make it? So, it turns out that this decision was made to firmly secure the votes of the pro-establishment camp, real estate developers and other ruling classes and interest cliques. Of course, the announcement of the decision has produced an objective effect and just as someone said to me, "James, is this not harmony? There is no problem now." But if we review the entire process, we may see the true picture. At which point did the Government remain adamant but when the real estate developers exerted their influence and started to voice their views … Think about this: Have real estate developers ever filed a judicial review against the Government before? In other words, even the real estate developers have resorted to this step and they even have to fall out with the Government.

Lastly, President, I wish to make one point that I really very much wish the Central Government would listen. Does Hong Kong need to foster harmony? Yes, it does. But does it mean that more iron-fist and high-handed policies can bring harmony? Who has the ability and the personality to attract more aspiring talents who are committed to fostering harmony to join the Government to work in concert with him to promote social harmony? Is it LEUNG Chun-ying?

President, to put it bluntly, Hong Kong is already in a huge mess. Everyone is saying that Hong Kong has been torn apart. People from different social strata have been saying so. I think to myself: On the question of Hong Kong being torn apart, so to speak, does it have to do with the Police searching the home of a suspect today and finding two books written by Horace CHIN and Mr WONG Yuk-man respectively which are then openly shown to the public perhaps to encourage associations among the public? But can these books cause society to be torn apart? Can they produce an effect as formidable as poisoning 5604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 the readers? I think two kinds of force are involved. The ideology in the books is a pulling force but there is another force pushing from behind and that is, the Government, especially the head of the Government who has done a lot of things and made a lot of remarks to push the people into believing more and more strongly that these books are correct, that they really must read these stuffs, and that these stuffs may probably show them a way out. Do remember that it is already alarming if the public think that this may be the way out, that violence may be a way out, and that violence may be a prelude to a successful revolution.

President, I have read an article written by financial columnist Andrew SHUEN recently and half of this article was about politics. He said, to this effect, "My buddies, the most important thing is whether this can be of any use in Hong Kong." Even if you really believe in and yearn for violence, can it be of any use? We want to overturn not only the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration as there are also the People's Liberation Army and the Central Authorities here. The Central Authorities are powerful agencies and the entire system is powerful. This cannot be of any use, OK? So, you said that an upright man is always lonely, and you can continue to believe in this ideology but, sorry, and even if young people who are listening to me now may say that I am old-fashioned, I must say that I think this cannot be of any use.

Furthermore, how far do you wish to push for it? I think the situation is … my apologies, as I wish to talk about some of my views. Now that one person wishes to cause divisions in society and to cause society to be torn apart and feel disheartened, so that anyone with aspirations to reform society or any potential candidate would feel uninterested, for they may think that they are getting old and had better not be involved in the handling of these problems ― I wonder if you, President, is among them ― and they think that as society has come to this sorry state, are you trying to fool me by dragging me into these troubles? At the end of the day, only that man would be interested to run in the election. All the others would not be interested, because the entire society and the entire situation are in tatters. I hope that people who are listening can think about whether this is the case. You have caused the entire society to break apart, and nobody would be interested in running in the election. What is the use of running in the election? Let this awful mess created by you be reformed by yourself. Remedies may be made if possible but if remedies are out of the question, the Central Government would have to count on its own blessing. I wish the Central Government luck.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5605

President, as a person of faith, I can only pray to my Lord. Perhaps you believe the Buddha or whichever deities, and I hope that you will pray ― of course I believe my God is truer ― and see whether Hong Kong has the blessings from Heaven and whether Heaven can make people with the ability to decide on the fate of Hong Kong not to give up Hong Kong, so that people who will continue to reside and live here can see hope and be blessed.

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, when society is torn apart, civil servants and the disciplined forces will be caught in the crossfire more often. The disturbance which took place on Lunar New Year's Day is an obvious example. In the section of the Policy Address concerning the Civil Service, the Chief Executive mentioned that civil servants have provided "full support and collaboration, which have facilitated effective governance". It is the duty of civil servants to implement policies formulated by the Government and they should discharge the relevant responsibilities in their posts even if they are deeply reluctant to do so. Yet, it does not mean there is no discontent among the civil servants.

In recent years, civil servants have to cope with workload like an avalanche while public expectation is ever rising. Quite a number of front-line civil servants have relayed to me that members of the public vented their grievances against the Government on civil servants and their morale was affected as a result. As pointed out by the Chief Executive in the Policy Address, the Administration aims to establish and consolidate a new form of partnership with the Civil Service and establish closer communication. Nonetheless, a new form of partnership cannot be established by merely maintaining communication, which cannot solve the problems faced by civil servants either. I implore the Government to give a concrete response to the demands of civil servants made over the many years, including their calls issued over the years for the provision of Chinese medicine treatment services, standardization of the hours of work at 44 hours gross per week for all civil servants, abolition of the Non-Civil Service Contract Staff Scheme, and so on.

President, as there are numerous amendments to the Motion of Thanks on the Policy Address, I must reiterate my views on the Motion of Thanks. In my opinion, the Motion of Thanks is only a motion which, as a matter of courtesy, expresses the gratitude of the Legislative Council to the Chief Executive for presenting the Policy Address for the coming year in the Council. It does not 5606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 mean that the Legislative Council agrees with the various proposals espoused in the Policy Address. Therefore, in principle, I oppose making amendments to such a motion which is moved as a matter of courtesy. Nonetheless, the current debates on the Policy Address are the last occasions for the current-term Legislative Council to discuss the administration by the Chief Executive. The pledges made by the Chief Executive before the election campaign in respect of the labour sector, including enacting legislation for standard working hours and abolishing the Mandatory Provident Fund offsetting mechanism, have yet to be honoured. Therefore, I express deep regrets at the Policy Address presented by the Chief Executive.

President, I so submit.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, speaking immediately after Mr POON Siu-ping, I would like to take this opportunity to make a clarification first. Over the years, the Liberal Party has expressed support for the policy addresses delivered by various Chief Executives. There is no exception this time around. I have explained repeatedly to reporters that we support the Chief Executive's Policy Address to express our gratitude to his presentation of it. This was the concept behind proposing a Motion of Thanks for the Governor when I joined the Legislative Council back in the 1980s. A Motion of Thanks does not necessarily imply Members' support for the contents of the Policy Address. Furthermore, I have long since stated that I consider this Policy Address a failure. Nevertheless, I have to clarify why I will cast a "Yes" vote when the vote is taken.

President, in respect of this Policy Address, I will deliver an eight-minute speech only on the part related to the economy because I wish to spend more time discussing the political, constitutional and governance issues. Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM is now in the Chamber. Many people like to quote one of her remarks that describe herself, "a government official with no expectation is bold". I think I would like to rephrase it as "a retiring man is even bolder".

President, over the last couple of years, you should have noted that I had often been rejected in this Council because I wished to identify a talent to join the Liberal Party and take over my work in New Territories East. Yet, no one has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5607 taken up my invitation. In fact, since the establishment of the current-term Government, I have been feeling quite dispirited. Why? I think the Government is solely to blame for putting me in such a situation.

Over the years, as a representative of the business sector, I have also represented the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce (HKGCC) and the Federation of Hong Kong Industries. I am out-and-out pro-establishment. But why am I not acting entirely like one? I can only say in my own defence that I belong to a more open-minded pro-establishment camp. We in the Liberal Party, who are neutral stalwarts, are willing to listen to opinions from both sides. Why are so many Members losing interest in the work of the Legislative Council as if they cannot do anything for Hong Kong? I have experienced the administration by many Governors of the past. President, you and I are equally experienced and have experienced the administration by several Chief Executives. It has never occurred to me that the difference between leaders can be so great. I have always believed that it boils down to policies. So long as the policies are good, whoever is the Chief Executive does not matter. But the truth is unlike that indeed. The current-term Government precisely shows that there is nothing wrong with the policies. As for the various policies, we have supportive and disapproving preferences. For instance, I do not support the "curb" measures, though I am aware that many people in society support them. This has nothing to do with the policies. As regards the policy on the doubly non-permanent residents of Hong Kong, the Liberal Party expressed immediate support for such a terrific policy. As for the poverty alleviation policy, the Chief Executive increased the allowance for the elderly to more than $2,000 immediately after assuming office. This is an excellent policy, too. The general public ought to clap their hands in applause, but why is the popularity rating of the Chief Executive so low today? In my opinion, this has nothing to do with the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux in attendance today because there is no problem with the policies. Instead, there is something wrong with the implementation process.

As a member of the business sector, I used to be a manufacturer but have now switched to carrying on real estate and other businesses. I understand that if someone has a good idea of running a business, he will usually make a profit if the idea is conceptually feasible, though the implementation process is very crucial. Very often, a business, regardless of whether it is a Hong Kong style cafe or import and export trade, loses money not because its concept is impracticable, but because the sustainability of a business hinges on its practices. 5608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Perhaps the vast majority of businessmen are concerned more about harmony because it can generate money. Mostly importantly, only a successful business can make money.

If the Legislative Council is used for comparison, I think that all officials of the current-term Government are at odds with the pan-democrat Members, with disharmony often found in society or the Legislative Council. Colleagues of the pro-establishment camp have even been put on the spot. With the Chief Executive setting fires to be fuelled by the pan-democrat Members, why should we in the pro-establishment camp be responsible for putting them out? Thirty-five pro-establishment Members are compelled to sit here to put out fires. I am really not entirely convinced. As I do not bother, I prefer not to attend the meetings. If the meetings are aborted, the Government will suffer the most. Why will aborted meetings hurt the Government the most? Since the Government upholds the executive-led doctrine, all matters in Hong Kong, be they housing, health or economic development, are related to the policies implemented by the Government. If all developments are slowed down, both the Government and the Chief Executive will actually be dragged down, right?

I once saw the Chief Executive say on television that the Innovation and Technology Bureau was finally passed after a delay of three years due to the filibusters staged by Members. Although his remark sounded not incorrect, was it true that, from the angle of running a business, it really did not matter even if something that could have been accomplished in a year was delayed for three years? In my opinion, it did matter a lot. Given that the vast majority of the pan-democrat Members are supportive of the Bureau, why should there be such a long delay? Is the bad relationship solely to blame?

President, these thoughts of mine are related to the "curb" measures, or the stamp duty, implemented in recent years. When I first joined the committee, quite a number of pro-establishment Members advised the Government, and so did the pan-democrat Members. For instance, charitable organizations or overseas registered companies might be exempted from the double stamp duty, and the need or otherwise for the double stamp duty to be paid for the purchase of a whole block of building in Canada or Hong Kong. Although some proposals were not at all important, the Government was unwilling to budge an inch and rejected all of them, for the sake of demonstrating its strong governance and correct thinking. Despite support from the majority of Members of the pro-establishment camp at that time, including Mr Jeffrey LAM as a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5609 representative of the HKGCC, as well as the views expressed by the HKGCC, a dissenting vote was cast by Mr Abraham SHEK on behalf of the Liberal Party. Under such circumstances, a good employer with such a large number of employees should not be seen as incompetent even if he made a little concession. As an employer, I am most afraid of seeing divergent opinions among my employees. What I wish to see is my employees coming up with a stance after discussion for my endorsement. Hence, from the political angle, the Chief Executive should see things in this way: the 5 million people are the boss of the three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux, and the latter are the boss of the Chief Executive. Instead of adopting a top-down approach, the Chief Executive should look at things the other way round. Government officials are now doing a painful job. I really felt sorry when I saw Secretary Gregory SO. Being a Bureau Director, he has been waiting outside the Chamber every day over the past two months to occasionally remind Members to attend meetings. What is more, he has often treated Members, including Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, one of the filibustering Members, to egg tarts. There is simply no reason for the Secretary to act in this manner. Are there not other affairs in the Bureau for the Secretary to attend to? We pro-establishment Members are trapped in the middle and compelled to stay in the Chamber for the meetings purely because of the tit-for-tat exchanges between the Chief Executive and the pan-democrats. The President is suffering even more than we are. He must have lost his head because of Members frequently resorting to filibustering and ringing the bell.

It has been 20 years since I joined the Legislative Council in 1988, but I have never found this Council so lame. Who should be held accountable? Certainly, both parties are accountable but, if the relationship can be improved, is it impossible to discuss any subject? I do not think so. Just as the four-party meeting convened by Mr CHAN Kam-lam two days ago, I consider that even if it could not bear any fruit, it was always better for both parties to meet and discuss than having no discussion at all. Although the meeting ended up bearing no fruit, even Secretary Gregory SO indicated that he had never seen such a good attitude maintained by participants of the four-party meeting. If everyone can maintain a good attitude, even if this negotiation has failed to bear any fruit, discussions can still be conducted slowly in future. Should the Bill be passed as a result of this bulldozing, will the authorities really review "fair use" in a year? Will the grievances of netizens be reduced as a result? The answers must be in the affirmative.

5610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Talking about grievances, why is the community filled with so many grievances? I am no expert in this, but many people have asked this question: Given that the vast majority of the participants of Occupy Central have already been confirmed, why did the Police perform so poorly ― the Secretary for Security is also in the Chamber ― in its intelligence work in the recent incident that happened in Mong Kok? Why did police intelligence respond so slowly to the sudden congregation of so many people in Mong Kok? Although it was only an hour or so late, things could have gone wrong in an hour or so in Hong Kong society. Should ISIS appear in other parts of the world, such as Paris or London, how can the anti-riot police officers there possibly take action after an hour or so? The explanation offered by the authorities is really unbelievable. Was there something wrong with governance or was the slow police response just a minor problem because of the occurrence of some special circumstances that day?

All of these scenarios were possible, but the public would not see them in this way. Most of them considered that the Government was solely to blame for its problematic governance. As a result, they questioned if such a misunderstanding resulted from the slow response of civil servants in making active efforts. Will all these factors, if added up, explain why so many people in society today are full of grievances? Certainly, everyone can name the major problems, such as inadequate housing, a lack of opportunities of upward movement among young people, and so on. Currently, the monthly salary of Hong Kong university graduates is only $12,000 to $13,000, which is no different from the salary level a decade ago. Despite the current high standard of living, there is nothing the Government can do. Free economy is practised in Hong Kong, and since this is the mode of doing business in Hong Kong, this has really nothing to do with the Government. Nevertheless, if the other incidents are added up ― though this area was not mentioned by Members yesterday ― when other areas were mentioned by Members yesterday, governance was solely to blame. Every area discussed, be it manpower, health or poverty alleviation, was linked to governance.

As for the pledges made by the Chief Executive, many people query if the prevailing housing policy can be implemented. Although the Chief Executive has already served three years or so of his five-year tenure, public housing construction is still lagging far behind the target. Can the importation of labour resolve the problem? Can the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions discuss with the Government the feasibility of, for instance, allocating a limited number of workers, say 200, for each public housing construction site to construct public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5611 housing estates expeditiously to enable more than 200 000 people on the Waiting List to be allocated public housing expeditiously, on the premise of preserving the employment of the construction workers in Hong Kong? Although the Housing Authority has indicated that the waiting period is only three years, I believe it might take six or seven years before the public can be allocated public housing. This is also the reason for the accumulation of grievances among the grassroots.

I can see that even the business sector and consortia have grievances. Although the middle-class people have paid such a large amount of tax and the Government has abundant money, why has it failed to do a proper job in looking after the socially disadvantaged? Why are there so many elderly people in Hong Kong who have lost their teeth and are leading a miserable life? It turns out that the grass-roots elderly people in Hong Kong cannot have their decayed teeth filled ― the rich can certainly go to see a dentist ― so they can only opt for either pain relief or tooth extraction. Given that these services require only a limited sum of money, the problem is actually not difficult to tackle. For instance, cataract is just a common ailment, but why can the Government not make elderly in their 70s or 80s lead a more comfortable life? Given that the Government has abundant money and only limited expenditure will be incurred, why is it reluctant to make an effort?

Members of the business sector consider that although they have already fulfilled their responsibility of paying tax, they are constantly criticized due to the failure of the Government to do anything. In particular, members of the labour sector often carry "unscrupulous employers", "collusion between business and the Government" and "transfer of benefits" on their lips. Is the business sector obliged to bear the responsibility of caring for the grass-roots community? Currently, the business sector is also doing some charity work, such as fund raising or providing other services, in the hope of easing tensions in society.

I also mentioned yesterday that, judging from the current general trend of the global economy, it appears that a turnaround in the economy is unlikely in the next few years. Hence, if the business sector slows down investments in Hong Kong, not that the sector wishes to deliberately slow down its investments or cease making investments in Hong Kong ― all the pan-democrat Members, except Mr SIN Chung-kai, are now absent. But since Mr SIN is well versed in the economy, I need not discuss the economy with him ― let us look at the West Kowloon Cultural District instead. Now, the construction works finally 5612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 commence after more than a decade. Despite the commissioning of the cruise terminal, the entire Kai Tak project is lethargic, why? Is it because the efficiency of government officials is poor? Neither have I seen those projects thwarted by the pan-democrats or the Finance Committee. Furthermore, the site in West Kowloon has been there since 1997. But why has it taken more than a decade before the construction works can now commence slowly? Many Members have paid a visit to Qianhai in Shenzhen. Following the discussion on the project a decade ago, the construction works launched five years ago were completed this year. The same is true of the situation in the Shanghai free trade zone.

President, none who grow up in Hong Kong would like to see Hong Kong maintain the status quo for 50 years. We are simply like being "dried up", incapable of doing anything. As mentioned by many Honourable colleagues and the Chief Executive, Shenzhen will definitely catch up with Hong Kong in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) this year ― the former was less than one fifth of the latter in terms of GDP a decade ago. With the passage of another decade, Hong Kong might even lose its footing. Will the young people in Hong Kong feel even more dissatisfied by then? Now we are calling on the young people to go northward. However, during our district visits, they told us that it was very difficult to find a job in Shanghai that offered a monthly salary of RMB 4,000 yuan to RMB 5,000 yuan. Even if they did, how could they meet their living expenses, including those on food and accommodation, in Shanghai with a monthly salary of RMB 4,000 yuan to RMB 5,000 yuan? Furthermore, young people can simply not find a job there. Although young people are now being encouraged to go northward for work, I think only businessmen are capable of heading north. In fact, it is not easy at all to do business on the Mainland because the numbers of talent and people there are very large. Moreover, they have many avenues. When it comes to engaging in "lawful practices", Hong Kong people compare less favourably than Mainlanders, not to mention "unlawful practices". Now, people engaging in "unlawful practices" will be arrested at any time. So, do Hong Kong people still have opportunities of pursuing development outside Hong Kong?

As for the Belt and Road Initiative, I did mention it briefly in my speech yesterday. I have consulted some investment bank staff and they considered that the only chance for the people of Hong Kong to participate in the Belt and Road Initiative is for the country or the Special Administrative Region Government to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5613 issue 30-year bonds worth approximately $50 billion or $100 billion for promotion of the Initiative. Under this scheme, members of the public may each purchase bonds worth $50,000 or $100,000, and then the Government may decide whether or not to follow the Tracker Fund rate in fixing the interest rate at 4% or 5%, so that members of the public can have a chance to make investments and participate … I once made a joke of the Chief Executive, saying he had mentioned "Belt and Road" 44 times in total in the Policy Address, but not a single word about the LEE Po incident. Both members of the public and most members of the business sector have no idea how investments can be made. Even if I engage in import and export trade and hotel and local style café businesses, I have no idea how to participate in the Initiative because major projects, such as airports, ports, piers and railways, might be involved. Despite the fact that some listed companies in Hong Kong are participants of infrastructure investments, they do not belong to the same class. Hence, these projects must be launched by the country in order to succeed. The only way for us to participate in the Initiative is to make investments through a fund set up for the purpose, so that members of the public can make purchases in support of the efforts of the Central Government, rather than a long statement made in a vague manner.

Some people have asked this question: Why did the Government propose to inject $1 billion into a scholarship fund to allow 100 students from Belt and Road regions to pursue studies in Hong Kong? According to more reasonable logic, I think the Government should name this fund as "Belt and Studies" fund ― sorry, I should have said "Belt and Road" fund ― for the purpose of subsidizing tertiary students in Hong Kong to pursue studies, with a view to encouraging them to pursue development in Belt and Road regions after graduation, regardless of what careers they will pursue, so that young people in Hong Kong can pursue development outside Hong Kong. Compared to the Government's proposal for subsidizing overseas students to pursue studies in Hong Kong, is it more worthwhile for the public to support this idea? If the Government spends $1 billion on subsidizing overseas students to pursue studies in Hong Kong, should they be required to remain in Hong Kong for development after graduation? Or should they be sent home for development? The latter option appears to bear no relevance to us.

Furthermore, I would like to point out that all opposition, pan-democrat and pro-establishment Members, be they functional constituency or directly elected Members, are representatives elected by the electors. I have also noted 5614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 the changes over the past couple of years. In the past, functional constituency electors might be concerned merely about matters related to their own functional sectors. Since the occurrence of the Occupy Central incident and the failed passage of the constitutional reform package ― I also believe that in the aftermath of the Mong Kok incident ― all functional constituency electors, also ordinary members of the public, will keep an interest in the present situation of Hong Kong. All this will influence their voting preference in the Legislative Council Election to be held in September this year, because both the professional sectors of the functional constituencies and the electors belonging to the commercial and industrial sectors have direct election right at the same time. Hence, the governance problem facing us now will have negative impact on pro-establishment Members like us. If the Government formulates many unpopular policies and we are compelled to support the Government, it is thus imaginable that even functional constituency electors will question the stances and comments of Members who are representing them.

If the Government has really noted this point, I hope it can, in the remaining months of this term of the Legislative Council ― the pan-democrat Members will certainly persistently engage in filibusters and, likewise, there is nothing the Government can do ― implement good policies which will be warmly welcomed and supported by us, Members of the pro-establishment camp, so that the pan-democrat Members cannot make any noise even if they do not support the policies, and the situation can be reversed in the next few months. I once publicly stated that I cast a blank ballot in the Chief Executive Election without supporting Henry TANG. Although Henry was a good friend of mine, I found his involvement in the BMW (Blame My Wife) incident unbearable. On the other hand, I did not know LEUNG Chun-ying (a Chief Executive candidate at that time) very well. Nor did I have a good idea of his capabilities. I was afraid that Hong Kong would be in big trouble if he was incompetent. I was not as smart as Mr James TO; little could I imagine that he would be so incompetent.

Hence, I very much hope that the Chief Executive can change his way of communication with the community, students and the pan-democrat Members for the sake of promoting social harmony (I am not pinpointing LEUNG Chun-ying personally, but I believe the community will become more harmonious if the Chief Executive were someone else). I am not in the least optimistic about Hong Kong in the next five years. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5615

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, the present law and order situation in Hong Kong can be described as suffering from both external and internal problems. The external problem is the influx of bogus refugees which imposes heavy pressure on law and order. Every day when we read the newspapers, we will see a lot of news about non-Chinese persons sneaking into Hong Kong through four major routes by land or sea and lodging non-refoulement claims upon arrival. Many non-refoulement claimants were even suspected of causing nuisance to the community as well as committing serious offences such as affray, manufacturing drugs and rape. These news reports have put the people of Hong Kong in fear and anxiety. As regards the internal problem, Hong Kong has not yet recovered from its trauma after the end of the illegal Occupy action. Over the past year, an evil force of the radical and ruthless localists has rampaged through out Hong Kong with their proclamation of pursuing their political purpose through violent resistance. Such an evil trend is poisoning young people's minds, damaging the rule of law and disrupting law and order in Hong Kong. The law and order situation in Hong Kong is thus worsening, and Hong Kong has also become increasingly chaotic. We are very worried about this.

The reason for the rapid exacerbation of the problem of bogus refugees in recent years is that illegal syndicates have been extensively propagating and abusing the loophole of the unified screening mechanism for non-refoulement claims. No matter in what legal or illegal ways these non-Chinese persons entered the territory, and regardless of whether they have gone into hiding in Hong Kong for a period of time or they are arrested immediately upon arrival, once they have lodged a claim, the authorities will have to entertain it and carry out a lengthy screening process during which they may continue to stay in Hong Kong. This loophole was spotted by illegal syndicates which extensively propagate in the economically poor South Asian regions that they can make fast money simply by making a brief visit to Hong Kong.

The abuse of the screening mechanism by a large number of bogus refugees has already cost Hong Kong taxpayers a large amount of money. An even more serious problem is the substantial rise in the number of claimants who have committed crimes in Hong Kong. Last year, the number of arrests for theft, wounding, aggravated assault, serious drug offences and other offences exceeded 1 000, representing an rise of 70% over that of the 2014. The nuisance caused by bogus refugees to the community has never stopped. Many local 5616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 residents said there were bogus refugees gathering, making loud noises or creating troubles in the community. A District Council member has told me that a lot of bogus refugees live in the district she serves. Residents have to stay alert whenever they go out and return home. Earlier on, an old man went to a money exchange shop to change money for Renminbi. As soon as he stepped out of the money exchange shop, he noticed that he was being tailed by a South Asian. Fortunately, this old man was very smart. He immediately talked to a caretaker in the building and asked the caretaker to walk him home. Aware of the odds against him, the South Asian retreated, and the old man averted a misfortune.

Given the serious abuse of the unified screening mechanism for non-refoulement claims, the proposal for reviewing this mechanism in the Policy Address is appropriate. The direction of the review proposed by the Security Bureau includes setting a statutory time limit for lodging non-refoulement claims, imposing a cap on the publicly-funded legal assistance, detaining the claimants, stepping up efforts in patrolling the community and intercepting illegal immigrants, and expediting the procedure for screening non-refoulement claims. All of these are suggestions put forward by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) some time ago. However, it takes time to conduct the review, yet the abuse of the mechanism by bogus refugees warrants immediate attention. We consider that it must be resolved expeditiously. For this reason, I very much hope that the authorities will not wait and take follow-up action only after the review outcome is available. It should take deterrent action now. For example, the authorities should investigate intermediaries or law firms which have taken part in abusing the mechanism. Even if it is found that they have merely exploited the loophole in law without non-compliance, since the practice of this kind of intermediaries or law firms cannot be justified in terms of morals, can the authorities consider openly disclosing the names of the companies in question or complain to the relevant regulatory bodies so that any act of abetting bogus refugees to come to Hong Kong will have no place to hide in the open?

President, bogus refugees abuse the mechanism for non-refoulement claims, cause nuisance to the community and disrupt law and order, but still we can revise the mechanism to plug the loophole and prevent bogus refugees from flooding into Hong Kong. However, "a thief in the family is difficult to guard". Hong Kong is now being eroded and ruined by a handful of so-called localists who are radical and ruthless. Hoisting the banner of safeguarding localism in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5617

Hong Kong, what these localist rioters actually do is destroying everything that should be cherished in Hong Kong, including the spirit of the rule of law, freedom of the press, the professional and responsible Police Force, good public and social order, as well as the overall system and social harmony in Hong Kong.

A more serious problem is that surprisingly, some Members and political parties in this Chamber refrained from sternly reproaching these rioters who deliberately hurled bricks at police officers. Instead, they shamelessly helped them divert people's attention and find excuses, blaming the hawker policy and saying it was the fault of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government. All in all, it was not the rioters' fault. It was the Government's fault.

Actually we all have the following questions: Does disagreement with the hawker policy justify besieging the staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department? Does disagreement with the SAR Government justify rallying together to assault police officers? I would like to remind Members of the opposition camp that they must be responsible for their remarks. When they shielded and tolerated these rioters, covering up their violent acts, not only did the latter show no gratitude, they even ridiculed that the disturbance in Mong Kok on the first day of the Chinese New Year did not affect district operation and no curfew order was issued, so it could not be regarded as a riot. They also bragged about initiating a true riot. If Members of the opposition camp continue to defend the rioters, help them advocate such lame arguments as "riot is reasonable" or "using force to stop violence", and assist in whitewashing this kind of so-called localist theories, they are just like the rioters, and they can never evade the responsibility for ruining Hong Kong. I also find it regrettable that at the meeting of the Panel on Security held a few days ago, the pan-democrat Members did not support the motion on denouncing violence.

This riot in Mong Kok is a disturbance of the largest scale since the illegal Occupy action which took place the year before, showing that such mentality of violence and unlawfulness is expanding and spreading with increasingly ruthless and cold-blooded behaviour. It is not difficult to associate this with the fact that the main organizers participating in the illegal occupation have still not been prosecuted, thus causing the troublemakers to fantasize that even if they participate in any action unlawful, they will not be prosecuted or held liable. As they become more brazen, their behaviour becomes more blatant.

5618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Hence, in facing provocation, the authorities apart from strengthening the police manpower and equipment to protect public safety and uphold social order must also, in strict compliance with the law, impose penalties for all the committed crimes and severe punishment on the rioters, thus demonstrating to the people of Hong Kong the Police's capability of cracking down on the rioters and their determination of non-tolerance. Only then will there be sufficient frightening and deterrent effect to prevent the occurrence of similar violent acts.

President, next, I would like to express my views on district administration. As I did not stand for the District Council Election last year and left the Central and Western District Council, which I had served for more than two decades, in January this year, I believe this is the last time I speak in this Chamber in my capacity as a representative of the constituency on District Council (DC) affairs covered in the Policy Address. I have been a Legislative Council Member returned by the DC Constituency for 12 years, during which I witnessed the increasing public expectations on DC members. Hence, to enhance the service of DC members, all along I have been committed to seeking support for them, including improving their remuneration package to a respectable level so as to reflect the status and position which DC members should enjoy in the political system.

In the past, DC members, unlike Legislative Council Members, were not offered any contract gratuity. Neither did they enjoy any medical benefits or allowance for expenses on duty visits. The mechanisms for regular review of DC members' remuneration and operating expenses, as well as arrangements for claiming setting-up expenses reimbursement, were inferior to those for Legislative Council Members. Yet today, I can tell Members proudly that the principles and standards of DCs for the arrangements mentioned just now have been brought in line with those of the Legislative Council. I have also noted the great respect shown by Legislative Council Members to DCs. Unity is strength. After years of joint efforts by DC members in relaying our views and requests to the Government persistently, our efforts have finally borne fruit as mentioned just now. It proves that through reflection and communication, reasonable views will definitely receive positive responses. There is no need to resort to curses or even violence at every turn. Irrational discussion never helps to solve any problem.

DCs are important partners of the SAR Government in district administration. With their roots in the districts, DC members know and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5619 understand district affairs and public sentiments best. They are vital elements for building harmonious and vigorous communities. For this reason, DCs often offer positive and constructive views on both community and territory-wide affairs. They play a very important part in the community. Looking back at the past period, the Government has all along been strengthening the management function of DCs in district administration, enabling DC members to play and serve a more important role, with a view to providing a better living environment for the community and members of the public. This has been the objective of the SAR Government in its district administration over the years. It is also our key service direction in serving as DC members.

Three years ago, the Chief Executive put forward in the policy address the concept of "addressing district issues at the local level and capitalizing on local opportunities" for district administration, which indeed brought a new direction for the community. Later, he proposed the Signature Project Scheme for all the 18 districts, injecting new resources for services and facilities required by local residents. Regrettably, at present, the Finance Committee, the Public Works Subcommittee as well as the panels of the Legislative Council have been paralysed or have even broken down because the filibusters staged by some Members. Funding applications for a number of signature projects have been seriously delayed. Various projects such as the construction of a lift tower in Shung Yan Street in Kwun Tong, the Yuen Long District Community Services Building and the Yau Tsim Mong Multicultural Activity Centre now share the same fate. They have to keep waiting, waiting for these filibustering Members to change their minds, waiting for them to show mercy, waiting for them to set these livelihood projects free. I hope Members of the opposition camp will stop filibustering and stop affecting the livelihood projects.

In view of the success of the district administration pilot scheme in Sham Shui Po and Yuen Long, this year the Policy Address proposes implementing the "District-led Actions Scheme" in the whole territory. The scheme, led by District Officers responsible for the co-ordination work in various districts, will share the local residents' urgent concern and implement projects which meet their needs, thereby providing more room for policymaking to address problems. In respect of this scheme which expands the power of DCs, we will render our strong support without hesitation. I also hope that with the efforts of various parties, this scheme can produce a greater effect, benefiting the people of Hong Kong in various districts.

5620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

After hearing Mr James TO's speech on the governance of the SAR Government earlier, I cannot help expressing my feelings. Owing to his prejudice against Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, Mr James TO alleged that the SAR Government had many problems in its measures, but I consider this accusation feeble and unconvincing. This is how I felt upon hearing his speech. Recently, I have read an article in which I think some analysis can be shared with the people of Hong Kong through this Council.

This article was written by Dr LI Hui, Associate Professor of the Faculty of Education of the University of Hong Kong. In this long article, I would like to quote and share with Members the part entitled "Loss of Philosophical Thinking" ("哲學思維的迷失"), which reads to this effect: "The Hong Kong spirit under the Lion Rock is a spirit of sparing no effort at work, being eager to make progress, adapting flexibly to changing circumstances and making unceasing efforts for self-enhancement. Its underlying philosophy is pragmatism. In pragmatists' view, there is no absolute and eternal truth in this world. Neither is there anything which is 'universally applicable' (such as democracy and universal suffrage). Every good system will carry its unique socio-historical restraints and its own focus on social ecology. Any assessment of a system or election method should draw reference from the unique social ecological environment of the place. It cannot be judged by the values and criteria in other countries. Regrettably, since the reunification, Hongkongers have gradually abandoned this philosophy of life and fallen into the trap of idealism."

Everyone has his own ideals and practical considerations, but "idealists firmly believe in absolute truth and universal values. In pursuit of ideals and perfection, they quest for continuous social reform and seek fruition of their ideals at all costs. As such, with the complicated and unique social ecology in Hong Kong, the philosophy of idealism has eventually led people to the road of riots, refusing to compromise and displaying 'militant resistance'.

"There are countless examples of idealism taking people's lives in the last century. Hitler is a typical example of idealists. In Mein Kampf, he comprehensively elaborated on his ideal and roadmap for revolution, including racism, anti-Judaism and armed revolution. To realize this ideal, he initiated the Second World War. The lives of 40 million people were wasted in the battlefields in Europe and Russia among others because of his ideal. Evidently, brainless idealistic naivety will put many people's lives at stake." (End of quote) My main purpose in quoting this article is, if the pan-democrat Members … The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5621

Government certainly leaves much room for improvement in its administration. In fact, it will be better if the Government can share more information with the public or express its policy intent more often during the process of its work. Nevertheless, the effort that the Government has been making is there for all to see. If the pan-democrats continue to oppose everything indiscriminately, it will, I believe, lead Hong Kong to a deep abyss and also bring disasters to Hong Kong.

President, as usual, the pan-democrats have proposed many different piecemeal amendments in this debate. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) will vote against them. The DAB will only support the original motion proposed in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. We object to the several piecemeal amendments which are both inaccurate and incomprehensive. I so submit.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, Mr IP Kwok-him said just now that Mr James TO might be biased against LEUNG Chun-ying. If Mr James TO has bias against LEUNG Chun-ying, I think there are more Hongkongers, like Mr James TO, who are biased against him than those who are not. In fact, we can tell from various opinion polls that the public are not happy with LEUNG Chun-ying. Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying is a bruiser who keeps picking fights and stirring up social conflicts, while the pro-establishment Members know only to defend the Government blindly, confusing right and wrong. To cover the wrongdoings of the Government, they have even turned livelihood issues into a political tool at all cost. Given a Chief Executive known to be a bruiser, coupled with the pro-establishment Members blindly chiming in with the Government, political struggles have been intensified and the competitiveness of Hong Kong undermined while livelihood issues are left unresolved. If the situation goes on like this, the economic development of Hong Kong will only be adversely affected and social conflicts intensified.

When it comes to the trust of Hong Kong people in the Central Government in general, the situation was not bad after 2003 as this trust was quite high then and reached its peak in 2008. But in the subsequent few years, the trust of Hongkongers in the Central Authorities has been on a decline, and their distrust in a Chief Executive preordained by the Central Authorities is all the more obvious. "I want genuine universal suffrage" is generally a true aspiration of Hongkongers, and the Basic Law also provides that the Chief Executive be 5622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 selected by universal suffrage on a "one person, one vote" basis in Hong Kong and that all Members of the Legislative Council can be elected by universal suffrage after the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. The universal suffrage that the people of Hong Kong aspire to is not the kind in which voters can only choose from candidates fielded by the Central Authorities, but one that allows Hongkongers to have real choices and select a Chief Executive by "one person, one vote", a genuine universal suffrage implemented for the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong.

Functional Constituencies (FCs) in the Legislative Council have long been a point of contention. They are criticized because while the votes obtained by FC Members are lower than those of directly-elected Members, they are nevertheless the key for the passage of livelihood issues, resulting in the interest of the minority overriding the public interest. Simply put, this electoral method is unfair. However, the previous governments (including Secretary Raymond TAM of the current-term Government) have failed to make the slightest progress in handling the FCs; nor have they observed the principle of "gradual and orderly progress", and the 2016 Legislative Council Election is also a case in point. Even though universal suffrage has yet been implemented for the election of the Chief Executive, the Government should expand the electorate of FCs and gradually reduce the number of FC Members.

On the other hand, when making appointments to advisory committees, the Government should consider increasing the representation of various political parties in the Legislative Council or make appointments to various advisory committees according to the proportion of their winning candidates in the Legislative Council election, in order for the Government to absorb different views effectively. It is most important to enable this Council to reflect public opinions and facilitate democratization to reduce disputes arising from personal political positions, so that Members can discuss livelihood polices rationally to the benefit of the public.

President, after the constitutional reform package was vetoed by a majority vote, the constitutional system remains stagnant and there is no hope for the Chief Executive to be selected by universal suffrage; Mainland-Hong Kong conflicts have been intensified; the Chief Executive is involved in interfering with the autonomy of tertiary institutions, allegedly intending to turn the tertiary institutions red; the Central Authorities have meddled with the affairs of Hong Kong and even crossed the border to take enforcement actions, resulting in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5623 five people from Causeway Bay Books being forced to go missing and being forced to admit their charges; the case of seven police officers assaulting a protestor has yet been resolved. All these incidents have shaken the established, recognized universal values of Hongkongers. Added to this is an increasing population in Hong Kong and the shrinking living space. All these factors have led to blunders in administration and continued accumulation of public discontent which ultimately exploded on the first day of the Chinese New Year.

We certainly condemn the rioters on the night of the first day of the Chinese New Year and we strongly demand that all the criminals be tracked down and arrested. However, apart from tracking down and arresting the criminals, we must also look into the background and causes of the entire incident, and also how the recurrence of similar incidents can be prevented. Before the occurrence of the incident on the first day of the Chinese New Year, some young friends of mine already predicted that a similar riot would take place one day. A month before Secretary LAU Kong-wah took office, I had the opportunity to have a discussion with him. I handed to him some consolidated information on the localist situation in the hope that he can carefully study how this conflict can be addressed. Back then I was already on alert as I could sense that this conflict was snowballing, but honestly, this problem will only become even bigger in the following decade. Occupy Central has produced a huge impact and intensified conflicts in society and this may be favourable to the pro-establishment camp in elections to be held in the short term. It is because for many people of my age, that is, people in their 50s and 60s, even though they might support democratization in the past and took part in the 1 July rallies, they may probably vote for the pro-establishment camp in the Legislative Council Election this year. The gap in the proportions of the two camps may then be narrowed. That said, in the long term, the pro-establishment camp still faces great crises because many young voters think very differently from the older ones.

I have just been to Taiwan to observe the election which marked the third changeover of political parties in Taiwan. It was in 1996 that I went to Taiwan to observe their election for the first time, and LEE Teng-hui ran in the presidential election then. Since then I was in Taiwan to observe every of their presidential elections. I had some feelings evoked in me. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was defeated in the first and second elections but won in the third. Why? Because the new voters tended to support the DPP at a ratio of 7:3 and even 8:2. The Kuomintang has lost 800 000 supporters over the past 5624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 four years because these voters have passed away. Hong Kong faces the same problem too. If the fundamental conflict is not addressed properly, the SAR Government will still face immense difficulties in its administration in the future, and the problem cannot be resolved simply by arresting those 700 rioters as referred to by the Secretary. Can the authorities resolve all the problems by arresting them all? I do not believe so, because there is a deep-rooted conflict, and as long as this conflict is not resolved, whoever taking the office of the Chief Executive is set to face big problems. Certainly, one of the solutions to the problem is to implement genuine universal suffrage.

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

MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, we have finally entered the fifth debate session. During the past four debate sessions, many Members, particularly pan-democrat Members, have reasoned with the Government and pointed out the crux of the problems. In the third session, the Chief Secretary for Administration spoke in reply and she really put on an air of increasing officialdom. Perhaps she thinks that just putting on official airs will get things done. President, still less need I mention LEUNG Chun-ying. Perhaps he really believes that problems can be solved by ceaselessly stirring up conflicts and exercising to the fullest extent all of his powers.

Mr IP Kwok-him said just now that history is marked by many tragedies arising from the pursuit of ideals and the fights for humankind, and he cited Hitler as an example, among others. President, I wonder exactly how much Mr IP believes his own words. The people of Hong Kong just ask for maintenance of the existing freedoms, rule of law, human rights or systems. How is it possible to continue enjoying freedom and defending our rule of law and other systems under a sovereign state practising people's democratic dictatorship? The only way to have a chance to maintain the existing freedoms, rule of law and our cherished systems is to rely on a well-founded government which is fully accountable to the 7 million people of Hong Kong and that the process of generation of public powers must face the people of Hong Kong.

What we uphold is not abstract or surreal ideals. In fact, instead of talking about a place too far away, I will talk about our country. A century ago, Dr SUN Yat-sen led a revolutionary movement. In 1949, Mr MAO Zedong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5625 established the New China. Both of them did not talk about ideology whatsoever. Wherever he went for propaganda purposes, Dr SUN Yat-sen did not talk about the Three Principles of the People or the Five-Power Constitution. The Chinese people just would not care less about him at that time. What everyone would listen to was just how people's livelihood would be affected. MAO Zedong, however, told people that they would have farmland to cultivate just by following him. Nowadays, nobody in Hong Kong wants to be Hitler. What we want is just a decent system.

I wonder whether the Chief Secretary has noticed a news report. A week ago, a woman bought a Filet-O-Fish with small change at McDonald's. Having witnessed that, a young lady working at McDonald's treated her to an orange juice. Why would this kind of thing happen in Hong Kong? President, in Hong Kong, a Chinese-dominated place, it is very miserable to toil for a living in one's late years. Hong Kong is sitting on a surplus of hundreds of billions, or even trillions, of dollars, but it is locked up from use on the grounds that Soros would stage a raid on Hong Kong at any time.

President, what we strive for is a system promised by the Basic Law. The Sino-British Joint Declaration proposed that "horse racing and dancing would continue" ― of course, this was what kaifongs and the general public were supposed to hear. There were 14 sections in Annex I to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and the Annex described in great detail the values and systems of Hong Kong. Subsequently, what did we hear from the Central Government? The Central Government said that the Sino-British Joint Declaration, including Annex I, would be implemented through the Basic Law. It also told us to rest assured. Why did the Central Government tell us to rest assured? It is exactly because they knew that we could not rest assured, but why did the Central Government know that we could not rest assured? Because they knew that we would not trust this sovereign state that practises people's democratic dictatorship. Somebody said that we, like Hitler, pursue the ideology that ideals are achievable only by genocide. Is this analogy not off the mark? It is because of this perception that, one term after another, the Government becomes increasingly detached from people's sentiments, increasingly unable to respond to the thoughts of Hong Kong people.

President, sometimes I would think that the Government led by LEUNG Chun-ying has all along been pretending to be rational. He not only pretends to be rational, but also asks the people of Hong Kong to do so. He pretends that 5626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 this Council is still impartial and its system still fair. Therefore, we hear the Chief Secretary ceaselessly asking us not to filibuster but to vote first, nor to ask so many questions, because we have "wetted our hair" in the Express Rail Link (XRL) project ― is it not how Frederick MA put it? As we have "wetted our hair", we must carry on with the shampoo. Members should vote as soon as possible. Any further delay will be catastrophic beyond imagination. His underlying implication is, in fact, that voting is part of the system. However, this is institutional violence. In all of the Legislative Council Elections held after the reunification, the democrats obtained more than half of the votes, sometimes 55%, sometimes almost 60%, but due to distortion of the system, the percentage of votes obtained cannot be reflected in the conversion to the number of seats in the Council. The current problem is that the Government will only reason with us, pretending to be rational. It keeps asking us to vote and not to stir up any more trouble. Why do we not understand that if the Government really pretends to be rational, it is condoning institutional violence?

This morning, I went to the bus terminus by the Cross Harbour Tunnel to do campaigning for Alvin YEUNG. President, quite a number of people who go to work or school by train and then bus said to me that this Government is getting more and more unreasonable and seldom try to convince the public with reasons. Just as well they do not quite believe the words of LEUNG Chun-ying and the Chief Secretary. Of course, I understand that some people believe them, otherwise how would Hong Kong have been split into two forces now? Before the Government made those remarks, had it ever thought that real violence is, in fact, inherent in the system?

In the current by-election for a vacancy in New Territories East, what slogan did one of the candidates use for vote canvassing and publicity? It is "No bottom line for violent resistance", and that candidate emphasized the three words, "No bottom line". I wonder whether the two attending Secretaries of Departments would, having heard such a slogan and learnt that it won many "likes" by young people on the Internet, perform a ritual of joy while munching peanuts or even sniggering on the quiet because it was possible to snatch votes from Alvin YEUNG, or feel ashamed. I really have no idea. If the Secretaries consider it appropriate to respond when they speak in reply later, I hope they can somehow show their stance.

We are debating LEUNG Chun-ying's Policy Address. In the three-odd years under his governance, there has already emerged the proposition that there LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5627 is "no bottom line for violent resistance" and yet so many people, particularly young people, relish it. I do not know what view the Government holds. What reaction can it have in addition to feeling ashamed and worried? However, LEUNG Chun-ying did not react this way. He excitedly denounced those young people as rioters, defined the incident as a riot and sought to prosecute most of them for the offence of riot. Could it be that he truly believes this can solve the problems?

President, many people in the Council are also pretending to be rational. In fact, the Government asks us to pretend to be rational. The Government has sought funding approval 14 times for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project, involving an amount of up to $180 billion. When the Government recently applied for a supplementary provision of $5 billion to $6 billion, we asked the Government, in addition to interest and premium, whether the authorities had predicted future traffic flow and assessed if the bridge tolls collected would be sufficient for maintenance and repairs of the bridge? Do you know how Under Secretary YAU Shing-mu answered the Finance Committee? He said that it was unnecessary to answer these questions at a meeting for the discussion of supplementary provision and superstructure works of the boundary crossing, and therefore he did not answer the question. I further asked the Under Secretary whether the Guangdong-Hong Kong self-drive tour scheme would be implemented in future in the event of insufficient traffic flow. He did not answer it either. However, the application for supplementary provision was eventually approved all the same.

The Finance Committee will hold eight-hour meetings in the coming two weekends to discuss the XRL project, to which the Civic Party already raised objection five years ago. In fact, we have in all modesty foreseen the future as if through a crystal ball. In 2010, we basically gave two reasons for our objection. First, if the terminal is built at Kam Sheung Road in Yuen Long, at least $30-odd billion can be saved and it is unnecessary to dig a tunnel to West Kowloon. The current cost overruns and delays are all due to this tunnel. The Government has been coming up with contradictory excuses. Second, we proposed not to let Mainland public security personnel enforce law in Hong Kong, because this would seriously affect "one country, two systems". However, the then government officials said that site allocation should preferably be accorded priority. It was not until subsequently I listened again to the reply of the then Secretary for Transport and Housing, Eva CHENG, that I knew Eva CHENG told Dr LEUNG Ka-lau at that time that even the separate-location model would 5628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 generate sufficient economic benefits. The queries we raised back then have all been substantiated now. Had we held thorough discussions before having a shampoo at that time, we would not have had to ask whether we can skip the shampoo after applying the conditioner now.

President, in fact, it is the Government's attitude that fails to keep us rational. In the face of institutional violence, we should exert our best to eliminate it. Recently, we were pleased to hear the Chief Secretary say that the pan-democrat Members were active in discussing public affairs because we had spoken many times on the 2014 Copyright (Amendment) Bill. Had we not actively discussed public affairs in the past two months, why would the four-party meeting have been held the day before yesterday?

President, when people criticized the students of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) for besieging the HKU Council, and when the HKU Alumni Concern Group denounced LO Chung-mau as shameful, they should not have criticized those acts, because the reason was that institutional violence made it impossible for us to trust the system and believe it allows peaceful and rational means to solve problems. That is the key. Why is there nobody to solve this problem? Someone threw a punch at you and you parried it with you hand, but the Chief Secretary and LEUNG Chun-ying say that the one who parried the punch is wrong instead of criticizing the one who threw it in the first place, is this not absurd? Hong Kong is currently in such an absurd situation. Sometimes, woken from a dream late at night, I wonder if I am fooling myself? Am I hypnotizing myself, or even deceiving both myself and others?

President, I really do not think that we need to continue with this war of words in the Chamber, pretending to be rational and persuasive in reasoning. Are we reasoning with each other here then? The examples I cited just now have fully proved that the Government will not reason with us. That is why members of the public have already lost confidence in the system. Fortunately, most of those I met this morning near the Cross Harbour Tunnel still think that Hong Kong has not yet reached a point where it is necessary to turn this place into scorched land by hurling bricks and firebombs, and then the Police use water cannons to disperse the crowd and, if unsuccessful, may open fire or even deploy tanks to suppress them. If the Central Government and Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying can hear this debate, I sincerely hope that they will ponder the ultimate state and situation they intend for Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5629

President, this Policy Address fully reveals LEUNG Chun-ying's hypocrisy, and that his hypocritical rhetoric gets increasingly closer to perfection. Does anybody remember the first sentence in the introduction to the Policy Address? I quote, "Since taking office, the current-term Government has focused its efforts on promoting democracy." What can be more ridiculous than this sentence? Having read the white paper issued by the State Council on 10 June, which advocates exercising all unrestricted supreme powers, we know that the supreme powers under people's democratic dictatorship will not be restricted anymore. The 31 August Decision shuts three doors. It requires that screening be conducted before the people of Hong Kong have options, but LEUNG Chun-ying shamelessly says that this is genuine universal suffrage, which is guaranteed by Article 45 of the Basic Law, and only this can address the problems of Hong Kong and maintain the freedoms, rule of law and systems in Hong Kong. Could it be proof of "since taking office, the current-term Government has focused its efforts on promoting democracy"? Is there any sentence more untrue than this one?

President, having witnessed the incident that occurred in Mong Kok on Lunar New Year's Day, those who truly love Hong Kong must feel sad and heartbroken. After Lunar New Year's Day, every time I saw Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, of course in front of a camera instead of in private, he always put on villainous airs with a taut face to denounce some members of the public as rioters and said that Hong Kong would not tolerate acts of violence. As I just said, those are acts of violence unacceptable to most people in Hong Kong, including myself, but has LEUNG Chun-ying ever thought that, after all, the institutional violence initiated at his helm is the major cause of the incident? If he has not conducted any study, he should not speak at will. The Government might as well appoint the Chief Judge of the High Court to set up an independent commission of inquiry. If the inquiry report substantiates what he said, then he can say whatever he likes. As a matter of course, however, he will not do so. I do not expect him to do so either, because he does not want to invite embarrassment. Any objective inquiry will definitely conclude that the incident on Lunar New Year's Day was triggered by public resentment in a torn-apart and polarized Hong Kong, which is the result of the disputes arising from LEUNG Chun-ying's arrogant and overbearing acts that have sown discord over the past three and a half years of his rule. Maybe he has foreseen this conclusion, which is why he has decided not to conduct any inquiry.

5630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

President, this is very ridiculous. If he truly loves Hong Kong, he should, of course, find out the cause of the incident and then deal with the core issues. In the past, there were also some major incidents that aroused grave concerns among the people of Hong Kong and eventually warranted the setting up of a commission chaired by a Judge to conduct an independent inquiry. Examples are the riot initiated by SO Sau-chung against the Star Ferry fare increase in 1966, the disturbance on Christmas Eve in 1981, the Asian financial crisis in 1998, the Lamma ferry tragedy and the "lead in drinking water" inquiry, which is still ongoing to this date. Why is the current incident singled out to be exempted from inquiry?

The reason cited by the Chief Executive is that there are already many channels for members of the public to voice their views. As long as they voice their views through those channels, it will be fine, so there is no need to conduct an independent inquiry. Another reason is that, in future, those rioters and the incident in question will eventually be tried in court, and further discussion will resume then. President, are those remarks not ridiculous? The Court will only judge whether those appearing before it are guilty or not. It will not find out the causes and underlying factors of the disturbance. May I ask LEUNG Chun-ying, if the existing channels are so numerous that we can exchange views and vent our emotions but disturbances have still occurred, whether it implies that the current problems are more serious and all the more need an independent inquiry to determine the causes?

At his helm, the SAR Government has developed more and more problems. Whom does he think he is talking to? The people of Hong Kong are not so brainless as he imagines. They know how to think. If he says that he does not appoint a High Court Judge to conduct an inquiry because he hopes to avoid embarrassing himself, I can understand it anyway. He might as well honestly admit it. The two reasons cited by him are not reasons at all, and calling them excuses would be, I think, even flattery of him. It is really miserable to have this kind of man continue to be the Chief Executive.

President, the Civic Party will not thank the Chief Executive for this year's Policy Address because he has not at all addressed issues that are the greatest concern to the people of Hong Kong. From last year's Policy Address, we expected to learn how political reform could bring hopes and solutions to Hong Kong, but he did not do so. He just used last year's Policy Address to denounce Undergrad. An obviously unknown book named Hong Kong Nationalism was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5631 described by him as one guided by the ideology of Hong Kong independence. We thought he would do something realistic for people's livelihood after the political reform, but then he unexpectedly spent $1 billion to launch a Belt and Road Initiative scholarship and referred to "Belt and Road" 44 times in the Policy Address. I believe President XI Jinping also understands that the Belt and Road Initiative will not yield any results until 30 years later, but now the Chief Executive has deliberately kept talking about it. Is he out of his mind?

President, this is LEUNG Chun-ying's last Policy Address that he can dictate and put into implementation, but he has neither addressed imminent livelihood issues nor talked about "one country, two systems". He just talks about the Belt and Road Initiative. Regarding some issues that are the greatest concern to the people of Hong Kong, such as the disappearance of the five gentlemen from Causeway Bay Books, whether law will be enforced by Mainland public security personnel in the XRL West Kowloon Terminus, whether the Police have abused their powers, the reasons for the appointment of Arthur Li and whether universal retirement protection will be reneged on, and so on, he either leaves them not mentioned or is perfunctory about them. Against this background, the Civic Party cannot pretend to express gratitude for such a bogus Policy Address.

I so submit.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I would like to speak on the section concerning human rights policies in the Policy Address but ironically, I could not find a single paragraph mentioning human rights issues in the whole Policy Address. While it is said that the Belt and Road Initiative was mentioned over 40 times in the Policy Address, the words "human rights" were not even mentioned once. Issues regarding equal rights for sex minorities which have long been my concern were, of course, not mentioned at all.

I often reread the first policy address of LEUNG Chun-ying because there was at least one paragraph mentioning people of different sexual orientation, which stated that "… whether an anti-discrimination law is needed to protect people of different sexual orientation … is a highly controversial issue which must be tackled cautiously … at present, we have no plan to conduct consultation". This is the content of his first policy address.

5632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

President, according to the research report on sex minorities published by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) last month, 55.7% of the respondents were supportive of legislating against discrimination while nearly half of the respondents with religious beliefs (48.9%) also concurred with that. Such a percentage has increased twofold over the figure obtained by a previous similar survey conducted in Hong Kong. It is a hard-earned result which reflects the efforts made by the Government and the civil society in the past. However, it is regrettable that the latest Policy Address made no mention of equal rights for sex minorities. Two official reports have already been published, including the report issued by the EOC and the Advisory Group on Eliminating Discrimination against Sexual Minorities respectively. We have spent a huge amount of time conducting researches and polls on this issue, including those carried out by civil groups and official organizations which both reported findings indicating that Hong Kong society failed to provide adequate protection to sex minorities and it is hoped that the Government can commence consultation on enacting legislation for this as soon as possible.

Earlier on, Secretary Raymond TAM ― it is not good timing as he has just left ― mentioned the constitutional reform when he was interviewed by the Hong Kong Economic Journal, saying that the constitutional reform package, which had provoked disputes for three years, was vetoed with only eight votes of support in the Legislative Council. He concluded that Hong Kong society as a whole was not prepared and there were three factors contributing to this outcome: first, understanding of the legal system; second, trust among stakeholders; and third, communication problems. I would like to tell the Secretary that in terms of whether we should enact legislation against discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, there are also, in fact, three similar problems. Nonetheless, the Government cannot wait until the civil society has solved those three problems by themselves before taking a step further. On the contrary, the Government plays an essential role of helping members of the public to clearly understand the legal system, building trust and maintaining good communication.

What we demand today ― in fact, such a demand has been made for some 10 years instead of today ― is very humble, which is asking the Government to commence consultation on enacting legislation against discrimination. We simply demand the Government to commence consultation rather than enact legislation immediately. As we all know, the consultation process may be lengthy and there may be divergent views. Any bills … Take the Copyright LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5633

(Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill) as an example. Although the Bill was read the Second time, it remains very controversial in the Committee and may not be passed eventually but at least the Government has performed its role. However, the SAR Government continually procrastinates about the anti-discrimination legislation and even refuses to commence consultation on it. Such a highly controversial policy has already gained the support of over 50% of members of the public in society. How can the Government do justice to the sex minorities in Hong Kong if it simply refuses to take the further step of conducting consultation? How can the Government account for the fact that Hong Kong, as an international metropolis, has been required by the United Nations time and again to enact legislation for protection of sex minorities?

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I mainly wish to talk about issues concerning the rule of law in this session. Although such issues only take up a portion of the Policy Address, I still wish to comment on this most critical subject, because the existing cornerstone of the rule of law in Hong Kong has come under incessant challenges and reached a breaking point. Such a situation became particularly worse when a riot broke out in Mong Kong on the night of Lunar New Year's Day. The unlawful and violent acts of the mob almost destroyed the foundation of the rule of law in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong is teetering on the brink of violence and riots. I believe there is a pressing need for us to reflect on how to safeguard the cornerstone of the rule of law.

"Law is the authoritative principle for the people, and is the basis of government".1 The rule of law is not only the foundation of democracy but also the cornerstone of social stability and assurance for harmonious development. In the past, Hong Kong has long been considered as a city of rule of law in which the people of Hong Kong have taken pride. However, since the outbreak of the illegal Occupy Central, the fallacy that "breaking the law is justifiable" prevails in society. The behaviour of participants in the "shopping tour" protests, the "liberation" protests and the "anti-parallel goods smugglers" protests as well as the Mong Kok riot on Lunar New Year's Day has been growing increasingly radical. Those protestors completely disregarded the rule of law which, they believe, can be sacrificed in pursuit of their ideals. Is there anything else such law-breakers will not attempt to do? What will happen in Hong Kong if we

1 5634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 allow the continual dissemination of the fallacy that "breaking the law is justifiable"? Do we actually prefer to let Hong Kong, as a city of rule of law, degenerate into a city of crime?

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

The Police, who are responsible for enforcing the law, will be the first to suffer when the foundation of the rule of law comes under challenge. During Occupy Central, police officers often suffered violent attacks and were insulted and bashed by radical protestors. The Police were subject to constant insults even though they were mentally and physically exhausted. In the Mong Kok riot on Lunar New Year's Day this year, front-line police officers suffered head injuries and were bleeding when the culprits unreasonably attacked them with bricks and wooden clubs. Around 90 police officers suffered injuries of different severity. Is there any other place in the world where the Police would feel as aggrieved as their counterparts in Hong Kong? Nonetheless, we commend the Police for remaining professional and restrained in face of violent attacks as they still endeavoured to protect the lives and properties of the public. We express our deepest appreciation for police officers and wish those who were injured in the Mong Kok riot a speedy recovery.

Deputy President, I found it utterly obnoxious when the pan-democrat politicos who often advocate civilization and the rule of law do not practise what they preach. While advocating the rule of law, they actually supported the rioters when police officers suffered violent attacks by the mob and the rule of law was challenged. Some members of pan-democratic parties quickly went to police stations to offer legal assistance to the rioters after the outbreak of the Mong Kok riot. Afterwards they defended the culprits by advancing the lame excuse that the misgovernment drove the people to revolt. Therefore, it is evident that they only consider the laws as a tool especially for securing votes which can be treated in any way they like. It is even more ridiculous when these people, who completely disregard the rule of law, often claim that they are safeguarding the rule of law and protecting the future for the people of Hong Kong. Such behaviour is absolutely shameless.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5635

While I will not unrealistically expect those Members who refuse to face up to the facts to become objective and impartial, I hope they can be honest and ask themselves: who should take the credit for making Hong Kong one of the safest cities in the world? As the Police are ensuring the safety and order of society for us, do they not deserve our support? Instead, people often question whether there are excessive police powers. Who will eventually suffer if the prestige of the Police is damaged and the cornerstone of the rule of law in Hong Kong undermined? Therefore, if those Members are the "genuine" people of Hong Kong who have the best interest of Hong Kong at heart, I hope they can protect the core values of Hong Kong, such as civilization and the rule of law, with concrete actions and cease doing anything that will damage Hong Kong.

Deputy President, although the rule of law is not a salient point of the Policy Address, I sincerely hope that the relevant departments will not overlook this issue and will, instead, seriously reflect on the reasons why the foundation of the rule of law was under challenge. Is it because, as pointed out by some people in society, the punishments imposed on participants of the illegal Occupy Central were too lenient which failed to achieve any deterrent effect? How should we prevent the rule of law from being further undermined in future?

Furthermore, although the Policy Address has commended the disciplined services for being "strongly committed to their duties", I think the brief comment of "strongly committed to their duties" fails to adequately reflect the outstanding performance of the disciplined services, particularly the Police. I hope the Government can accord greater recognition to the disciplined services. Meanwhile, in terms of the requests to strengthen the equipment and manpower of the Police, I hope the authorities can fully support the proposal so as to prevent police officers from being further attacked by rioters.

Lastly, I would like to briefly comment on the relationship between the executive and the legislature. While some criticized the Policy Address for making no mention of how to improve the relationship between the executive and the legislature, I understand the unspeakable reasons of the Chief Executive. It is evident to all that the pan-democrats have mounted a full-scale filibuster in the Legislative Council since the beginning of the current Legislative Session. They have never adopted an objective approach in the debates nor tried to convince others with reasonable arguments. Instead, they rejected every single proposal, made wild accusations and confounded right with wrong. Their destructive behaviour resulted in the degeneration of the Council which is on the verge of 5636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 collapse. The relationship between the executive and the legislature has now reached rock bottom, and the pan-democrat Members are definitely the main culprits.

Deputy President, it is necessary for both parties to make efforts in order to improve their relationship. Even though the duties and roles of the executive and the legislature are different, I believe both parties can establish communication and co-operate as long as they both aim to strive for the well-being of the public. I hope the pan-democrat Members can give top priority to the interests of Hong Kong, stop filibustering and refrain from doing anything which will damage Hong Kong. Only by doing so can both parties have the opportunities to end the "confrontation" and establish "communication", thereby achieving smooth administration and social harmony in Hong Kong.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, to my surprise, just now I heard Mr Christopher CHEUNG say that lawyers who provided legal assistance to arrested persons were manipulating the law. Deputy President, such a remark is in fact insulting to the law and insulting to the rule of law. It is indeed appalling.

Deputy President, in this speech, I would like respond to the question of idealism mentioned by Mr IP Kwok-him just now. Members of the public and young people pursue their ideals. If they have resorted to violence, we will criticize them. Yet he said in pursuing ideals, they would become like Hitler because he also pursued his ideal. This is simply nonsense. Does he actually know what idealism means? Does idealism mean only following one's personal ideal and doing anything as one pleases? If this is how he interprets idealism, he is quite ignorant and shallow. If he wishes to talk about doctrines and philosophy, at least he should do some homework.

Another way of putting idealism is basing one's conduct on one's ideal. In other words, one's mind is the root cause for one's ideas and concepts. This explanation is a bit abstract. Many people, including some Members, may find it hard to understand. In that case, let us talk about the opposite of idealism, which is materialism. As a matter of fact, Marxism is also a kind of dialectical materialism. If I put it this way, they may then be able to understand it. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5637

Materialism has been criticized by many philosophers or religious people for spiritual emptiness, but never mind. Now we are not discussing this topic. Yet looking at it from another angle, the opposite of idealism is realism. It may be easier to understand the whole case if we talk about realism.

Mr IP spoke on realism. I believe it reflects what he upholds in his mind is realism. Realism in the minds of the pro-establishment camp in Hong Kong is very simple. It is following the strong power and following "Grandpa". Whatever "Grandpa" says, they will say the same words. That is most typical. They follow the crowd without thinking. They have no idea what is happening, but still they will follow the crowd. That is the case. They have already spoken it out. What is the reality? It is availability of advantages and benefits. This is the reality. If they are to follow someone, of course they will follow the "Big Brother". They will get benefits only if they follow the "Big Brother". Will they ever follow the weak? Between the high wall and the eggs, of course they will choose the high wall. This is realism.

Deputy President, Mr Stephen CHOW, the most famous and influential philosopher in Hong Kong, has a well-known saying to this effect: "How is a person different from dried salted fish if he does not have any dream?" Deputy President, I believe this saying is directed at them. What is pursuit of ideals? MAO Zedong also had his ideal. He originally followed Marxism, but after he came to power, the quality of something might have changed. Nevertheless, in my mind, and I also believe in many people's minds, there are actually a lot of decent role models for pursuit of ideals.

Many people will not take Hitler as their ideal role model. It may not be MAO Zedong either. An example is Dr Martin Luther KING, who had his dream and his ideal. He said, "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.'" Simply put, that means equality for everyone, including the right to election pursued by the black people at that time. Now the people of Hong Kong are also pursuing this, which is an equal right to election. Has Hong Kong attained this ideal now? Is everyone equal?

Dr SUN Yat-sen, our Founding Father, did not make any empty talk, but he was often criticized because he was an idealist. He was such an idealist that he was criticized as "Cannon SUN". In Cantonese, it means he was merely talking big.

5638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Deputy President, if I am to choose whose ideal to follow, I certainly will not choose Hitler. Should I choose MAO Zedong or Dr SUN Yat-sen? MAO Zedong founded the country, whereas Dr SUN Yat-sen pursued his ideal and even resorted to revolution, but time and again, he was bullied and hurt, and in the end he died in grief. Despite this, I think I would rather learn ― not follow. I am unable to follow him. I am not as outstanding and noble as him ― yet we still hope to make Dr SUN Yat-sen as our role model.

Members of the public will see who merely go after their own interests and who go after an ideal, selflessly striving for an ideal, fair society. If they have adopted improper practices, we will criticize them. However, Deputy President, I absolutely do not concur with someone's blatant distortion that idealism means Hitler. This is simply an insult to all Hongkongers who are pursuing their ideals. Whatever wrong practices they have adopted, we can criticize them and debate about them. He, however, slammed all Hongkongers who are pursuing their ideals, criticizing them indiscriminately regardless of their approaches, including peaceful ones. This is unacceptable. It is also the usual practice of the pro-establishment camp for diverting people's attention.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Governments all over the world serve the public. By the same token, in supporting the Government, the pro-establishment camp also aims to serve the public. I believe the pro-establishment camp in the Legislative Council has been upholding the spirit of serving the public. Hence, I believe no matter what criticism comes our way, what we do is clearly seen by the public.

Deputy President, this session discusses the governance by the SAR. Governance involves matters of all scales in all aspects, and the Chief Executive also said that "nothing about people's livelihood is trivial" when he freshly assumed office. We first put our emphasis on the top concern of every family. They need to have a dwelling place. The Government has also accorded top priority to the issue of housing and land. Another important issue of governance concerns people's immediate safety, that is, law and order, which is a matter of life and death. This aspect of governance is also worthy of further elaboration.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5639

I will start with housing, which is the top priority in governance. Although I discussed the relevant issue in the second debate session, I hope the Deputy President will allow me to use my own speaking time to make a further elaboration in this regard. Since his assumption of office in 2013, the Chief Executive has made housing and land an important task in governance. The Policy Address this year again stressed that housing was still the most important livelihood issue we had to address. It gathered information about the overall housing trend from different angles and aspects for analysis, and put forward administration plans and measures on various fronts.

First, it analysed the existing difficulties and challenges from an objective perspective. Then, it set out the medium- and long-term land supply management and housing development plans from a macro perspective, emphasizing that Lantau possesses land resources suitable for future development. Finally, it presented in detail various short- and medium-term action schemes and measures from a micro perspective. In my view, from the above three perspectives, we can see that the incumbent SAR Government has provided a rather mature and comprehensive framework for its housing policy, which is the top priority in governance, and risen to the challenge. It is worthy of recognition by the Legislative Council. But we should note how such measures which have achieved initial results can be further taken forward continuously by the subsequent Chief Executive, and how the potential risks and disincentives can be eliminated. I believe this is rather critical to future administration.

On the one hand, a reasonable public rental housing (PRH) policy is one of the essential factors of successful governance by the Government nowadays. Looking back at the governance in the 1950s or 1960s, there was a need to construct resettlement housing and low-cost housing. Subsequently, flats under the Home Ownership Scheme (HOS), the Sandwich Class Housing Scheme and the Tenants Purchase Scheme, and so on, were introduced one after another, thereby solving the housing problems for those who are not sufficiently capable of living in private housing. By a rough estimate, a population of some 3 million or nearly 50% of the people are currently living in PRH flats, which is not easy under the low tax regime of Hong Kong, while in Singapore where Housing and Development Board flats (tantamount to HOS flats in Hong Kong) are the mainstay, its population living in PRH flats only accounts for 5%, which is 10 times less than that in Hong Kong. From the angle of increasing politicization, if PRH flats are a concentrated and actual source of votes for 5640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 elections, the incumbent or future Administration should really draw up governance-based and forward-looking arrangements for the long-term PRH strategies, and rationally consider the situation in the long run.

On the other hand, in Hong Kong where the capitalist system is implemented under the Basic Law, people generally consider home ownership a source of security. It is better for members of the public to acquire their own properties to the best of their abilities, instead of largely depending on PRH. Also, from the perspective of resource allocation, various types of housing constructed with public funds should stick to the "no frills" principle, or else it will be difficult to optimize the allocation of resources. As to the criteria for allocation of public housing, they must be kept abreast of the times, especially the two main requirements, namely income and assets. As these two requirements together with the practice of arranging for the well-off tenants to surrender their PRH flats for people in greater need have aroused great controversies, they badly need review and enhancement. A review must be conducted in a strict and serious manner taking into account Hong Kong's situation, so as to pre-ampt a large number of tenancy abuse cases. For example, with a monthly income of some $90,000, a Member of the Legislative Council can actually rent a hotel room every day. But he can still occupy a PRH flat for a long time, which can be considered a strange thing in the city. Conserving PRH resources to enable timely access by those in need is an aspect that merits attention and concern in governance.

Deputy President, given the scarcity of land in Hong Kong, optimization of land use is one of the important cornerstones in managing the limited resources in Hong Kong. At present, 70% of the land in Hong Kong are green zones, among which 50% come from country parks, while residential properties only account for 6.1%. Compared with Hong Kong, the green belts in Singapore, the international renowned "Garden City", account for 50%, which is 20% lower than that in Hong Kong. Just as what Prof Francis LUI, a well-known scholar, said some time ago, given the scarcity of land resources in Hong Kong, would it be really unwise to use such a large proportion of land to support an average of 10 hours of hiking activities at most for each person annually? Hence, if we get enmeshed in a web of our own making or confine the scope beforehand, will it be unfair and unjust to the ordinary people who merely ask for a decent place of dwelling? Due consideration should be given to this aspect of governance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5641

In addition, the Policy Address this time around mentioned some specific items on the agenda for the development of Lantau, setting out relatively appropriate arrangements for the direction of governance in the long run. In fact, the construction of such infrastructure as the new airport, Tung Chung New Town and Disneyland before the reunification, as well as the connection of the Airport Express, the Tung Chung Line and the Lantau Link with the land transport outside the island have already provided extremely favourable conditions for the development of this island, the area of which is equivalent to that of nearly two Hong Kong Islands. The hills and coastlines along the road and alongside the railway possess enormous potential for development, which absolutely merit planning and proper use for property development, with a view to optimizing the use of existing resources.

In the long run, if the Government can be more proactive in initiating housing supply, the two extremes of inability to afford home ownership or negative-equity assets due to property price fluctuations can be avoided. This merits a study in the context of governance. In this connection, the authorities announced last year that a "Future Fund" scheme would be launched this year, with some $220 billion being allocated from the balance of the Land Fund as an initial endowment to seek higher returns for the fiscal reserves through long-term investments. In fact, this rationale is similar to that of sovereign wealth funds established by some countries. But in the Hong Kong context, given that this sum of fund originates from land, it is absolutely appropriate to study how best it can be used to support the long-term land supply. Apart from the current scheme under which a portion of the funds is used for investments in overseas markets, I suggest that the authorities should study setting aside an appropriate portion of the funds for investments in the local property market, thereby giving play to the dual functions of investment and regulation of housing supply in the long term. In that case, flats can be supplied in case of a cyclical shortage in the local property market, and appropriate quantities of surplus flats in the market can also be absorbed as investments in fixed assets other than financial assets. In particular, it will serve a positive function of minimizing the incidence of a negative equity asset crisis. Although the aforementioned concept will probably encounter certain technical difficulties, the authorities must study more feasible and ambitious plans for enhancement as part of its policy on housing administration.

5642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Deputy President, while living in peace is surely important, a safe and secure environment is also absolutely cherished and upheld by the people of Hong Kong. Since the reunification, Hong Kong with its good law and order situation has long been one of the safest cities in the world. But in recent years, there have been incessant struggles in the Council with the interference of foreign political forces and "dark money". The opposition camp has attempted to deal blows to the Government's administration and governance on various fronts, and even intentionally disobeyed the law, initiated Occupy Central and undermined the rule of law. As reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation a year ago, the Oslo Freedom Forum held in Norway revealed that more than 1 000 Hongkongers had received training prior to Occupy Central, including how to speak to the Police and manage their action. Occupy Central has given rise to social division and disruption. A small bunch of radical separatists have even advocated the idea of "Hong Kong independence", stirring up conflicts between Hong Kong and the Central Authorities. After the failure of Occupy Central, a series of conflicts and confrontations such as the so-called "shopping tours", kicking suitcases to drive tourists away and dashing around to cause destruction have become increasingly violent. And now, they have even blatantly initiated the Mong Kok riot. Obviously, this series of evildoings has an axe to wield, with the apparent aim of maliciously undermining the Government's administration.

On the first night of the Lunar New Year this year, a small bunch of troublemakers started a riot in the streets of Mong Kok on the pretext of signifying their support for hawking activities. As captured by a number of cameras of the media, a group of assailants in dark clothes, covering their heads and faces with gloves on, were armed with wooden clubs and iron bars. They even hurled bricks, stone debris, pallets and glass bottles, while chasing and attacking police officers. Such scenes were brutal and bloody, in which they attempted to kill the police officers. Moreover, they set fires to cause disturbances everywhere, resulting in damages of the social environment. Some 90 police officers and a number of reporters were injured in the incident, some of them being in serious condition. The troublemakers acted on the pretext of safeguarding local values, but what they did were bad things that disrupted Hong Kong's social order and security. It was apparently an organized and premeditated action, and a riot that caused social destruction. The rule of law has long been a core value of Hong Kong. But the series of destructive evildoings from the Council to the streets has not been curbed effectively. Now LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5643 they have even blatantly and wantonly launched an extremely violent riot. ZHANG Xiaoming, Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, has really hit the nail on the head in pointing out that the radical separatist force has turned increasingly violent, and it is even leaning towards terrorism.

Hong Kong society has long been stable with sustained economic prosperity, where the rule of law is well known to all. What are the consequences of the evildoing that has disrupted social order in recent years? The business environment has gradually become difficult, and employment prospects have turned gloomy bit by bit. Being affected, people's livelihood is caught persistently in a sluggish state, and it is difficult to ensure a good living and working environment. As shown by the latest information, the performance of the tourism industry as one of the four major pillars of Hong Kong economy has continually worsened, with a drop in the overall visitor arrivals to Hong Kong by 2.5%. The amount of spending by overnight visitors has even dropped by 9.1%. Also, the financial industry has also experienced a downturn. The downturn in the financial and tourism industries will inevitably radiate into the retail industry and other service industries. A sequel to all kinds of trouble undermining the governance by the Government in recent years has gradually emerged.

The so-called "localist" organization is a radical political force in Hong Kong. They stress "localist" but in essence, they attempt to sever Hong Kong from the Motherland, sparing no effort in smearing the Mainland's political and economic culture specifically among the young people. They ruin the trend of integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland, alleging that national education is "brainwashing education", while the recognition and reading of simplified characters as well as using Putonghua to teach the Chinese Language subject are communization. And Hong Kong is "shining the boots of Grandpa" in seeking actively to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and participate in the Belt and Road Initiative. All in all, they oppose everything and always cause trouble. Now, they have even trampled hard on the rule of law in Hong Kong by violence and committed violent acts at the expense of the territory's prosperity and stability. The general public absolutely will not tolerate it, and have voiced their strong condemnation. We stand firm with the 5644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Police and support them in reasonably upgrading their equipment in order to ensure strict law enforcement, bringing criminals to justice and preserve Hong Kong's prosperity and stability.

During this special period of governance, the Government should make people gain a better understanding of the social destruction caused by rioters, and the cost of committing such criminal offences by means of education and publicity. At the same time, it should condemn supporters of violence for being cold-blooded, cruel and unscrupulous. Deputy President, in order to enable people to live in peace and work with contentment, economic development is the only way out for international metropolises. And giving people a secure dwelling place and a peaceful and harmonious living environment is a key part and important mission of governance by the Government.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the Motion of Thanks.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am going to use up all of my 30 minutes of speaking time in this session. The whole debate on the Policy Address is divided into five sessions. Some Members may speak by sessions, and some speak in one go; to me, there is little difference between the two approaches, since the Policy Address has been finalized with little room for adjustment actually. At the same time, in my following speech, I would first talk about the riot which took place in Mong Kok, an incident of concern to Honourable colleagues, because a number of Members spoke in one voice earlier in condemnation of violence, while the pan-democrat Members spoke in defence of it. So, I will use a little time to express my view on this.

First of all, everyone is duty-bound to condemn violence regardless of one's political orientation, because the existence of different views will not lead to disruption of social order, but violence will definitely disrupt social order and upset social stability, and that is in stark contrast to Hong Kong people's aspiration for a secure living and work with contentment. If this is not condemned in the strongest possible tone, it will only grow worse in the future. Unfortunately, some planners of the riot still proudly claim that "it is better to die with honour than to survive in disgrace". This implies that similar incidents may reoccur or even escalate to another level unaware of the damage caused to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5645 community, and they show no regret over how it would induce worries among the people and cause them to feel unsettled. Therefore, all people in Hong Kong should be alert.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Let me make it clear right from the outset, if originators of the turmoil stick to their own way, the next thing in store after condemnation will be spurning by the community, and the rioters will no longer be able to win the sympathy of the public. Pan-democrat Members should be credited for the unrepentant rioters. Their soft condemnation of violence is actually a helping hand disguised as light criticism, and they swiftly proceeded to throw their punches at the administrative blunders of the Government with a view to rationalizing the use of violence. However, given the multifarious problems faced by the governments of different places, is it necessary for the communities around the world to resort to militant confrontation? The world will then be a shambles.

Ms Cyd HO of the Labour Party was the first one to come forth to suggest that people resisted in response to the Government's oppression, and Dr Fernando CHEUNG, who spoke last evening, also said that peaceful and rational approaches would no longer work at this moment. Such remarks sound like promoting violent confrontation. Dr CHEUNG's influence should not be ignored, given the large number of students he has taught. I was once a student of his, and he demonstrated professionalism during the class in the knowledge he imparted and in his attitude; yet, if he delivers such a dangerous political message to the community, I believe everyone having been under his tutelage should be able to distinguish what is good or bad instead of accepting everything.

In addition, Dr Fernando CHEUNG added that the Police would hate the mob, and the mob would hate the Police. Undoubtedly, a stage for hatred is thus set for more vehement scenes to unfold in case a similar incident happens again. In fact, a group of us conscientious Members visited the injured police officers, including Officer WONG, who had to undergo surgeries in his cheekbone. The first thing he told us was that he does not hate anyone, and that he will continue to serve the public. I was also asked by an Officer CHAN to relay that as 5646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 enforcement officers in the front line, they advocate political neutrality, and they will definitely take action on anyone who commits an offence regardless of his political stance; and they hope that those rioters should not single them out and treat them as killers of their fathers who have to be done away with. Here, I once again extend my best wishes to the police officers and journalists who were injured.

President, let me come back to the Policy Address and talk about housing first. I was appointed to the Housing Authority as a member last year and have been attending the meetings of the Panel on Housing since assuming office of this Council. All along, I am worried about the impact of the imbalance between housing demand and supply as well as its side-effects on the community.

In view of the scarcity of land and high population density in Hong Kong, every generation of people in Hong Kong is going to be plagued by the difficult problem of finding a dwelling place. A young man still in school may need to start worrying about his future accommodation before joining the workforce, because a residential unit may well become a loan to be borne for the rest of his life. Many people devote a lion's share of their income to rental payment or mortgage repayment, and this actually stands in the way of their pursuit of quality of life and upward mobility, because the money can otherwise be spent on further studies or other areas of development. The social and economic problems thus arisen will have extensive implications.

Therefore, it is most pressing to solve the problem of housing in Hong Kong. The current-term Government has been making enormous efforts to increase the supply of land and housing to lay the foundation for stable supply in the future. I thank the current-term Government for its plan, and hope that responsible departments can continue to study more ways to increase the supply of land and housing. Nevertheless, a nearby fire cannot be put out by distant water. Coupled with the fact that housing has remained a problem ever since TUNG Chee-hwa's initiative of building 85 000 flats a year being called to a halt, the result is that the number of applicants on the Waiting List for public rental housing (PRH) now stands at 280 000. They have waited for more than three years. I hope that both the current-term and next Governments can step up efforts to solve the relevant problems.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5647

In the Policy Address of 2013, the Chief Executive proposed relaxing the moratorium on land development for five sites in Pok Fu Lam, as well as redeveloping Wah Fu Estate in tandem with the development of the South Island Line (West); in the following year, the Housing Authority proposed that feasibility studies on 22 old public housing estates with potentials for redevelopment would be conducted. What was the result? Three years down the line, we needed to keep asking until I together with resident representatives of Wah Fu Estate met with Deputy Director of Housing and demanded the presentation of a timetable for Wah Fu Estate redevelopment. For the very first time, the department disclosed that the first phase of redevelopment is scheduled to complete no sooner than 2024; at the same time, the redevelopment project as a whole will have to be carried out in three phases or more, spanning two full decades.

President, as redevelopment requires a great deal of time, can residents continue to endure it? Residents living on the topmost floors have recounted to us how badly they are plagued by leaking in the roof for a long time. The leaking is so annoying that they are like sleeping on a water bed every day, and spalling concrete falling from the ceiling is a commonplace to them, giving them extra topping on the food they cook if not dealing a heavy blow to their heads. Some residents even wonder if they can live long enough to witness the completion of the redevelopment.

President, I have echoed the various voices of the residents hoping that the Government would listen. Since the announcement on the redevelopment of those 22 estates, those residents plagued by their dilapidated PRH units always need to arrange for patchy repair works, but the authorities claim that such units are structurally safe and may well last for 15 more years after comprehensive renovation. After two full years of waiting, residents of the 22 estates feel like their hope is dashed, and some of them even swear that "If there is no true intention to do it, do not make any empty promise." In particular, everyone can see that housing estate redevelopment very often takes 20 years or so, and renovation will only extend the life of these old estates for 15 years. Will the residents risk living in dangerous buildings one day?

With the number of applicants on the Waiting List reaching new heights over and over again and the growing demand for PRH, it will be increasingly difficult to identify land available for development. I believe it will be more difficult to arrange for local rehousing, and the redevelopment cycle will only 5648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 grow longer. It is worthy for the Housing Authority as well as government departments to dedicate resources to the studies and efforts on enhancing the efficiency of redevelopment and shortening the redevelopment period.

President, next I will talk about transport. The Government has all along stressed railway as the backbone of public transport development in Hong Kong, yet no news is out about the much anticipated South Island Line (West). Residents of Southern District have to continue to endure the inconvenience of traffic congestion with a jittery mood every day. As for the Siu Sai Wan extension, it is even pointed out in a new document on railway that the project will not be considered prior to 2031 to the disappointment of Siu Sai Wan residents.

According to the Report on Study of Road Traffic Congestion in Hong Kong, in the morning peak hours of 2013, the average vehicle speed on Hong Kong Island was merely 20 km/hour, the lowest among Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories, and Southern District is the only district in Hong Kong devoid of rail services. Those people living in Cyberport, Pok Fu Lam, Wah Fu Estate, and so on, need to pass through Pok Fu Lam Road or Victoria Road to travel to the urban areas, whereas residents of Aberdeen, South Horizons, Lei Tung and Wong Chuk Hang have to rely on the Aberdeen Tunnel. Given the frequent traffic jams, the absence of rail services and the flawed planning on transport facilities, many people turn to private vehicles as a speedier means to get to their destinations. What is the result then? Over 48% of the users of the Aberdeen Tunnel are private vehicles. The more the number of vehicles on the road, the more congested it will be, and a vicious cycle is thus formed. This is the case of many places on Hong Kong Island, such as the areas around Central and Wan Chai.

However, in the Policy Address this year, initiatives dedicated to the transport infrastructure on Hong Kong Island or those on controlling the number of private vehicles as well as improving congestion on the road are far from adequate. For example, despite the very serious traffic congestion in Southern District, the Government is still bent on developing the district, with initiatives ranging from removing the development constraints on Pok Fu Lam, the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate to the large-scale development at Wong Chuk Hang. The increased population and economic activities spurred by these initiatives coupled with the tourists brought by the traditional industries and a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5649 theme park in the district will upset the traffic there. I hope the Government can take note of these and expeditiously submit the timetable and exact alignment of South Island Line (West) as a realistic solution to the traffic problems in the district.

President, I will proceed to talk about manpower. President, for a policy address to be complete, various policy areas should be taken into account to address the needs of different classes; yet looking at the Policy Address as a whole, it actually has nothing to deliver with regard to labour policies, with which the labour sector is greatly disappointed and dissatisfied.

The demands raised by the labour sector in the past are met with "four noughts", so to speak. First, alignment of the two types of holidays at 17 days, which the labour sector has all along called for, is not mentioned in the Policy Address; the proposal for gradually mitigating or abolishing the offsetting mechanism under the Mandatory Provident Fund System, as promised by the Chief Executive, is not mentioned; not a word is said about reviewing the minimum wage annually, and that makes it to "three noughts"; standard working hours is mentioned in the Policy Address, but regrettably, it is only stated that a second-round consultation will be conducted, and the consultation is likely to be oriented towards the framework of contractual working hours. If contractual working hours is the only thing left, legislation will then not be enacted for standard working hours. That is why I describe the Policy Address as "four noughts".

While the Policy Address has nothing to deliver in respect of improving labour policies, it states in clear terms that there is a need to import labour to open the gate for contractors to expand the import of labour, dealing a blow to the rights to employment enjoyed by local construction workers as well as the opportunity to improve their welfare benefits. Once the gate is opened, a domino effect felt by all sectors alike will be kicked off.

The Secretary said in his conclusive speech last evening that no attempt would ever be made to skip the Labour Advisory Board (LAB), yet our labour sector is still worried. Why? Because in case of a six-to-six stalemate between employees and employers, the Commissioner for Labour will have the right to make the final decision. Let me remind the Secretary for Labour and Welfare as well as the Commissioner for Labour that they have to respect the decision made 5650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 by the LAB, despite it not being consensual. The key to sharing the fruits of economic growth lies in optimizing talent planning, enhancing training, improving working conditions and remuneration packages as well as attracting locals to join the sectors and retaining them.

President, the Secretary mentioned last evening that employees and employers are not mutually exclusive, and that they should understand each other and seek common ground while accommodating different views for the sake of harmony. This is what I have heard and the Secretary has said for countless numbers of time. As in the example of paternity leave, the business sector did not accept even one day of paternity leave at the beginning, not to mention seven days. After the repeated and strenuous lobbying efforts made by our labour representatives on the LAB, concession was finally made to pave the way for the introduction of three-day paternity leave. Otherwise, given how Members representing the business sector would vote against it in a bundled up manner in this Council, paternity leave of three days may even be out of reach, not to mention seven days.

Nevertheless, as babies are born every year and the birth rate of Hong Kong is low, one would enjoy paternity leave for only one time or two in his lifetime. Therefore, we hold that the expeditious implementation of three-day paternity leave would benefit more wage earners, an outcome that is better than fighting for seven days indefinitely. However, the pan-democrat Members piggybacked on the situation by questioning why we did not support seven days as a better option than three days. It rang on their lips proudly as they had not been any part of the negotiation, not being aware of how the labour representatives on the LAB had spared no efforts in fighting for the eventual three-day package as a concession. They always make commanding comments as outsiders, but they have not made any contribution to the negotiation process. They are just free riders. No doubt, this will hurt the labour representatives arduously engaged in the negotiation and undermine the unity of the labour sector. They are the most belligerent ones.

President, when it comes to belligerence, the pan-democrat Members always accuse the Government of being belligerent, which I disagree, given how busy the work of the Government is; the only point I agree is that those in the Government, especially the Secretary for Labour and Welfare and the Commissioner for Labour, would like to see how employees and employers fight each other in the cage. The battle on standard working hours has lasted for three LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5651 years with no fruit borne yet, and the Government merely watches on the sideline. The statistics they provide throughout the meetings favour the business sector, and the remark that local economic development will be undermined by standard working hours is contrary to the openness the Secretary claims to hold every day, if not a downright fraud.

As regards standard working hours, given the fact that contractual working hours is most likely to be the outcome of the second-round consultation, I can tell the Secretary, the Commissioner and wage earners at large that contractual working hours is absolutely not the savoury and mouth-watering egg tart we favour. Instead, it is no more than a piece of bread left overnight. Why am I saying this? Because under the current Employment Ordinance, working hours and wage rates, including the rates for overtime work, should be clearly stated in the contract even without the various efforts made by the Standard Working Hours Committee over the last three years. This is the job supposed to be undertaken by the Labour Department, but it is now passed on to the Committee, which may turn out to achieve nothing at all.

Let me make it clear here, the Government's position is attributed to the pressure from the business sector obviously. As Members are aware, "one person, one vote" is out of our reach after the political reform package was vetoed last year, and the sway of the business sector may wield in the Chief Executive Election cannot be contained. Instead, they have become more influential, posing further difficulties to our fight for labour benefits and rights. This is a major impact after the political reform package was vetoed.

President, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan of the Labour Party once doubted why we picked Mr LEUNG Chun-ying as the Chief Executive in the first place. I would like to tell Mr LEE how easy it always is to be wise after the event. No one has the crystal ball, so the real picture will not be seen until a candidate assumes office. However, I can assert that without the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) vigorously calling on the candidates to include in their manifestos the initiative of standard working hours and the abolition of the offsetting mechanism under the Mandatory Provident Fund System, no one will now be able to ask the Chief Executive to honour his promises. With our call for including the two in the manifesto, they can now piggyback on the situation by joining us in demanding the Chief Executive to honour his promises. Therefore, I hope they can think twice before chiding anyone.

5652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Next, President, I am going to talk about other aspects surrounding standard working hours. A Member representing the business sector stated openly earlier that standard working hours would reduce the working hours of doctors at public hospitals, thus leading to more deaths among patients. The remark has of course drawn flak, and the Member concerned has made an apology afterward, yet this fully reflects how standard working hours has been misunderstood by the business sector. Hong Kong is a developed capitalist society. Standard working hours is very often regarded as a yardstick for measuring people's quality of life, yet it is still unavailable to Hong Kong, which is one of the areas in the world with the longest working hours. For many types of job, one has to work for more than 50 hours a week, or even 60 hours in the catering or security sectors, showing how unfair the situation is.

Let me cite an example here. Earlier, the HSBC Holdings announced the decision of a pay freeze in the wake of the global economic downturn, and its Hang Seng Bank was implicated as well; but in terms of figures, their Hong Kong branch was highly profitable, accounting for half of their global profitability. What is the question here? Why is it related to standard working hours? The number of working hours in the banking sector is second to none, and we wonder why this is not reflected in the research report on standard working hours. In fact, wage earners in Hong Kong's banking sector have to work from dawn to dusk. Now that the Hong Kong branch is making big money, their profitability has to be shared with other staff in Europe, the United Kingdom or the United States, where standard working hours is already implemented, and their pay is set to be frozen.

Fortunately, the banking union under the FTU's Hong Kong Clerical And Professional Employees General Union eventually organized a signature campaign about the incident and took the initiative to question the decision of freezing the pay of staff working for the highly profitable Hong Kong branch. Finally, the HSBC Holdings withdrew its pay-freeze decision. I think the example has illustrated how far wage earners may be fooled in the absence of standard working hours in Hong Kong. So, it is necessary to pursue legislative efforts expeditiously for the implementation of standard working hours.

In addition, I would like to cite an example relevant to the current debate session, and it is about the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance. President, a real estate agent passed the contact number of an alumni to an insurance agent earlier, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5653 and the person whose information was leaked lodged a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCO), Hong Kong against the aforementioned real estate and insurance agents. Finally, the information provider was fined $5,000, whereas the information user was acquitted of the charge as sales services had yet to be provided. The question is that one may be charged or fined for a significant sum of money for providing information to others.

Why did I cite this example? Because an insurance union of ours lodged a complaint with the PCO about the public having never been informed of the scenario that providing the information of a third party to others might constitute an offence in law, pointing to its lack of publicity and education among the community. If the information of a third party is to be provided to a fourth party, details have to be set out in unequivocal terms, including who the recipient is; how the information is provided; what information is involved; whether it is provided through telephone, email, fax, WeChat or other means of contact; the purpose of use, and so on. However, I believe many people of Hong Kong are not aware of this. Therefore, we called for enhanced community education and publicity by the PCO. But in the quick reply by the PCO, the very first thing they said was that resources for publicity and education were not available, and we were greatly surprised. Given the severity of the problem and the emergence of the case, why is there no effort made yet to improve publicity and education on this? I hold that the PCO should be given the resources they need for publicity and promotion to prevent members of the public from being so prosecuted.

Finally, I would like to express my view on a topic much talked about, namely the Belt and Road Initiative. Of course, "Belt and Road" is mentioned in the Policy Address for 40 or so times, and it is up to anyone to judge if it is too frequent. However, the pan-democrat Members are unanimous that the Belt and Road Initiative is not good if not bad, and this is tantamount to giving no regard to the development of Hong Kong or the interests of locals. I consider such a remark malicious. Why? Because the pan-democrat Members' opposition to any form of exchange between Hong Kong and the Mainland, be it the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, national education or other initiatives, is evident to all.

5654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Nevertheless, "Belt and Road" is not a topic that can be spoken in great detail easily, as it is a very large-scale initiative. I only wish to say that given the economic positioning of Hong Kong in the past, its competitiveness is on a declining trend in the wake of the changes in time and circumstances. Only through some large-scale initiatives, including the Belt and Road Initiative, would a more favourable environment be created for Hong Kong to identify further opportunities. Whether more university graduates are available to Hong Kong is predicated on whether relevant jobs in the middle tier or above can be offered. If the Belt and Road Initiative manages to benefit the economy, there will be more job opportunities for middle management. If we just increase the number of school places and the resources for universities but not the types of job available, the prospect of university students will only be dim. Therefore, the Belt and Road Initiative is actually a significant opportunity for Hong Kong, and I hope everyone can understand and approach it in a positive and proper way and be a part of it for the better development of Hong Kong, thus paving the way for scaling another summit.

President, I so submit.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, I will exhaust all of my 30-minutie speaking time to talk about the governance of the Government. Regarding the prevailing situation faced by Hong Kong, the crisis in governance faced by the whole Government and the various kinds of social conflicts, if Members can look at them carefully instead of turning a deaf ear or a blind eye to them, they will see that governance is the crux and key of these problems. However, LEUNG Chun-ying, who is physically in Hong Kong but has turned his mind to Beijing, does not seem to share this view. I will explain in detail how these practices of putting the cart before the horse and confusing priorities have become the greatest shortcoming in the overall administration.

First of all, we all see that the main theme and highlight of the Policy Address is the Belt and Road Initiative and the National 13th Five-Year Plan. Among the 200-odd paragraphs in the Policy Address, the Belt and Road Initiative was mentioned in at least 36 paragraphs for a total of 44 times, and this is the focus of the Policy Address. President, we do not think that the Belt and Road Initiative is irrelevant and useless to Hong Kong. In fact, the issue has been debated in this Council. We know that this is a huge plan concerning the future external development of the entire country, involving cross-boundary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5655 infrastructure and the establishment of external relations on various fronts, and that we are talking about investment amounting to tens of thousand billion dollars and planning stretching over several decades. Given Hong Kong's location in the peripheral area ― some people certainly will say that Hong Kong is an international financial centre ― and its strengths, it is natural that Hong Kong will be able to make contribution to the country. But is it proportionate to use this as the focus of the Policy Address today? In the face of the many imminent problems, is it appropriate to use the plan as the core of the Policy Address? No wonder many people say that the Policy Address is prepared for leaders in Beijing but not for the people of Hong Kong, an attempt by him to pander to the Beijing authorities for the approval of a second term. I am not going to argue about this here. But I have to say that in view of the prevailing situation in Hong Kong, is such a practice not ridiculous? Is it out of proportion? Can he use his common sense?

Second, we come to governance. In fact, we do not need to tell from the Mong Kok clashes on the first night of the Chinese New Year that social conflicts have flared up greatly. We all know that in the past year or two, many clashes had occurred in the community and campuses. Although the relationship between the executive and the legislature is deteriorating, the Government has to address these problems squarely instead of burying its head in the sand. Nonetheless, these problems were only mentioned in the last five paragraphs under "District Administration and Governance". In fact, there is only one sentence talking about governance. At the end of the 258th paragraph, human rights, freedom and the rule of law were mentioned in a perfunctory manner. This is how the Chief Executive set his priorities, focuses and key points. How lamentable for Hong Kong?

As for the debate on other policies, Members have discussed them in the previous sessions, and I will discuss the various policies later to explain why we are facing a crisis in administration today. Apart from the Belt and Road Initiative, another highlight is the Innovation and Technology Bureau. It is also our hope that Hong Kong will attain achievements in innovation and technology policies in future. As many Honourable colleagues have said, we hope that the management of the Innovation and Technology Venture Fund will comply with the principles of impartiality and transparency. The authorities should avoid giving people the impression that the Fund will become a means for transferring benefits and making backroom deals. We definitely do not wish to see this happen. Hence, I earnestly hope that a management approach based on 5656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 regulation and acceptable to all can be adopted for the Fund, supporting Hong Kong's development in the direction of becoming a so-called smart city and an innovative and technological city.

On the other hand, repeated consultations have been conducted for many policies, yet no decision has been made. The introduction of retirement protection or the so-called universal pension has been discussed repeatedly for many years, yet it still remains at the consultation stage. As for the healthcare reform, particularly on the issue of medical insurance, no decision has been made so far. Moreover, regarding the two pledges made by the Chief Executive in his election manifesto, no progress has been made so far. One of the pledges is about standard working hours and the other one is about progressively reducing the proportion of accrued benefits attributed to employer's contribution in the Mandatory Provident Fund account that can be applied by the employer to offset long-service or severance payments, which has caused serious discontent among Members from the labour sector and the pro-establishment camp.

Yet, I am most eager to look in retrospect the administration in the past three and a half years and the four policy addresses. In review, we discover that the first policy address presented a sense of ambition to settle thousands of problems. After that, the authorities gave us the impression that the Government would deliver authoritative governance, and sometimes even at the expense of rising up to conflicts and tearing society apart. Today, many people sense that the Government is actually burying its head in the sand and coming to the end of its strength, unwilling to face the many existing problems. This is the greatest crisis in the political situation today.

As we look over our shoulder on the past three years, we see that the problem most worrying to the people of Hong Kong has emerged and even deteriorated. Let me explain it point by point. First, the line dividing the "two systems" under "one country, two systems" is becoming blurred, and the popular worry that "a high degree of autonomy" will be under threat. Recently, a case has brought great shock and anger to the public, where public security officers from the Mainland were suspected of cross-boundary law enforcement. It may not be the public security officers exercising law enforcement direct, yet they are glad to see the kidnap of LEE Po in Hong Kong and his handover to the Mainland for law enforcement in the Mainland. Facts speak louder than words. We do not need to say too much or request evidence, for anyone with a sober mind can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5657 see what is happening. Let us look at a case in 2013, where POON Wai-hei and his wife were kidnapped from their flat in Island Road and sent to the Mainland. The Government had not admitted that the case was true, yet in its reply to the Legislative Council, it was said that the Government had intervened to help Mrs POON to return to Hong Kong safely. The Government is really good with words. The allusion to returning to Hong Kong safely speaks volumes, and we need not say anymore. Back then, Mr POON was unfortunately sentenced for 17-year imprisonment. I would not comment whether or not he had committed an offence, for this involves the judicial system of the Mainland. But how could the Mainland resort to this illegal approach of bringing the couple to the Mainland? How should we tackle this problem?

As for the other three Hongkongers involved in the case of the Causeway Bay Books, the Government has made repeated requests to the Mainland for an explanation of the condition of the three Hongkongers in the Mainland. However, the Mainland authorities had procrastinated for quite a long time, which had been weeks, and it finally provided the following reply: they are under criminal compulsory measures for the time being. Then the Government was glad to announce that a reply had been obtained. Yet we should look at the Notification Mechanism, where the content to be notified has been set out clearly in black and white. The Mainland is not only required to notify Hong Kong that these people have been imposed compulsory measures but to inform Hong Kong when and why the measures are imposed, what offences are involved, what compulsory measures have been imposed and where the measures are imposed. Yet none of these details are provided.

Although the Secretary for Security said that the Notification Mechanism is very effective and running smoothly, it is evident in this incident that not even the minimum requirements have been met. Has the Government striven to obtain such information? The people of Hong Kong can sense the powerlessness of the SAR Government in the face of the Central Government, and the SAR Government even lacks the determination to fight for the people of Hong Kong. To put it crudely, it acts like a quail.

Regarding the highly controversial Express Rail Link (XRL) project, one of the concerns is the co-location arrangements. Another project arousing tremendous controversy is the third runway at the airport, where airspace control is one of the greatest worries and the utilization of the runway is another. So far, 5658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

President, the people of Hong Kong are not even given the right to know. As in the case of the co-location arrangement, the Government should tell us what options they have and how the arrangement can be implemented. The Government should tell us its idea, so that the people of Hong Kong will know about it, can participate in the discussion and know how to cope with it, and if it is to be implemented in West Kowloon, in what way the arrangement will be compliant with the implementation of the Basic Law. However, the Government has not given any response at all. That is why the public lack confidence. As for the report of work of the Chief Executive, there is no transparency at all. Although Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council WANG Guangya said that some specifications should be laid down, so far there is no transparency and no explanation. The first point is that the line dividing the two systems is becoming blurred and "a high degree of autonomy" is under threat.

Second, in the past few years, the prestige in governance of the Government as a whole has dropped seriously to an extremely dangerous level. We all know the popularity rating of the Chief Executive. Many colleagues have mentioned it and I need not repeat it here. In the beginning, the incident of unauthorized building works had called his credibility into doubts. Yet this is not the only case. Certainly, the crux of the problem is the UGL incident, for which he has failed to give any convincing explanation. Moreover, he has pledged to amend the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance to extend the application of sections 3 and 8 to cover the Chief Executive, yet since he took office, nothing has been done. Regarding the accountability system for principal officials, no progress has been made on the issue concerning the regulation of the use of the "revolving door" in future to prevent the transfer of benefits. This is the second point which causes the public to lose confidence in the Chief Executive.

Another point is about the accountability of the accountability system as a whole. Back then, when the accountability system was introduced, it was stated clearly that accountability officials must bear political responsibility for serious blunders which may be political in nature or serious administrative mistakes. By now, the system has been implemented for years and several serious incidents have occurred, such as the Lamma Island ferry disaster and the lead in drinking water incident affecting numerous residents of public rental housing, as well as the delay and cost overrun of the XRL, yet we have not seen any accountability official being held accountable for those incidents. As a matter of fact, I have to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5659 commend Regina IP for tendering resignation and the Secretary for Health, Welfare and Food at the time for willing to resign because of the SARS incident. But we will not see these scenarios now, nor can we find this spirit of shouldering responsibility wholesale.

Furthermore, the performance of two Policy Bureaux of the Government is an eye-opener indeed. I do not know why the government officials in question can still stay in their incumbent positions. Take the Secretary for Education as an example, yet I do not wish to mention his nickname anymore. In the national education incident back then and the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) issue today, widespread public discontent was aroused. The Environment Bureau is another one. I will not discuss the policies in depth but will only look at the Director of Audit's Report No. 65. I cannot but ask why the Secretary can still remain in his present post. I can tell the Chief Secretary for Administration that I have not only read the Report No. 65 but also the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and then listened to the explanation of the Government. Even if the Chief Secretary accepts his explanation about bearing half of the responsibility, the Secretary and his team should feel ashamed to stay in their present positions in view of the remaining half of the responsibility.

We have been talking about producer responsibility for many years, yet only one of the six tasks has been done. As for solid waste, we all agree that the recycling of food waste should be handled well. An overwhelming consensus has been reached on this issue. Housing estates and food establishments have agreed to do that, if so, why has this not been done? The explanation they provided is no explanation at all. Yet I was told privately that ― the Chief Secretary for Administration may tell us if it is the case ― it was because the Environment Bureau does not have much power and that policies will not be delivered other than through the Government Secretariat, so no one will help the Bureau. Since the tasks require inter-departmental effort, achievements cannot be made if the Chief Secretary does not come forward and set up a special task force for the initiative. I do not know if this is a way to free him from bearing the responsibility. No matter how, the collection of food waste and the reduction of solid waste are issues not opposed by all the people of Hong Kong and all political parties and groupings. If the Government applies funding from the Legislative Council for these initiatives, Members will support it. If so, why has he failed to do the job properly?

5660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

As for landfills, the Audit Commission claimed that the figures provided were misleading. Of course, the Secretary said that it was because the calculation method used was different and that a more conservative approach was preferred. However, what he said is not the answer. The figures presented by the Audit Commission show clearly that landfills will not reach their full capacity as soon as the Government claimed. This is not the problem. This practice of the Government is dishonest and misleading. Should such a team continue for a second term? I would like to hear the response of the Chief Secretary to this later.

We will now look at the various advisory bodies and statutory bodies established by the Government. The Chief Executive always says that appointments are made on a meritorious basis, yet what we see is cronyism. I am not saying that he is offering appointment to his relatives, but the appointments are limited to people within a small circle. Recently, a friend of mine came back from overseas. He asked me why those people could be in public offices for a dozen to 20 years. Let me read out some of the names and ages of these people who have been super popular in public offices: the 70-year-old Jack SO of the Board of the Airport Authority, the 67-year-old WONG Yuk-shan of the Consumer Council, the 70-year-old Maria Tam of the ICAC Advisory Committee on Corruption, the 68-year-old York CHOW of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the 71-year-old Arthur LI of the Council of the University of Hong Kong, the 68-year-old Vincent LO of the Trade Development Council; the 74-year-old Dr John LEUNG of the Hospital Authority ― they are all chairpersons of the respective organizations, and it is not so much a concern if they are just members. President, I am not discriminating against the elderly. I am approaching 65 and I think it is time to leave the legislature and give way to young people. When it comes to participation in the work of advisory committees, many people can contribute their experience, should the Government restrict the appointment of chairmanship to these people only? Why have only these people been appointed over the years? Is there a shortage of talents in Hong Kong? Or is it because the Government does not trust the middle-aged or the young people, the rising stars? Please explain it. The people I mentioned earlier are all over 65 ― we still have the 66-year-old Laura M CHA of the Financial Services Development Council. I can easily find these names when I check the information, and all of them are over 65, with some even over 70. I am not practicing age discrimination. The point is why Hong Kong cannot LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5661 appoint more rising stars and young talents. It is just that simple. The authorities may still appoint these people to the committees. It is not a problem. At issue is whether they should be appointed as chairpersons.

There is a significant problem in governance which is causing deep regrets. It is the attack against the judicial review system. The Secretary for Justice is in the Chamber, so he should share the feeling as he listens to me. The Government has been mocking about this. It has repeatedly criticized the public for abusing the judicial review system in respect of the judicial review of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Fortunately, the former Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, Andrew LI, came forward recently to say that the judicial review system which had been implemented for a long time was a significant part of check and balance on the executive and an indispensable part of the rule of law. His comments are fair.

I admit that the number of judicial review cases is great. Many people have approached me for assistance in applications for judicial review, for they consider the practice of the Government ridiculous and the Government refuses to heed their views no matter what they say, and they have no alternative. In fact, the Secretary for Justice does not need to say much. The typical example is a case that occurred during Donald TSANG's era, where Donald TSANG attempted to use administrative instructions instead of legislation to establish an authorization mechanism for regulating interception. Everyone in the legal sector had told him that he could not do so. All of us thought that it was ridiculous, for laws could not be substituted by administrative instructions and it was in violation of the Basic Law and the Bill of Rights. However, he remained bent on having his way. As a result, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung brought the case to court. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung did not appoint a lawyer for he considered he would win the case in court by himself. He did win and the Government dared not lodge an appeal.

It is merely a classic example. The judicial review on stamp duty which the applicant was granted the case is another example. Actually, the number of successful cases is small, for the threshold for application for judicial review is not easy to meet, and the assessment of the Legal Aid Department is extremely strict. However, the public are really helpless now, and they can only look to the Court to get justice done to them. Regrettably, the Government dares say 5662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 that judicial reviews will hinder the administration of the Government. Certainly, I must say in all fairness that the Government has not attacked the Court. However, Members from the pro-establishment camp have been so ridiculous that they critized the Court of letting go people whom the Police had made strenuous efforts to arrest during Occupy Central. They have also made some ignorant comments about the legal system. We are terrified by all these. In fact, the Judges have no choice but to acquit the defendants after examining the statements of people on the scene and videos, for Judges are only discharging their judicial duties. When someone criticizes the judicial system of Hong Kong in such a manner, the Government is indeed obliged to come forward to uphold the rule of law and judicial independence.

As for academic freedom, since the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration has adopted a high-handed approach in governance, it has intensified the conflicts and undermined the core values of Hong Kong. The appointment of Arthur LI is entirely an act against public opinions, and the Government dares to put itself in an opposing position with students, alumni and staff of the University of Hong Kong. Society is angry about this.

In respect of the broadcasting policy, the public did not care about it initially, for they were just watching television for entertainment. The public are impressed by Hong Kong Television Network Limited (HKTV) and look forward to new dramas on stream, yet they note that the Government's policy is biased in favour of Asia Television Limited (ATV) and against HKTV. We all see how ATV has come to this pass today. As for HKTV, it had applied for judicial review and we all know the ruling. How would the granting of a television licence spark off a large-scale protest outside the Government Secretariat? I have never come across this situation. Moreover, most of the participants were average citizens who felt outraged. What is the explanation of the Government? All of these problems arose after LEUNG Chun-ying had taken charge of the Government.

Another problem is the collusion between the business sector and the Government, a problem that has persisted for years and caused grave discontent in society. Recently, we can see the hegemony of the former "The Link Management Limited" (now the "Link Asset Management Limited") in the monopolization of wet markets and the exploitation through outsourcing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5663 contractors, where small shop tenants and the public have to suffer. This problem has aroused social grievances and a lot of on-street clashes from Cheung Fat Market to Leung King Market.

On the other hand, the public have been monitoring the Government carefully to ensure that it cannot make private deals and benefit transfers, and that the Cyberport incident and the West Kowloon Cultural District single tender incident will not recur. The Government knows about that. Unfortunately, the authorities still adopted such a practice recently in the expansion plan of the Avenue of Stars and the Promenade, and the practice violated the principles on public-private joint venture policy as announced by the Chief Secretary for Administration. Later, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) said that it was not a public-private joint venture but a partnership project. What a joke indeed. Many real estate developers said that they could set up a non-profit-making company easily to undertake the project, and they might even offer terms and conditions ten times better than the current terms provided to make the Government accept their offer. As a result, the incident has to be subject to judicial review. In the end, the Government said that it would heed public opinion, and the issue was settled. In fact, the demand of public opinion is very simple. They merely want to have a more spacious promenade and an unblocked view, so that the public can enjoy the scenery. Why would this simple public opinion arouse so many arguments and conflicts, and even result in judicial review? In the end, the authorities have to withdraw the plan. I welcome this decision of the authorities. However, many people think that the reasons for the withdrawal as presented by the Government are not the truth, whereas the most important reason is that two large consortia oppose the plan and have applied for judicial review. These two consortia have great clout, yet the public are only put on the sideline.

There is one more issue which I would like to spend two minutes discussing it. To date, many people still think that the Secretary for Justice has been ineffective in initiating prosecutions and unfair in law enforcement. What are the incidents involved? In fact, some of the cases may not necessarily be attributed to the Secretary for Justice. Here, I have to make a declaration of interest that I have helped the parties concerned in these two cases in my capacity of a solicitor. I am deeply moved for those affected are the general public. In citing the incident, Members will know the nature of the case. One of the 5664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 incidents is the CITIC Pacific case, where the loss of more than $10 billion resulting from currency speculation was involved. After six years, the authorities eventually decided to conduct a market misconduct hearing on the incident. The authorities dare tell the public that no criminal liabilities are involved. In fact, it is obvious to all that the financial reports released by the company in August and September 2008 were incorrect. There was no reason that the person concerned would not know of the loss of over $10 billion. What they had done had misled the public. Otherwise, it would not have been necessary to conduct the hearing. Why did the authorities not initiate prosecution against such conduct? The Secretary for Justice said at the time that the authorities had to collect sufficient evidence to prove that they were involved in commercial fraud, but this is not the point I am talking about now. Of course, if there is such a case, the authorities must initiate prosecution. At issue is why the authorities do not initiate charges against the company for making false statements to the market, which is a criminal offence? On the contrary, one of the employees had been charged for "insider trading".

Another incident involves a collective investment plan, that is, the Apex Horizons of Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited. As I said earlier, I have been the solicitor acting on behalf of the small owners. The authorities said that the sales arrangement had violated the laws on securities and futures. The Government then reached an agreement with the company and requested the latter to stop and freeze the plan. As a result, Cheung Kong stopped all the transactions, yet it did not make any compensation. The company said that the small owners might initiate litigation against the company, yet who would dare bring them to court. Cheung Kong said that they had done nothing wrong and they stopped the transactions merely because they did not want to argue with the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC). However, the Government has never considered initiating prosecution in the case. I have been pressing the SFC for two years, it has not yet answered whether prosecution will be initiated. I urge the Secretary for Justice to tell me whether prosecution will be initiated, for they have recently hit the ball back into the Secretary for Justice's court by saying that it is the decision of the Secretary for Justice whether prosecution will be initiated. On the other hand, a dentist had launched a very small-scale collective investment plan with a relative, and prosecution has been pressed against the dentist and the case submitted to the Court. What world is this?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5665

With regard to social justice, we have had a lot of detail discussions earlier and I will not speak too much about this. There can be no denying that the Government has taken some measures to improve the situation, including the provision of allowance for the elderly, the Low-income Working Family Allowance and the subsidies for pre-primary education, and so on. Yet the greatest problem in Hong Kong is that many people are still facing poor living conditions. As for the situation of poverty elimination, we may refer to some figures later. When it comes to the working poor, the number involved is not small. Though the authorities have introduced some measures, around 200 000 of the working poor are living in sub-divided units of a living area of 60 sq ft on average, and the rental allowance they received cannot support their living. As for youth unemployment, the problem is serious and the number has increased several times. Regarding residential care homes for the elderly and the mentally handicapped, applicants still have to wait for years. I will put aside these problems for the time being.

I wish to point out that the greatest problem is the Mong Kok incident. If the Government still refuses to address these social conflicts as results of its blunders in administration and conduct a comprehensive investigation, but keeps saying that these are acts of rioters who should be brought to justice, the Government is burying its head in the sand. Certainly, we are not trying to defend those people who violated the law, resorted to violence and hurt others, nor are we trying to find excuses for their actions, yet it is true that these situations involved social causes and we cannot but face the problems squarely. Otherwise, the authorities may simply expand the prisons and increase the manpower of the Police, or it may as well tell police officers to think more about opening fire. Do the authorities consider these solutions to the prevailing problems? Of course, the most important task is to conduct a thorough investigation into this incident. It must be done. The authorities have no reason to refuse to do so.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, when it comes to the governance of the SAR Government, we must mention the violence during the night of the first day of the Chinese New Year. We in the Democratic Party, the pan-democratic camp and individuals have expressed disapproval and opposition 5666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 to and even condemnation of the violence on that night. The pro-establishment camp should not accuse us of not stating our stance.

The incident is now being handled by the Police. The Police are now making arrests, and as many as 70 persons have been arrested. They will be handed over to the Court as an agreed practice. Under the existing system, consensus on this practice has been reached. What can we do with such violent behaviour? Some may think that by making arrests and leaving the cases for the Court to rule will settle the incident. Yet I do not think that this is the way to govern Hong Kong because there must be some reasons for the violence, especially when the number involved in the violence is not just one person, 10 or 100, but as many as 1 000. Apart from this, the student organizations of 10 tertiary institutions expressed unanimous support for the participants after the incident. Have these students all become disoriented and unreasonable? Are these intellectuals trained by tertiary institutions supporting violence blindly? Has the Government ever pondered this?

During the colonial rule, a riot broke out in Hong Kong in 1966 due to a fare hike of five cents imposed by the Star Ferry. Though the colonial government at that time was closed-minded and violent, it understood that studies had to be conducted to identify the problems. Subsequently, the authorities carried out a series of youth activities, replaced the Secretariat for Chinese Affairs with the Secretariat for Home Affairs, and introduced housing reform which included demolishing resettlement areas where many rioters resided. However, the incumbent Government just stays on the sideline and leaves the matter to the Court to make judgment.

As for the other problems concerning the governance of the Government, we will choose to talk about those related to the Chief Executive first. The Chief Executive has no credibility. In what incidents have he been involved? These include the failure to make a declaration of interest in the West Kowloon Cultural District design competition, discovery of unauthorized building structures in his residence, the receipt of $50 million from the Australian company UGL, the licensing of Hong Kong Television Network Limited, the appointment of Sophia KAO to public office and the appointment of Chairman of the Council of the University of Hong Kong, and so on. Moreover, the Central Government as well as Mainland authorities have intervened in certain issues and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5667 policies in Hong Kong, such as the issue of the white paper on "one country, two systems," the status of the Chief Executive transcending the three powers, and the emergence of two power centres in the governance of Hong Kong. As for people's livelihood, there are concerns about the scrambling for places for giving birth and the snatching up of milk powder and daily necessities by Mainlanders. As for education, there are concerns about national education and using Putonghua as the medium of instruction in teaching the Chinese Language, as well as the current consultation on the use of simplified characters. All these issues give people an impression that the emperor is to come and Hong Kong is about to undergo significant changes till it is like or even identical to the Mainland.

Many young people are worried. Of course, you may blame them for resorting to excessively radical and extremely violent actions to convey their inner angers. However, they are not groundless, nor were they under the influence of drugs or crazy as described by some Members from the pro-establishment camp. Do Members really believe that our advanced intellectuals will act this way? Are they all trained by the 10 tertiary institutions in Hong Kong? This is really an insult to the 10 tertiary institutions. President, we completely disapprove of and oppose the use of violence and support handing the incident to the Court. Regarding the discontent and anger of the younger generation, the Government cannot just stay on the sideline, refusing to look into the reasons and adopting the attitude that "the Government is always right."

The third issue is related to the fruits of economic development. President, I believe you must also know that the per capita GDP of Hong Kong is increasing every year. When LEUNG Chun-ying was elected, the per capita GDP of Hong Kong was US$30,000 per annum, and it has now increased to US$40,000, a monthly per capita average of $25,800. Where has all the money gone? At present, the median income is around $23,000, but for those 10% of the population who are making the lowest income, their monthly income is less than $7,000. Most of the fruits of economic growth fall into the hands of businessmen while young people and the disadvantaged cannot share the fruits, resulting in the growing disparity between the rich and the poor. Is it not necessary for us to care about and look into these social issues? The Government did not tackle the economic problems despite having vowed to 5668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 alleviate poverty and "distribute money". I have repeatedly mentioned in the Commission on Poverty (CoP) the need to develop community economy and to deal with the issues of employment opportunities for the public, but sorry, the CoP ignores and does not discuss these issues.

President, after the riot on Lunar New Year's Day, LEUNG Chun-ying told the Police he would agree to the procurement of any additional equipment. I went to study in the United Kingdom 30 years ago. I did not see the British police equipped with pistols at that time, and some were not even armed with batons, yet Hong Kong police were equipped with pistols. I asked my teacher then why the British police were not equipped with pistols. He replied that if the Police were equipped with pistols, the criminals would look for more powerful weapons to fight the Police, then the Police would enhance their equipment to combat the criminals, and the latter would of course upgrade their equipment. In the end, this will become a competition in equipment by both sides. However, whenever something happens, the injured will not be only the criminals but also the Police and members of the public. Of course, in this British example cited by me now, I am not talking about the young people then, but the criminals. However, in the absence of any principles, the Government has now agreed to upgrade the equipment for the Police, and this involves the principles of governance in Hong Kong and the use of force.

President, I believe Chinese people are familiar with the story 4 000 years ago of Da Yu mitigating the floods. Da Yu's father tried to build higher dykes along the river course to contain the floods, but they collapsed ultimately in a particular flood, resulting in the loss of lives and crops. Therefore, Da Yu resorted to the channelling method. Da Yu's mitigation of the floods has been highly valued in Chinese history for thousands of years.

President, in his book Political Order in Changing Societies, American political scientist HUNTINGTON said, to this effect, "If the presidential residence is a symbol of authority, then the student union building is a symbol of resistance." These words precisely highlight the difference between authority and ideal, but the American Government and President did not see the youth and young students as rivals.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5669

I would like to ask: would the ruling team of LEUNG Chun-ying continue to build high walls or blockages to intensify social conflicts and differences and let the split of society continue, such that the number of people dissatisfied with Hong Kong Government will keep increasing? Does anyone in the ruling clique really care for Hong Kong and the young people of Hong Kong? Apart from handing over the incident of violence to the Court for handling, effectively dealing with the social issues of Hong Kong, (The buzzer sounded) … the social split cannot be allowed to continue? Thank you, President.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would like to talk about constitutional affairs and governance in this session. There are 261 paragraphs in the Policy Address in total, and I have gone through the Policy Address several times, yet I cannot find the subject on constitutional affairs and governance. I can only find two lines in the 258th paragraph of the Conclusion saying that, "The Government will continue to uphold Hong Kong's core values such as human rights, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and clean governance …". This is an important subject yet it is not found in the Policy Address, and only 30 to 40 words are used to mention it.

President, the former Chief Executive, Mr Donald TSANG, mentioned in the Policy Address in October in 2008 that, "the challenge lies in effective governance and the public's trust in the Government. Rising inflation, and the controversies over the expansion of the Political Appointment System and post-retirement employment of civil servants, have changed the public's trust in the Government over the past year. People have doubts about certain issues: Have the core values of the HKSAR Government changed? Is the Government trustworthy? Is the Government fair and impartial? Is it less capable than before? Does the Government still adhere to the principle of meritocracy? Does it take into account public opinion in formulating policies?". President, this is the speech made by the former Chief Executive in presenting the Policy Address. The problems raised in 2008 still exist today, President, not only improvement has not been made but the situation is deteriorating. There is widespread disappointment and a sense of helplessness in society.

The incident that occurred on the first night of the Chinese New Year in Mong Kok is a scenario no one wants to see. Though there are divergent views on the cause of the incident, I feel this pain in my heart about the occurrence of 5670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 such an incident of violence, for in a civilized society, such a violent incident should never occur and should never be tolerated. However, the Government defines the incident as a riot and attempts to address it through prosecutions and sentencing. Such a practice of the Government can only address the superficial phenomenon of the problem.

A group of young people of the age of 10-odd to 20 will not beat the policemen, reporters and innocent people for no reason. Does the Government think that they did so just for entertainment or that they were under the influence of drugs? This is not the fact. Certainly, their conduct is absolutely unacceptable. Yet is the authorities' approach of addressing the problem with mere sentencing and heavy-handed measures a long-term solution? If the Chief Executive insists on handling the incident with this approach, is he not being too arrogant and naïve?

A government exists not for the purpose of punishing the people. One of the major purposes of a government is to listen to the views of the people in solving and alleviating the conflicts in society. In fact, Mr Charles Peter MOK and I have both proposed to the Government the setting up of an independent commission to review the cause of the disturbance this time around. Certain government officials said that the proposal was unnecessary for the Police had already set up a committee to review the incident. Yet the purpose of the committee set up by the Police is to review the process of duty discharge, operation and the police deployment on the day the Mong Kok incident occurred, which is completely different from the purpose of the independent commission advocated by us. The operation of the independent commission we proposed to set up will not affect the investigation of the Police of individual cases and the work of initiating prosecution in court. The purposes of the independent commission are to identify the causes of the incident and make some recommendations on improvement in the medium-to-long term. The independent commission is a macroscopic investigation committee which will not investigate individual cases. I hope Mr LEUNG Chun-ying will listen with a humble mind. In fact, thousands of academics and professionals in the community have jointly signed a statement urging the Government to set up an independent commission.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5671

Apart from the deep-rooted social conflicts, President, I find it deeply disappointing and regrettable that the Policy Address has not mentioned a word about the constitutional reform. Although we vetoed the method of selecting the Chief Executive in June last year, it does not mean that Hong Kong cannot continue to move forward in constitutional reform. In 2007, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress put forth that after the Chief Executive was selected by universal suffrage, all Members of the Legislative Council would be returned by universal suffrage, and it is stipulated in Article 68 of the Basic Law that the ultimate aim is the election of all the Members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage. However, the Government has not provided any specific methods on abolishing and reforming the functional constituencies (FCs). As I pointed out, the FCs should be abolished, yet how this can be done is a question worthy of consideration.

The FCs include representatives from different professional and commercial sectors. In fact, I very much hope that there will be one more type of views coming from different strata of society, and the problem with FCs lies in the election method. President, I am targeting at the election method but not the people involved or their trades or professions, for the existing method of election is most unfair. Since Members returned from the FCs come from professional sectors and the commercial sector, they can present different interpretations and have different understanding of various issues relating to governance and lawmaking. This is their contribution. However, the unfair election system, as well as the composition of the legislature of 35 seats being returned by FCs, fully reflects that the power in the legislature is on an unbalanced tilt. Among the 28 traditional FCs, excluding the super District Office seats, the number of registered voters of 12 FCs is less than 1 000. The voters of many FCs are corporates. President, in the Legislative Council Election of 2012, 16 Honourable colleagues were returned uncontested. Certainly, some colleagues have told me that they were elected by a unanimous vote and they were elected uncontested.

Let us look at the parliaments and legislatures around the world, how many of them will have so many members returned uncontested? Hence, the election method of the FCs must be reformed. Of course, President, FCs should ultimately be abolished. Given the many restrictions currently, how can the FCs be reformed? In fact, two weeks ago, some colleagues and I had drafted some motions prepared for expanding the electorate bases of several FCs. These changes are made in response to the requests of certain professional bodies, and 5672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 we have held numerous meetings with them concerning this. Regarding the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Bill 2015, we are prepared to put forth a few Committee stage amendments. These proposed amendments seek to expand the electorate bases of the Financial Services Sector, Finance Sector, Insurance Sector and the Information Technology Sector. The purpose of expanding the electoral base is to allot votes to more professionals and individuals and companies related to the trades, so that they can vote in their FCs. Another merit of the proposed change is that the Government does not need to take any action or implement any administrative measure, for the voters involved under the change have registered with the Government through various channels. Hence, I do not see that the Government will have any reason to oppose the change. Besides, the voters to be involved are people who have been serving in the insurance sector, financial affairs sector or the finance sector for years.

Let me cite one example to illustrate my point on the electorate base. I do not understand why electors in the insurance sector include only the hundred or so registered insurance companies. In fact, many people are working in the insurance sector, including insurance brokers and insurance agents, and so on, yet why do they not have a single vote? Even the most important profession in the insurance sector, actuaries, does not have the right to vote. Why? In the Financial Service Sector, why can only people in specific positions of the stock exchange vote? Why are people engaging in the 10 types of activities requiring the application of a license under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO) not given the right to vote? The transactions carried out by these practitioners will also contribute to our economy and finance system. In fact, their contribution may be even greater, for they are involved in the 10 types of regulated activities under the SFO. Why do they not have any vote? What is the justification? Is it because people with vested interests do not want these people to have the right to vote? If the Government opposes the amendments proposed by me or my colleagues, is it because it desires to protect a small group of people with vested interest?

I have to reiterate that these amendments do not require the Government to take any action, nor will the Government be required to make significant administrative changes to cope with the amendments. Actually, the Government already has the registered information of these prospective voters who must possess certain professional qualifications and experience to register with the Securities and Futures Commission or the Hong Kong Monetary Authority. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5673

Hence, if the Government opposes the proposal, will it please provide a better reason instead of just citing the excuse that there is not enough time. We will submit the proposed amendments to the Bills Committee next week.

In the meantime, we have examined whether the changes are compliant with the Basic Law and whether local legislation can be used. The changes proposed by us now, President, only involve the electoral base of FCs. Our proposal does not entail any increase or decrease of the number of seats returned by FCs and the overall distribution of various FCs, and we have not proposed adding new or deleting the existing FCs. Moreover, under the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Bill 2015, the Government has also proposed expanding the electorate bases of certain sectors, and those arrangements can definitely be implemented by way of local legislation. Hence, I think the amendments proposed by us this time may also be implemented through simple legislative procedures.

President, the constitutional reform of Hong Kong should not be left stagnant, and we must look forward. Although we cannot reach a consensus on the method for selecting the Chief Executive, it does not mean that we cannot inject more elements of democracy into other election methods. President, though these are extremely small and humble changes, we will exert our level best to take forward towards democracy, even if it is only a small step. I implore Members to support our motion. President, I so submit.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying went to great lengths in the Policy Address this year to dwell on the issue of the Belt and Road Initiative, to which people in Hong Kong normally will not pay much attention. He considered it a new strength of Hong Kong economy. But what good does it have to do with common people? We, the legal profession, are most concerned about the rule of law. Being the cornerstone underpinning Hong Kong's success, the rule of law has promoted economic prosperity and social stability. But he only mentioned it once. Certainly, I am not saying that repeated mention of the rule of law means that the Chief Executive has an actual intention to improve and enhance the existing regime of the rule of law. But President, if we take a more in-depth look, we will find that there is a part about improving the legal system and enhancing legal infrastructure in the Policy Address of the SAR Government this year. Judging from the heading, I did have some expectations originally. But after reading it, I realized that when they talked about improving the legal system and enhancing 5674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 legal infrastructure, five out of the seven points were about enhancing the work and understanding of criminal prosecutions. It transpires that to Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, enhancing criminal prosecutions is tantamount to legal infrastructure and improving the legal system. Frankly, the prosecution work in Hong Kong is certainly not perfect, yet it can be considered professional. Also, good performance has been maintained in this work area. There is certainly room for improvement in the prosecution work carried out by colleagues from the legal profession in the Department of Justice, but they have long been keeping close contact with a number of common law countries overseas and reviewing their work frequently. They will also study how the Prosecution Code can be improved and enhanced, just as the amendments they introduced to the Prosecution Code a few years ago. Why should we attach great importance to the prosecution work? In fact, there are many other elements of the foundation of the rule of law and the legal system in Hong Kong that merit our concern and the Government's support. Certainly, it is only because of such talents as the Judges, practising barristers and solicitors and a high quality and good environment that the system of our legal profession can give play to its functions, thereby providing better legal service and writing up better judgments, so as to achieve a system that administers justice even better.

Nevertheless, what are the challenges faced by the legal profession or judicial sector at present? There are generally several points. First, it is certainly the increasingly long court waiting time. The Judges have often relayed to me that the workload is so heavy that they have to keep hearing cases. The judgments are also growing longer because there are more and more issues to be dealt with. Certainly, the Judges do not aim to get more wages or hope that the Government will give them a pay rise. They just require the Judiciary to improve its support measures. These support measures refer to those staff members under them, or the Judicial Assistants working for the Judges under a scheme launched recently. But currently, these support measures and the manpower training for those working for the Judges are still far from adequate. I believe the responsible Secretaries of Departments including Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM and Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN, as well as members of the legal profession are well aware of the existing manpower shortage in courts. Certainly, we may do more about the salaries or contract terms of employment. But apart from that, actually a study on the retirement age can also help attract high quality members from the legal profession to join the Judiciary. I implore the Government to expedite its study in this regard because a persistent shortage of Judges in the Judiciary or long-term reliance on Deputy Judges as replacement will constitute a serious potential threat to the rule LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5675 of law in Hong Kong. If more efforts can be put in the training for Judges or in the Judiciary, it will actually mean much to some younger or junior Judges as they may now be sitting at Magistracies or District Courts. I believe more training for Judges will significantly increase their chances of promotion to the High Court in future, while meeting the existing shortfall in manpower in the High Court.

Another issue that I wish to discuss is the development of arbitration because I must say that the current-term Government, especially the current Secretary for Justice, has really done much in this area. Also, he is more devoted to the development of arbitration services than the several former Secretaries for Justice. Credit must be given to this because the development of arbitration is vital to Hong Kong as an international arbitration centre. The Secretary for Justice should have noticed the latest situation of third party funding for arbitration. The legal profession has formed the unanimous view that it should be put into practice immediately. When I first assumed office as a Member, I had already touched base with a number of litigation funders, and in fact, there are many such organizations internationally. I wish to invite them to set up offices in Hong Kong. Recently, a large-scale British funder has also set up its agency in Hong Kong. Certainly, they are currently not allowed to engage in legal maintenance. Except a small number of cases, they are not allowed to carry out such work. As a result, they are currently unable to commence their work in Hong Kong in full swing. For this reason, in respect of the legislative process in this regard, I hope the Secretary for Justice can expeditiously introduce amendments to the Arbitration Ordinance, so that the system of third party funding for arbitration can be implemented in Hong Kong as early as possible because in fact, even in Singapore, such a system is not in place. Not every common law country will implement it. But if it is implemented in Hong Kong, it will be a landmark in our development of arbitration.

As to the scheme of converting the former Court of Final Appeal Building into an international arbitration centre, the legal profession is supportive and looks forward to its early implementation. I would like the Secretary for Justice to update us on the latest development, and how many international arbitration bodies we have invited to Hong Kong. For example, apart from the Permanent Court of Arbitration, has any other arbitration body agreed to set up its base or office in Hong Kong? In this regard, I hope the Secretary for Justice may tell us more about whether there is any new progress.

5676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Another thing the result of which I hope will be available soon is class action. At present, class action is available in many countries with a good foundation of the rule of law. Hong Kong has actually been lagging behind them for many years. But there has been no result so far after a lot of studies. Looking back at the history, in 2006, the Law Reform Commission (LRC) actually set up a Class Actions Sub-committee to study the introduction of class action. In 2009, at the Legislative Council Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services, Members from various political parties and groupings all supported the introduction of class action in Hong Kong. In the same year, the Class Actions Sub-committee of the LRC made relevant recommendations and conducted a consultation exercise. The report was subsequently completed in 2012. The completed report advanced such reasons as enhancement of access to justice, reduced costs and greater likelihood of consistency of decisions, and so on, giving its support to class action. But after studying it for a long time, the Class Actions Sub-committee led by the Secretary for Justice has yet to present any outcome. In fact, I would express my concern about this issue to the Secretary for Justice every year. I hope he can give a genuine response in relation to the relevant findings this time. When will there be a formal legislative process for class action? When can a bill be ready for submission to the Legislative Council?

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR MA FUNG-KWOK, took the Chair)

In fact, Alibaba eventually gave up on listing in Hong Kong because the important regime of "dual-class share structure" is not allowed in Hong Kong market. Nevertheless, "dual-class share structure" is allowed in the United States. Why? Because class action can make up for the risk posed to minority shareholders by "dual-class share structure". Hence, class action is actually functional and conducive to the overall development of Hong Kong, including financial development and other aspects. I hope the Department of Justice can achieve results on the issue of class action as early as possible.

Lastly, I wish to talk about improvement of the legal aid system. The legal aid system is certainly an integral part of the rule of law in society. It is vital to protection of the statutory rights of the general public, especially those with insufficient economic means. But as we all know, the existing legal aid system in Hong Kong is actually of no help to the majority of the middle class. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5677

As a result, there is a group of people who basically cannot enjoy the substantive justice occasioned by courts in a society where the rule of law prevails. The reform of the existing legal aid system has been under discussion for many years. I have also suggested at the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services that the scope of the civil legal aid system should be further expanded as soon as possible, and it has been studied for a long time. I hope the Secretary for Justice will tell us to which stage the reform of legal aid has proceeded now. When can a reform proposal be introduced to the Legislative Council?

I am talking about not just a reform proposal for civil proceedings. The proposal of raising the hourly rates for criminal legal aid has been under discussion for a long time. Regarding this, I know that the Bureau will probably introduce a proposal to the Legislative Council soon because we have been discussing a rise in such rates for many years. Hence, in this regard, the Secretary should be able to give a clear reply to this Council. When can a reform proposal for the legal aid system be introduced to the Legislative Council? We should know that recently, be it Occupy Central or other situations, very often, a large number of people will be arrested. We, from the legal profession, will organize teams of voluntary lawyers on our own initiative to assist those who are not legally represented, and represent those arrested persons in police stations or courts without pay. Certainly, it is a good tradition of the legal profession. Being a voluntary lawyer is an honour and a good tradition of the legal profession. But we cannot always rely on the assistance offered by voluntary lawyers while seeing no reform of the existing legal aid system that will allow access of more people to legal aid in order to see justice truly done.

Hence, the several issues covered earlier, including the resources of the Judiciary, the development of arbitration, the introduction of class action and the reform of legal aid are essential elements which can actually improve Hong Kong's legal infrastructure, unlike what Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying did in the Policy Address, paying attention to criminal prosecutions alone without any elaboration on or effort in the rule of law as a cornerstone per se. If such foundation work is enhanced, the regime of the rule of law in Hong Kong will become more outstanding and excellent. The Government should not place emphasis only on governing its people by law as this runs counter to the spirit of the rule of law. Along this line, regarding the several issues covered earlier, I hope the Secretary of Department and the Director of Bureau can give a direct response, brief us on the current work progress or even tell us where the 5678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 difficulties lie, such as why no result has come out of the long study on class action. I look forward to hearing a response from the Bureau or the Secretary for Justice. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to respond to the speech made this morning by Mr KWOK Wai-keung of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU). He said credit should be given to the FTU which talked LEUNG Chun-ying into including standard working hours in his manifesto that we now can pursue the Government about the issue. Well, thanks to him really; it turns out that people being cheated and fooled is their feat.

In fact, LEUNG Chun-ying can cheat Hong Kong workers and citizens because of the political system. If the FTU does not want Hong Kong workers to be cheated, they will have to approach the issue from the political front because it is well known that the entire political system seeks to benefit capitalists. In the political system of Hong Kong, the FTU is at the dictates of the Communist Party of China (CPC): the CPC says it is not yet time for universal suffrage then no universal suffrage; when it wants to implement bogus universal suffrage then there is bogus universal suffrage. Therefore, Hong Kong workers will forever be betrayed and be forever denied genuine franchise and democratic rights, remaining powerless to topple the system dominated by capitalists ― the functional constituencies in the Legislative Council and the 1 200-man Election Committee in the small circle election. If we cannot break the stalemate we will end up in permanent deception. Therefore, may they please do not regard themselves being cheated as a feat.

However, I would like to return to the issue of governance. The Mong Kok incident was occasional as well as inevitable. Concerning its occasional nature, with regard to police deployment in the entire incident, did the Police recklessly storm into the crowd and provoke a greater conflict by firing the gunshots? How did the whole incident take place? What happened from beginning to end? I believe certainly it could have its occasional side yet it must be inevitable as well, meaning even if it does not happen now, it will happen sooner or later. The inevitability therein is that the accumulated conflicts within society have erupted into violence. Problems in various aspects have brewed angers among the general public and when the rage accumulates it will explode into an incident. Certainly, we feel the pain and do not hope it just erupted like LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5679 that. But as I have said, the entire incident was inevitable. It tells something about social conflicts: we learn from human history of the world that when tension keeps building up it will inevitably erupt in a conflict. Even if it is not what we wish for, it still will erupt.

However, as I said on the day of the event, it was almost like LEUNG Chun-ying was high on drugs, extremely gratified to see people exploding in anger. Right from the start he arbitrarily named the incident a riot, reminding us of LI Peng. They seem to share a lot in common. Recently a rich man even said LEUNG is worse than LI. LI's April 26 Editorial only defined the student movement as an anti-revolutionary revolt. The riot in Hong Kong is only lacking the word "anti-revolutionary". As a matter of fact, at the onset of the incident he defined it as a riot but refused to set up an independent commission of inquiry. If it is of such a magnitude, an independent commission of inquiry should be set up, but he refused. Afterwards, he was asked if it showed that the public do not trust the Government. He answered that it has nothing to do with his governance ― people are boiling with rage.

Not at all reflecting on his own wrongdoing, this LEUNG Chun-ying was even smug about it. Hong Kong has been pushed by him to sink into such a plight. He showed no remorse but blamed it on young people resorting to violence. Of course, the Labour Party insists on peaceful resistance. We do not wish to see violence generating more violence, for violence is not a way out, certainly. Nevertheless, this Government only knows how to shift the blame ― blaming the pan-democrats for condoning violence ― blaming everything but never reflects on its role. How could such a government be salvaged? The worst thing is this LEUNG Chun-ying is hopeless and this Government is also beyond salvage, but they want to drag the entire Hong Kong down to hell.

I recall during the discussion of the constitutional reform, the President or many others, including the pan-democrats, all said if the political system is not well dealt with, Hong Kong society will become ― the word they used was ― ungovernable. We are already there. Such a situation has immediately appeared. The social conflicts of Hong Kong have reached such a state that renders the city ungovernable. As a result, one more day of an unresolved political system means one more day of an ungovernable Hong Kong. On top of it is this "one single man", LEUNG Chun-ying, who is tyrannical, overbearing and pompous. This "one single man" aggravated the collapse of the entire Hong Kong to an even more catastrophic depth. Therefore, facing an unsettled 5680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 problem of the political system and LEUNG Chun-ying's miserable governance, the people of Hong Kong are asking us: what hope is left in Hong Kong?

LEUNG Chun-ying's hegemony and animosity towards people make it hard for them not to vent their grievances. Over 90% of more than 9 000 Hong Kong alumni of the University of Hong Kong voted against Arthur LI's appointment as Chairman of the University's Council. But he just had to appoint LI. He likes to pick a fight. When you say "no", he will be looking for a fight with you. When you say you want to abolish the Territory-wide System Assessment, he will make sure it is retained. When you say you want more TV licences to give more choices to the people, he will make sure no more licence is issued. The investigation into the assault on a citizen by seven police officers in a dark corner has to be delayed for a year. The assault on a passer-by by Franklin CHU still awaits the decision of the Department of Justice on whether or not to press charges. The pan-democrats have proposed three amendments to the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014, only to have them turned down. But he has to launch those "white elephant" projects. The Secretary wants to push forward the co-location arrangements but with no timetable. And he urges the Legislative Council to approve the supplementary provision for the Express Rail Link but fails to give an adequate explanation for the co-location arrangements. How can I trust that the Government will not betray "one country, two systems" in implementing the co-location arrangements? The authorities cannot account for it but force us to approve the "white elephant" project.

Then LEUNG Chun-ying lied to the people of Hong Kong, saying now we should set down the constitutional reform as it has already failed. He went on to claim that he would then focus on addressing livelihood issues and talk about the introduction of universal retirement protection ― all a lie. Chief Secretary Carrie LAM once said LEUNG Chun-ying had not promised the introduction of universal retirement protection. Who would guess that the other day I watched a video footage showing LEUNG Chun-ying being asked by an old lady on a campaign occasion if he would implement universal retirement protection and he answered "it very much merits implementation". He did make a promise but just did not write it down. In addition to the lie I have just mentioned, the pledge on standard working hours is a lie, so is the arrangement of offsetting severance payment against Mandatory Provident Fund accrued benefits ― everything he said about livelihood measures is a lie. As regards public rental housing, he proclaimed the grandiose plan of building 25 000 units a year, only to have the number cut down to 15 000 units ― again completely a lie.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5681

Therefore, a government and this "single man" have acted against the people's will, torn society apart and "defaulted" all the pledges on livelihood, lying to the people of Hong Kong. On the issue of constitutional reform he sold Hong Kong out. There has been nothing left of Hong Kong after the August 31 Decision made by the National People's Congress. Next, seeing himself as an attendant to XI Jinping, LEUNG Chun-ying has tilted all policies to Beijing by licking its boots and promoting the Belt and Road Initiative. With multiple problems piling up, how can the people of Hong Kong think this Government can be rescued? Surely, we do not want the strife to go on. But LEUNG Chun-ying needs to tone it down and the first best way is his announcement of not seeking a second term. Then I believe people will immediately breathe a sigh of relief.

However the worst part is not just LEUNG Chun-ying, but also the pro-establishment camp's connivance of him. We all originally had a tint of goodwill for Carrie LAM, a "good fighter" who said "a government official with no expectation is bold". Unfortunately her courage was used not to introduce universal retirement protection and favourable livelihood policies, but to humiliate Prof Nelson CHOW and lend a helping hand to LEUNG Chun-ying in exercising his tyrannical governance against the people. If such is the governance of Hong Kong, what rescue can we have?

Hence, the hope of the people of Hong Kong rests in our hands. We have to go back to the political system and return the regime to the people of Hong Kong so as to rekindle our hopes. If we do not reclaim the regime and return it to the people, we will forever be betrayed ― betrayed by the 1 200-man Election Committee, by politicos like LEUNG Chun-ying and by the "wolf". We must, therefore, recover our legitimate rights.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my doctor actually advised me not to speak but there is something I must say. I shall first respond to Mr LEE Cheuk-yan before talking on the issues I wish to discuss. The fight for the rights and interests of workers in Hong Kong has now remained in the doldrums, thanks to politicos like him ― he condemned the others as politicos just now ― who accumulate their own political capital without doing anything concrete for the workers. If there is anyone to be condemned, he should actually 5682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 condemn the capitalists instead of criticizing other labour groups for political interests. We both belong to labour groups and we should do practical work for the workers wholeheartedly. Those politicos are to blame for our ending up in the current plight. I find it regrettable that he targeted not the opponents of the labour sector, that is, the capitalists, in his remarks but other labour groups instead. The commercial sector may probably be the most delighted. Have you ever seen Mr LEE Cheuk-yan condemn the capitalists in the Council? In fact, he maintains a good relationship with the commercial sector.

Deputy President, I would like to raise an issue although I can barely speak. After the presentation of the policy address last year, I actually, expressed my opinions to the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs. However, my opinions this year are the same as that of last year because the authorities have not done anything in that regard, which is strengthening personal data privacy protection. As mentioned in my speech on the day before yesterday ― although my voice on the that day was worse than today, I must tell the Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury ― many people were deceived by financial intermediaries and, instead of losing the family fortune, they were murdered for money. There are many cases in which the families of the victims were ruined and their lives taken. Therefore, I truly hope that the Government will not only review the Money Lenders Ordinance but also protect personal data privacy.

Last year, I expressed regrets at the Government making no mention of measures to protect personal data privacy in the policy agenda or the policy address. The same case happened this year as there is no mention of measures to strengthen personal data privacy protection in the Policy Agenda. However, we have noticed that the number of cases involving financial intermediaries has been increasing and such cases are getting increasingly serious as some victims even lost their lives.

Why could the fraudsters easily deceive the victims? Some said the victims were foolish but in fact, it was not the case. It was actually because the fraudsters could gain access to all information about the mortgage, properties and financial records of the victims. Some fraudsters even brazenly admitted that, "Yes, I got the information from the Land Registry." The Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD), Hong Kong wrote a report last year on examination of how best to protect personal data privacy in public registers. Yet, it is regrettable that the Policy Agenda failed to respond to such an issue LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5683 after a lengthy discussion. This year, there is even no mention of this issue in the report of the PCPD and there is no further discussion of how to protect personal data privacy in public registers. If the Government still refuses to face up to the problems and simply claims that, "Nothing can be done at all", I wonder how many lives will be lost as a result of falling prey to those unscrupulous financial intermediaries before the Government starts to realize the problems? How many more suicide notes does the Government want to receive?

I would like the Government to respond to the following situation: as stated in the report submitted by the PCPD, it is recommended that the protection of personal data privacy in 10 public registers should be enhanced, particularly the search services of the Land Registry, which is commonly known as the search services of the Land Office. Many fraudsters exploited the search services, which provide access to all kinds of data, to gain resources for deceiving the others. How will the Government plug the loopholes to protect the public? I hope the various Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux who are present will handle these problems.

Moreover, I would like to this take opportunity to raise another issue. In fact, I have raised this issue in the meeting of the relevant panel as well as a written question in the Legislative Council meeting. Some Directors of Bureaux, however, were not sure if such an issue falls within their purview. In fact, if you think about it carefully, it seems that this issue is related to all Directors of Bureaux who are present as well as the Secretary for Justice. What is this issue? There are ethnic minorities and South Asians providing translation services, such as helping South Asians to give statements in the Immigration Department (ImmD) or providing translation services in courts, they have complained that there has been no salary increment for many years. The authorities imposed a requirement of undergraduate qualification for those translators and some of them are even university professors but their hourly rate is only some $200, which has remained unchanged for many years.

It is basically an insult to them. The Government regarded their translation services as low-cost services because they are ethnic minorities. Yet, the remuneration offered by the Government for the translation services of other languages is completely different. Therefore, when it comes to respecting the ethnic minorities, I hope various Directors of Bureaux can pay attention to these translators from ethnic minorities policy-wise, for example, in courts, the ImmD or government departments ― Secretary LAU Kong-wah is also responsible for 5684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 the work concerning ethnic minorities ― as these translators are willing to serve society and people of the same race with their knowledge. The authorities should offer them a dignified and reasonable remuneration.

Deputy President, I do not wish to further torture the ears of Members with my voice so I shall stop here, but I hope the Government will respond to my remarks. Thank you.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am going to speak now. I hope you will not stop me, as you did decades ago in the Hong Kong Polytechnic Student Union, because we are old acquaintances.

Yesterday I spent more than 20 minutes criticizing LEUNG Chun-ying for his failed governance and refusal to conduct review and, instead, putting the blame on others for their violent acts. Actually, his logic is the same. While he criticizes others of using violence to make their political aspirations politically correct, is he not doing the same? He is only using "institutional violence" as his tool.

The Chief Secretary is now in the Chamber. Given her ability, she can beat him at any time, right? Why will she not run for election? Even Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN might be more competent than LEUNG Chun-ying, for at least the former would not behave in such an insane manner as the latter who said that the administration of the Government would be held up by judicial review. I suppose Mr YUEN would not make such comments, right? Actually, what is the crux of the problem? It lies in that he was selected by 1 200 people, and this system was recommended to the Central Authorities by him in the wake of the 31 August Decision. What is more, he indicated that it would be acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.

Therefore, the Chief Secretary should be held accountable for she is sitting here. Government officials should be accountable. Has the Chief Secretary told the Central Authorities that the 31 August Decision could work, saying "the military order issued by me, Carrie LAM, will definitely work"? This has eventually led to the 28 September incident, which was described by the Chief Secretary as an illegal activity that sought to encourage violence. Actually, the problem lies in the recommendation made jointly by the Chief Secretary and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5685

Central Authorities to adopt the 31 August Decision, that is, at least 601 votes must be secured from 1 200 people, before someone can qualify as a candidate, right? If the Chief Secretary is not held accountable, who should be held accountable? Their use of violence will not make their advocacy right, just as they condemn people who advocate the use of violence to manifest their political statements, only that the violence used by them has been made legitimate under the existing corrupt system.

In this connection, what consequences will be caused by a corrupt system? Firstly, a corrupt system will block the progress of reform. In fact, the pro-Government camp in this Council can hardly shirk its responsibility because, if universal suffrage could be implemented in 2017, it can be implemented in 2020, too. In other words, those functional constituency Members who are still lingering on will lose their existing haven due to the implementation of universal suffrage in 2017. This is the first point.

Secondly, before being elected, LEUNG Chun-ying had repeatedly mentioned the existence of deep-rooted conflicts in Hong Kong. He also said that should members of the League of Social Democrats be elected to the Legislative Council, they would use violence in the Council, and that many people would sigh that incidents like the one involving JU Gan-jeng in Taiwan would occur in Hong Kong, too. We cannot accuse him of talking nonsense; he is only putting it another way. With enormous powers in his hands, he is now criticizing others for the use of violence, right? Firstly, LEUNG Chun-ying pointed out in the Umbrella Movement that, should people with a median wage below $14,000 be conferred with universal suffrage, interest would definitely be tilted. What exactly was he talking about? In other words, if people with a monthly income of $14,000 or below were entitled to electing the Chief Executive without any screening of candidates, the Chief Executive would tilt the interest in favour of them. So, was he implying that the people's clashes with police officers in Mong Kok that day were justifiable? The fact that they cannot elect the Chief Executive under the system set up by the Government has created a political problem, right? If the clashes are described as a riot, why were the several riots that occurred when the communists were weeded by the Kuomintang described by all as magnificent acts? Does LAU Kong-wah agree with me? He should have read the related articles, including the one about the Nanchang Mutiny that took place in Jiangxi, which is the origin of the Army Day. Now the same military song was played again and again in the annual military parade.

5686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Hence, we should actually say that violence will not make the Government's political views correct. On the contrary, the correctness of its political views will make the Government use violence at the critical moment. As pointed out by many people, Engels once described violence as the midwife of revolution, implying the maturity of the foetus after 10-month pregnancy. This is why I have once said that the undue use of violence cannot make us move forward towards our goal. What I mean is, even a midwife cannot induce a pregnant woman to go into labour if she is pregnant for less than 10 months. Hence, the use of violence might not push politics forward even though it is politically correct. On the contrary, it might become a cause of criticism.

Let us come back again to LEUNG Chun-ying, though I have only a little time left. Not only did LEUNG Chun-ying thank the taxpayers at that time, but he also went on to scold the poor people who wished to see the implementation of universal suffrage, that is, people earning a monthly income of $14,000 or below and rioters ― because he once said that all rioters were low-income or unemployed people. In his view, should these people be allowed to participate in elections, social interest would be compromised because they would put their own interest above those of others. May I ask: Who comes first, according to the Communist Party of China (CPC), on the Chinese flag? The answer seems to be workers, to be followed by peasants. The interpretation of the national flag has yet to be revised, right? Should these people be trampled upon? LEUNG Chun-ying once expressed his gratitude to taxpayers. As time is running out now, he will even kiss the asses of those people who were criticized by him before. His brain is not directed by his ass. Instead, the ballots will determine whose ass he will kiss. This is an advanced "ass theory".

Deputy President, the Chief Executive would rather put the blame on others than reviewing the governance crisis that occurred in society in the wake of the recommendation of the 31 August Decision to the CPC. The Belt and Road Initiative currently proposed was actually proposed a long time ago for the sake of exporting surplus production capacity. Are the tens of thousands of infrastructure facilities being used by us not related to the Belt and Road Initiative? The administration by the Government has nothing to with the well-being of Hong Kong and the people of Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5687

I find it most laughable that Mr KWOK Wai-keung from the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) pointed out that the election of the Chief Executive by 1 200 people was tantamount to zero choice. Buddy, should Miss CHAN Yuen-han run for the office of the Chief Executive, I might give her my vote and hence, there is simply no need for me to beg LEUNG Chun-ying. Members are now committing suicide. Why does the FTU think that its members cannot run for the office of the Chief Executive and eliminate LEUNG Chun-ying, a rounder who deceives people for money and sex? Thank you, Deputy President.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I will first respond to the Chief Secretary for Administration because I know that she mentioned my name when it was the public officer's turn to speak in the third debate session. I thank the Chief Secretary for her response. But the thrust of the question raised by me in my speech in the session relating to environmental affairs is that I hope the Chief Secretary will respond to the establishment of an inter-departmental group in relation to the Climate Change Conference held in Paris. How will they cope with it and what measures will be adopted? I hope the Chief Secretary will give us some actual information rather than engaging in a war of words with us. Will she please respond on other occasions how this inter-departmental group is going to mitigate the extreme climate changes faced by Hong Kong.

Deputy President, no one would wish to see the chaotic situation in Mong Kok on the first night of the Lunar New Year. But no one can deny that the social split has become increasingly serious. There are only two stances in society now, that is, whether to condemn or not to condemn it. People are forced to take side, and both sides are like that. We only saw a still image and what happened that night, but very few will ask about the causes and consequences. Certainly, some people do not wish to talk about the causes and consequences, nor will they discuss how to ease public grievances and solve the problems in the future. Both sides are holding such an attitude, leaving no room for analysis, mutual understanding and accommodation, and only fighting to the bitter end. In that case, how can the cracks in Hong Kong society be mended?

The Government is the party that possesses power and resources. The first step of mending the cracks in relationship must be taken by the Government. Hence, the democratic camp proposed setting up an independent commission of 5688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 inquiry to look into the causes and consequences of the disturbance in Mong Kok, and what has given rise to the seed of misfortune sown previously. And certainly, the most important thing is how we should mend the cracks in society thereafter.

LEUNG Chun-ying stated that it was not necessary to set up an independent commission of inquiry. Let me quote his remarks: "Hong Kong nowadays enjoys free access to information and is a highly democratic and transparent society. Members of the public are entitled to freedom of speech and can express their opinions and aspirations on social problems and government administration through various channels, including different tiers of councils, consultative bodies or even in the form of peaceful processions, demonstrations and assemblies. Individuals can also seek relief from the court to review the administrative decisions through legal proceedings." I will refute it point by point.

If the councils and advisory framework can effectively carry out monitoring, exercise checks and balances and resolve conflicts, with free access to information and freedom of speech in our society just as what LEUNG Chun-ying stated, how would Hong Kong have degraded to such a state now? First, in respect of free access to information, what we must say is that "one single man" has rejected the issuance of a free TV licence to Mr Ricky WONG in the Executive Council, resulting in the current situation in which the market is dominated by one television broadcaster. Asia Television Limited has to close down even if it does not face cut-throat competition. Radio Television Hong Kong cannot tolerate the opposing views of NG Chi-sum, while Commercial Radio's licence renewal has also dragged on for nine months in the Executive Council. How can the Government convince Hongkongers that free access to information is truly available here?

The details and the whole story of LEUNG Chun-ying's receipt of $50 million from UGL have yet to be disclosed, while Paul CHAN, Secretary for Development, declared to LEUNG Chun-ying alone the person who is holding a number of companies registered in the British Virgin Islands overseas by him. Can it be considered highly transparent?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5689

In respect of freedom of speech, the Police arrested another youngster this morning, and pompously produced two books ― I will not mention those two books again so as not to do advertising for them ― treating them as evidence of crime. It has only reminded us of the provision under which the possession of seditious articles would constitute a criminal offence when legislation was introduced for implementation of Article 23 in 2003. Is our freedom of speech protected in this way?

As for different tiers of councils, there are 35 Members returned by functional constituencies in the Legislative Council, of which 16 were elected uncontested. Some of them only secured some 120 or 150 votes. Do we think that this is a Council where conflicts can be resolved?

As regards advisory bodies, the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) is now filled with "LEUNG's fans". In the past, Prof Joseph LEE and Mr Alan LEONG were once the Vice-Chairmen of the IPCC, but now, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Tony TSE have replaced them. Only Dr Helena WONG and Mr Kenneth LEUNG remain in the IPCC, trying hard to stay involved. It is really not known when this advisory framework will collapse. The Equal Opportunities Commission is a statutory body responsible for monitoring the Government. But rumours about why its Chairperson Dr York CHOW's employment contract has not been renewed are doing rounds in town. And no one is prepared to take its helm.

We call all this political engineering, which has taken place in succession during the term of office of LEUNG Chun-ying. And over the past several years, the Police have even been put in the forefront and made the target of public resentment triggered by the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration. The top echelons of the Government have even criticized the abuse of judicial review, which is a downright insult to the Judges.

All kinds of protection for us in various tiers and aspects have been subject to continual erosion. When people think that the Council is unable to help resolve the conflicts in society at large, public resentment accumulated over a long time will erupt in one go. If the Government continues to insist on its own way by exerting its influence without exploring solutions, create more problems and spare no effort in fixing those who raise questions by means of prosecution and law enforcement, it will not be able to avert such a chaotic situation.

5690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Be it institutional or street violence, it will only give rise to more confrontation. History always tells us that the hasher the tyranny, the greater the resistance. As the party that possesses power and resources, the Government should take the first step of mending the cracks in relationship. If all senior government officials and politically appointed officials only respond with ― "riot" ― the word used by LEUNG Chun-ying, and continue to use their remarks to tear society apart, Hong Kong will only pay a higher price. This may not be what both sides would wish to see.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, a raft of disputes have arisen in the community since LEUNG Chun-ying took office. From television licencing, the national education saga to the appointment of Chairman to the Council of the University of Hong Kong, it is evident that the philosophy of governance of LEUNG Chun-ying is one of struggle and confrontation. In any event, all sort of policymaking is built on the struggle principle of LEUNG Chun-ying rather than public opinions. As a result, LEUNG Chun-ying just does whatever he wishes.

More regrettable is that LEUNG Chun-ying is not the only holder of such a mindset. Even his governing team is now infected with this kind of egoism.

Yesterday, I criticized the Government of taking the approach of lengthened negotiation and repeated consultations with regard to such controversial initiatives as universal retirement protection, standard working hours, the offsetting arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund, and so on; as for initiatives with no controversy at all, such as dental care for the elderly and the development of hillside connection links, the progress has all along been slow if not stalled; as for initiatives with no urgency, a hardline approach is adopted whatsoever, as in the case of supplementary provision for the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, which is dedicated mainly to its second-stage work and refined boundary crossing facilities; as for initiatives with room for concession, such as the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, which may run on a separate-location model to avoid the possible implications of co-location on "one country, two systems", the Government shuts the gate for any alternative right away at the expense of "one country, two systems".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5691

Nevertheless, not only does the Chief Secretary not address the concerns of the people of Hong Kong about the SAR Government's ineffective governance as well as the increasingly grave deep-rooted conflicts in a community torn apart as reflected in these issues. She even went so far as slipping in a straw argument in her answer to my question on governance by citing figures on poverty alleviation. Chief Secretary, given the pile of figures listed by you, I would certainly not accuse you of having done nothing at all or not doing well to alleviate poverty. However, is this provision of figures tantamount to good governance by the Government? Does it mean that its administration has nothing to do with the clashes taking place in Mong Kok on the first day of the Chinese New Year? Chief Secretary, if you are so confident of the governance of the SAR Government, I hope you can say in your reply to this Council later on that the Mong Kok incident is by no means related to the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration. I hope you can answer me direct as well as those who are watching our meeting live in this Chamber or through the television that you are extremely confident of the governance of the SAR Government, and hold that the clashes in Mong Kok are by no means related to the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration. Thank you, Deputy President.

MS CLAUDIA MO: C Y LEUNG is "a puppet on a string dancing obsequiously to the tunes of Beijing". Allow me to quote David TANG, one of the finest columnists for the Financial Times. But to call C Y LEUNG obsequious is not enough, obviously. He is calculating, cunning and shameless. We are dealing with a perfect liar, a political worm. This person is not just selling out Hong Kong. He is selling Hong Kong down the loo! Motion of Thanks? Motion of No Thanks!

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

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after hearing the reply of the Chief Secretary for Administration yesterday, I really felt heart-broken. Having served as a civil servant for more than three decades, she actually knows that from the British Hong Kong era to the present, it is most important for the Civil Service to follow the system and work in a pragmatic manner. However, now the Chief Secretary said she did not know why Members, instead of using the time to speak, would only level criticisms and comment that the Government 5692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 had done a poor job. Actually it is very easy if she wishes to hear praises. When did Members ever criticize anything? Over the past couple of days, many Members of the pro-establishment camp have been singing praises, speaking highly of the Belt and Road Initiative, commending the Government for its good work, and lauding LEUNG Chun-ying for overcoming every difficulty. In fact, it is very easy if she wishes to hear all of these. She needs only record these speeches and replay them at home. Then she will feel very happy. She will feel good every day. Yet she should not come to the Legislative Council, since Legislative Council Members are not paid to sing praises of the Government. Our duty is to point out areas that warrant improvement by the Government.

The most outrageous remark I have heard is one made to this effect by the Chief Secretary a few months ago: "A government official with no expectation is bold". To put it bluntly, this remark has really set a bad example to young people. Government officials actually have only one function. Entrusted by the people, they work for the people. A government official's capability is not to be determined by the mere words of the Chief Secretary or other people. Rather, it is the public who will tell the officials, including the Chief Secretary, whether their performance is satisfactory. How can she, being an official, describe herself as bold? If she is bold, she should come forward to say that LEUNG Chun-ying has torn society apart, that LEUNG Chun-ying has made society become more ruthless, that the universal suffrage proposed by the Central Government is bogus, and the Central Authorities have never offered any genuine universal suffrage package to the people of Hong Kong. In fact, the Chief Secretary has had a lot of opportunities to tell the truth. Such is a bold act. But it is not coming forward to criticize us. As a matter of fact, the Secretary has lately put on a high-sounding bureaucratic air, pulling her face, criticizing Members and everyone for not understanding how much work she has done in earnest, so on and so forth. She even referred to her creed. On hearing that, I felt quite awkward. Why did she drag in God and say a place had been reserved for her in Heaven? Because that is sort of blasphemous. Although I have no faith, I think she should not do so.

The Chief Secretary has worked in the Government for decades. Actually we trust her and those officials originating from the Civil Service more than we trust LEUNG Chun-ying and various officials appointed by him whom we cannot bear to see ― I do not wish to name them, or else I will be accused of personal attack later. Being the head of government officials, she should be humble and prepared to come down off her high position. In fact, the position of the Chief LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5693

Secretary is already very high. Below just one or two but above tens of thousands of people, her position is already high enough. She needs not strike a pose of being at the high level. People in high positions should first come down from their high horse and talk with other people, rather than staying aloft and criticizing other people continuously.

This year's Policy Address is really infuriating. Upon hearing the first line, I already wanted to leave, but then I gave up the idea of leaving, since I thought it was our duty to listen. "Since taking office, the current-term Government has focused its efforts on promoting democracy", but what democracy has it promoted? What democracy has the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration ever promoted? He has only torn Hong Kong further apart.

What did we see in this Policy Agenda? Perhaps let me tell Members my view, which is quite different from theirs. On economic development, there is no new idea at all. What is mentioned most frequently is the Belt and Road Initiative. On the housing policy, apart from waiting for property prices to fall, everything is just mere talk, be it land supply or public housing supply. On the development of Lantau, it turns out that it seeks to destroy the last unpolluted haven of the people of Hong Kong. On making the optimal use of brownfield sites, the Government even does not have any statistics on such sites. On building maintenance, it turns a blind eye to bid-rigging. In respect of many demands for prevention of bid-rigging, the Home Affairs Department and Home Affairs Bureau consider having listened to such demands as having done their job and did not even say a word. On transport infrastructure, there are still many "white elephant" connection projects and political projects in the pipeline. For contracts worth $100 billion to $200 billion, the Government just closed its eyes and signed them. Now the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), owing to the project delay, has been demanded by the contractors to pay some $20 billion as compensation. How disappointing this Government is! We request an accessible pedestrian environment, but the Government has completely slowed down the construction of the footbridges requested. On harbourfront development, Members certainly remember the Avenue of Stars, and we have talked a lot about it today. If the Government had done the job, including consultation and open tender, properly back then, how would it have ended in such a hurried escape and farce today? Moreover, it did not happen because of the people's request. Rather, it was because the two major consortiums, unable to get an equal share of the spoils, filed for a judicial review. As the election time draws near, perhaps LEUNG Chun-ying found something is amiss. He has 5694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 already made himself an enemy of 90% of the people of Hong Kong. Now even the remaining 10% are going to see him as their enemy. On urban renewal, the Central Market project was overturned, while the "Wedding Card Street" became a big laughing stock. On enhancing monitoring of the MTRCL, in the end there were continuous disruptions in its service.

The Community Care Fund (CCF) is used by the Government as its fig leaf. Retirement protection is not to be seen in the foreseeable future. It turns out that what LEUNG Chun-ying said in his election pledge can be forgotten if it was not put in black and white. Chief Secretary Carrie LAM cannot but continue to shield him from all kinds of flak. There is actually no support for victims of domestic violence. The Government promises to enhance the care service for ex-mentally ill persons, but they have to wait for five more years. At present, the waiting time for the first consultation appointment for children in the psychiatry department is five years. For children with special needs and their parents, the Government continues to use the CCF to offer them Band-Aid. As for the Commission on Poverty, I will not dwell on it. I will only talk about Prof Nelson CHOW. He is a scholar respected by us, but after the issue of retirement protection, he was made the scapegoat, extremely disappointed by the Government, including the Chief Secretary.

On enhancement of healthcare services provision, the Hospital Authority is forced to hold a surplus of $1.3 billion, a large amount of which is used for shielding the Government from attacks and raising the salaries of many healthcare officers in the rank of senior civil servants. On regulation of medical devices, so far such regulation is still mere talk. The beauty industry remains in a mess. Many members of the public lost their health or even their lives after treatment. Primary healthcare is only empty talk. The longest waiting time for a place in an elderly health centre exceeds five years.

On municipal services, our municipal markets do not provide services to members of the public in need, including the residents in Tung Chung and Tin Shui Wai. The Link Asset Management Limited (The Link), which was raised by the Government all the way, has also brought various problems ― of course, The Link's problems did not originate from the current-term Government. It had already become a giant monster earlier ― Apart from the incident which the Government called the Mong Kok riot early this year, actually a problem has also arisen in Leung King Estate in Tuen Mun since The Link, this giant monster and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5695 vampire raised by the Government, contracted out the market service, allowing the contractor to exploit stall tenants of their interests. Now such a problem has occurred in Cheung Fat Estate. Later, it will extend to Yat Tung Estate in Tung Chung. I believe it will not take long for the management of all the markets under The Link to be outsourced to these contractors, suppressing people in the lowest stratum in every way. What has this Government done? Everything is directed against the poorest people.

On tree management, the old tree on Bonham Road was felled overnight, and the felling of trees continues in Tuen Mun. On safeguarding drinking water quality, the lead-in-water crisis did not stop. On enhancing waste management, apart from succeeding in getting landfills and incinerators, statements made are treated as tasks completed for waste recovery and recycling. On conservation of marine resources, the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the third runway continues with increasing pollution of the sea, driving out all the white dolphins.

On the population policy, the Government continues to hold meetings with mere talk without any action. The 12-year free education has gone out of shape. In respect of primary and secondary education, although national education has been withdrawn, the Government continues to engage in what we consider as political missions with other approaches through the Education Bureau, including introducing the "disfigured characters" and restoring the use of Putonghua to teach the Chinese Language subject.

On the rule of law, I have never seen the rule of law in such a worrying state in Hong Kong. Last time I mentioned the comment made by the Heritage Foundation that the rule of law in Hong Kong had been impacted with the Government taking the lead, thus arousing concern in the international community. The LEE Po incident has caused worries to the public, including the international business community. But what is the attitude of the Special Administrative Region Government? LEUNG Chun-ying came forward to criticize judicial reviews of hindering the development of Hong Kong. When was he ever hindered? What poor policies of his have been hindered? Had the two major consortiums not joined hands to file a judicial review, the Avenue of Starts would have to be closed by New World for years. What kind of Government is this?

5696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

On elections, impartiality in elections should be maintained, but bribery in elections continues. Free snake feasts, vegetarian meals, cakes and glutinous rice dumplings were offered. Candidate numbers were marked on voters' palms. There were errors in voters' registration. All of these abound, but the Government continues to turn a blind eye to them. On district administration, the $100 million project scheme became a joke in the districts. Many "white elephant" district projects such as the installation of a music fountain made members of the public feel heartbroken. What they need is genuine service, but in the end it has degenerated into an architectural eyesore.

On human rights, the Government has taken the lead not to respect human rights. Since the happening of the LEE Po incident, who has come forward to protect the human rights of the victims and their families? Let me quote what Mr CHING Cheong, a political commentator whom I greatly respect, said yesterday. He said the current-term Government had a "four-more" crisis: the two systems have become more and more like one country; the ideology has become more Mainlandized; the rule of Hong Kong by the Western District has become more regular; and the governing team in Hong Kong has become more leftist. We have seen these four phenomena ruining Hong Kong. After the Mong Kok incident that happened on Sunday, let us come to think about it. The British Hong Kong Government which Chief Secretary Carrie LAM had served back then was willing to set up a committee to look into the root of the problem. President Jasper TSANG is not here. When he commented on the 1967 riot, he said every social disturbance had its cause. There must be a cause which leads to social instability. After such an incident had taken place in society, the Government did not conduct any review. When LEUNG Chun-ying came out, he did not ask about the cause of the incident. He does not know that the biggest problem actually lies with himself. He said it was necessary to provide the Police with additional equipment. With only police guns and water cannon vehicles, it is still not enough. Are they going to procure machine guns and anti-aircraft guns? Which type of equipment is not enough? With some 30 000 armed police officers vested with almost unrestricted police powers, it is still not enough. This will only escalate violence and ruthlessness with more social unrest. Certainly, in this circumstance, many members of the ordinary public will say there is not much they can complain about because their only wish is to ask LEUNG Chun-ying not to seek another term of office, given that he will not step down. Yet I believe their wish will probably fall through because I once asked a Member of the pro-establishment camp why they did not propose someone to stand for election if so many people in the business sector did not like LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5697 him. He asked who would dare do so. Having seen how LEUNG Chun-ying messed Jasper TSANG and Henry TANG around, they still feel apprehensive. The rich are not stupid, are they? Do they have nothing better to do? Hong Kong has come to such a state, a hopeless state. Not only do the young people in Mong Kok have no hope. All the people of Hong Kong have no hope. He, however, asks us to keep praising him and commending how this Government has served the people and looked after the disadvantaged. We have discerning eyes. We have noted how this Policy Address has repeatedly mentioned the Belt and Road Initiative. Yesterday, when the meeting was about to end, LAU Kong-wah still kept murmuring and repeating the Belt and Road Initiative. Perhaps he was saying it to LEUNG Chun-ying. If LEUNG Chun-ying is happy, he will grant him a continued appointment. Then LEUNG Chun-ying will say it to XI Jinping to make him happier so that he may get another term.

With these remarks, I oppose the Motion of Thanks.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I will use these several minutes of my remaining time to speak on the rule of law and governance.

Since taking office, LEUNG Chun-ying has been administering Hong Kong with the tyrannical attitude of "allowing those who comply with him to live" and, through creating conflicts and polarizing society, increasing his own political capital and claiming credit from Beijing. Last year in the policy address he lashed out at Undergrad and Hong Kong Nationalism, thus triggering a series of political struggles. Despite his vow to concentrate on economic and livelihood development after the constitutional reform package was vetoed, he has failed completely to address livelihood issues, the public's greatest concern, in the Policy Address this year. From the 15-year free education to universal retirement protection, the comprehensive transport study, infrastructure works cost overruns and even concerns about the narrowing of human rights and freedom, LEUNG Chun-ying has failed to come up with effective and practicable measures to ease the hardship of the people. On the contrary, he has talked at great lengths about such an illusory goal as the Belt and Road Initiative in an attempt to gloss over his incompetence in administration.

Deputy President, the current-term Government, which is fond of carrying "ruling Hong Kong in accordance with the law" on its lips, has time and again mentioned the rule of law. However, it would condemn certain acts of civil 5698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 disobedience both verbally and in writing, including the unrest in Mong Kok on the first day of the Lunar New Year. Nonetheless, there are different levels of the rule of law. History tells us that the law is very often dictated by the wishes of senior officials. Under the judicial system used for ruling a country, a person (including a ruler) should be constrained by law. Hence, there was the saying that "both the emperor and the people are equal before the law" in ancient China.

Nevertheless, there will be "limitation from law" and "justice through law" if we go deeper into the judicial system. In other words, a comprehensive limitation regime, including democratic elections which can convey public opinion, has to be put in place to prevent the ruler from turning a blind eye to the wishes of the people. Most importantly, the law per se must embrace realization of justice.

Although the constitutional reform package conceived by the Government last year merely proposed a Chief Executive Election with screening, the functional constituencies would have to be retained in the Legislative Council Election. In every Legislative Council Election held in the past, the pro-democracy camp secured the majority of ballots. However, the existence of functional constituencies ensured that the pro-Government camp and the pro-establishment camp would still become the majority in the Legislative Council. As a result, the public opinion of Hong Kong people continued to be trampled upon. With the support from the pro-Government camp, the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration appears to have shown no fear at all and repeatedly defied procedural fairness. Examples are: his attempt to jump the gun in commencing advance works in the Northeast New Territories development areas; his repeated attempts to rearrange the order of the Agenda items, thereby compelling the Finance Committee to deal with the item related to the funding of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge; and in the face of the highly controversial XRL project, the Government has persistently forced the Legislative Council to approve funding hastily by repeatedly threatening that funding items related to people's livelihood will be affected.

During the Chief Executive Election, LEUNG Chun-ying was revealed to have allegedly accepted advantages in the West Kowloon Reclamation Concept Plan Competition. Soon after taking office, it was again revealed that he was involved in unauthorized building works. Later, he was even revealed to have accepted a secret sum of HK$50 million in gratuity from the UGL Limited. Yet, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5699 he was not constrained by the laws of Hong Kong in any of these incidents. Given that he himself has no respect for the foundation of the rule of law, on what basis is he qualified to say "ruling Hong Kong in accordance with the law" and criticize young people with political ideals?

Deputy President, since the Policy Address presented by LEUNG Chun-ying has failed to address the administration blunders made by him over the past three years and reflect on the various institutional injustices that led to the unrest in Mong Kok, the Neo Democrats will not support the Motion of Thanks for the Policy Address.

Deputy President, I so submit.

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

MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, although the Motion of Thanks is an annual event, separate voting is necessary because it is a Member's motion. Given the majority seats won by the pan-democrat Members in the geographical elections held in the past couple of years, coupled with their political stance, how can we expect them to thank the Chief Executive? Hence, the Motion of Thanks was not passed almost every year, and it was vetoed for the eighth time last year. In my opinion, the Motion of Thanks might as well be renamed as "the Motion of Criticisms".

According to Chinese tradition, the family is taken very seriously. The familiar aphorism that "everything will prosper if there is peace in the house" is a correct and fitting remark that is also taken seriously by people for the past thousands of years. In other words, there must be peace in the house before everything will prosper. In my opinion, the Policy Address presented by the current-term Government appears to have placed emphasis solely on prosperity without mentioning peace in the house. As a result, there is apparently a slight sign of "endless quarrels" in the house today, which will eventually get us nowhere. It must be clearly understood that Hong Kong will not prosper if there is no peace in the house, regardless of whether or not the Chief Executive will be re-elected.

5700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

In all fairness, the Government would like to make achievements in many areas. Moreover, prosperity is taken very seriously. If Hong Kong is to pursue thriving development in, for instance, housing, the pro-establishment and pan-democrat Members will unanimously call on the Government to deliver. Members can see that the Government is doing its utmost to identify land all over the territory. Its effort has also been applauded by everyone. Nevertheless, no one would like the Government to identify land in their backyards or nearby places and, what is more, block the views of their homes. Once opposition is voiced by the districts, Members will join in the chorus.

One of the responsibilities of Legislative Council Members like us is to help the Government communicate with the public. Apart from conveying public dissatisfaction to the Government, we are obliged to explain to the public the need to give and take in dealing with a lot of things. Moreover, a trade-off might be necessary. As the saying goes, we cannot "want the horse to be good but not expect it to feed". Furthermore, we cannot, on the one hand, propose the construction of more units but, on the other, expect each unit to command a magnificent view on the sea. Apart from site identification for housing construction, some other prices have to be paid for other projects, such as the environmental protection and infrastructure projects taken forward by the Government, too. As the bridge for communication between the Government and the public, Members have to represent the public to convey their requests to the Government. However, Members cannot, for the sake of ballots, refrain from explaining to the public the price payable. Otherwise, there will only be endless quarrels in society, just as the endless quarrels seen in the problematic house mentioned by me just now.

Although I have said this much for the Government, it does not mean I consider that the Government should not be held accountable. On the contrary, I reckon that the Government and the Chief Executive should bear the greatest responsibility for the current plight of the "family relationship" in Hong Kong. The distinct personality of the Chief Executive is widely known. I know that he has many grandiose plans, but things will not work out in the end if there is no peace in the house.

Many people have mentioned that the first thing the Chief Executive wished to do after his victory in the election was to set up a "Hong Kong camp". But if this matter is not handled properly, how can we have prosperity? In LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5701 dealing with a lot of things, we can demonstrate sincerity if we can be a little less stubborn on the premise of not adversely affecting our major goal. For instance, regardless of whether the Chief Executive was invited to a celebration held by a moderate political party or had no intention to attend, why was the entire Government team barred, as I have heard, from attending the event, even though his personal attendance did not really matter? When a relationship is trapped in a vicious circle, the people concerned, including the pro-establishment Members like us and the pan-democrat colleagues who are present here, are actually obligated to break the circle. However, the greater the power, the greater the responsibility. Given that the Chief Executive, as the head of the Government, has a lofty status and supreme power, is he not obliged to take the first step to break this vicious circle?

Last week, Hong Kong as a family spent a most unhappy Lunar New Year Day. When people should visit each other to give red packets, it instead ended up in bloodshed and confrontations. The injured included front-line personnel, journalists, many young people, and actually, the hearts of all the people of Hong Kong. I would like to, once again, strongly condemn violent acts. My position is clear and unequivocal. Nonetheless, will it make any difference even if we pro-establishment Members and even pan-democrat Members are united in a chorus of condemnation? Will similar incidents not happen again? Will people participating in violent acts stop? I am afraid probably not.

In order to bring about peace in the house and prosperity, people who are concerned about Hong Kong will ask: What else can be done? A family in which fathers, sons and brothers treat one another with love and respect is certainly ideal. After the occurrence of an incident involving domestic violence, if family members resort to accusations, punishment for the cause of justice by sending their family members to jail, inaction to mend family relations or indifference, the problem will never be resolved. In order to prevent the recurrence of domestic violence for the sake of the future of the family, family members should seek and receive assistance expeditiously and find out the underlying cause and truth of domestic violence.

Abusers of violence in the Mong Kok riot will definitely be brought to justice. As the old saying goes, "Severe law is necessary in times of chaos". On the one hand, I hope heavy penalties will be handed down by the Court to achieve a deterrent effect but, on the other, we should rely on external assistance 5702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 to conduct an independent inquiry by people with credibility. As the saying goes, "It takes more than one cold day for the river to freeze three feet deep". The Government should inquire into the cause of hatred among such a large group of rioters. Should the Police be blamed for adopting a too lax or stringent approach in the past which caused them to resort to violence? Can court rulings achieve any deterrent effect? Or, as stated by the Central Authorities, was it true that the riot was orchestrated by separatists or even violent groups, with funds provided at the back to advocate rioting? More deep-rooted problems also involve governance problems related to social grievances, upward mobility of young people, housing and living.

Deputy President, after the occurrence of the rioting incident in Mong Kok last week, I dedicated two lines of the song "Blowin' In The Wind" on Facebook to the Chief Executive as a New Year gift. I would like to sum up my speech here by repeating the lines. After listening to speeches for three days, I think Members have not heard anyone sing a song. Now I would like to sing these two lines: How many times can a man turn his head. Pretending he just doesn't see? Sorry, I did not sleep well last night and so my voice is a bit hoarse. These two lines are actually very simple in meaning: Will the Government keep pretending to be blind to everything? Or should it think long and hard about what it can do? Deputy President, I so submit.

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

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Hong Kong communist regime has been wreaking havoc in Hong Kong with its wanton tyranny. It took less than four years of destruction to reduce a first-class social system to the Third World level. It even antagonizes the younger generation, forcing kids to rebel and fight to their death. Without a stable income, secure accommodation and opportunities of upward mobility, young people face a bleak future. Should the time come to perish with you together, they will have no choice but to bravely charge forward against tyranny, disregarding personal safety. They use bricks to pave the way forward for society and flames to light up our lives. Stones and fires have always been symbols of resistance against totalitarianism and exploration of the future.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5703

The young people of Hong Kong cannot bear to witness the demise of our city, so they risk universal condemnation in using force against violence. In the events from the Umbrella Revolution, the Recapture Movement, to the latest Fishball Revolution in Mong Kok, they have all along been withstanding suppression from the ruling machinery. Self-proclaimed democratic parties and politicos lost no time in distancing themselves from these young people and joining the Hong Kong communist regime in condemning violence.

The synchronized condemnation of violence by both the pro-establishment and pan-democratic camps reminds me of the remarks Dr SUN Yat-sen made in retrospect of the failure of the Guangzhou Uprising. He said, to this effect, "All public opinions across the country perceive us as defiant and immoral traitors. We hear a barrage of curses and taunts. Wherever we go, all those who know us liken us to venomous snakes and fierce animals. None of them dare make friends with us." Amid overwhelming moral criticisms, I hope that young people do not feel worried and despondent at this time. They should all the more persevere in their faith to fight for final victory.

I wish here to tell a story to the Hong Kong communist regime, which oppresses young people. Before the American Revolution, Great Britain submitted the Stamp Act to the colonial parliamentary assembly in North America. While the pro-establishment voting troops were ready to play convoy to ensure its passage, one of the members, Patrick HENRY, strongly opposed it. The voting troops harshly denounced his immorality, crying, "Treason! Treason!" Patrick HENRY then said, "If this be treason, make the most of it." Before the police-civilian clash in Mong Kok, students of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) had already initiated the storming of HKU Council meeting to voice their grievances to the Council Chairman, Arthur LI, over his suppression of academic autonomy. Kids bravely struggle on and off campus with the mentality of "no begging for undignified survival in the face of disaster". It reflects how badly the autocratic Government fares.

After the police-civilian clash in Mong Kok that lasted from the first to the second days of the Lunar New Year, the SAR Government and the pro-establishment camp unanimously said that the Mong Kok riot cannot be compared with the disturbances in 1967. How shameless! During the 1967 riots, rioters committed homicides and arsons, burning to death LAM Bun, a Commercial Radio host. A girl and her younger brother were killed by a bomb planted at Ching Wah Street, North Point. Some communist militia even shot 5704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 dead Hong Kong police officers at the border of Hong Kong. I must point out that all Hongkongers are qualified to condemn violence, except those local communists, who would be awarded golden belts for having committed murders and arsons. There are no rioters. There is only tyranny. In the face of totalitarian rule, I unequivocally, unhesitatingly and firmly stand with the rebels in pursuit of justice.

After the 1967 riots, the then British Hong Kong Government implemented various benevolent policies, including the building of public housing and nine-year free education. Today's SAR Government only indiscriminately arrests and prosecutes the protesters after the incident of clash in Mong Kok. In perpetuation of the extreme capitalistic practice of "big market, small government", the SAR Government does nothing to stop large consortia from oppressing the petty masses. As a result, Hong Kong has set a record for the widest wealth gap among developed regions worldwide, and the property prices in Hong Kong are the most unaffordable in the world. In recently years, the SAR Government has even deprived Hongkongers of freedoms and human rights by various totalitarian means. With their lives filled with oppression and despair, Hongkongers have fallen into a deplorable state of psychological decadence. There were 25 tragic youth suicides in the past half year. LEUNG Chun-ying's perverse acts not just antagonize the people, but also force the younger generation into a tight corner, thus incurring indignation, resentment and even resistance. All of these reactions are logical consequences, because authoritative oppression drives people to rebel. Today's ruler will definitely be punished for his evil acts during his lifetime.

The SAR Government, which obsessively believes in the trickle-down effect in economy, always claims to promote the development of industries so as to improve people's livelihood. Over the past two decades, the cultural and creative industries in Hong Kong have been declining, and artistes and members of the film and television industries have been abandoning the local market. These phenomena are closely related to the predominance of one television broadcaster on the free television market. In 2009, after the Government decided to open up the free television market, a number of television broadcasters were attracted to apply for licences. However, the booming scene is but a fleeting illusion. The application from Hong Kong Television Network Limited was eventually, in 2013, rejected by the Hong Kong communist regime in a black-box operation. Having adopted the recommendations of the Communications Authority, the Executive Council rejected the application from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5705

Asia Television Limited (ATV) for licence renewal. Subsequently, ATV defaulted on wage payments and suspended news broadcasts. Being deserted in droves by the members of its management team, the company has descended into utter chaos. The allocation of frequency channels following the official discontinuation of ATV's broadcasting services on 1 April has yet to be finalized. For a period of time, only one free television broadcaster will remain on the entire free television market. Hong Kong Television Entertainment Company Limited and Fantastic Television Limited, which have been granted licences, are slow in their progress towards the commencement of broadcasting. As a result of the SAR Government's completely laissez-faire attitude, public resources are left to waste.

The socio-economic environment, business culture and education system in Hong Kong are all unfavourable for business start-up and new industries. The consumption-based tourism dominated by the Individual Visit Scheme in recent years has significantly driven up production costs in Hong Kong and led to uniformity of consumption. The most appalling is that the SAR Government shows favouritism towards consortia in discouraging new market entrants, thus stifling the advancement of markets and society. The Secretary for Innovation and Technology, Nicholas YANG, who once praised Uber as being an innovative business model, is now contradicting his past self. Before officially assuming office as Director of Bureau, he had even said that Uber ― in fact, I wonder whether it is pronounced as "u:bər" ― challenges Hong Kong's core value of the rule of law. It turns out that the SAR Government's professed commitment to promoting innovation and technology is only a pretense.

Let us look at today's Internet era. It has indeed subverted the traditional mode of information reception and dissemination. For more than a decade in the past, many Hongkongers have released secondary creations on the Internet, such as satires on current affairs, cover songs sung by netizens, live streaming of video gameplay, and so on, which have not just enriched Internet content, but also brought changes to the cultural market. Many so-called Internet celebrities who are popular on the Internet have become product spokespersons in real life. In addition to being a communication and information revolution, it is also a revolution in the consumer market. However, in response to the pressure from the business community, the SAR Government introduced the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill) at this time, setting out that it is an offence not to communicate works to the public for profit or reward. It stifles freedom of creation by introducing speech offences. Apart from repeatedly reiterating that 5706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 the risk of netizens violating criminal laws is very low, the Government has not exerted its best to perfect the Bill. It even refuses to accept the fair use doctrine that has all along been used in the United States. There are still many grey areas concerning such issues as profit-making, mode of distribution and contract override. Netizens have, therefore, responded positively to my proposal of a "filibuster against draconian legislation" movement. They go everywhere to promote resistance against this draconian law. Not surprisingly, the four-party meeting held on the 17th of this month ended up in acrimony.

By economic development, the SAR Government means that all Hongkongers should toe the line of the rich and powerful, and never act of their own accord. The SAR Government has conducted vigorous raids on on-street hawking activities and, through urban renewal, given large expanses of public space to consortia for development, in addition to selling off the shopping centres and car parks in public housing estates to The Link REIT, thus destroying the economy of grass-roots communities and placing Hongkongers' daily lives under the control of large consortia.

Recently, The Link Management Limited (The Link) contracted out the management of the shopping centre and the market in Leung King Estate. During the Lunar New Year, the property attendants even attacked passers-by and hawkers time and again in the open space outside Leung King Shopping Centre but the Police simply let it ride. The Link also contracted out the management of the market in Cheung Fat Estate, Tsing Yi. When the stall owners staged a strike, The Link went so far as to invite temporary hawkers to the market to sell food ingredients of unknown origin, which posed hazards to the health of residents. Likewise, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department engaged earlier in a black-box operation to transfer benefits to New World Development of the CHENG family by entrusting it with the management of a large strip of land along the Tsim Sha Tsui waterfront. Eventually, the plan was called off on 18 February under the pressure of public opinion and the business community.

LEUNG Chun-ying's current Policy Address has adopted the Belt and Road Initiative as its main theme, which is unclear in meaning and confusing to the people of Hong Kong. To put it bluntly, it is nothing but a trick to let the local bourgeoisie enjoy the fruits first while tying in with the development of the bureaucratic capital of the Communist Party of China (CPC). The heading "Share Prosperity" in the Policy Address will never materialize.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5707

To flatter his master in Beijing, LEUNG Chun-ying will personally set up and chair a steering committee and an office for the Belt and Road Initiative. The so-called Belt and Road Initiative, which refers to the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road, is a national development strategy proposed by President Xi Jinping of Communist China in 2013. Drawing on the concept of ancient Silk Road, the Initiative aims at developing cultural and economic co-operation with European and Asian regions, so as to address the problems of stagnation in the development of local industries, excess capacity and diplomatic containment, but no important position is reserved for Hong Kong. If there were new business opportunities in the Belt and Road Initiative, would they be monopolized by the state-owned enterprises of the CPC or shared by Hong Kong enterprises as well?

Everyone knows that the major trading partners of Hong Kong are located in the Pacific Region. Multinational corporations would generally place their Hong Kong division under the so-called "Asia-Pacific" flag. Evidently, therefore, there are insurmountable barriers between Hong Kong and those Central Asian, Middle Asian and Eastern European countries in the Belt and Road. In a timely coincidence, the United States is advocating The Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, or the so-called TPP. Is it a wise move for Hong Kong to abandon the Pacific for the Middle East and Central Asia? While the global economy is riddled with hidden causes for concern, political conflicts break out constantly. Whether the CPC's pipe dream of the Belt and Road Initiative will come true indeed remains uncertain.

The LEUNG Chun-ying Administration launched the Old Age Living Allowance and the Low-income Working Family Allowance in a high profile manner. The former is stringently means-tested. The latter is determined on the basis of the poverty line, which is drawn at too low a level. The Government claimed that these poverty alleviation measures were taking effect, with the poverty population reduced to below 1 million. This is downright deception to the public. The so-called reduction in the size of the poverty population is, in fact, based on the number of people living below the poverty line after recurrent cash intervention of the Government. The SAR Government has said for the first time that the so-called poverty line is defined as half of the median monthly household income, which stood at $3,500, $8,500, $13,000 and $16,400 respectively for a single-, two-, three- and four-person household in 2014. This is really incredible given the current living conditions in Hong Kong. The 5708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Low-income Working Family Allowance set on the basis of this poverty line is merely $1,000 to $2,000 per month. Ridiculously, the SAR Government thinks that such measures can actually help the grassroots get out of poverty. The general interpretation of getting out of poverty is to rely on oneself to improve income until there is no need to rely on the Government's relief, keeping savings after deducting the cost of living, and eventually improving the quality of life.

The public consultation on retirement protection held earlier particularly epitomized the shamelessness of the SAR Government. In the past, the SAR Government always stressed the effectiveness of the existing three pillars of retirement protection, namely the Mandatory Provident Fund System, personal savings and the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, completely neglecting the problem of elderly poverty. In June 2013, under the pressure of criticism, the SAR Government finally commissioned the consultancy team from the HKU led by Prof Nelson CHOW to conduct a study on the future development of retirement protection in Hong Kong. On 23 December last year, Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM actually slammed Prof Nelson CHOW on the radio for not having a good understanding of public finance, and criticized some of his recommendations being casual suggestions and his attitude not being an appropriate one for serious academic studies. Chief Secretary, you are insulting a scholar. How could anybody be so arrogant? You have gone so far as to torment a professor who is highly revered and prestigious in the academic community.

Prof CHOW said that the entire Government has never wished to grant universal rights to the public in the past 30-odd years. This is, in fact, just common sense. However, the poor elderly people worked very hard in their middle-aged prime of their lives to promote the economic prosperity of Hong Kong, but eventually they are unable to feed themselves in their later years. This is a phenomenon in Hong Kong, a so-called developed region with a per capita income of over US$30,000.

The so-called free kindergarten education proposed in the Policy Address is equally confusing. At present, whole-day kindergarten places account for 30% of the total supply. The SAR Government decided to provide a subsidy to cover only half of the course fee for whole-day places, ignoring the needs of dual-income and poor families in Hong Kong. The Committee on Free Kindergarten Education appointed by the SAR Government pointed out in its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5709 report, "Some research studies further advise that governments should be cautious about the financial implications of investing in whole-day programmes and consider carefully whether the benefits really outweigh the costs". What the heck is the Government doing? What is 15-year free education?

Earlier on, the Territory-wide System Assessment (TSA) evolved into a political storm. In complete ignorance of the plight experienced by children being drilled for the TSA, the Education Bureau insisted that Primary Three students should participate in the TSA, and Secretary Eddie NG said that it would be a big step backward to abolish the TSA. Survey findings revealed that one out of three children in Hong Kong suffers from anxiety disorders. The situation is far more serious than in China and Germany. Some children even exhibit such emotional symptoms as self-destruction. It is indeed extremely heinous of the Education Bureau to have ruined the next generation of Hongkongers to such an extent.

Recently, the Education Bureau has aroused public resentment by conducting a low-key public consultation on "Updating the Chinese Language Education Key Learning Area Curriculum (Primary One to Secondary Six)", which aims at forcing primary and secondary students to learn "disfigured" Chinese characters and high-handedly promoting the teaching of the Chinese Language subject in Putonghua. Hong Kong society has all along been using standard Chinese characters and Cantonese. Undoubtedly, the Bureau's reform to the Chinese language curriculum seeks to instil Chinese communist culture in children, starting from the next generation, by means of "disfigured" Chinese characters and Putonghua, so as to cleanse the inherent local culture and eliminate Hongkongers. The education policy of the SAR Government is, likewise, a form of tyranny to eliminate the next generation of Hongkongers.

The SAR Government not just enjoys splashing out an astronomical amount of public money on "white elephant" infrastructure, such as the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point, Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the third runway at the Hong Kong International Airport, but also condones cost overruns and delays in the projects. Every time the Government sought funding approval from the Legislative Council, its rationale was unclear. The officials repeatedly condemned Members from the opposition camp for obstructing the commencement of the works and thus pushing up the construction costs. Every time, the Government also shamelessly exerted pressure on the 5710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Finance Committee. The Government knows full well that such infrastructure are doomed to end up in a loss because they will not bring any economic benefits to Hong Kong at all amid China's economic crisis, but it persists in making mistakes by promoting such bandit logic as "the costs would not be recovered" or "non-completion would incur a heavy price".

When I was preparing this speaking note, I pondered it again and again, hoping to come up with some views on the policy objective of the Government. However, after the incident on Lunar New Year's Day, I revised this script again and again. From the first draft written by my assistant to the current final version, it has been revised 15 times in total. Honestly, my thoughts are also very confused. I really have no idea about what to say. Just now, when I read the part on cost overruns in major infrastructure projects, I was really frustrated. The Hospital Authority needs to slash its spending by hundreds of million dollars but project cost overruns have amounted to over $5 billion, or even over $19 billion. Every year 5 000 to 6 000 elders would pass away while waiting for subsidized residential care services. What has Hong Kong become?

Law enforcement agencies abuse powers, make indiscriminate arrests and suppress human rights. I believe Hong Kong will descend into a police state very soon. "Extremely evil" and "dirty cops" are words most commonly used by young people to describe the Police. Some university students have made adaptations of rock songs and publicly sung them to lash out at the Police. The clash in Mong Kok is even the best portrayal of the hatred young people hold for the Police. "To destroy a police force, there is no need of a popular uprising, nor guns and knives. All you need is that the Government solicits the Police on an unjust pretext to entrap loyal and good people. Then the police can abuse their powers for self-serving purposes. They are no longer police, but someone's servants and soldiers in hell." These remarks are extracted from an article written by Prof Horace CHIN in 2010 and entitled "如何毀滅一隊警察"(How to destroy a police force).

On 3 October 2014, during the Umbrella Revolution, the "dirty cops" got together to clear Mong Kok. After the Umbrella Revolution, some people were prosecuted for unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct or other relevant offences, but in at least 14 of the cases, the credibility of the statements given by police officers were questioned or even denounced by the Magistrate, and the prosecution had to bear the costs and lawyers' fees in respect of some of the cases. The most appalling is that a woman was convicted of assaulting a police officer LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5711 with her breasts during the "Recapture Yuen Long" movement in March last year and, eventually, heavily sentenced to imprisonment for three months and a half. This is the complete demise of the rule of law in the true sense of the words. Most Hongkongers would remember that the 79-day Umbrella Revolution was triggered by the Police's indiscriminate arrests and unreasonably prolonged detention of three student movement leaders, namely Joshua WONG, Alex CHOW and Lester SHUM. The Fishball Revolution on the night of Lunar New Year's Day stemmed from the Police deploying pepper spray at the public and firing gunshots into the air for no reason. Both incidents are the result of the Police setting fire to itself.

Beyond my belief, Secretary for Security LAI Tung-kwok claimed at a special meeting of the Panel on Security held on Tuesday that up to 700 rioters gathered in Mong Kok on that night and they had dug up more than 2 000 road bricks to attack police officers. He was really talking nonsense. Though prestigious as the name implies, the Secretary for Security could make irresponsible remarks without prior investigation. This reveals that the SAR Government never reflects on its own mistakes. It knows nothing but to shelter perpetrators, cover up wrongdoings and put the blame on others.

I remember having written an article entitled "那就大反特反吧"(Make the most of it) in September 2000. That article mentioned the so-called "娃兒 造 反"(Kids Rebellion). At that time, there was talk about civil disobedience, buddy, but now, the passive resistance by civil disobedience has been replaced by the use of force to resist tyranny. Why has Hong Kong come to this pass? From 2000 till now ― I have no time to read out that article, but both the Secretary and the Chief Secretary have been given my speaking note, so they can read it themselves ― the development has gone from the civil disobedience in 2000, which advocated peaceful, rational and non-violent resistance, to today's approach of using force against violence. What exactly has happened in these 16 years? I have personally witnessed everything that has happened.

I hope, if there is still hope, that the officials of the SAR Government will carefully read the content of the statements recently released by the student unions of various tertiary institutions in relation to the incident that occurred in Mong Kok on a dark night. You may ask, "Why do all university student unions across the territory today one-sidedly condemn the Government instead of the so-called youth violence in the Lunar New Year's Day?" The SAR Government is currently making indiscriminate arrests and prosecutions. The offence of riot 5712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 under Section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance should be able to make many people end up behind bars. The Government is creating the first batch of youth prisoners of conscience in Hong Kong. Viewed from another angle, this may not be a bad thing for the political struggle movement in Hong Kong.

What has the HKU Students' Union released in relation to the Battle of Mong Kok? "Battle of Mongkok today originated from and resembled the Umbrella Revolution. In the midst of teary smog and frightening gunshots, we no longer fear and we stride forward with courage, unveiling the start of a brand-new way in protest." The Hong Kong Baptist University Students' Union released the following statement in relation to the Battle of Mong Kok: "The people fear no death, why threaten them with it? We strongly condemn the Hong Kong Government for using unreasonable force against protestors. For each instance of suppression by the Government, protestors will definitely return it by tenfold." The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Students' Union released a statement that reads to this effect, "Hopefully, fellow travellers on the path of social movements are not afraid of oppressive powers and remember that the rights we enjoy now are the result of our predecessors sacrificing their own freedom." The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Students' Union released a statement that reads to this effect, "The fierce protests are triggered by countless underlying factors, such as the brutal attempt to push the Express Rail Link funding through Finance Committee of the Legislative Council circumventing the procedure, the Government's extremely unclear interpretation of "Internet Article 23", missing of LEE Po, severe interference with the academic freedom of universities, and so on. The Hong Kong Government must immediately face up to and solve problems instead of shirking its responsibility to the public." Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University released a statement that reads to this effect, "The totalitarian Government has come out in force to arrest rebels. We must support the righteous and stand with the rebels. You should never forget the courage of the egg that hits the stone wall, and continue to defend our Hong Kong." The Lingnan University Students' Union released a statement that reads to this effect, "We appeal to all to prepare for more intense struggles in the future and point the gun at the unjust regime and its state apparatus". Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong released a statement that reads to this effect, "Hongkongers must remember the totalitarian atrocities, unite the struggling forces and target at the source of fire. The one who set fire is doomed for extermination." The Hang Seng Management College Students' Union released LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5713 a statement that reads to this effect, "'Give me Liberty, or give me Death'. When rebels sacrifice for resistance of oppression, we will stand with them to fight for the freedom that was originally ours."

In reading out these statements, it conjures up in my mind another speech of Dr SUN Yat-sen's. After the Huanghuagang Battle in 1911, SUN Yat-sen said, to this effect, "This battle is the final fight with the enemy by gathering elites from revolutionary parties of various provinces. Although it was unsuccessful, the 72 martyrs in Huanghuagang have shaken the whole world with their sensational heroic courage and set the stage for revolution in our country!" If Hong Kong has seen a ray of hope after experiencing the "dark night in Mong Kok" on Lunar New Year's Day, then we should pin afresh our hopes for the future on those post-90s and post-millennials who fearlessly engage in militant resistance at the risk of their lives.

Given that there is still some time, I wish to respond to the speeches of some Members. Just now, to my surprise, I heard Mr Alan LEONG say, in a bid to campaign for Alvin YEUNG, that Edward LEUNG had said that there is "no bottom line for violent resistance". Sorry, Senior Counsel LEONG, Edward LEUNG has only said "no bottom line for resistance". He has never said "no bottom line for violence". On the surface, it seems that Mr Alan LEONG raised this matter to ask the Government to think about what it should know to do given that some young people are saying "no bottom line for violence" now. However, his real purpose is to canvass votes for Alvin YEUNG, who seems to be currently in a somewhat precarious position in the run-up to the election. I find his approach rather ludicrous. Edward LEUNG said "no bottom line for resistance", but the phrase was modified by the Member to "no bottom line for violent resistance". What is his purpose then?

Chief Secretary, after hearing the statements of various university student unions ― no matter you like it or not, this is the objective reality ― you should ponder why the students have such perceptions, instead of giving up on them or putting the blame on others by saying that those students are incited by others, including me. Earlier on, a Member mentioned two books but she was unwilling to disclose the titles, as if those books had been banned and doing so would benefit me. One of the books was written by Horace CHIN. The other was written by me, lawmaker WONG Yuk-man. Lastly, I wish to remind the rich and powerful here that we should cherish and care about the young people. 5714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

As for some of their behaviour, we should express sympathy and understanding. As regards the tragedy of "dark night in Mong Kok", we should maintain an attitude. Those with power and clout should take good care of our next generation instead of antagonizing the post-millennials and post-90s, who are masters of the future.

With these remarks, I oppose the motion.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) certainly thinks that it should be executive-led, just as the Basic Law also states that it should be executive-led. But does it mean that the Government has to bulldoze its policies through in order to be executive-led? Does the SAR Government think that it is "beefy"? But I found that it is actually all "skin and bones". The point is, for instance, with regard to the "double curbs" measures, the Court has handed down a judgment which points to problems with the "double curbs" measures. In 2013 when the "double curbs" measures were introduced, we in the Liberal Party as well as Mr Abraham SHEK voiced opposition because we saw problems with these measures which basically could not be a solution. Back then the Government intended to rein in property prices but we all see how much property prices have increased since 2013 ― an increase of at least 20%. Meanwhile, to property owners who wish to replace their original property, the "double curbs" measures have made it impossible for them to do so, which has in turn stifled the supply of residential flats. So what should they do? In this connection, the judgment made by the Court today is good news to citizens who genuinely wish to replace their original property. Indeed, property prices have started to come down but they have come down for economic reasons, not because of the "double curbs" measures. This is why we suggested back then that despite the implementation of the "double curbs" measures in 2013, a sunset provision should be made in tandem to the effect that these measures would be abolished or reviewed after being implemented for two or three years. Now that three years have passed and property prices have shown a reversed trend. Since the court judgment has pointed to problems, I think the Government should seriously consider rescinding the "double curbs" measures, so that those middle-class people who genuinely wish to replace their original property can save at least 50% in buying a property. Therefore, I think the Government should rescind the "double curbs" measures now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5715

Besides, I would also like to talk about the offsetting arrangement relating to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) accrued benefits. Mr KWOK Wai-keung of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions said earlier that as they supported LEUNG Chun-ying back then, LEUNG Chun-ying, therefore, included this in his manifesto, but he asked why LEUNG Chun-ying has not yet "repaid his debts". Let us look at the political reality. Mr Vincent FANG on the other side has said that the commercial sector has got 300 votes. LEUNG Chun-ying certainly does not dare offend them, for he wishes to be re-elected. So, he changed his approach by quietly incorporating this issue into the consultation on universal retirement protection under the charge of Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM, hoping to create a public opinion of extensive support in the community because everyone would wish to have universal retirement protection. So, it might as well be reasonable to incorporate into this consultation the abolition or partial abolition of the MPF offsetting arrangement. I can see through his motive. But can he make it? The Liberal Party held a meeting against the abolition of the MPF offsetting arrangement in January, and 400 operators of small, medium and micro enterprises came forth to express strong opposition to it, for this would have an impact on the commercial sector and the business environment in the future. We have long since stated our position. So, do not think that the Government can muddle through by incorporating the MPF offsetting arrangement into the universal retirement protection scheme. This bulldozing approach bears testimony to the view put forward by Mr James TIEN this morning, that the Government is making the pro-establishment camp responsible for "putting out the fire" on many issues.

Another example is the four-party meeting on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill) held two days ago. While the pro-establishment camp and the pan-democrats had the intention to resolve this predicament eventually and also put forward some views to the Government on that occasion, the Government and Secretary Gregory SO have nevertheless refused to take on board their views to date. We hoped to work together to tackle the problems and resolve the predicament but the Government refused to work with us. Such being the case, when the discussion of the Bill resumes next week, the Government should not expect that I will definitely sit in the Chamber for the entire 45 minutes before taking a 15-minute break. I personally may not be able to do so. Hence, with regard to issues over which negotiation or co-ordination is possible and for which there are viable options, we should work together, rather 5716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 than forcing the pro-establishment Members to throw weight behind the Government.

Thank you, Deputy President. I so submit.

MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on the day of the presentation of the Policy Address, I used "illusory and lacking substance worthy of mention" to describe the impression of the Policy Address this year. My criticism is not directed at the incumbent Chief Executive. I have always held expectations for policy addresses. I expect that the annual policy address can at least advise me of three aspects: first, what philosophy of governance the incumbent Chief Executive follows; second, what strategies and measures the Government will adopt to address the current needs of Hong Kong; third, whether the Government can outline the direction for the future development of Hong Kong.

Unfortunately, the Policy Address can be described by a buzzword ― detached. I did not see the Chief Executive's responses to the current conditions of Hong Kong, be it social or economic, neither did I notice his determination to take measures to improve the current conditions and lead Hong Kong out of this predicament. I did see that the Policy Address exposed the utilitarian mentality of the Chief Executive ― this is a report written for the Central Government to chiefly demonstrate his accomplishments made last year. The most apparent highlight is to hard sell the Belt and Road Initiative, the purpose of which definitely is for him to seek a second term.

The Chief Executive announced the adoption of a number of measures to support the Belt and Road Initiative advocated by the Central Government, which in essence is a correct move. Less than 10 months after the Central Government revealed the concept, the SAR Government has already responded with a policy and measures, swiftly and resolutely carrying out the party line. Such a proactive attitude and momentum of response, if used similarly for local legislation and governance, will deliver Hong Kong from the current downtrodden and stagnant state.

No matter how many business opportunities the Belt and Road development can bring, which after all is a gigantic and long-term project, no LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5717 concrete returns will be coming out of it in the short run and interim. Small and medium enterprises (SMEs), which make up over 90% of all enterprises in Hong Kong, will not have any part to play in this project. Moreover, the present economy has already slowed down, causing retail, catering, trade and internal demands to sink deeper and deeper. Given the most uncertain outlook, SMEs all expect to see in the Policy Address proposals of policies and measures to reverse the declining trend of our strengths and competitiveness and promote internal demands and sustainable economic development, so as to save SMEs from closing down or people from losing their jobs, who otherwise will end up in negative equity and have to deal with debt collectors from banks, helping them to weather through this hard time safely.

Under these circumstances, you are now telling me the Belt and Road Initiative will bring many advantages and relevant studies are underway. But how am I going to survive the hardship immediately before me? Therefore, I found the Policy Address very much illusory.

On the other hand, the Hong Kong-Mainland conflict continues to intensify. In the past, the Chief Executive was aware of the relatively strong resentment towards Mainlanders provoked by the "doubly non-permanent resident babies" issue, and promptly stemmed the tide of pregnant Mainland women flocking into Hong Kong to give births. Unfortunately, the authorities have not taken measures to deal with the aftermath to alleviate such a sentiment. Subsequently, issues like large numbers of Mainland visitors coming to Hong Kong to purchase formula milk and rampant parallel trading have caused nuisances to local residents. The outcome is ill-intentioned people taking advantage of the opportunity to commit acts against visitors and advocate "putting Hong Kong people first". Hatred of Mainlanders is deepening among the young generation, causing the Hong Kong-Mainland conflict to heat up. The Policy Address not only has not introduced effective measures to address these problems so as to pacify public anger, instead proposes in a high profile measures to respond to China's Belt and Road Initiative. How would it not provoke stronger anti-Mainlander hatred and behaviour?

In the past two years, society has grown more and more unstable. Struggles, demonstrations and conflicts are never-ending. It is an increasing occurrence to see acts against Mainland visitors, advocacy of "putting Hong Kong people first" and Hong Kong independence. However, the Government has all 5718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 along adopted the policy of condonation and played ostrich, failing to follow up on the Occupy incident. It has been unwilling to take legal and appropriate actions to deal with problems, so how will it not be giving fuel to these trends?

As a matter of fact, after the constitutional reform was voted down and the departure of the people and organizations which hoisted the banner of Occupy Central, the authorities could have cleared the scene. But the Government kept procrastinating. After the collection of evidence, the authorities should have dealt with suspected lawbreakers in accordance with the law in which Hong Kong still takes pride. However, the law enforcement departments had to arrange the high-profile "arrests by appointment", eventually not pressing charges. Honestly, I am very dissatisfied with the law enforcement departments' handling. The riot in midnight on the second day of Chinese New Year was the result of the Government's condonation of many "cross-the-line" acts and negligence of social problems.

On the surface, the cause of the riot was trouble-makers using unlicensed hawking as a pretence. However, if the Hong Kong economy is good and people have enough money, who would want to come out to the streets and work on Chinese New Year to make money? If the SAR Government has put in place a proper hawker policy, unlicensed hawkers would not have become a catalyst to the problem. That said, I believe under no circumstances are hurling bricks and attacking police officers lawful. The riot has severely tarnished the international image of Hong Kong, turning the already bad tourism industry to worse. Besides giving a definition of "riot" to the incident and enforcing the law, will the Government undertake more work to deal with the aftermath? The retail industry is gravely concerned about this point. To date, the Police have arrested more than 60 people, but will they be acquitted eventually? No one knows. Nevertheless, I will continue to support the Police in upholding the stability of Hong Kong society and protecting safety of citizens, as well as the Judiciary to hear cases reasonably.

There have always been divergent opinions in the Legislative Council where Members express views and vote on their own beliefs and principles, fully demonstrating the democratic spirit of Hong Kong. I understand that everyone here wants media coverage of their own unorthodox views, even hoping to take the opportunity to piggyback on the issue and entrench their own sources of votes. Originally, it is all right that everyone plays their own tricks to secure seats in the Legislative Council which are being increasingly despised. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5719

However, I absolutely do not approve of turning a blind eye to people's interests and making Hong Kong pay a steep price for their own personal gains.

Talking about the recent problems of Hong Kong, I feel obliged to cite several examples. The first one is definitely filibustering which many Honourable colleagues have mentioned. Members in charge of and supporting filibustering may ask why they want to filibuster. It is because the related policies and Bills are fraught with problems, including the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill) and applications for supplementary provision for several major infrastructure projects. However, I have to ask them conversely why they have not actively participated and presented their views during the scrutiny of the Bill instead of only presenting these views now? Indeed, they have two aims: first, as I have just plainly stated, it is a personal move, instead of focusing on the facts, to impede the Government's administration; second, they wish to draw attention for the sake of securing more votes for themselves. All these are their selfish thoughts.

The Liberal Party adopts a principle of determining our vote after considering each matter and agenda topic. If the topic is in line with the needs of the people of Hong Kong, we will lend it our support. Protection of copyright in a digital environment is essentially a global trend. Hong Kong as one of the most developed cities in the world, also a place practising the rule of law, needs to enact the relevant legislation. The Bill introduced into the Legislative Council for its scrutiny basically gives exceptions to all the concerns of netizens such as secondary creation. However, armed with the motives of piggybacking and winning the District Council Election last year and the Legislative Council Election to be held in September this year, the pan-democrats did not hesitate at all to sacrifice the overall interest of Hong Kong and mounted determined opposition to the Bill, accusing the Government of not explaining to them and discussing with stakeholders. These are nothing but petty tricks. How would we only engage in communication at the stage of resumption of the Second Reading debate?

The Liberal Party has met with some of the netizen representatives. I found their requests sensible, with room for discussion. Yet, this group of young people are no longer the representatives negotiating with the Government. When asked of the reason, they said they felt they were not radical enough and tended to accept the Government's proposal, that is, to conduct a review anytime after the passage of the Bill. What does it mean in reality? The pan-democrats indeed want to cripple the operation of the Legislative Council and undermine the 5720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Chief Executive's popularity as well as the Government's administration by means of the Bill.

Now the entire city is annoyed by the growingly rampant filibustering. Before the Chinese New Year, I paid a visit to the community to distribute Chinese New Year red banners. I ran into some citizens who told me, "Get the Bill passed soon. Get it out of the way." The second example I wish to cite is about the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the filibustering during the discussion of supplementary provision for the Express Rail Link (XRL). One day I took a taxi. The taxi driver was a tad more than 30 years old and he said he seldom went to the Mainland. But he asked if Mainland cities are all connected by high speed rail and only Hong Kong does not have one, so will Hong Kong be marginalized? Even the driver realized that if Hong Kong does not build the XRL it will be marginalized. Though the benefits of the XRL may not surface immediately, as we have invested so many resources, is it not more of a waste to stop the construction and give up the parts already built? Many workers live from hand to mouth. I reckon that this taxi driver can absolutely run for a Legislative Council seat as his considerations are all based on the big picture, better than Members in the Chamber.

Deputy President, infrastructure works have always been the crucial momentum pulling the economic chain, especially given the current sluggish economy. Right now Hong Kong is experiencing a period of adjustment during an economic downturn. However, can infrastructure projects pull the economic chain this time? The premise of course is whether the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council can pass the applications for supplementary provision for these several infrastructure projects, as well as the early construction of the third runway of the airport. If these projects continue to be delayed, not only will the job security of construction workers come under threat, the future development of Hong Kong as a whole will be affected as well. Therefore, the Liberal Party supports the Finance Committee to approve the applications for supplementary provision of these projects.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

President, the Policy Address has not met my expectations but it does not contain unacceptable measures, so in principle I support it. I hope, for the overall interest of Hong Kong, the Chief Executive will play the role of a leader LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5721 and give up a bit of his ego to strengthen communication among all parties and seek common grounds, in order to facilitate administration and put Hong Kong back on the right track. If during Mr LEUNG's term, Hong Kong is prosperous and thriving, the credit will eventually go to the top leaders and cabinet of the SAR Government. In this way, how would they send Hong Kong economy to the death chamber just in a flicker of anger?

I so submit. Thank you, President.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, if today the struggle within the Council or the one out on the street seeks to cripple Hong Kong and the Council and completely destroy the interests of the people of Hong Kong; and given that last year was and this year is both an election year, if in this period of time, we pan-democrats solely aim to do damages but consequently win the elections, I believe this regime and Members of the pro-establishment camp will have to seriously rethink the logic of their words. We are now fighting against and defying some draconian laws and unacceptable policies, which they know nothing about ― they are so unbelievably detached from reality.

I would like to give a brief response because earlier my student, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, spoke on the hatred between the Police and people I mentioned in my speech. He also said that in the Mong Kok incident, Officer WONG was the police officer who suffered the most serious injuries. Bearing no hatred, he said he was not angry at anyone and even asked the public to continue to care more about young people. I would like to pay tribute to Officer WONG here. I greatly admire his spirit, which is exactly what we need and a direction in which Hong Kong should be heading. We do not want more hatred.

Kevin LAU penned an article during the Umbrella Movement ― he was injured but has now recovered ― in which he said "do not let hatred grow". A part of the article clearly states his advice to the leaders of the SAR Government: most government officials do not want to see society torn apart nor hatred grow. You understand that political issues should be resolved by political means. Problems are not and should not be resolved by the disciplined services with force. Please do your part to promote dialogue and resolve hatred.

5722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, many Members said today that many netizens supported violence because they believed problems could not be resolved by peaceful or rational means. I strongly oppose such fallacious statements. In my opinion, the objective of any act that seeks to embellish, rationalize or justify violence is simply to poison young people and further push them off the cliff, so as to achieve the underlying goal of advocates of such acts, probably for the sake of ballots or accomplishing their political missions. Young people can easily be instigated because they are charged with passion. This is why we have to all the more care for, look after and cherish them and lead them back to the right track, instead of embellishing violence which would push them deeper and deeper into trouble.

I oppose any form of violence since problems cannot be resolved by resort to violence. Who in the world can win by recourse to violence? The road of peace and rationality may be very long, but victory can be achieved in the end. Violence will only continue to escalate and, consequently, more people will be victimized once violence is employed. Victims of the incident that occurred on the first day of the Lunar New Year are probably supporters, members of the public, journalists and police officers, who share a common characteristic ― they are Hongkongers as well as Chinese people.

While we should approve of the young people's passion for society, their way of expression has unfortunately gone too far, thereby constituting a criminal act. Some young people only see one side of the social phenomenon, probably for various reasons. For instance, they might only read certain online media or told by their teachers since they were small a lopsided view of events. Meanwhile, they do not pay attention to the causes of the underlying social problems and merely think that society, the Government and their family members do not offer them any help. As a result, they will be easily incited by external stimuli and act in an impulsive manner very easily. I believe had it occurred to them during the incident that many people might get hurt or they would probably face an imprisonment term of up to 10 years, thereby dealing a blow to their own future and, what is more, exerting pressure on their family members, the number of participants might have been smaller, and they would not have acted in such an extreme manner.

The Government must pay attention to this incident and get a clear picture of its entire process. I certainly think that these participants should be punished, but the focus should be placed on persuasion and improving communication in a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5723 down-to-earth and pragmatic manner, with a view to reducing misunderstandings among young people. Not only is this parliamentary assembly full of fallacious arguments, but I also find growing prevalence of such arguments in recent years. The occurrence of such a large number of incidents of injustice in society precisely can be attributed to the existence of so many fallacious views in society. Is the Government really so terrible? It certainly has room for improvement, but quite a number of high- and middle-ranking officials I know are hardworking and whole-heartedly doing what they consider ought to be done for Hong Kong.

The day-and-night condemnations by Members of the Government will actually give young people the wrong impression that it is a lawless society, though we know very well that Hong Kong is so efficient that it is better than many other places in the world in terms of many services and welfare policies. What good will it do to Hong Kong if Members enjoy banging their heads against the walls in constant dismay because they think Hong Kong is terrible and feel disheartened all the time?

Should Members continue to incite young people with these fallacious views, thereby driving the latter to desperation, Members should bear the greatest political responsibility and be held responsible for the life of the young people! These Members should be regarded as the greatest sinners in Hong Kong! The Government must do a proper job of communication in order to reduce misunderstandings among young people and prevent them from adopting a one-way mindset of thinking all the time that the Government and society are doing a disservice to them. I hope young people can understand that society, the Government and many people care about them, and these people, albeit under various kinds of pressure, are working for them and contributing to the people of Hong Kong in silence.

Meanwhile, I think the Government should learn a lesson. Once violence is triggered, it will persist and become a norm in Hong Kong. Hence, the Government should do a proper job of security and prevention in areas where there are heavy flows of people, including Mong Kok, Causeway Bay, Tsim Sha Tsui and Central, and make proper preparations against charges by, for instance, crowd dispersion, police deployments for fireworks and parade shifts, and so on. What is more, public facilities should be secured properly to prevent them from being used as makeshift offensive tools.

5724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

The view held by quite a number of Members that politics should be blamed entirely for the occurrence of conflicts and confrontations in society today will only simplify the complicated issues. In fact, universal suffrage, so to speak, is practicised in many places around the world, but the problems faced by these places are much more numerous than those faced by Hong Kong. Compared with Hong Kong, not only are their unemployment rates among young people higher, but they are facing even more acute problems of unemployment among young people, poverty, wealth gap and the economy. Their unemployment rates are higher, too. How can these Members explain this phenomenon?

Since the constitutional reform package has been vetoed and the problem with our political system will not be resolved in the near future, what should we do now? Is it true that we can only feel disheartened, bang our heads against the walls, or urge young people to rise and participate in riots? Or should the truth and problems be revealed before the eyes of young people to let them know that the issues involved are not as simple as they imagine, and the solutions are not confined to those they often come up with after being brainwashed.

In my opinion, the Government should set up a dedicated team to follow up the problems facing young people in relation to studies, employment, family and home ownership. If the Government is willing to persistently make earnest and vigorous efforts in looking after the interests of young people and working for them, I believe young people will definitely feel its sincerity. Although achievement might not come out of many an initiative, young people must be made to see that it has indeed taken their interests into account and worked for them. If it is reluctant to even take this step to make young people realize that it cares about them the most, this knot will never be untied.

What is more, I believe the problems encountered by young people cannot be resolved by political struggles. Hence, they should understand the true causes of social problems, such as the fact that Hong Kong's economic development is reaching maturity. The economic development in overseas places also reached maturity a long time ago, right? Should politics be blamed for all the problems encountered by young people, the issue will only be simplified, and hence young people will miss the point. I personally have the most profound feeling because I was precisely an example of a poor man climbing up the ladder. Certainly, many people will say that I can now make a most rhetorical remark because Hong Kong enjoyed economic growth and there LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5725 was an emigration tide back then. What would I do if I could turn the clock back to three or four decades ago and encountered an even more difficult environment? Would I give up or make extra efforts?

Although Hong Kong's present environment is even more difficult than before, there are still a lot of opportunities. Many employers have told me they cannot find young people who are willing to think harder, care for the interests of their companies, and refrain from behaving in a calculating manner. They said that such young people, if found, would definitely be treasured and offered constant promotion opportunities. In fact, many employers have told me that such young people are sought after by all industries and trades. Nonetheless, despite the large number of young people, there are few young people of high calibre. A relatively large number of young people only hope to get rich instantly. I hope young people can understand that, so long as they are prepared to make earnest and vigourous efforts and contribute for their own future, I believe they will definitely find a way out. Young people must cherish this belief.

Lastly, I would like to offer young people a piece of advice. Should they have a piece of brick in their hands next time, I hope they can give some thoughts to their act of hurling bricks ― their lives as well as the lives of their family members might be affected or even changed. Most importantly, they might even face a 10-year imprisonment term. Since bricks have no eyes, they might hit members of the public, police officers or journalists, thereby causing casualties. Should that really happen, are young people doing justice to these people? Should young people treat these people, who also have parents and siblings, in this manner? I hope young people can consider this seriously and refrain from being misled by the fallacious views advanced by newspapers, magazines or Members into believing that they are doing acts of justice. These acts are absolutely wrong. I hope these young people can turn back before it is too late, and work hard for their own future. Instead of relying on the Government or political parties, they should rely on their own hands and brains to find a true way out. I believe I am truly making these remarks for the good of young people.

I so submit.

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

5726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, the newly presented Policy Address is comprehensive, detailed and practical, responding to the recommendation of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) for "boosting the economy with an alertness to potential crises; safeguarding people's livelihood by stopping disputes". On the economy, it has suggested a macro and long-term direction for Hong Kong to seize the opportunities arising from national development. On people's livelihood, including healthcare, development of a smart city, transport, education, care for the elderly and the disadvantaged, it has also proposed various specific measures of which the DAB greatly approves.

The Policy Address has placed its focus on the Belt and Road Initiative and innovation and technology. Many members of the public think these two subjects seem quite remote from our everyday life. However, we have got to understand that the government public expenditure and various social security measures supporting the disadvantaged must be backed by a strong economy. Without economic development, where will the money come from if we wish to talk about social welfare?

However, society is entering a period of economic slowdown. The financial industry is unstable, while the tourist and retail industries are declining. The economic and employment outlook in Hong Kong faces a great challenge and crisis. The Belt and Road Initiative and innovation and technology can provide timely external and internal impetus for the Hong Kong economy. It is a long-term arrangement made by the Chief Executive for the Hong Kong economy. In particular, with regard to innovation and technology, $2 billion will be earmarked for the Innovation and Technology Bureau. Investment income generated from the allocation will be used to fund research undertaken by institutions. A sum of $2 billion will be set aside for setting up an Innovation and Technology Venture Fund. And $500 million will be set aside for financing projects that make use of innovation and technology to improve people's daily life. An allocation of $200 million will be made for investment in the information and communication technology start-ups of the Cyberport. Members of the industry have in general expressed welcome to all this. Finally, the Government is taking concrete actions to kick-start the innovation and technology industry which stands to benefit. So will members of the public.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5727

Hong Kong society is facing problems related to an ageing population. The Chief Executive's policy in response to the ageing population demonstrates his sincerity and meticulous care. Apart from retirement protection for which consultation is being conducted, there is a series of enhanced elderly services for building an age-friendly environment in Hong Kong, including providing elderly service places, promoting community care service for the elderly, enhancing public walkways, incorporating more age-friendly design in public facilities, and financing the development of the eElderly website providing information about elderly services.

Many people say that the construction of lifts and covers for walkways, enhancing barrier-free access facilities, providing additional outdoor seating, modifying public housing units, and so on, seem to be the business of District Councils. Hence, it looks like the Chief Executive's Policy Address has degenerated to affairs of the District Councils, losing its lofty perspective. I, however, do not agree with such a view. Although these are small matters, they are very important to the daily life of the elderly and the grassroots. For instance, over the past few years since the Chief Executive assumed office, some 10 additional lifts and escalators have been provided in Kowloon East. Some have already been completed, and the construction of some will commence shortly. Many of them are the results of the DAB's efforts. This year the Government has finally decided on their implementation. Without these lifts and escalators, the elderly will be unable to move about and live freely in their neighbourhood. These are practical improvements to the everyday life of the elderly. Political disputes should not stand above people's livelihood and their needs in society. The opposition camp should not deny the Chief Executive's care for the elderly and the poor because of their political views.

Regarding the planning of Kowloon East, according to the Chief Executive's plan, Kowloon East as a new business district can supply an additional office floor area of about 5 million sq m. In the Kowloon Bay Action Area, two government lots sold will provide over 120 000 sq m of commercial floor area. We are pleased with this. The development of Kowloon East as a new business district can ease the pressure on commercial premises in core business districts and relieve the office rental pressure on enterprises. It can also promote the economic development in Kowloon East. On the other hand, I am also concerned that during rush hours when people go to work or knock off, in the crowded places or traffic hubs in the vicinity of Kwun Tong, such as Ngau Tau Kok, Kowloon Bay and Kwun Tong MTR Stations, buses and minibuses have to 5728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 wait to enter the bus and minibus terminuses in long queues. The public transport is overburdened. Following the development of Kowloon East, coupled with the persistent congestion on various trunk roads, an increase in the number of commercial buildings without corresponding planning will definitely lead to congestion in various important transport corridors in that area, causing inconvenience to members of the public. We hope the Government can do more planning in this regard.

Besides, I am also pleased that the Government will introduce in Kowloon East a pilot scheme of waiving the land premium for lease modification to encourage landlords to construct footbridges or subways at their own cost. I also hope that the Government will make great efforts to promote it so that the problem in this respect can be alleviated and the policy of separating pedestrians from vehicles can be further implemented.

Moreover, we expect the Government to grasp this opportunity to implement the monorail system in Kai Tak to provide another transport option, with a view to easing on-road traffic. We also propose building a cover for the walkway on Kwun Tong Road which will be convenient to the travelling pedestrians. Display panels on bus arrival time as well as seats and signs for waiting passengers can also be provided to offer convenience to passengers. At the same time, we can also take this opportunity to build a large-scale bus-bus interchange, consolidate the bus routes and enhance the bus service with a view to improving the environment for waiting passengers and raising the efficiency of bus service, thereby indirectly relieving the traffic pressure on the trunk roads in Kwun Tong.

President, given the external uncertainties, Hong Kong's economic outlook has met considerable challenges. Fluctuations in international oil prices, together with heavy selling of securities in the global stock markets, particularly the stock market in China, and manipulation to push Renminbi up and down, have resulted in extreme volatilities in the global financial markets. Hong Kong being an open financial market certainly cannot be spared from such impact. Uncertainties in the external economic environment have also deeply affected the business environment in Hong Kong. Hong Kong's internal economic performance cannot be considered satisfactory. The tourist industry, one of the four pillar industries in the Hong Kong economy, has suffered an unprecedented blow which has even affected other industries, thus impacting on the overall economic performance of society.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5729

Various traditional economic pillars in Hong Kong, such as tourism, trade and retail, have shown a tendency of continuous decline since last year. According to the data released by the Government, the overall visitor arrivals to Hong Kong was 4.74 million in November last year, representing a year-on-year decrease of 10.4%. The visitor arrivals recorded had dropped for six months in a row. Among them, the number of Mainland visitors to Hong Kong was only 3.51 million, representing a year-on-year decrease of 15.5%. The number of same-day Mainland visitors had even dropped nearly 20% year-on-year. The retail industry, whose fate is closely connected with the tourist industry, was thus adversely affected. In addition, given the external economic downturn, the retail market in Hong Kong has also declined for nine consecutive months. In November last year, the total sales amount of the retail industry was $38.1 billion, representing a year-on-year decrease of 7.8%, while the total sales volume of the retail industry had dropped 6%. As disclosed by a group, its sales amount in Hong Kong and Macao in the third quarter of last year alone had decreased by 23%.

In view of the poor sales, it has been a trend for shop tenants to withdraw from expensive shop premises in the prime areas. In the fourth quarter of 2015, the shop rents in the four core districts, namely, Causeway Bay, Tsim Sha Tsui, Central and Mong Kok, had dropped more than 20% or even 50%. The vacancy rate of shop premises had increased from 2.4% to 6.8%. Recently, there has also been a substantial drop in the number of tenants. It is estimated that after the Lunar New Year, as shop tenants of short-term leases will move out, the vacancy rate will be on the rise. At present, Hong Kong is still near full employment, but since the tourist, retail, catering and property industries have obviously turned for the worse, it is possible that the local unemployment rate will rise.

Hong Kong should have focused its efforts on addressing these economic conditions, but given the existing political situation in Hong Kong society, not only are we unable to solve the problems in a positive way. On the contrary, the problems keep worsening. Originally, with its good city image, Hong Kong has been a well-known tourist attraction in the world. Regrettably, from the start of Occupy Central in September 2014 to the outbreak of violent protests in several tertiary institutions and then the Mong Kok riot on the first day of this Chinese New Year, it is most heartrending that Hong Kong is no longer peaceful, safe and hospitable. The news reported by the world media is no longer about the beautiful scenery, delicious food and tourist events in Hong Kong. Instead, it is 5730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 about rioters placing a bomb outside the Legislative Council Complex and young people in masks assaulting police officers. With the recurrence of violence, who dares to travel to Hong Kong?

If such a chaotic situation continues, it will also undermine the confidence of foreign investors and destroy the rule of law. With social turmoil and political instability, not only will investors not dare to inject new capital into Hong Kong. They may even withdraw the existing capital from Hong Kong. No wonder a commentator has pointed out that economic fluctuation is not the most worrying issue, but Hong Kong's internal crisis obliges everyone to be on alert. After all, Hong Kong has weathered through a number of economic crises, including the oil crisis in 1973, the crisis about Hong Kong's future in 1982, the financial crisis of the United States in 1987, the Asian financial turmoil in 1997, the SARS crisis in 2003 and the financial crisis in 2008. Hong Kong got through all of them safely. However, if Hong Kong continues to engage in internal attrition, who can guarantee that Hong Kong can once again tide over these crises and challenges unscathed?

President, the present situation in Hong Kong is really worrying. I think the Legislative Council has to take a great responsibility for that. Firstly, some political parties and Members in the Council politicize everything. They persistently filibuster in the Council. Headcounts and abortion of meetings have almost become a norm, seriously hindering the Government's administration, provoking confrontation and tearing society apart. Secondly, Members of the opposition camp have shown tolerance, connivance and even encouragement to violence, leading to endless and escalating violent incidents inside and outside the Council. Take the Mong Kok riot as an example. Still lacking any sense of right and wrong, not only did Members of the opposition camp refrain from denouncing violence, they even attempted to tone down, whitewash and rationalize the violent acts in Mong Kok and put the blame on the Government's governance, confounding right with wrong and befuddling the public. At the special meeting of the Panel on Security of the Legislative Council held on Tuesday, Members voted on a motion on strongly condemning the rioters. In the end some pan-democrat Members abstained. Nine Members from the Civic Party, the Labour Party, the League of Social Democrats and the People Power even directly voted against it. Evidently, they have no intention of condemning or preventing violence. On the contrary, they are happy to see Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5731 become chaotic. As the pan-democrats have lost their wisdom and society has lost control, how can members of the public live in peace and work with contentment? How can they feel assured about the future of Hong Kong? And how can the responsibility for the riot be put on the Government's governance?

Hong Kong Indigenous, which initiated the riot, has all along advocated Hong Kong independence and pushed for Hong Kong's autonomy, self-determination, Hong Kong deciding its own future, militant struggles, violating prohibition with force, and so on. The true cause for the riot was absolutely not fighting for democracy and defending hawkers' right to operation of business. Rather, it was their desire for independence. They are a bunch of out-and-out advocates of Hong Kong independence who are unhappy with the reunification of Hong Kong with China, unwilling to accept the governance of the Central Authorities and unwilling to accept the governance of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR). What they claim as localism is in fact a campaign for independence. The opposition camp shifts the responsibility onto the Government merely for the sake of sheltering this bunch of advocates of Hong Kong independence and conniving at these people ruining "one country, two systems" with localism. Their ulterior motive cannot be clearer.

Mr WONG Yuk-man said his ideas were confused. After hearing his speech, I concur that his mind is indeed confused. It is caused by his heated opposition to the Government. Although Hong Kong society has not yet reached the state of an equitable society where everyone enjoys the same wealth, the majority of the public can live in peace and work with contentment while the elderly, the vulnerable and the disabled are taken care of rather than living in dire straits. Neither do they live under extensive suppression and in despair as he claimed. The current unemployment rate in Hong Kong is about 3.3%, which is a record low. Our economic growth is maintained at 3% to 4%, ranking high in the international community. How can we say that the SAR Government practises tyranny? Can Mr WONG's advocacy for young people to deal with the commercial society, which is full of competition today, with stones and fire offer them a way out? Or will they eventually be isolated in society with their career destroyed? Frankly, history has always told us that if someone hurls stones at other people, he himself will be hit to death by stones in the end. The one who plays with fire will eventually be burnt.

5732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Riots are nightmares for the people of Hong Kong. So is filibuster in the Legislative Council. Filibuster has caused serious congestion of agenda items and bills in the Council. Be it infrastructure or policies on people's livelihood, everything remains stagnant. Earlier on, a group in the construction industry has indicated that every year, the Government has to inject about $70 billion as public works expenditure into the construction industry, but owing to the filibusters, only $3.6 billion was approved in 2013-2014. Since October 2015, only $470 million has been approved. If the projects are delayed any longer, construction prices will rise. If the tenders for the public works are delayed, the successful bids may become higher in price. The continuous increase in project costs is attributable to those Members who unremittingly and industriously keep filibustering. They really have to take the responsibility. Their evil words and evil deeds will cause all the people of Hong Kong to settle the bill for them in the end.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki said Members were not paid to sing praises of the Government. I totally agree. For this reason, with regard to the Government's performance, we always call a spade a spade. However, Members are absolutely not paid to be deliberately absent from meetings, filibuster and exhaust every means possible to obstruct the passage of motions.

Politicizing every subject is not what a healthy legislature should do. Take the co-location of boundary control facilities for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (XRL) as an example. It is obviously a project to facilitate transport between the two places as well as economic integration, and further provide convenience to the public. However, since some people queried that it might ruin "one country, two systems", the focus promptly shifted to the relationship between the two places. This kind of co-location arrangement can be put into practice between two countries in the West. Why can it not be implemented between the Mainland and Hong Kong? Those who raised the query are undoubtedly unreasonable. The Government has already conceded that we will first discuss the co-location arrangement. If, eventually, it cannot be implemented by way of legislation, the last resort will be to implement the separate-location model. These questions can be further discussed later. However, Members of the opposition camp still refuse to go back to the true issues of the XRL project and attempt to use the lame argument that the co-location arrangement will ruin "one country, two systems" to veto the XRL project and initiate a new round of filibustering.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5733

Another example is the issue of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill). For the development of innovative technology and creative industries, it originally seeks to amend the legislation on the copyright regime so that it can fulfil the requirements of the international copyright regime. However, it is described as restricting freedom of speech, thus departing from the actual substance of the legislation. The scrutiny of the Bill has included years of consultation and discussions at 24 meetings of the Bills Committee. Focusing on the arguments which have now been raised, the Government and the industry have repeatedly stated their concerns and compared the merits and demerits of the existing system. The Hong Kong Bar Association has also declared their stand a few times, explaining in detail many controversial questions. Ms Winnie TAM, Senior Counsel, Chairman of the Bar Association, has even criticized certain political figures well versed in law of raising alarmist talk on the Bill. Despite this, the pan-democrat Members still continue to proclaim in the Council that they are going to filibuster and stall the Bill until it disappears. Such an attitude is actually not related to the contents of the law anymore. Rather, it is a political contest. Filibuster has turned society and the Legislative Council into a stage for Members of the pan-democratic camp. They have already forgotten their duties as Members.

The four-party meeting held on Wednesday is considered by the pan-democrats as the result of the filibustering. I do not view it this way because the four-party meeting was convened in response to various parties' good intention of resolving the controversy. On the other hand, what makes me sad about the four-party meeting is that Hong Kong society has been grievously torn apart. It is so difficult to have various parties sit down together and try to resolve the controversy. Some people even banged on the table and left. It shows that a confrontational legislature and a confrontational society have given rise to a serious split. Each party sticks to its own stand, refusing to make the slightest concession. This is worrying, and I also feel disappointed. I hope all parties can give the matter further thoughts. Otherwise society will only be stranded in perpetual disputes.

I hope the community can return to rationality and work in a pragmatic manner, bringing Hong Kong society back to normal again.

5734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, from the violent storming in the past and the recent chaos in Mong Kok, we see that violent and illegal acts damaging the rule of law are becoming more and more radical, showing no regard to law at all. I cannot help asking why these people have become increasingly bold.

In the past, it was our general understanding that participation in illegal activities would be liable to legal consequences. However, after the Occupy Central movement and the Mong Kok incident, I notice that some members of the legal sector have offered voluntary assistance to people committing such acts and promoted their so-called righteous act in a high profile. This conveys the false impression that even if a person breaks the law, he will be provided with assistance and needs not worry. People may think that they will be bailed when they act that way, appearing as if a firewall or a safety island is provided in the law. Such legal assistance is a de facto form of provocation, though it is provided out of love, it leads them to destruction and spurs them to act more boldly and recklessly.

I respect the right to appropriate legal services of all. Yet, do we desire that the rule of law be respected or do we want to constantly provoke the people into challenging the bottom line of the rule of law? I urge political parties which often claim to be upholding the rule of law to practise what they preach and be responsible to the young people by calling on them to follow the right track. When they urge people to go into battle, will they tell their children to do so, too? Hong Kong is a city upholding the rule of law, a value which we all consider extremely desirable and worth protecting. Hence, if people are under the false impression that there are a lot of safety belts and safety islands in the law, it will not be conducive to the rule of law in Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong society has been swaying admist a raging storm in the past few years so to speak, and there has never been one day of peace. The economy is stagnant, and a countless number of problems (including housing, education and transport) related to the people's livelihood remain unresolved. The lower and middle classes are leading a difficult life, and the young people lack opportunities of moving up the social LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5735 ladder. Worst of all, Hong Kong people begin to feel that living in Hong Kong is no longer safe when their personal safety and properties are threatened. In face of the Occupy Central incident, the Mong Kok riot on the first night of the Lunar New Year and the LEE Po incident, how can the law-abiding people of Hong Kong stay free of worries or fears? To say that we are not worried or afraid is self-deception. If a government fails to make its people live in peace and work with contentment and protect the personal safety of its people such that they have to live under threats, this Government is certainly in dereliction of its duty and incapable. It will not be able to win the support and trust of its people and its work will not gain recognition of the Central Government either.

President, I know that many people do not recognize the administrative capability of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying or appreciate his personality. Some pan-democrats even question his character or personal integrity. I do not know Chief Executive well but I know he is a person with foresight and strong observation. For example, after the conclusion of the Chief Executive Election in 2012, he knew that Hong Kong had to make great achievements and pursue development, so he said we should immediately build up a "Hong Kong Camp" to encourage the various social sectors to put aside differences and make concerted efforts to reconcile and unite together. I recalled WANG Guangya, Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council also endorsed his advocacy and joined in to call upon the various social sectors to put aside their differences and put the fundamental interests of Hong Kong in the first place. In that way, Hong Kong will definitely win.

Unfortunately, things have turned out not as desired. This time, Hong Kong has failed and it is a bad failure which caused severe damages and harms. In these last few years we have seen no "Hong Kong Camp", other than the intensified social split and confrontations. These confrontations include those between officials and the public, the legislature and the executive, and those among political parties. Worse still, those confrontations grow with each passing day. The whole society has been embroiled in endless arguments and innumerous conflicts. These conflicts are not confined to only serious internal conflicts but they also include the increasing conflicts between Hong Kong and the Mainland. I believe this situation is beyond the expectation of Director WANG Guangya or even the entire Central Government while all Hong Kong people and the 1.36 billion compatriots will not wish to see it happen in Hong Kong.

5736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

President, the reunification of Hong Kong will soon come to its 19th anniversary. Under the reign of three Chief Executives, the governance of Hong Kong has been worsening, the political scene deteriorating, society becoming more chaotic and less peaceful, the public mind getting less secure, and the people showing less confidence and support in the Government. Does it mean that the people of Hong Kong are incapable of achieving "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong", "a high degree of autonomy" and committing to and undertaking the mission of implementing "one country, two systems"? I believe the Central Government is examining incessantly this matter, this question and this situation each and every day.

President, there is now this extremely unhealthy phenomenon in society (including the Legislative Council). A lot of people who support the Government will echo with and show support for the Government blindly no matter the matter is right or wrong. At the same time, many people who oppose the Government will also voice objection simply for the sake of it, without discerning the truth and oppose the Government blindly over every issue. Everyone is unable to remain rational, calm and restrained while the Government is working daily to "rectify its errors", struggle, "engage in turf war" but without the time to do solid work for the people and society. It can only take piecemeal actions in a muddle-headed manner in implementing policies.

President, you have great wisdom, so you should understand that if Hong Kong is to find a way out and make great achievements, we need to concede and be tolerant so as to give Hong Kong an opportunity. If the Government continues to battle with its opponents furiously and giving tit for tat, and if the supporters from both sides carry on adding fuel to the fire while the Chief Executive remains reluctant to swallow his pride, change his concepts and means of governance, communicate with different political parties and groups sincerely and communicate with the young people frankly, but just writes a few words in the Policy Address to make empty talk about fostering harmony and shouts the slogan of creating the "Hong Kong Camp", I believe Hong Kong will surely sink. Who will be the worst victims? Certainly, they will be the general public of Hong Kong and our country.

It was mentioned in the Policy Address that we had to tie in with the Belt and Road Initiative of the State and develop Hong Kong into a smart city with innovative technology. They will all be rendered into empty talk and fantasies that are not feasible.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5737

President, I am a native Hongkonger having lived in Hong Kong for over 50 years. I have never thought about leaving Hong Kong as all along, I regard Hong Kong a free, open, safe and peaceful place for settlement and work. However, in recent years, I find that I am getting less familiar with Hong Kong where I have been living for 50-odd years. I find that Hong Kong is becoming less civilized and unsafe. The whole society seems liked an ammunition depot filled with grievances and angers. The Government, political parties and the public never cease scolding, attacking, denouncing and abusing each other every day, and the whole society is filled with negative energy. Honestly, I feel disappointed and somewhat suffocated. Such circumstances and situation have arisen in Hong Kong but regrettably, both the Government and political parties are unwilling to admit their faults, conduct a review and take up the responsibility. Instead, they continue to shirk their responsibility and find excuses and reasons, continue to go tit for tat, struggle and "stand firm". If everyone is unwilling to admit his fault and rectify his mistake, can this major problem, this problem of social split and conflicts and grievances that has emerged in Hong Kong now be remedied without being given any prescription? Certainly not. President, I believe many people will share the same feeling as mine ― that living in Hong Kong is quite confused, or even scary, feeling hesitated and agitated and sometimes even miserable because society is totally different from the past. Everyone has lost mutual trust and lacks mutual tolerance, mutual respect and there is no more compromise. Even worse, there are in society many people who show no respect for the rule of law, flout law and order and defy the Police or Judges. We can see that in the Mong Kok riot, many young people had no fear for the Police. Why would such a scene take place in Hong Kong? Meanwhile, we can also see that the Government is not afraid of filing lawsuits.

President, with the constitutional reform being vetoed by a majority vote and ending up in a failure, democratic development stands still. The Chief Executive Election next year will be confined again to a small circle. The Chief Executive selected by a small circle lacks acceptance and credibility and fails to command public trust and support. I believe administration by the Government next term will be more difficult. President, I do not care who will be the Chief Executive, I only hope that the Government has the ability to unite Hong Kong, stop the split, rescue Hong Kong and lead Hong Kong out of the misery, battlefield and predicament so that Hong Kong people can live in peace and work 5738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 with contentment while the Central Government can have confidence in Hong Kong and continue supporting the implementation of "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy".

Lastly, I would like to offer a piece of advice to the young people: violence is no solution to the problem. No matter it is violence in mind or violence in behaviour, they are definitely not a solution to the problem, instead, they will only aggravate the problem.

President, I so submit.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, actually I already expected to see fewer speeches on the Policy Address during the motion debate this time, particularly when the pan-democrats will focus on the Mong Kok riot on the first day of the Lunar New Year and so they will speak less on the details or policies of the Policy Address. I feel sorry for that. This session is originally related to district administration, constitutional affairs, administration of justice, human rights and security affairs of the Government but I have heard nothing from them on these areas today. More regrettably, up to the present moment, a lot of pan-democrat colleagues are still trying to whitewash the incident for those rioters participating in the Mong Kok riot on the first night of the Lunar New Year by attributing the cause of the riot to the administration by the Government.

Mr Albert HO said that "the discerning ones" would see that it was a problem of governance. This claim has totally neglected the objective of the rioters. Was their objective purely dissatisfaction with the Government's administration? Some colleagues said that "the people were driven into rebellion by oppression". Do you think the control over the people by the British Government in the past, in particular the restriction on freedom of assembly, less stringent than the SAR Government now? Hence, the point on "the people being driven into rebellion by oppression" basically does not hold water.

In fact, one of the causes for the Mong Kok riot actually was the localist rioters using protection of the hawkers as an excuse, with the ultimate motive of "perpetrating the independence of Hong Kong". We heard on the television that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5739 their slogan was to build Hong Kong as a state and seek independence of Hong Kong. This is the stand they openly declared, which is very clear. Hence, the pan-democrat Members need not advance any rebuttal for them that it is a problem of administration or governance by the Government in order to vindicate for these rioters who stirred up the riot. Their purpose is very simple, that is, to destroy "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law. More importantly, they deny Hong Kong being a part of China. At this moment, the prime task for us, which has already been performed by the Police Force, is to safeguard the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. We have seen in recent years a decline of our competitiveness. In terms of various indices, the ranking of our economy has been bypassed by the neighbouring places. It is really hard to imagine that if we do not have stability and prosperity, what advantages does Hong Kong possess in competing with other places in Asia. It is also beyond imagination, if we have no stability and prosperity, how can we uphold other core values?

Some pan-democrat Members said that the Government has created some sort of institutional violence, and so it has given rise to the violent scene of the Mong Kok riot. They then equated the rioters with some great historical figures like Dr SUN Yat-sen, Dr Martin Luther KING. I find this act most shameful.

President, we can see that many pan-democrat Members condemned violence on the one hand while equating rioters with great men on the other. Many pan-democrat Members mentioned that Dr SUN Yat-sen also led the 1911 Revolution by revolutionary means to topple the Manchurian Government then. However, President, the prerequisite for the 1911 Revolution was that Dr SUN Yat-sen recognized China, loved China without splitting up China. Dr SUN Yat-sen was a Cantonese and it was learnt that his Mandarin was not that fluent but he never advocated disintegration of the country. Nevertheless, the localist rioters are not only dissatisfied with the administration by the Government, they also hoisted the conspicuous banner of "Hong Kong independence". Therefore, their behaviour has completely denied China. How can the two incidents be mentioned in the same breath?

Hence, since the outbreak of the Mong Kok riot on the first day of the Lunar New Year, the pan-democrat Members have become self-perplexed, with their position and assertions contradicting each other. Many pan-democrat Members have spoken and criticized the Government today for not knowing how 5740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 to make self-reflection. In fact, have they ever reflected on themselves? Do they still want to put in kind words for those rioters and advance those specious arguments and fallacies? Does it fulfil the expectations of all the Hong Kong people?

Just as it was pointed out in the Policy Address, "the fact that Hong Kong is one of the safest cities in the world is attributed to our disciplined services, which are strongly committed to their duties. They deserve the public's support and collaboration." After Occupy Central and the Mong Kok riot on the first day of the Lunar New Year, we have seen that the Police Force are not only committed to their duties, many a times they also disregarded their personal safety and exercised their utmost restraint. I believe only the policemen in Hong Kong will ward off the bricks with their bodies. President, if you have watched the television, you must recall this scene: round the street corner in Mong Kok, a policeman got hurt and fell on the ground. His colleague moved forward to shield him from being hit further by bricks, using his own body to shield this wounded policeman. I saw on the television two or three pieces of bricks did hit his back and legs. What did this demonstrate? Was the policeman fierce or exercising restraint? The public can pass judgment for themselves.

The shots in which policemen were surrounded and assaulted by the rioters were taken by the reporters and they were no fake. Hence, those who defend the bottom line of Hong Kong are the policemen but not the pan-democrat Members. President, Members of the Legislative Council always question the government officials whether the laws enacted have ever been enforced, that is, enactment of laws is useless without enforcement. The filibustering in the Legislative Council has already held up a lot of things. Fortunately, the law enforcement departments still spare no efforts in maintaining the rule of law in Hong Kong. The phrase "heartfelt gratitude" was used to thank the civil servants. I think these two words cannot fully express our appreciation.

President, Hong Kong is an open society. We can accommodate different voices and fallacies or even the specious arguments of the pan-democrat Members but we cannot put up with blatant blood-stained violence. I agree that the Government may not have done well in every job but that does not mean we recognize "Hong Kong independence" and legalize violence. I think the speeches of the pan-democrat Members today have mingled administration with violence, which is extremely misleading and dangerous. I hope that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5741 pan-democrat Members can resume their rationality. Stop siding with the rioters because of their dislike for the Government or Chief Executive.

President, I so submit.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, freedom does not mean doing whatever one likes with no respect for the law.

Just as Chief Executive said in the Policy Address, we must remain vigilant against potential dangers here and abroad. When disturbances occurred on the first day of the Lunar New Year, rioters set fires everywhere and assaulted policemen and reporters, thereby seriously affecting the public peace and endangering public safety. Other than condemning these acts of violence and supporting the Police in bringing the rioters to justice, we should also review the current enforcement of law to see if it is capable of dealing with these violent activities which are very likely to escalate.

I think the existing equipment of the Police Force should be reviewed too. The Government is duty-bound to protect the safety of front-line personnel, who must not be left to be beaten wantonly. Meanwhile, although the policemen have no intention to harm protesters, they will have to use the minimum force when being charged to subdue trouble-makers in order to bring the order under control. Moreover, some people think that the law will not punish the masses or people can avoid arrests by wearing masks. To ensure the unlawful elements will be subject to sanctions in law, the Police should be properly equipped and provided assistance in collecting evidence.

The wearing of masks has indeed made prosecutions even harder, so we should make reference to overseas practices and consider legislating against the wearing of masks by protesters. If one thinks that his view is correct, he should talk to others, or even fight for others' support in an "open and aboveboard" manner without hiding his own identity. I have heard some members of the public criticize those masked rioters who stirred up trouble for "having the courage to act but not bearing the consequences" and doing things without knowing why. No matter what rhetoric is used to embellish the violent acts of the rioters, no one can deny that these acts will harm the personal safety and properties of the public.

5742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

President, freedom does not mean doing whatever one likes with no respect for the law. The Basic Law assures not only our freedom of speech, but also our freedom of assembly, procession and demonstration. However, under no circumstances can one acts in a violent and unlawful manner under the pretext of freedom. Social stability is the cornerstone of living in peace and working in contentment in Hong Kong. It is also the prime consideration of foreign investors and talents. We must not let the rioters undermine the public peace and tarnish the image of Hong Kong at will.

President, in the past three days, I heard many Members condemn the Government vigorously. The pan-democrat Members even purposely stopped "filibustering" and took the opportunity to scold the Government. We all know that it is impossible for the administration of the Government to satisfy everybody. Even the business sector has its views. When it holds different opinions about certain policies, it will make suggestions to the Government. However, we should be objective and rational, and use suitable methods to lobby for and curry support, rather than simply putting the blame on certain government officials and thinking that the problems can be solved in this manner.

Yesterday, the Chief Secretary for Administration said that we, Members of the pro-establishment camp, were fairer, so I have to make a fair comment, too. The civil servants and government officials are actually doing their best to serve the public without any complaint. Even when they are being scolded, they will not behave in a tit-for-tat manner. This is why we should support the Government. Chief Secretary, we support you; we support government officials in exerting their best to serve the people of Hong Kong.

In addition to maintaining communication with the public, the Government also needs to demonstrate effective governance and seek common grounds while preserving differences. Of course, the Government must work hard, but it takes two hands to clap. All political parties and other groups in the community should also have this intention of working for the good of Hong Kong and take one more step. Given the current unstable external conditions, mutual trust must be rebuilt in society before Hong Kong can regain its momentum to cope with crises. However, we must find the way out, not by pointing fingers or engaging in struggles. I hope Members can reflect on this.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5743

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, this is the fourth time I moved the Motion of Thanks in this term. In the past, I had used "tense" to describe the relationship between the executive and the legislature. This year I would describe it as "still bottoming" and "below the freezing point."

I originally did not intend to speak in this session. But in listening to the debate among Members in the past two days, I discovered that we were actually very unhappy. It was unhappy inside the Legislative Council, the opposition was unhappy, the pro-establishment camp was unhappy, and the officials were also not so happy.

In fact, we can note from a lot of objective data or rankings that Hong Kong is quite good indeed. The Heritage Foundation has rated Hong Kong as the freest economy in the world for 22 consecutive years. Our per capita GDP ranked sixth in the world. We are a hub for international business, trade and finance. Our unemployment rate is also low, which can be regarded as full employment. However, Hong Kong people remain unhappy, with a lot of disputes in society and discontents among the people. Over the past few years we had Occupy Central, "Occupy Mong Kok," and also the riot in Mong Kok during the Lunar New Year. Many business owners feel that it is getting more and more difficult to do business. The middle class feel that the pressure of living is mounting. With the falling of land price, they would worry about the price drop of their properties and the worsening economic situation. With the rising of land price, they would also worry about the ever rising property prices and being priced out of home ownership, whilst the lower class would feel unhappy because of worries about the daily living expenses and rentals.

Bhutan is known as the happiest country in the world. We also find it strange. Why would a country with a per capita GDP of only US$700 be so happy? In recent years, many people have been there to learn about why this country with a constitutional monarchy implemented only since 2007 can achieve its top ranking in the global Happiness Index.

In fact, various countries have become increasingly focused on the national Happiness Index in recent years. In 2012, the United Nations began to develop Happiness Index benchmarks applicable throughout the world. Hong Kong ranked 46th in 2012, dropping to 64th in 2013, and then dropping again to 72nd in 2015. Dubai began to prescribe their own Happiness Index in 2014, while 5744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Venezuela appointed the Vice Ministry of Supreme Social Happiness of the People in 2013 so as to organize all the programmes involving children, culture, race, the elderly and the disabled. A few days ago, the United Arab Emirates appointed the first Minister of State for Happiness for promotion and adjustment of government policies so as to increase the public satisfaction with policies and create an even better society.

People all over the world are striving to make their people and society happier, how about Hong Kong? We seem to have indulged in remorse over Hong Kong's economic slowdown and asset price fluctuations in the past. Wage earners think their bosses do not treat them well, while the bosses think the workers are not exerting their best. The public thinks the Government has not done well, while the officials on the other side probably think the public does not understand how difficult it is to strike a balance between the interests of different classes and considerations of social resources and overall development. The prestige of the Government in governance has been deteriorating, thus making everyone in society unhappy as a result.

I do not know if the Government has thought about finding some happy things for Hong Kong people, to find something which can make the 7 million citizens in society happy, which can bring about more tolerance and reduce the hostility between people from different backgrounds or classes in society. We often engage in heated debates over policies in the meetings, "banging tables and chairs". As we come from functional constituencies, we are of course concerned about the interests of our sectors, hoping also to fight for or protect the benefits of voters. But on some labour issues, Members from the labour sector will think that we would not concede even an inch. Everyone also knows we do things in an objective manner. After leaving the Chamber, we can get along with each other, making efforts to find a way acceptable to everyone.

Aristotle said the ultimate good for humans is happiness, including the subjective feeling of happiness and a certain degree of satisfaction in real life. Hong Kong is a rather affluent society. Apart from our ability to continue helping those in need such as the elderly or the disabled to improve their lot, should the Government not also think about how to make Hong Kong people happier so that we can subjectively feel that Hong Kong is a happy city instead of frowning all day?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5745

President, we can see more and more governments beginning to consider happiness data and research together in policy research now, putting the happiness of citizens in the first place, and this has become the priority goal for administration so that people can lead better lives. Should the SAR Government not also draw reference from the British model "What Works Centre for Wellbeing" to find new ideas for different bureaux so that its administration can enhance people's sense of happiness and well-being?

President, as the Financial Secretary is going to announce the Budget next week, I hope the Financial Secretary can listen to the opinions and make Hong Kong people happier by his financial means. Thank you, President.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Chief Executive set the theme of the Policy Address this year as "Innovate for the Economy, Improve Livelihood, Foster Harmony, Share Prosperity". At the beginning of the Year of the Monkey which was less than one month after the presentation of the Policy Address, a riot took place in the small hours of 8 February. At that time, bricks were hurled everywhere. The rioters used wooden boards, steel hammers to chase after and hit the policemen and set fires to wreak havoc, turning the areas around Mong Kok, including places in Shantung Street, Soy Street and Dundas Street into a hell-liked shambles instantly. Many Hongkongers came forth after the incident to condemn the acts and requested imposition of severe punishment on the rioters who assaulted the policemen. Unfortunately, a small group of violent separatists headed by the pan-democrat politicos even cast their votes against the motion on condemning violence and the rioters. Not only did those people refrain from condemning the violent acts of the rioters, they even tried to find ways to exculpate the rioters, suggesting that an independent commission of inquiry should be set up and attributing the incident to popular dissatisfaction with the SAR Government for the latter's problematic administration and reluctance to heed public views, and so on.

I certainly do not subscribe to the pan-democrat Members diverting attention from the violent acts and ignoring the use of violence by the rioters. The Civic Party even offered free voluntary legal assistance to free those rioters from worries. It has de facto encouraged the violent acts, so where has their conscience gone?

5746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

President, did the SAR Government really ignore the public views in its governance? I would like to examine the issue of governance of the SAR Government. Actually, since the establishment of the SAR Government, the pan-democrats have posed themselves as the opposition and raised objection to every issue, be it good or not. They opposed the Government and the Communist Party of China to the extent of "running out of their mind". In the Council, they said "no" to all projects, policies related to the Mainland (for example, the Express Rail Link, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the North East New Territories project, and so on) by engaging on a full scale in filibustering and a movement of non-cooperation while outside the Council, they mobilized the opponents (including the young people) to violently storm different places including the Legislative Council Complex. Ever since the launch of the constitutional reform, some even instigated the so-called civil disobedience and Occupy Central. The illegal acts then escalated gradually. On this last occasion, bricks, steel bars were employed and even fires were set. How can we tell there will be no further escalation come the next occasion?

There must be causes for the occurrence of the violent incident. During the time when constitutional reform was being discussed by the community last year, the rationalization of unlawful acts already provided soil for the gradual escalation of violent acts to test the Police's bottom line in maintaining law and order. After all, the pan-democrats raised opposition for the sake of it. They blamed the Government on the one hand for implementing harsh policies and oppressing the people into rebellion and allowing property prices to remain high, thus making the young people homeless. On the other hand, they opposed and hindered the resumption of land in the North East New Territories for housing construction and reclamation of sea to form land. They created inumerable barriers for the administration of the SAR Government, thus barring smooth administration and policy implementation and ruining the harmony among the people in order to serve their political purposes.

Mr WONG Yuk-man mentioned that the ultimate victory would belong to the young people, but I do not subscribe to his conclusion for the history of Hong Kong has proved that the use of violent means to advocate political views will be doomed eventually. As evident to our eyes, the riot in 1957, the turmoil in 1967 and 1981, and so on, proved that the use of violence to achieve political aims would end in a failure and be discarded by the people of Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5747

This year is the Year of the Monkey. I hope that this violent turmoil could simply be like the behaviour of the rebellious child SUN Wukong (Monkey King) in that these monkey kings would finally be subdued and trapped by the Buddha under the Wuzhi Mountain to reflect in repentance. Subsequently, they would come out from the mountain to accompany Xuangzang on the way to the West to get the Buddha Classics for achieving the immortal spiritual state. If these group of young people can realize that their behaviour will not gain the support of Hong Kong people ultimately and will also harm the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, I believe they will surely achieve the immortal spiritual state like SUN Wukong.

President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my views to the Chief Secretary for Administration and various Directors of Bureaux on some issues in the Policy Address. Some Members in the opposition camp said that the government policies were bad policies. I do not agree though I do see that the Government has deficiencies in its administration. As Members of the Legislative Council, we should put forth our views to the Government in a positive manner in the hope that it can heed our constructive views and implement better policies.

President, last year I already pointed out in my speech that settlement in peace requires not only a roof as shelter but also suitable living conditions, including convenient transport links, comprehensive community facilities, adequate employment opportunities and appropriate living space, and so on. I mentioned last year that I was gravely worried about the capacity of the Yuen Long community and feared that its community facilities, retail business areas and internal transport could not support the population which would almost hit 1 million in future. Relative to its internal capacity, the external transport load of the district was more worrying.

Within the Yuen Long District, there are now four stations on the West Rail Line (WRL), namely Tin Shui Wai, Long Ping, Yuen Long and Kam Sheung Road, but they are the first few stations of the Kowloon-bound WRL. At present, Yuen Long has a population of about 600 000. The figures of the MTR Corporation Limited indicated that the carrying capacity of the WRL already reached its capacity during the morning peak hours. If there are no additional runs from Tin Shui Wai Station, the passengers basically cannot board any train in Kam Sheung Road Station and the Yuen Long Station before it in particular. 5748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Nevertheless, the additional runs provide only an immediate cure but not an ultimate solution to the fundamental problem of saturated carrying capacity.

At present, each time when the Development Bureau lobbies the District Council for an increase in supply of land, it will surely be asked about the carrying capacity of the WRL whereas the officials will reply invariably that the carrying capacity of the WRL will be increased by 60% in the future. It is the same case when discussing the Hung Shui Kiu Development, the Yuen Long South Development, Kam Tin Development and the figure of 60% will be put forth in discussing projects of varying scales about Yuen Long. However, at issue is the increase in population in Yuen Long will reach 400 000, and compared to the existing 600 000, the rate of increase will be 66%, discounting the new population in Tuen Mun. Assuming that the demand for WRL service of the new population is roughly the same as the existing population, just the new population in Yuen Long District alone will be sufficient to stretch the potential increase in the carrying capacity of the WRL, let alone the increase in population in the Tuen Mun District.

President, the Secretary for Transport and Housing is in charge of the two main policies of transport and housing, so he should be in a better position to co-ordinate the pace of development for housing and transport infrastructure to pre-empt the problem of passengers not being able to board any train when going to and getting off work. I believe the Secretary knows this problem very well and will probably disagree with my estimation. Yet I think the Secretary will not deny one thing, that is, New Territories West (NTW) needs one additional rail line that runs to the urban areas direct. We know clearly that the authorities had thought about it in planning the artificial islands in the central waters. I wish to stress that we support the study on the artificial islands, we support the idea of constructing a rail line which passes NTW through the artificial islands to reach the urban areas directly. Even if there are no artificial islands, NTW still needs one more strategic cross-harbour rail. I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Council should debate issues seriously like it has been doing in the last several days. There is no problem with Members supporting or opposing the Policy Address of the Government, for we represent different opinions and so we can hold different views. I sincerely hope that Members can discuss the political, social and economic problems of Hong Kong in a civilized way acceptable to the public.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5749

Since Prof Benny TAI announced that he would instigate Occupy Central in January 2013, the spirit of the rule of law collapsed as he had beautified the illegal acts and offered excuses for them. I once talked to him privately, telling him that such a path was not practicable and the adoption of such an approach would definitely yield an opposite result because he would be forcing the Central Government to follow his way of thinking even before the commencement of negotiations and threatening to launch a massive and illegal occupation movement if the Central Government refused to concede. I thought that his approach and means were wrong and unfortunately my words came true and the constitution reform failed to reach a consensus ultimately.

Regarding the rule of law, with years of effort made by the people of Hong Kong, an ordinary member of the public will feel uneasy even if he jaywalks or drops a dried melon seed onto the ground. It will be good for everyone if the general public treasures and obeys the law. Such a mindset does not come by easily. I told Benny TAI that sooner or later, his thoery would be regarded as outdated and the movement would eventually be dominated by the vigorous youth and he would even be kicked out. It was in March or April of 2013 then. I believe he should still remember that. Subsequently, the young people came forth to participate in the Occupy movement. I admire their passion and their attitude of showing concern for society, but I do not appreciate their practice or even feel worried about their behaviour. In fact, which society will have perfect laws?

I cannot recall if it was Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung or Mr WONG Yuk-man who once said that many friends who smoked felt very dissatisfied and they also wanted to launch some large-scale movements but on the other hand, there are many who preferred not to be passive smokers. The smokers are not satisfied with the existing law which bans smoking. Where on earth can we find a law that can please everybody? So long when society can adhere to the civilized way in seeking consensus by all means among the many divergent views and enact laws, then we can enable civilization and peace to persist.

Violence is attractive. Just like a child who may put his finger into the socket out of curiosity. For the first time it may experience just a shock but without being electrocuted. If the adult praises the child for being brave, he will try again next time. In the end, he may possibly be electrocuted. I am not joking, if we define hurling bricks at the Police a riot and if the bricks should eventually cause the death of somebody, it will be a big incident then as (those 5750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 who committed) the related acts can be charged with murder. However, have those young participants ever been mentally prepared and thought about that they would have to bear such serious criminal liability for the incident?

A breach in the spirit of abiding by the law has occurred now. Many think that these illegal acts are no big deal, but they have actually done enormous harm to Hong Kong. Hong Kong people treasure the rule of law because we all want to settle problems in a peaceful manner. I love to watch local TV drama series and many characters in them will say that they will meet in court after quarrels. It is good to see each other in court as no matter it is the Government or the public who files a lawsuit for whatever dispute, they can resolve the problem in a peaceful and civilized way. However, we can see that a lot of people ― especially the young people ― have begun to give up using this approach to solve problems and are gradually being instigated to use violence. I feel most worried about it.

Hong Kong is not such an awful society actually. It is a relatively generous society as evident in the legal aid we offer. The first motion I raised after entering the Legislative Council was to urge the Government to extend the legal aid service to cover not only the poorest but also the middle class. Moreover, I also proposed that even when Hong Kong people (particularly the permanent residents of Hong Kong) came across disputes in the Mainland, they should be offered legal assistance as I did voluntarily help many Hong Kong people who became helpless in the face of legal disputes in the Mainland. The Beijing Office and Guangdong Office could not solve their problems basically. I hope the Government can think about how best to help these Hong Kong people because they have made a lot of contribution to Hong Kong. We should provide them with legal assistance when they need it badly.

How does Hong Kong society actually look like now? I heard a Judge say openly that his life was being threatened as he had to hear the case and pass his judgment. I also heard some policemen say that their lives were being threatened when handling conflicts. The Judges and policemen are responsible for maintaining law and order, being two most vital pillars of a society that upholds the rule of law. Why has such a situation arisen? I did discuss this with some Judges and policemen who all felt very sad ― several colleagues just now cited some examples, so I will not elaborate them here ― they felt greatly worried for Hong Kong, but their worry was not about whether they would be attacked by the demonstrators or rioters but about the fact that Hong Kong people LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5751 tolerated the attacks of the Police Force in such a way, to their surprise. If we still commend those rioters and violent acts, Hong Kong will gradually become more dangerous. Will there be a situation in future where members of the public report their cases in police stations but without the least confidence in the Police Force? If that is the case, where has the cornerstone underpinning our safety gone?

The Hong Kong Police Force are very excellent. We can all see that the police officers have exercised considerable restraint. Why were they not beaten to death? I think it was due to their self-restraint. The Hong Kong Police Force still enjoy a high international standing. We should not insult them for reasons of our political inclination. There is this episode that makes me feel most sorry. I remember a kindergarten teacher told a three-year-old child that those policemen were "dirty cops". Was it right to do that? How can we harm the Police Force of Hong Kong for the sake of our political inclination.

I understand that some people within the Police Force may have gone too far but even a doctor will "perform a wrong surgery", so shall we pick up a knife and chop all the doctors? We cannot do it. Hong Kong is a civilized society with healthy institutions. I once attended an interview on the English channel ― with a person who supported the riot behind the scene ― and that person said that he was responsible for instigating the riot on the Internet himself. He described the Mong Kok riot as "WAR" and I felt very shocked then. After the programme was broadcasted, I received some emails from overseas, thinking that the respondent was basically an "idiot" and asking whether he knew what war was about as the sender of the email had done reporting in war zones. Those who made the criticisms are foreigners and one of them is a current affairs critic. He asked Hong Kong people if we know how war was liked and how miserable a war could be? The people of Hong Kong are really blessed without knowing it.

Two respectable High Court Judges once engaged in an argument over whether judicial review had been abused. I respected their views. Apparently, many political disputes will have no alternative but to resort to legal proceedings. Actually, we find this most unsatisfactory since such a phenomenon is unhealthy. If we fail to defend the last bridgehead , Hong Kong will end up in misery.

The public feels extremely dissatisfied with the filibustering in the Legislative Council. I hope that Honourable colleagues from the opposition camp could reflect upon it seriously and stop filibustering to allow the Legislative 5752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Council to resume its normal debates. I wish to tell some young people this, I heard the newly appointed President of the Hong Kong University Students' Union say that she could accept the "independence of Hong Kong" and "independence of Hong Kong" was the only way out. My heart ached at hearing it. Article 1 of the Basic Law explicitly states that Hong Kong is an unalienable part of China. "Independence of Hong Kong" is not a feasible way. We should not say it or believe it and be misled. In 2009, my friend recommended to me an American movie called "V for Vendetta" and told me Hong Kong would have a group of young people wearing the vendetta mask turning out in five years' time. We have seen such a scene now.

I wish to tell Members a story. In the United States Presidential Election in 2000, GORE definitely got more votes than BUSH but he lost in the election. The American system is also imperfect. He had two options then, one being to lead the agitated masses to start a turmoil and the other to bring the dispute to court. He chose the latter finally. One of the judges hearing the case was a member of the Republican Party, and as a result, he failed. At that time, he said to his supporters that he understood their feelings but even though he felt disappointed, he had to accept the ruling and should not let such sentiment of disappointment override his love for the nation. It was indeed not easy for him to say those words at that moment.

President, if we still treasure the civilized and peaceful spirit and the spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong, will everyone please stop using violence. President, I so submit.

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

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, recently, when I was on the street or when I met with various organizations, I often heard two words which I can perhaps use to describe the current situation of Hong Kong. The first is "chaos" and the second is "slow".

Hong Kong is really in chaos. Everybody thinks that Hong Kong is in great chaos. Where did the chaos start? From what I have seen in the past few years in the Legislative Council, I think the chaos may really start from the Legislative Council. We have seen that violence has been escalating in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5753

Legislative Council. The Legislative Council is in chaos, too. From the hurling of bananas as a start to the throwing of bottles and glasses, and from chanting a few slogans and placing a placard in the beginning to erecting boards everywhere, and a whole group of people charging forward, whenever they came across anything with which they were unhappy, they resorted to hurling personal attacks. This is no longer a venue for discussing and commenting on issues, but a place for hurling insults at other people.

Then, the chaos in the Legislative Council developed into the chaos of Occupy Central. During the 79-day Occupy Central last year, we saw people hoisting aloft the banner of "democracy and freedom" and advocating civil disobedience. Then they glorified unlawful acts and encouraged the public to charge at the Police with the use of violence irresponsibly. They also publicized that Hong Kong was in turbulent times, vowing to overthrow this regime. In short, the Government was invariably taken to task for whatever it did, and in the Legislative Council they opposed everything. In fact, this will only cause great difficulties to administration, making it impossible for anything to be done. When the Government failed to do something, they chided the Government for not doing its job properly.

After Occupy Central, members of the public thought: Did those people not vow to resort to civil disobedience? They sounded as if they were heroes, and they said that they would take the responsibility. Who would have expected that they have reneged on their words? Then, the prosecution work was sluggish and the punishment light. Even if they were convicted, they still made a V sign when they came out. So we have come to realize that a person convicted of an offence can become a hero. Nowadays, it seems that a person committing such acts as charging at the Police and breaking the law does not have to pay any price and what is more, he can be crowned a hero. Breaking the law seems to be justifiable. And we have been thinking: What should we do if things go on like this?

Since Occupy Central, we have said that as you advocated violence and unlawful acts, the situation will become uncontrollable. Once a fire is started, it may become unrestrainable and nothing can then be done to put it out. As expected, on the night of the first day of the Chinese New Year, a riot which we consider shocking and enraging broke out in Mong Kok. From the live news broadcast on television on that day, we saw many people charging at and 5754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 assaulting the Police and also hurling bricks at them. They continued to beat up the police officers even when they had fallen onto the ground. We also saw rioters set fires everywhere and attempted to set a LPG taxi alight. They set fires at as many as 22 places and even stopped the firemen from putting out the fires. Yesterday, the Director of Fire Services said that the rioters had gone so far as to block the way of fire engines with bricks, trying to stop them from reaching the scenes to put out fires. They set ablaze places close to downtown residential areas. What if a fire really broke out? It was sheer luck that a huge fire did not break out. They were directly endangering the lives, property and safety of the residents. On that day, we saw many rioters cover their faces with masks. They put on masks all because they did not want to be recognized, hoping to evade legal liabilities or escape arrests by the Police, or to make prosecution more difficult. But in their remarks they made themselves heroes, and if they are so upright and above-board, they should not have covered their faces with masks.

After the incident, we all felt indignant. But what did the pan-democrats say? They said that misgovernance had driven the people to revolt. They initially said that the handling of the hawkers was the cause. They claimed that the authorities were so unscrupulous as to arrest the hawkers on the first day of the Chinese New Year, not even allowing them to make a few thousand dollars and so, misgovernance had driven the people to revolt. Later, this allegation was proved to be untrue, and nobody had said that the hawkers should be arrested. On the contrary, it was because they besieged the staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department that the Police was called in for help. Did the Police drive the hawkers away? No, they did not. In the end, who actually made it impossible for the hawkers to do business? It was those people who set fires, and those who charged at the Police and took part in the riot. Right, this reason is not substantiated. Then they said that it was because of the constitutional system. Many pan-democrat Members have also said these two days that it was due to the constitutional system because there is no genuine universal suffrage in Hong Kong and so, the riot in Mong Kok was resulted. What logic is this?

Similar riots have taken place in the United States, France, Germany and many European and American countries, and according to what you have said, these are countries where genuine universal suffrage is implemented and yet, riots have taken place all the same. What direct relationship is there between a riot and the constitutional system? Right, then they said that it was because of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5755

LEUNG Chun-ying. They said that the people had come forth to a take part in a riot because LEUNG Chun-ying is the Chief Executive. A riot took place because LEUNG Chun-ying is the Chief Executive. Again, what logic is this? A Chief Executive with a low popularity rating can cause a riot to break out and if so, there should not be any riot for one with a high popularity rating, right? The Prime Minister of Germany, Angela MERKEL, has a high popularity rating, but do we see riots in Germany? There are riots in Germany, too. What relationship is there between riots or violence and the constitutional system and popularity rating?

They went on to say that it was due to social conflicts. Mr LEE Cheuk-yan said that there are social conflicts and so, riots would surely be the outcome. Come on, just keep saying more about it and keep finding more reasons and more excuses and see if anyone believes what you say. Violence is violence. There is no reason, no excuse for violence. If this is said to be an inevitable outcome, it is the outcome of these people continuously conniving at violence and continuously rationalizing and glorifying violent behaviour. If there is a causal relationship, it was all started by these people continuously hurling objects in this Council, allowing violence to swell and erupt to an uncontrollable extent ultimately.

Assault and arson are violence; they are irresponsible behaviour, and they are unlawful. These acts cause bodily harm to others; they damage law and order and disrupt peace in Hong Kong society; and they do harm to the rule of law in Hong Kong as well as its overall interests. There is just no reason, no excuse for them. Stop advancing such specious arguments, and stop poisoning our young people. Do not think that we Hongkongers are fools. Violence has been escalating, and in order to combat these organized rioters and riots that may possibly happen anytime in the future, I think the Government needs to put in place new measures and more target-specific legislation.

At a meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Security the other day, in order to target violent incidents, I suggested that the Government should study the enactment of an anti-mask law with reference to the practices in other countries. In fact, many European and American countries have in one way or another introduced legislation for this. In Germany, legislation was enacted in 2010 to stipulate that it is unlawful for any person to conceal his identity in demonstrations, and an imprisonment of up to one year can be imposed. Legislation in France is very stringent in that the wearing of masks is banned in 5756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 all public places except under specified circumstances. In the United States, an anti-mask law is enacted in many states, including Washington State where legislation was enacted in 2010 to ban the wearing of masks in public places and an offender is liable to a fine of US$500 and imprisonment of not more than one year. In Canada, the wearing of masks or covering of one's face during an unlawful assembly or a riot is banned and those who are convicted can face up to 10 years in prison but the law allows exceptions for religious or medical reasons. I proposed the introduction of an anti-mask law mainly to target people who take part in unlawful assemblies and violent charging acts. It does not cover people attending lawful assemblies. It is already against the law to attend unlawful assemblies or take part in a riot. In proposing the enactment of an anti-mask law, my purpose is only to step up deterrence among young people against taking part in unlawful assemblies and violent charging acts and to make it less difficult for the Police in the collection of evidence.

Certainly, an anti-mask law is just one of the proposals for addressing violent behaviour in society. It is also very important for the Police to enhance their manpower and equipment and step up the intelligence work. But it is more important not to glorify these acts anymore. What is most worrying is the continuous spread of violent thoughts particularly to the young generation. Today, a Member in the Chamber kept advocating violence and continued to encourage the people to use force to stop violence. The radical groups even said that their struggle has no bottom line and that, worse still, they can sacrifice their lives. Are you scared? I am very scared. I think even though they made those remarks, their objective is wrong because their objective is to overthrow the regime. Mr LEE Cheuk-yan said that a political entity should be the master of its own house, and having said all this, their purpose is actually to advocate the independence of Hong Kong. This is a very dangerous thought. I believe there will definitely be more and more organized riots in the future.

To address this problem, I think a more important task, apart from not glorifying such behaviour, is for families and schools to enhance moral education for the young people to help refine their character and inculcate positive, healthy values in them. President, a person's values can dictate his judgment of right and wrong and also his behaviour. The values of young people are under the influence of their families, schools, peers and the general social circumstances. We must make the young people understand that no one can use any reason and excuse to justify the use of violence to harm other people.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5757

Furthermore, violence cannot solve problems but will only create problems. I think this is not only the responsibility of the Government, but everybody's responsibility. Every parent, every family, every teacher, and even the words and deeds of each one of us are influencing the young people. Example is better than precept. If Members would solve problems by hurling objects at others and by resort to verbal violence or physical violence, it would be difficult for us to teach young people how they can solve problems with non-violent means. Let us not forget the heartfelt wish of Mr WONG, the police officer who has undergone an operation after being injured by a brick in Mong Kok. He told us not to give up the young people. In order not to give up the young people, I think we must start from the behaviour of each and every one of us. I call on Members to set a good example and stop leading our young people astray.

Besides, I have all along been concerned about the problem of bogus refugees, which is one of the problems causing chaos in Hong Kong. This problem has created great chaos in Hong Kong and seriously affected law and order in the territory. This problem has dragged on for a long time, and while it is the original intention of Hong Kong to help people who genuinely face persecution, this mechanism has now been abused by unlawful elements. There are now over 10 000 non-refoulement claimants in Hong Kong. Each year, we can only handle some 1 000 or 2 000 cases, incurring an annual expenditure of over $600 million, and only less than 1% of them are proved to be genuine refugees. The problem has become more and more serious, and every day we see people swarming to Hong Kong. When I read the newspaper every day and as I read the Oriental Daily News today, I saw a table setting out the relevant figures. After some counting, I found that since the beginning of the year, there have been 43 cases involving non-refoulement claimants. These cases include wounding, theft, possession of arms, robbery, criminal damage, assault on police, sale of illicit cigarettes, and fighting. It is reported in today's news that heroin and marijuana valued at about $800,000 were seized at a village house in Yuen Long yesterday and it was learnt that the woman arrested is a torture claimant.

In the Policy Address this year, it is suggested that this problem be tackled by providing additional manpower and expediting the screening of claims. It is also mentioned that heavier punishment will be imposed. This is a good direction. I hope that the Government can take a multi-pronged approach to address this problem. But as it takes time to implement these measures which cannot be put into practice instantly, I suggest the Government put in place a 5758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 preliminary screening mechanism to screen out the manifestly unfounded claims by administrative measures. For example, many foreign domestic helpers may suddenly lodge a torture or non-refoulement claim when they are required to leave Hong Kong after working in the territory for a few years, or some offenders may suddenly lodge a torture claim upon arrest. I think these cases are obviously unfounded and can be rejected. Certainly, the Bureau may be concerned that these applicants whose claims are rejected will file a judicial review. I think that so long as their cases are rejected on justifiable grounds, the Bureau should not recoil in the face of challenge. I think it would be helpful if some of these claimants can be screened out.

Moreover, we in the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) understand that many illegal immigrants come to Hong Kong via the Mainland. In this connection, the DAB announced yesterday that the Hong Kong Deputies to the National People's Congress (NPC) and Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) of the DAB will propose the enhancement of exchange of intelligence and conduct of joint enforcement actions between the Mainland and Hong Kong during the plenary session of the NPC and CPPCC. We hope that efforts can be stepped up to target the source of the smuggling of illegal immigrants, with a view to combatting the problem of bogus refugees.

President, the second word is "slow". Hong Kong used to be renowned for its flexibility, versatility and efficiency. Some friends of mine have said before that when they were in Hong Kong, they found that Hongkongers actually do not walk, for we are like trotting when we walk; and the door-close button in a lift cannot be found in foreign countries because it is not used at all but in Hong Kong, we lose no time in pushing the door-close button the moment we step into a lift, so that the door can close as soon as possible. Hong Kong has all along been famous for being fast but in recent years, we can no longer be regarded as fast and on the contrary, we have become increasingly slow. We are slow because everything is delayed for a long time. Why is it that we were so fast in the past but have become so slow now? One of the reasons is certainly the "filibusters", and need I say more? Everyone knows that the filibusters are never-ending, and those Members invariably filibuster on all the issues. These filibusters have not only caused long delays to work in many areas, but have also given rise to judicial reviews. The abuse of judicial review proceedings has caused endless delays to work on many fronts.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5759

Earlier on I heard Dr KWOK Ka-ki of the Civic Party say that the Government is wrong in whatever policy implemented by it. He kept making those allegations and made reference to many policies, describing everything done by the Government as being completely devoid of merits or achievements and saying that the Government is incapable of doing anything. I think this is really most unfair to the civil servants, and it is very unjust to them, too. Our Civil Service in Hong Kong has all along been professional and excellent of quality, and I believe the Civil Service has implemented a lot of good policies. But the pan-democrat Members have made no mention of this. They only kept chiding people and purposely digging up issues to hurl criticisms.

Besides, why have we become increasingly slow? I think Members can see officials spending a long time in the Legislative Council every day to deal with Members, to deal with the filibusters, and to wait for their turn to attend meetings. Many Directors of Bureaux, Secretaries of Departments and even officials at various levels often have to sit in the room waiting for hours because they do not know when the filibusters in the Finance Committee will end and then discussion can start on the project under their purview. They are really caught in a dilemma, not knowing whether to leave or to stay, and this is such a waste of time and efforts. Those Members know only to criticize this and that, hurling abuses at everything, and they do not trust every word said by all government officials. Therefore, some officials may think that it is better not to say too much and not to do too much, that the more conservative they are, the better, and that they had better conduct more researches and consultancy studies. As a result, everything is slowing down continually.

Then the pan-democrat Members said that violent struggles are the result of prevalent institutional violence in this Council, adding that the institutions of society as a whole are not right. However, according to what I heard from those radical young people, their view is that the pan-democrat Members cannot do anything inside this Council and they therefore have to drive them away, so that they can replace them. Mr LEE Cheuk-yan asked government officials whether they have reflected on themselves to see if they have any responsibility for the Mong Kok riot and if the young people were forced by officials to come forth to take part in the riot. Then, I wish to ask the pan-democrat Members, especially Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, if they have reflected on themselves to see whether the pan-democrat Members have any responsibility for this sorry state of affairs 5760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 today. They oppose China in all circumstances, they oppose the Government in all circumstances, and they oppose LEUNG Chun-ying in all circumstances. They target individuals, rather than addressing the practical issues in dealing with everything. They only advocate struggles; they do not conduct discussions seriously, and they do not discuss political issues seriously. They are irrational in every issue. Can this attitude really motivate the Government to implement good policies? Have they really fulfilled their role as Members? Are they genuinely committed to working in the interest of Hong Kong? How can they convince members of the public and how can they not be disappointing to the young generation?

Honestly, when we see problems in society, it is indeed not easy to make the Government introduce policies to address the problems. We have to make a great deal of efforts and we have to strive for a lot of support. We have to study the policies of many different countries, and we have to be persevering in carrying out lobbying work. We have to lobby for support from government officials at various levels and from members of the public. This is indeed a tall task, but not a mission impossible. I would like to cite a few examples which are also my own experiences. In 2001, I introduced the Web Care Campaign with the objective of narrowing the digital divide in Hong Kong. I think the Chief Secretary was still the Director at the time. Back then we considered that many elderly and people with disabilities were denied access to the Internet and therefore, we hoped to push the Government to introduce policies to narrow the digital divide in Hong Kong, so that everybody could have access to the Internet and benefit from the opportunities and convenience brought about by technology. I remember that it took a few years before we could have the support of the Government to work in collaboration with us and then various sectors of the community also worked together for this cause. This initiative still continues nowadays as some 30% of the elderly already know how to access the Internet.

Having said that, the other day when I put questions to government officials in the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting, I found that the approach adopted by them now is still more or less the same as that used by me when I introduced this campaign back then. In other words, if nobody can come up with new ideas, the situation may probably become stagnant and we can only follow the old practices.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5761

Later in 2003 during the SARS outbreak, I, together with a group of friends in the technology sector, submitted to the Government a white paper calling on the Government to set up a population-wide electronic health record sharing system in Hong Kong. Never had I expected that it was only after I joined the Legislative Council that the legislation on electronic health records could be officially passed last year.

The cervical cancer vaccine is the only vaccine that can prevent cervical cancer in females. I hope that all grils in Hong Kong, like girls in other countries, can receive free vaccination. I have championed this for six years. I am grateful to the Chief Executive and Secretary Dr KO Wing-man because in this year's Policy Address I have finally seen some results as the Government expressed the wish that all girls from the grass-roots be provided with free vaccination. I will make continuous efforts to strive for the provision of free vaccination for all girls.

In respect of the Innovation and Technology Bureau, eight years ago I took to the streets with friends in the industry for the first time precisely to call for the establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau. We had fought for it for eight years.

Concerning the smuggling of wild animals, some two years ago I learnt that Hong Kong is a centre for the smuggling of ivory and since then I have been continuously carrying out lobbying. I am glad that in the Policy Address this year, the Government mentioned that it would work for a ban on the ivory trade and take actions against the smuggling of ivory in Hong Kong. Yet, it may take three or five years to see the earnest implementation of these policies.

I have cited these examples to tell Members that it is not easy to push for the formulation of policies. Having said that, it is not true that, as the pan-democrat Members have said, the Government does not listen to opinions, that it does not listen no matter what you said and that everything the Government does is detached from reality and disliked by the public. This is actually not true. The Government, especially the current-term Government, has implemented a lot of good policies. I can see that many civil servants and government officials have worked very hard to solve social problems. Many social problems have accumulated for a long time and are handed down by history, such as the housing problem. They cannot be resolved in a short time. Many policies need to be brewed; a social consensus has to be reached and it 5762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 takes a lot of hard work to promote a policy persistently. If each and every Member can make great efforts to strive for and persistently promote policies which they consider important, I believe many of the policies can come to fruition.

However, there is a policy that has not yet been achieved in the past few years after I joined the Legislative Council. What is this policy? It is to prevent victims of sexual violence from being "assaulted for a second time" in court. We only wish that the victims can be provided with separate passageways and be shielded behind a screen or be allowed to give evidence in front of a camera in another room, so that they do not have to endure finger-pointing by other people and be hurt by them. Ms Emily LAU told me that she had fought for it for over a decade but still in vain no matter what she said. Today, the Chief Secretary is in the Chamber. I hope that I do not have to fight for it for a decade but would still achieve nothing, as in the case of Ms Emily LAU. I will continue to work hard for it.

Last year, the Innovation and Technology Bureau was finally established. The Policy Address also proposed the development of a smart city. I think in view of the current situation which is plagued by chaos and sluggishness, it is necessary to develop next-generation smart government at the same time. I hope that government departments can resolve social problems with an innovative mindset and innovative methods, and utilize the technological platforms and big data while putting forward new policies in a timely manner.

President, I come from the IT industry and also the commercial and industrial sector. Large enterprises have long since started to consolidate the data of various departments, and big data enable leaders of the enterprise to grasp the real-time situation of each department anytime and anywhere. From the goods in shops, stock, to the placement of orders, transportation, the flow of people and goods, and the capital flow, all the information can be viewed readily online. Better still, with the use of computer modelling, different projections can be made to facilitate supervision by the management anytime, so that deployment of manpower and goods can be arranged, responses can be given swiftly, and preparations can be made for future planning and strategies.

In fact, the Hong Kong Government absolutely has the conditions to develop as a next-generation smart government because the data of all the departments have been computerized and territory-wide GIS platforms and e-map LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5763 systems are already in place. If the information of all the departments can be linked and consolidated, and with the inclusion of various tiers of information in the e-map system, such big data can be utilized to conduct analyses for purposes of helping the administration by the Government. I propose that the Government should expeditiously consolidate the data of all the departments and study how technology can be utilized under the current circumstances and conditions, with a view to helping the Government to effect administration with greater transparency and openness.

I also hope that the Government can resolve social problems with a new mindset and new methods. In fact, many problems may not have to be tackled all by the Government. President, we are in the Chamber now and can you tell me how many parking spaces are available in Admiralty and Central, and if I am driving from Causeway Bay, which route should I take and which parking space can I reach the soonest? I think you do not have the answers. Neither do I. Nobody does. But if we are in Shenzhen now, at least three or four software can provide the answers. Using our mobile phones, we can know which is the shortest route and where is the cheapest and nearest parking space, thus saving drivers the need of running in circles on roads and this can, in turn, reduce on-road traffic congestion and air pollution. This is because the Shenzhen Government is willing to make public its data and open this service to the market. If all the services are provided by the Government, we can only continue to stick to the old mindset and methods. But if the Government is willing to adopt an open mind and a new attitude and allow participation of the market in government services using the mode of sharing economy and open up more government data and information for use by the market, I believe more people will come forth to make suggestions to the Government and work in concert with the Government to resolve problems in social services and other social aspects.

President, Hong Kong is now caught in both external and internal problems. Externally, we face great risks from the external economic conditions as well as volatilities in the stock market worldwide; internally, our tourism industry has entered a chilly winter, whereas the small and medium enterprises are operating in dire straits. We also face a lot of riots on the street, and there is the problem of bogus refugees increasing in number. We very much wish to solve these problems. I believe many people of Hong Kong, like me, love Hong Kong very much. We very much wish that Hong Kong is good and we do not wish to see Hong Kong plunge into such chaos. We hope to pool our efforts together to resolve these economic and livelihood problems. There are many 5764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 problems that we need to resolve. To this end, the people of Hong Kong must stand united.

I very much hope that we can all set aside our prejudice, set aside hatred and set aside violence, because only when there is peace and stability in Hong Kong can we live peacefully and work with contentment here; and only when there is no violence in Hong Kong can our next generation grow up healthily here.

President, I so submit.

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

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, although I have only seven minutes and 18 seconds left, I will, as I pointed out on the first day of the debate, call a spade a spade and give credit where it is due and, where appropriate, make criticisms. Since I already mentioned praiseworthy areas yesterday, it is time for me to make criticisms today.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR MA FUNG-KWOK, took the Chair)

The Policy Address has 261 paragraphs in total, but only two short paragraphs are devoted to labour rights, the greatest concern to the wage earners in Hong Kong. Worst of all, it is pointed out in the Policy Address that importation of labour will be required. Although the Administration, Secretaries of Departments and Bureau Directors have, amid the strong opposition expressed by the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU), made amends one after another, stating that the protection of local workers will be accorded priority on various fronts, including employment, welfare and rights, and the mechanism of the Labour Advisory Board will not be bypassed, we are still dissatisfied with this Policy Address because of its neglect of labour rights.

I would like to hit the nail on the head. Why have so many Members who have spoken failed to point out why labour rights are taken so lightly in this Policy Address presented by C Y? A number of Members from the Liberal Party, such as Mr Vincent FANG, pointed out publicly in their speeches that they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5765 had 300 votes in the Election Committee (EC), but how many votes has the labour sector got? It is precisely due to the adverse position that the approach adopted by C Y is so biased.

Honestly, if the Chief Executive could be selected by "one person, one vote" ahead of the next Legislative Council Election ― this placard has been displayed by me before. If the Chief Executive were to be selected by votes among more than 3 million eligible electors across the territory rather than by the 1 200-strong EC, C Y would have consulted the 3 million-odd electors or the 7 million people in Hong Kong. Furthermore, he had to be accountable to the wage earners and take labour rights seriously. In that case, such proposals as retirement protection, abolition of the Mandatory Provident Fund offsetting mechanism, enactment of legislation for standard working hours, alignment of the two types of holidays, and increase of the minimum wage will be ready for implementation. But why can these proposals not be brought to fruition now? Due to the failure of the constitutional reform last year, the proposal on selecting the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" was turned down. Neither can universal suffrage be implemented for the Legislative Council.

In this debate on the Policy Address, all the pan-democrat Members who have spoken criticized LEUNG Chun-ying of being fond of picking fights and enjoying stirring up trouble very much. Moreover, the existing regime was criticized for being tyrannical. As a result, they spoke at length about the Umbrella Revolution, affirmed the "fish ball revolution" and other acts of violence and, what is more, rationalized and legitimized all these acts. May I ask these Members why they have to cling to the 1 200-strong EC, given their terrible assessment of LEUNG Chun-ying, who was selected by 1 200 people and called by them as "689", and so many mistakes committed by him? Why did they disapprove of the implementation of universal suffrage simply because there was screening? In my opinion, these Members were actually bogus democrats. The biased administration of the Government is precisely attributed to the vetoing of the constitutional reform package by them last year. If they were critical of the terrible performance of the current-term Government and LEUNG Chun-ying, why did they not allow the 3 million-odd people to participate in the elections, but instead retain the 1 200-strong EC? Hence, these Members are actually applying double standards.

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

5766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please pause for a while. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I would like to raise a point of order.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): What is your point of order?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I hope Mr WONG Kwok-hing … I could not hear him clearly … He said C Y has once commented that should the 3 million-odd people be allowed to vote indiscriminately, interests will be skewed to one side. In other words, the poor will only choose poor people as their representatives, and hence the interest of the business sector will be compromised …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this is not a point of order. Please sit down.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Can he make a clarification?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Those comments were made by LEUNG Chun-ying publicly. He was scolding LEUNG Chun-ying.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down. Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Will he make a clarification? He cannot scold LEUNG Chun-ying in this way. The Chief Executive cannot be scolded casually.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5767

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please sit down. Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is one of those pan-democrat Members who have accepted "dark money". Not only did these Members uphold "money politics" and their vested interests, but they also opposed the constitutional reform package …

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request him to clarify if he was implying that I had accepted "dark money" from Jimmy LAI. Was he blaming me for the comment made by C Y that interests would be skewed to one side if people earning a monthly income of below $14,000 could select the Chief Executive freely? Has he eaten "shit"?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please do not interrupt Mr WONG Kwok-hing's speech. What you raised just now was not a point of order.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I was only requesting him to make a clarification. He may decline to do so.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Point of order. He needs not make a clarification should he indicate no intention of doing so. However, he was not supposed to chid LEUNG Chun-ying, who has already said …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please sit down. Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.

5768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, will you please enforce the Rules of Procedure (RoP) and stop LEUNG Kwok-hung from interrupting me.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Hence, all people in Hong Kong, including all wage earners, must understand that LEUNG Chun-ying actually seeks to carry out reform. We can see that Mr LEUNG of the current-term Government is a bold reformer. Before all else, he is challenging real estate hegemony by identifying land …

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up again)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please pause for a while. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point of order?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Right. Although I remember a Legislative Council Member may tell a lie in delivering his speech according to the rules governing our discussions, can he tell a better lie? May I ask the Legal Adviser if there is such a rule? Although a Member may tell a lie in delivering his speech according to the RoP, can he tell a better lie? Is there such a provision? It seems to be Rule 94 of the RoP … Is the Legal Adviser present?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, since you are unable to prove that he is telling a lie, would you please sit down. Please do not interrupt the speeches delivered by other Members again, or I will consider you to have behaved in a disorderly manner.

Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please continue.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5769

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): There is no helping it. Since I have stepped on Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's tail, he will definitely jump up.

Deputy President, Mr LEUNG is actually a bold reformer who dares sail against the tide. Despite the adversity he faced after taking office, he is still determined to challenge real estate hegemony, identify land for housing construction, impose taxes, and even introduce the "double curbs" measures. Faced with dark political forces advocating independence for Hong Kong and "anti-communism", he still insists on his course of work. We have never heard voices calling for the resignation of the Chief Executive throughout the entire term of the Legislative Council except this one. Actually, there is an intrinsic link between the 79-day unlawful Occupy action, the anti-government voices heard throughout the entire term of the Legislative Council, and the occurrence of riot incidents in Mong Kok on the first day of the Lunar New Year. Hence, I would like to recommend this book, Reflections on Occupy Central《佔中反思 錄》 , again to all the people in Hong Kong, so that they can understand what was really going on. Under such circumstances, the FTU will exert all efforts to strive for the selection of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote". If the selection of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" can be implemented expeditiously, labour problems will be readily resolved rather than being dragged on and on, as is the case now. In fact, the Labour Party, the Civic Party, the Democratic Party and the League of Social Democrats are all protecting the vested interests, especially the interests of the real estate developers and bourgeoisie. They have absolutely no sincerity to look after the interests of the people of Hong Kong, not to mention the wage earners. There is no need for them to propose various amendments. Actually, all problems can be resolved if they support the selection of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote".

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

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I would like Mr WONG Kwok-hing to clarify a comment, for he has not indicated whether or not he will make a clarification.

5770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have used up your speaking time.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Because he smeared the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive said that people earning a monthly income of below $14,000 … will he make a clarification?

I may request him to make a clarification under the RoP. Meanwhile, he criticized me for accepting "dark money" …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, do you intend to make a clarification?

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): I strongly condemn Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung for disrupting my speech and the order of this Council.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing is YUAN Mu …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please sit down. Does any other Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Members for their views on the rule of law and the work of the Department of Justice in other aspects. Given the time constraint, I will now give a brief response.

I believe most of the people of Hong Kong will agree that the rule of law is a core value of Hong Kong. The SAR Government has been committed to safeguarding the rule of law, human rights and judicial independence. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5771

Paragraph 258 of the Policy Address reiterates "The Government will continue to uphold Hong Kong's core values such as human rights, freedom, democracy, the rule law and clean governance. It will fully and faithfully implement the principles of 'one country, two systems', 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong' and a high degree of autonomy in accordance with the Basic Law." However, respect for the rule of law and safeguarding the rule of law should not merely be slogans or some meaningless catchphrases. Respect for the rule of law is a spirit, a culture and a principle which everyone in a civilized society should take actions to support and safeguard. It is equally important that the rule of law should not be politicized, and political aspirations should not be decorated as an excuse to sabotage the rule of law. Most unfortunately, the riot on the first and second days of the Chinese New Year has brought a new round of shocks and challenges to the rule of law in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. While the incident certainly warrants reflection by the entire Hong Kong society on it from different angles, no political philosophy and aspiration can ever be a defence for violent acts. On this note, I hope Members will not forget how Mr Justice Patrick CHAN, the then Acting Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, interpreted freedom of expression in the case of CHOW Nok Hang. The judgment starts with the following remarks in the first paragraph. Here is the verbatim:

"The freedom of expression may take many forms. As was involved in the present case, they include the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and the freedom of demonstration. The right to the freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 27 of the Basic Law and Article 17 of the Bill of Rights. This is a fundamental right to enable any person to air his grievances and to express his views on matters of public interest. In a free and democratic society, there are bound to be conflicts of interest and differences in opinion. It is important that those who purport to exercise the right to the freedom of expression must also respect the rights of others and must not abuse such right. Conflicts and differences are to be resolved through dialogue and compromise. Resorting to violence or threat of violence or breach of the peace in the exercise of this right will not advance one's cause. On the contrary, this will weaken the merits of the cause and result in loss of sympathy and support. The means to achieve a legitimate end must not only be peaceful, it must also be lawful. Violent or unlawful means cannot justify an end however noble. It may also attract criminal liability."

5772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Simply put, Mr Justice CHAN pointed out that conflicts of interest and differences in opinion are an integral part of a free and democratic society. It is important to respect others' rights when exercising one's right to the freedom of expression, which must not be abused. Conflicts and differences should be resolved through dialogue and compromise. The use of violence or behaviour disrupting the harmony of society will not make one's cause more convincing; instead, violence will weaken its validity and rid it of support. The means to achieve a rightful end must be peaceful and lawful. Violence and illegal means will not legitimize a goal, no matter how lofty it is. It may even incur criminal liability.

I believe most people do not wish to see any more violent acts in the future. Therefore, I hope that when we reflect on the Mong Kok incident and consider what ways and forms to use to express our aspirations, we will bear in mind the judgment made by Mr Justice CHAN and refrain from directly or indirectly promoting and encouraging unlawful behaviour.

Mr Gary FAN has mentioned in his speech that the rule of law comes in different levels. Such a notion did receive a fair amount of discussion in the past. It is, however, crystal clear and beyond any doubt that violent behaviour can never be in line with the spirit of the rule of law.

Mr Vincent FANG has spoken on the prosecution work in relation to the Occupy action in his speech. I would like to thank Mr FANG for his views and will make two points in response. First, the Department of Justice, in making a decision of prosecution, must consider whether the evidence gathered through police investigation satisfies statutory requirements. I was once asked about this respect, for those people's acts were broadcast on television. If one has attended the court trial of a criminal case he will understand that most of the time there is a certain gap between statutory requirements and common understanding. Second, some incidents related to the Occupy action are still being handled, pending further follow-up by the Police. In other words, we do not rule out the possibility of other prosecutions

Several Members have talked about judicial review. I would also like to give a brief and simple response. First, the Government has the responsibility to ensure policies and legislation are compliant with the Basic Law and other applicable laws, as well as procedural justice. Therefore, the Department of Justice seeks to provide legal advice to various government departments to assist LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5773 the Government in policy formulation. Second, in accordance with Article 35 of the Basic Law, "Hong Kong residents shall have the right to institute legal proceedings in the courts against the acts of the executive authorities and their personnel." Judicial review is one of the ways for citizens to institute legal proceedings against the executive authorities. The SAR Government has always held respect for people's right to seek judicial reviews as well as the aforementioned right conferred by Article 35 of the Basic Law. Third, judicial review is an important component of protection of the rule of law under the common law system. Citizens can seek relief from the Court through legal proceedings. Fourth, following the continuous progress of society, increasing availability of information and improvement in education levels, the general public have voiced greater concerns for government policies and personal rights. Therefore, it is perfectly understandable that the number of judicial reviews has been on a rising trend in the past 10 years. Other jurisdictions have seen similar situations. However, judicial review is, after all, a legal proceeding, which is a means to solve legal problems. Legal proceedings, including judicial review, should not be used to solve political problems and should never be politicized or used as a political tool. The politicization of legal proceedings is never conducive to protection of the rule of law, nor does it help solve political problems.

Many Members have expressed their views on the Belt and Road Initiative. I would like to give the following response from the perspective of the law and dispute resolution service.

Hong Kong is an international financial, trading and shipping centre. To maintain Hong Kong's edge in this respect, we need to make efforts in many areas, including safeguarding the rule of law, as well as enhancing the quality of legal and dispute resolution services. Other international financial centres in the world, including London and New York, attach equal importance to the work in this respect. Globalization and regional integration have added to the importance and popularity of cross-border legal service and international arbitration. International investment agreements and free trade agreements concluded in recent years also adopt mediation and arbitration as the means to resolve disputes.

The Belt and Road Initiative will have far-reaching impacts on international trades. The Asia-Pacific Region, different European countries as 5774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 well as the United Kingdom and the Unites States all pay close attention to the Belt and Road Initiative. Likewise, the legal profession and the sector of dispute resolution such as arbitration or mediation also attach importance to the development of the Belt and Road Initiative, and some members of the sector have even commenced specific work.

Hong Kong needs a plan for its development in the short, medium and long terms. The Belt and Road Initiative is a long-term proposal, but it does not mean Hong Kong needs not commence studies and planning in this aspect as soon as possible, otherwise we will fall behind other countries or cities.

Mr WONG Yuk-man said in his speech that there exists an insurmountable divide between Hong Kong and countries in Central Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe which form the Belt and Road. And the United States is also in the process of establishing The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Mr WONG cast doubts on whether it is wise for Hong Kong to focus on Central Asia and the Middle East and forsake the Pacific. I am afraid Mr WONG, in expressing such a view, has intentionally or otherwise overlooked the background and objective of the establishment of TPP, as well as the strategies adopted by the countries concerned in the TPP negotiations.

Mr Dennis KWOK has made a point about the development of international arbitration. The Department of Justice will actively push forward studies on third party funding for arbitration, with a view to promptly amending arbitration law to perfect relevant legislation in Hong Kong. Moreover, we will continue to communicate with other international arbitration agencies in order to secure Hong Kong's position in the sector of international arbitration while providing more choices to clients in conducting arbitration in Hong Kong.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Next, I will invite the remaining five public officers to speak. On the basis of the 15-minute speaking time for each officer, together with the speaking time for the speech just made by the Secretary for Justice, they may speak for up to a total of 90 minutes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5775

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am going to make a few points in response to the speeches delivered by Members in the fifth debate session on the scope of work of the Constitutional and Mainland Bureau.

Firstly, insofar as constitutional development is concerned, the Government of the current term has, in accordance with the Basic Law and the constitutional duty conferred by the relevant Interpretations and Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), conducted relevant consultations and proposed bills in relation to the 2017 Chief Executive Election and the 2016 Legislative Council Election. In the past two years or so, the very heated discussions held in Hong Kong society about constitutional development have given rise to a lot of conflicts and controversies. With the vetoing of the constitutional reform package by the Legislative Council in the middle of last year, the Government of the current term will not restart constitutional reform during this term. As regards when and what objective conditions should be fulfilled before Hong Kong can restart discussions of constitutional reform on the basis of the Basic Law and the relevant Interpretations and Decision of the NPCSC, it is worthwhile for different sectors of the community to learn a lesson, gain experience and make reflections.

When the constitutional reform package was scrutinized by the Legislative Council on 16 June last year, I proposed that in order to successfully restart constitutional reform in an unknown future, three foundations must be built properly: Firstly, a common foundation in law; secondly, a foundation of mutual trust; and thirdly, an effective communication foundation. I believe joint efforts must be made by various sectors of the community to build these three foundations properly before the activation of the constitutional reform can achieve solid effects.

Secondly, on the electorate bases of functional constituencies (FCs), public consultations were already held by the Government from 2013 to 2014 on the two electoral methods, including the composition of FCs and electorate bases. Among the written submissions received by us, there were relatively few comprehensive and in-depth discussions about the electorate bases of FCs, and the contents of the submissions were relatively divided. In addition, society might currently be unable to reach a consensus on the making of significant changes to the electorate bases of FCs.

5776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

In view of this, in preparation for the Legislative Council general election to be held in September this year, the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2015 was already submitted to the Legislative Council in April last year for certain necessary technical amendments to be made for the Legislative Council general election, including the updating of the FC voter registration lists. Actually, the Bill was already passed by the Legislative Council in July last year.

Hence, it is impossible, in terms of time, procedure and politics, for significant changes to be made at this stage to the electorate base of the Legislative Council Election to be held in only a few months' time. More importantly, I have been given to understand that Mr SIN Chung-kai and Mr Kenneth LEUNG have the intention of, in connection with the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Bill 2015 which is currently being scrutinized by the Bills Committee, proposing Committee stage amendments in relation to the election to be held by the Election Committee at the end of this year, so that some significant changes can be made. Such amendments are not in conformity with the technical amendments we mentioned just now and, from the point of law, absolutely not in conformity with the scope of amendments specified in the long title of the Bill under scrutiny now. Hence, such amendments cannot be proposed. Neither will they be acceptable to us.

As for the sexual orientation discrimination mentioned by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, I believe Mr CHAN has also noted that the report submitted by the Advisory Group on Eliminating Discrimination against Sexual Minorities to the Government in December last year and the Feasibility Study on Legislating against Discrimination on the Grounds of Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status published by the Equal Opportunities Commission were already discussed by the Panel on Constitutional Affairs in late December last year. Not only were these two reports introduced in detail at the meeting of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs on 15 February, but Members have also fully expressed their preliminary views on the reports.

These two reports will be studied and examined carefully and given joint consideration by the Administration, so that more comprehensive research materials will be provided for future consultations and discussions held in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5777 community. In the meantime, we will certainly continue to enhance publicity activities conducted among the public in connection with discrimination against sexual minorities and provide additional training pinpointing professional sectors, such as social workers, education, healthcare, manpower resources management, and so on. In addition, we will also start planning and considering if anti-discrimination charters, and so on, should be introduced on a voluntary basis. We will follow up all these efforts.

Lastly, I would like to make a brief comment in response to Mr Michael TIEN who is not present at the moment. After listening to the song sung by him before concluding his speech, I searched the Internet and found that the several lines of lyrics were actually taken out of the context. According to the information I have got from the Internet, "Blowin' In The Wind", which was an anti-war song composed in the 1960s, seeks mainly to promote the message of peace. Although it is stated in the chorus that the answer can be found in the title of the song, whether or not this can be done is still controversial. Nonetheless, the general spirit and historical background of the song is to promote anti-war messages, such as non-violence, love, peace, and so on. If the song is used to refer to the violent incidents that occurred in Mong Kok on the first and second days of the Lunar New Year, it is not wrong for Mr Michael TIEN to quote it. Nonetheless, he might need to pay attention to the rest of the lyrics.

Deputy President, I so submit.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Members, I will give a response as follows on legal aid and district administration mentioned by Members earlier on.

The policy objective of legal aid is to ensure that no one with reasonable grounds for pursuing or defending a legal action is denied access to justice because of a lack of means. To qualify for legal aid, a person is required by law to satisfy the means and merits tests as provided by the Legal Aid Ordinance.

Apart from making continuous commitment to provide legal aid and free legal advice service, the Government will introduce two new measures in the coming year, namely, the inclusion of the Pilot Scheme to Provide Legal Advice 5778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 for Litigants in Person (LIPs Scheme) as a regular government programme, and an increase in criminal legal aid fees.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

The Home Affairs Bureau launched the LIPs Scheme in March 2013 to provide legal advice to unrepresented litigants. Feedback from clients and the Judiciary has been positive. Therefore, in the light of the recommendation of the Steering Committee on the Provision of Legal Advice for Litigants in Person, we will include the LIPs Scheme as a regular government programme starting from 2016-2017 and retitle it as the Legal Advice Scheme for Unrepresented Litigants on Civil Procedures, and as a first step, the scope of service of the LIPs Scheme has been expanded since September 2015 to cover proceedings in the Lands Tribunal, and also the commencement of proceedings in the Lands Tribunal, the District Court and higher courts for the benefit of more people.

On the increase in criminal legal aid fees, the working group formed by the Home Affairs Bureau has completed the review and recommended a package of proposals on an increase in the criminal legal aid fees, with the aim of attracting more experienced legal professionals to provide legal representation for criminal legal aid cases and enhancing the quality of criminal law professionals in Hong Kong in the longer term. This is also an area over which Mr Dennis KWOK has expressed concern earlier.

With regard to the timetable, we will brief the Legislative Council Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services on the outcome of the review and the detailed proposals next week on 22 February and we plan to introduce the proposed legislative amendments in the second quarter of 2016. We hope that the legislative amendments can be passed in this Legislative Session in order to give effect to the proposed increases as soon as possible.

On district administration, District Councils (DCs) are an important partner of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) in administration and play a pivotal role in promoting the development of Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5779

In respect of district administration, the SAR Government will continue to enhance the roles and functions of the DCs in the new DC term, and District-led Actions Scheme will be implemented in the 18 districts. Given that the implementation of the pilot scheme in Sham Shui Po and Yuen Long has produced most positive results and are well-received by the communities, the Government will extend the scheme to all the 18 districts and retitle it as the District-led Actions Scheme to highlight the leading role of the districts. The District Management Committees (DMCs) chaired by District Officers and the DCs have convened meetings one after another to discuss the details of the new scheme in order for the DMCs to make early decisions on the projects to be implemented under the scheme.

From informal consultation conducted in various districts, issues requiring actions in the 18 districts mainly concern environmental hygiene, shop front extensions, mosquito control, illegal bicycle parking, "three-nil" buildings, street sleepers, and so on. The Government has earmarked funds for the implementation of this new scheme in the 18 districts. The Home Affairs Department will recruit additional staff to provide support.

Mr IP Kwok-him said that the projects under the Signature Project Scheme, which are proposed by the DCs, have been well-received by the public. These projects, which cover cultural, recreational and elderly facilities, are closely related to the people's livelihood but 13 of the projects are still pending deliberation by the Legislative Council. The Government hopes that the Legislative Council will expeditiously return to the right track and deal with these projects that will benefit the public. Thank you, President.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I will make a few points on the policy area and policy initiatives relating to security affairs.

Comprehensive review of strategy of handling non-refoulement claims

Since the launch of the unified screening mechanism in March 2014, the number of claimants has substantially increased by more than three times. As at the end of 2015, the number of claimants pending screening has reached almost 11 000.

5780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

The Government has been allocating additional resources to the handling of non-refoulement claims, including the provision of publicly-funded legal assistance. In 2015-2016, the relevant expenditure has increased to about $640 million. The continual increase in the number of stranded claimants committing various offences in Hong Kong, coupled with abuse of the screening procedures, has aroused public concern about social and public order issues brought about by the claimants.

An indefinite increase in the provision of resources is unable to solve the problem. We consider that it is necessary to review the strategy of handling non-refoulement claims on all fronts and at root, looking into the matter in four dimensions, namely, pre-arrival control, screening procedures, detention, and enforcement and removal, with a view to putting forward targeted recommendations to resolve the problem, and to amend the relevant legislation to plug every loophole which is now being exploited. Earlier on, I have already given a detailed account of the scope of review to the Panel on Security.

Given the breadth of the review, we propose creating in the Security Bureau a supernumerary post of Principal Assistant Secretary for Security and a supernumerary post of Assistant Director of Immigration for a period of three years to be tasked with the relevant work and, as far as possible, expedite the screening work under the existing legal requirements before the law is amended.

We hope to first complete the introduction of the pre-arrival registration arrangement in 2016-2017 and update the definition of "unauthorized entrants" under the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115). At the same time, we will endeavour to complete the drafting of laws for, amongst others, tightening the screening procedures and enhancing the power of detention within 2016-2017 and submit the Bill to the Legislative Council for scrutiny in 2017-2018, with a view to implementing it by 2018-2019. In the meanwhile, we will step up enforcement against illegal immigration and co-operate with departments such as the consulate generals and law enforcement agencies of the source countries, so as to further speed up the screening work within existing resources.

Setting up a Junior Police Call Permanent Activity Centre and Integrated Youth Training Camp and increasing number of school liaison officers

To nurture young people's awareness of fighting and preventing crime, sense of social responsibility and leadership, the Police will enhance the work on Junior Police Call and the youth.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5781

The Police will convert the Pat Heung Fire Services Training School into a Junior Police Call Permanent Activity Centre and Integrated Youth Training Camp, providing discipline, physical and team-building training for the youth. Service targets of the centre include Junior Police Call members, students and youth organizations, as well as ethnic minorities and Senior Police Call members. The centre is expected to commence operation in phases in 2017. Besides, the Police will increase the number of school liaison officers from 104 at present to 125. The ratio of school liaison officers to primary and secondary schools will be raised from the present 1:11 to 1:9 to enhance services for schools and students.

Relaxation of upper age limit of Category B security personnel

To put in place one of the measures relating to the population policy, last year the Security and Guarding Services Industry Authority amended the criteria for issuing a security personnel permit under the Security and Guarding Services Ordinance, raising the upper age limit of Category B security personnel from 65 to 70 and requiring permit holders aged 65 or above to receive medical check on a biennial basis. The relevant amendment took effect upon gazettal on 18 December last year. To date, the Police Licensing Office has received more than 5 000 applications, of which more than 95% have been processed and approved.

Attracting talent from outside Hong Kong

Since May last year, we have implemented a series of measures to facilitate outside talent, professionals and entrepreneurs in coming to and staying in Hong Kong, thereby building up Hong Kong's human capital in response to the population challenges of an ageing population and a shrinking workforce. Among them, the Admission Scheme for the Second Generation of Chinese Hong Kong Permanent Residents was launched in May last year. As at the end of last year, the Immigration Department (ImmD) has received about 210 applications in total, of which 108 have been approved. The scheme has been well received.

To step up external publicity, during her visit to the Netherlands and Belgium in May and Australia in September last year, the Chief Secretary for Administration specially introduced the Admission Scheme for the Second Generation of Chinese Hong Kong Permanent Residents to the second generation of Hong Kong immigrants. When I visited Canada in November last year, I also 5782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 briefed the second generation of Hong Kong immigrants and other people interested in pursuing development in Hong Kong on various immigration schemes. The ImmD will continue its efforts in external publicity and actively promote the relevant schemes.

Mong Kok riot

During the debate over the past three days, many Members have talked about the Mong Kok riot which took place in the early hours of 9 February. The incident has posed the most severe challenge to the rule of law and public order in Hong Kong since the reunification, shocking everyone in the territory. Various sectors of society echoed their strong condemnation of it. During those 10 hours or so, the rioters illegally assembled over a large area in Mong Kok, violently charged at the police cordon lines with all kinds of home-made weapons, bricks and hard objects, wantonly attacked police officers, vandalized shops, set fires at various locations, damaged police vehicles and set fire to a taxi. The incident caused injuries to more than 90 police officers and a few media workers. A large number of people were sent to the hospital for emergency treatment. Among them, a police officer even needed emergency surgery. As at 18 February, the Police have arrested a total of 70 people who allegedly took part in the incident, 43 of whom were prosecuted for riot and unlawful assembly. The Police are now proceeding with criminal investigation and gathering evidence with full efforts to apprehend other rioters at large.

The Panel on Security of the Legislative Council held a special meeting on 16 February, at which a motion was passed. The motion condemns "the rioters for their blatant defiance of the law and reckless disregard for people's life and safety as they violently attacked law enforcement officers and journalists, set fires in multiple locations and damaged public properties, which seriously endangered public safety and social order; expresses gratitude to members of the Police who, in such difficult and dangerous situations, remained steadfast in their duties and spared no effort in maintaining social peace and upholding the rule of law in Hong Kong; fully supports the Police in their efforts to strictly enforce the law, and calls on them to expeditiously bring all the rioters to justice; at the same time, this Panel urges the Security Bureau to increase manpower for handling riots and upgrade Police equipment, so as to safeguard the personal safety of members of the public and police officers on duty, and to maintain social peace". We will follow up the motion. On the same day, the Panel on Security of the Legislative Council negatived a motion for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5783

(SAR) Government setting up an independent commission of inquiry to investigate the incident. The SAR Government does not see the need to set up an independent commission of inquiry. The Police are conducting a criminal investigation into the incident. Moreover, a review committee, led by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, has been set up to comprehensively review various aspects of the operation, including deployment, tactics, equipment and manpower, in order to meet future operational needs.

President, the Mong Kok riot has aroused widespread concern in the territory. While the Police bring the rioters to justice, I hope we can reflect on the matter together and come to understand that violent protests will not lead to any way out. After the violent acts, Hong Kong will only be hurt more with more bloodshed. President, Hong Kong is our home. Every member of the public should cherish Hong Kong and detest violence. We cannot allow any incident similar to the Mong Kok riot to happen again.

President, I so submit.

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Cantonese): President, here I will give a brief response to the views raised by several Members just now on civil service affairs. First of all, on behalf of all my colleagues in the Civil Service, I thank Mr Tony TSE and Mr CHAN Hak-kan for the care and regards they have extended to us and for their recognition and encouragement. Mr TSE has mentioned his concern that the "0-1-1" programme will lead to a manpower shortage and affect the standard of our service delivery to the public.

President, I wish to take this opportunity to clarify once again that the main purpose of this programme is to release resources to support new services through reprioritizing or streamlining the procedures without affecting the service standard after examining the types and modes of services by the departments. If individual departments are unable to achieve this effect under the actual circumstances, we will not deal with it rigidly across the board. Hence, the allegation that the programme merely seeks to reduce manpower, I believe, is not a comprehensive and accurate interpretation.

President, what I have just said is founded on facts. In 2015-2016, the total number of posts in the Civil Service exceeds 176 000, having increased by 1.5% over the previous year and hitting a record high in recent years. These 5784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 figures serve as clear proof that we did not attempt to reduce manpower. Neither did we cap the civil service establishment.

As usual, this year we will distribute the new resources according to the overall financial condition and operational needs of the departments under the established mechanism. We expect further growth of the civil service establishment in 2016-2017, the details of which will be disclosed in the Budget to be announced next week.

Apart from posts, we certainly will not forget that timely training, facilities, equipment and opportunities of experience sharing can also help the departments to respond to emergencies. We will pay attention to this point. I also believe this approach can cater for the situation mentioned by Mr James TIEN and is conducive to our manpower deployment and speed of response in major events.

President, Mr POON Siu-ping has briefly highlighted several points. Here I would just like to respond to two of these points. The first point raised by Mr POON Siu-ping is about the employment situation of non-civil service contract staff, which has been discussed in detail at the panel meetings. According to the latest statistics, currently we have 12 000 employees of this type, representing a substantial decrease of 35% when compared with the peak period (that is, 2006). During our discussion with the panel, we have reached a consensus with Members that we should focus on dealing with employees who have been employed for a long period, which is five years or longer. At present, the number of such employees is 4 000. Regarding the reasons for their appointment, in some cases it is because of uncertainties for their service which is affected by fluctuations in the market. In some cases, it is because there are time-limited projects. In some other cases, a review of the service items is being conducted, and in some more other cases, there is no civil servant within the government structure who can take up the responsibility for the relevant services. We will continue our work in this regard through discussions with the panel and liaison with the staff side so that this mode of employment can achieve our expected effects in terms of both structure and figures.

The second point, also the last point, is about Mr POON Siu-ping's mention of the healthcare service for civil servants. In this connection, President, I would like to emphasize that apart from this being an obligation to the civil servants which the Special Administrative Region Government needs to fulfil under the employment contract, if we can help civil servants who have fallen ill LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5785 to recover their physical fitness for work as early as possible, it can minimize the impact on our manpower deployment and standard of service delivery. For this reason, over the past few years, with the assistance of the Department of Health and the Hospital Authority, we have done a lot of work in this regard. Let me cite two simple examples. The first one is, for general out-patient service, in 2009 we had three clinics and 20 consultation rooms. It is expected that in 2018-2019, there will be five clinics and 44 consultation rooms. Simply put, the number will double in nine years. The relevant service network will also spread evenly with one clinic on Hong Kong Island, one in Kowloon and the rest in the New Territories East, West and North. This arrangement will improve the services to which our colleagues are entitled in terms of both quality and quantity.

Another example is the dental service. In 2009, the total number of dental surgery rooms was 170. Now there are 230, representing a significant increase of 35% within seven years. The referral work generated from the surgery room services is also mentioned in this year's Policy Address. Besides, ancillary facilities are also available for the specialist dental service. The number of surgery rooms will be substantially increased from five at present to seven, all of which will come into operation in 2018. This will have notable effects in more complicated cases. Both measures demonstrate our meticulous attention in addressing the demands of 500 000 civil servants and eligible persons.

As regards the Chinese medicine service mentioned by Mr POON, President, we have already explained it clearly in our reply to Members' enquiries in the panel. Since this type of service is not currently provided under the institutional structure of public hospitals, we do not think it is the most appropriate time to review at the present stage whether this type of service should be included in the medical benefits for civil servants. Nevertheless, we will pay close attention to the development of this matter, and we will actively follow up the work in this regard after a clear positioning has been set for Chinese medicine in the policy.

President, I so submit.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank the five Secretaries of Departments for their succinct speeches, allowing me enough time to speak my mind freely in this session of debate as suggested by Mr Andrew LEUNG in his first speech.

5786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

The annual debate on the motion on the Policy Address is drawing to an end. As in the past, all the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux and I have listened attentively to the views expressed by Members with a humble heart, which will facilitate our examination and formulation of policies. Specific to the speeches made by certain Members, we have given appropriate responses to set the record straight.

President, this is the fourth time I am speaking in my capacity as Chief Secretary for Administration in the fifth session of the annual debate on the Motion of Thanks on the Policy Address, covering the themes of the rule of law, governance, elections and district administration. I have reviewed the speeches I made in the past three years, and I noted that I had touched on the core values of Hong Kong, including the rule of law, human rights, probity, judicial independence, freedom of the press and the freedom of speech, and so on. I must reiterate that these core values are vitally important to Hong Kong remaining a society with clear advantages and competitiveness and one that upholds justice and advocates fairness. A government pursuing good governance should never take this subject lightly. These core values are also key elements for maintaining an effective business environment in Hong Kong and attracting inward investments continuously.

This presentation is not a mere word-by-word reading from the script but my personal experience gained in the past three years or so during the overseas visits I made to promote Hong Kong, through the reception of local and overseas organizations in the political and commercial sectors, as well as international organizations, in Hong Kong and during my service as Chairman of the International Business Committee. Hence, the SAR Government has been endeavouring to protect these core values, ensure effective governance and establish a favourable business environment, for this is not merely the constitutional duty it has to fulfil under the Basic Law but also a way to safeguard the cornerstone underpinning the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. In view of the riot that occurred in the small hours on the second day of the Chinese New Year in Mong Kok, I must stress that the Government fully supports the work of the Police in maintaining order to ensure that Hong Kong's reputation as one of the safest cities in the world will not be tarnished by the illegal behaviour of a small group of violent elements.

President, the Secretary for Justice, the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, the Secretary for Home Affairs, the Secretary for Security and the Secretary for Civil Service have given responses in connection with their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5787 respective policy areas earlier, I will thus focus on the discussion of the relationship between the executive and the legislature and the present deadlock. Yet I would like to give a brief account on the determination of the SAR Government to maintain probity and respond to the remarks made by a few Members.

As I said earlier, probity is the core value of Hong Kong, which is also a significant element in maintaining our competitiveness. The SAR Government's keen determination to combat corruption is beyond doubt.

The corruption prevention mechanism in Hong Kong is proven and known for its strictness. Since its establishment 42 years ago, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) has all along made proactive efforts to fight corruption and advocate probity through omni-directional policies. The ICAC has not only been resolute and rigorous in fighting corruption and law enforcement, but has also established complete and comprehensive rules and regulations to eliminate corruption loopholes. The ICAC has also engaged deeply in the community to secure popular support in maintaining a corruption-free society by imparting to them the scourge of corruption.

The Government attaches great importance to the public's view on corruption. We note that some corruption cases in recent years involve former senior government officials or personages in the commercial sector, and these may affect the community's impression about the degree of cleanliness in Hong Kong. However, I would like to point out that those cases …

(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary, please pause for a while. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have a point of order.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): What is your point of order?

5788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It is related to the Basic Law.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please state your point immediately.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It is about the Basic Law.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): What is your point?

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Is a quorum present now?

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

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

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

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, yet I would like to point out that those cases are only individual cases, which do not reflect that the actual probity situation in Hong Kong has deteriorated. On the contrary, those cases bear testimony to the fact that Hong Kong has a comprehensive system to fight corruption and the ICAC will enforce the law impartially irrespective of the background, status or position of the persons involved in corruption. Meanwhile, the judgments handed down by the Court in those cases have manifested the impartiality and independence of the Judiciary and the sound criminal judicial system in Hong Kong.

According to a survey conducted by an independent organization, the 2015 ICAC Annual Survey, Hong Kong society is in general corruption-free today. Among the 1 433 respondents, only 1.3% of the respondents said that they had LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5789 come across corruption in the past 12 months, which is 0.2 percentage point lower than the previous year, showing that the occurrence of corruption is still extremely low in Hong Kong. On the other hand, the public maintain a high awareness of corruption, and almost all respondents (99%) considered that keeping society corruption-free is important to the overall development of Hong Kong. Respondents are highly intolerant of corruption, yet for young people aged between 15 and 24, they are more tolerant of corruption, and this warrants attention.

In view of this, the ICAC will introduce two new measures, that is, to organize an integrated online-offline programme to engage primary, secondary and tertiary students in multimedia productions to help promote probity messages, including integrity, honesty, fairness, law compliance and self-discipline, and to set up a youth chapter under the ICAC Club to further enhance the engagement of young people in the anti-corruption cause through participation in ICAC activities or voluntary work.

Next, President, I will respond to the speeches made by a number of Members. I would like to stress that my response in debates in the Legislative Council or my refuting of remarks made by Members are not mere squabbling, for what I seek to do is to make the discussions in the legislature more pragmatic. However, there may be times the facts I provide are not music to the ears of some pan-democrat Members.

Mr Albert HO is concerned whether the Environment Bureau is being powerless in taking forward environmental protection work though it has the will to do so, for the Bureau may not have rein over other Policy Bureaux. This is not true. In recent years, the Environment Bureau has formulated the blueprint on air quality, waste management and energy efficiency, with most of the projects involving inter-bureau co-operation. As the Chief Secretary for Administration, I will render my greatest support to the Environment Bureau, which includes chairing the Steering Committee to Promote Sustainable Development of Recycling Industry and the steering committee to be set up soon for addressing climate change. Due to the time constraint today, I cannot provide the details of the committee to Ms Cyd HO, yet the Government is more than willing to report to the Legislative Council later.

In the two debate sessions that saw my attendance, a number of Members said, "Good, the Chief Secretary for Administration is here, I have to tell her something." Since the subjects of concern to them involve inter-bureau and 5790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 inter-departmental efforts, they feel concerned about the lack of co-ordination among departments. I fully understand the concerns of Members and I agree that there is room for improvement in co-operation among departments. After all, it is the expectation of the public that the Government governing a city with a population of close to 7.2 million will aim for same targets and work as one to tackle problems faced by the public instead of each working in their own way.

In the past three years or so, I had regularly chaired meetings of policy committees and senior echelons on resource allocation. In addition, I co-ordinated the poverty alleviation work and population policy of the Government, as well as its co-operation with the Mainland. I had also convened inter-bureau and inter-departmental meetings on specific subjects when necessary, such as for the rehabilitation services for pre-primary children and the lead in drinking water incident in public housing estates that occurred in the latter half of last year, to jointly identifying measures in the best interest of the public. To enhance governance, I will continue to work hard in this aspect.

A number of Members from the pan-democratic camp established a direct relationship between the riot in Mong Kok and the ineffective governance of the Government. In response to this, I have to state that no governance is perfect, whereas taking heed of the wide range of public views and making continued improvement is the cornerstone for good governance. Though the governance of the Government may be less than desirable, it does not mean that the heartrending violent incident that occurred before our eyes can be packaged as "a rebel of people oppressed by the Government" or "an act to resist tyranny by force", or a clash between the Police and the people resulted from the tyranny of the Government.

As in the previous years, Mr Dennis KWOK has expressed in his speech concern about the resource allocation for the Judiciary. Due to the time constraint, I would only point out that the support rendered by the SAR Government to the Judiciary is well recognized by the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal. In the speech delivered by the Chief Justice Geoffrey MA at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2016, he said, and I quote, "The Government has over the years fully supported the needs of the Judiciary, and we acknowledge and are grateful for this support." (end of quote) Hence, Mr Dennis KWOK can rest assured that the Government will continue to respond to the resource demand of the Judiciary in future in a proactive and positive manner to ensure the effective operation of the Judiciary.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5791

A number of Members from the labour sector have expressed disappointment with the Policy Address this year. As the Secretary for Labour and Welfare stressed in the reply he made last night, the Government understands full well the demands and concerns of the labour sector in pursuing continuous improvement of labour rights and benefits. I would like to reiterate that the Government attaches great importance to the protection of labour rights and the establishment of a harmonious relationship between employers and employees. We will endeavour to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of employees and the affordability of employers and gradually improve the rights and protection of employees in line with the economy of Hong Kong and the pace of social development.

President, in drafting the speech on the relationship between the executive and the legislature, I did experience some sort of a mental struggle. I could choose to follow the previous line, reiterating that the Government will definitely respect the functions and constitutional powers of the Legislative Council, welcome monitoring by Members of the Legislative Council, accept the criticisms of Members, strengthen the communication and dialogue with various political parties and individual Members and provide figures on attendance of government officials at various meetings, big or small, held by the Legislative Council and the number of questions they have answered. If I choose to speak along this line instead of making criticisms of Members from the pan-democratic camp, which I have done recently, it will definitely be safer, and I may avoid inviting additional and more unreasonable personal attacks. Like Dr KWOK Ka-ki, he has spent three minutes and 40 seconds to scold me. However, as the Chief Secretary for Administration, in the annual Policy Address debate on governance, I cannot turn a blind eye to the delay faced by the SAR Government as a result of the full-scale filibuster launched by Members from the pan-democratic camp in the past year. I cannot remain silent in view of the unfair criticisms borne by politically appointed officials and colleagues in the Civil Service. As I said in the debate on "lead in drinking water in public rental housing" held some time ago, remarks that should be made should be made. Hence, I have chosen to make the following remarks which I believe will be described as "provocative" by Members from the pan-democratic camp.

In the past three years, as the Chairman of the House Committee, Mr Andrew LEUNG had earnestly and sincerely reminded in the speeches he made in first debate sessions that the relationship between the executive and the legislature did not have to be antagonistic, for he considered smooth 5792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 administration by the Government required collaboration from the Legislative Council. At the debate on the Motion of Thanks on the policy address last year, some Members lamented that the relationship between the executive and the legislature was in the middle of an ice age or at its lowest ebb. At that time, I responded that, "I do not agree that the relationship between the executive and the legislature is in an impasse where co-operation between the two is an utter failure," yet I had also pointed out that "filibustering at meetings of the Finance Committee and its two subcommittees" carried out by Members from the pan-democratic camp, "resulting in a backlog of items in the Finance Committee and its subcommittees and quite a number of livelihood initiatives cannot be implemented as scheduled. All such attempts have adversely affected the relationship between the executive and the legislature, which I find the situation worrying." In the past year, the situation was deteriorating, where filibusters had extended to meetings of the Legislative Council, pushing the operation of the Legislative Council to the brink of a paralysis.

In his first speech in the debate this year, it seems that Mr Andrew LEUNG has accepted the reality that the relationship between the executive and the legislature has been plunged into a deadlock. He said that the lowest is yet to come and the administration of the Government has been made extremely difficult, and he thus urged Members to "become rational again" and "take into account the interests of Hong Kong above everything else". Recently, I have heard a lot of discourses on the overall "interests of Hong Kong". The former member of the Civic Party, Ronny TONG, Senior Counsel, who has withdrawn from the line of fire, said in an interview on the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 with the electronic media that, and I quote to this effect, "Members can act irresponsibly but not the Government, and the Government should still give priority to the overall interest." (end of quote)

In fact, since the reunification, on all subjects involving the relationship between the executive and the legislature, the Government has acted in a responsible and tolerant manner giving priority to the overall interest. Let me cite a few examples.

First, regarding the amendments proposed by Members to bills, the Government stated clearly to the Legislative Council as early as 1999 that the Government considered the provision under Article 74 of the Basic Law should cover amendments to bills, and thus Members could not propose any amendment involving public expenditure or the operation of the Government. Regarding the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5793 amendments proposed by Members to the Appropriation Bill, more often than not, they involve public expenditure and the operation of the Government. Based on the legal advice to us, we consider that Members should not be allowed to propose those amendments. I was the officer writing to the Legislative Council on behalf of the Government at the time, for I was working in the Treasury back then. However, the Committee on Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council at the time, after conducting a study on the issue and consulting the Legal Adviser, considered that the provision under Article 74 of the Basic Law only covered bills but not amendments. The Government took exception to this opinion. Hence, wherever Members propose amendments to the Appropriation Bill ― I believe there will be no exception this year ― we will reiterate the Government's fundamental position on Article 74 of the Basic Law. Yet, to give priority to overall interest, we respect the decision of the President of the Legislative Council on whether or not amendments can be allowed, and we do not take it to court.

Second, it is about the terms of reference of the Legislative Council in amending subsidiary legislation tabled before the Legislative Council. In 2010, a Member put forth a proposed resolution to repeal the Country Parks (Designation) (Consolidation) (Amendment) Order 2010 (the Order), and the resolution was passed by the Legislative Council on 13 October 2010. The Government and the Legislative Council hold different views as to the lawfulness of repealing the Order. The Government considered that the resolution passed by the Legislative Council on 13 October 2010 to repeal the Order lacked legal basis. The Chief Secretary for Administration at the time wrote to the President of the Legislative Council expressing that although the Government respected the viewpoints of the Legislative Council and the President on the issues, we found ourselves unable to agree to them in the end. At that time, some considered that the Government should seek a ruling from the Court on the relevant legal dispute. However, after careful consideration, the Government believed that if the Government took out judicial review application on the repeal of the resolution by the Legislative Council, it might ruin the relationship between the executive and the legislature. Yet, a good relationship between the executive and the legislature is the desire of society in general and the foundation for effective governance which the Government treasures and attaches great importance. Unless it is absolutely necessary, the executive and the legislature should not lightly take the other side to court as such actions will inevitably have negative impact on the community.

5794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Third, it is about the filibuster carried out by some Members in recent years. As a responsible government, we have no alternative but to make the decision to rearrange the agenda items. An obvious example is the case where Dr Elizabeth QUAT had to take to the streets to strive for the proposal for establishing the Innovation and Technology Bureau. This initiative has a bearing on the economy of Hong Kong and is widely support by the community. It had been submitted to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council three times since 2012 but had been forced to give way due to filibuster. The proposal was eventually passed in last November, and the whole process had straddled four Legislative Sessions. The establishment of the Innovation and Technology Bureau had been delayed for many years. As a result, Hong Kong had missed some opportunities and must exert our level best to catch up. This is the reason for the Chief Executive going to great lengths in the Policy Address to talk about innovation and technology and investing a large amount of resources in the field.

President, I have cited the three examples to illustrate that to maintain and improve the relationship between the executive and the legislature, the executive has all along been giving priority to overall interest and maintaining a tolerant attitude by all means. Regrettably, our concession has not brought about greater room for collaboration, nor has our effort to make peace brought about a better relationship. Some Members from the pan-democratic camp have only gone further in taking destructive actions to deliberately hinder the administration of the Government and the implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects, simply ignoring the long-term development of Hong Kong and the well-being of the public.

Some time ago, I openly implored Members from the pan-democratic camp to fulfil their constitutional duty, yet my remarks were distorted to mean I was exerting pressure on Members and forcing them to pass the proposals of the Government. In fact, I had only quoted Article 73 of the Basic Law, which stipulates clearly that one of the functions of the Legislative Council of the SAR Government is to enact, amend or repeal laws in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law and legal procedures. It is my expectation and that of society at large that Members of the Legislative Council will fulfil their duties faithfully, attend meetings, examine and debate on proposals submitted by the Government and vote, so that proposals will be returned to the executive for implementation, achieving effective governance and taking society forward.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5795

President, as pointed out by Mr Vincent FANG earlier, many public policies are extremely complicated and controversial, so it is only natural that Members will have different views due to the different concepts they hold. The Government has never had the wild wish that 70 Members will share the same view on each of the proposals submitted by the Government, yet we should be able to agree to disagree, making decisions through the democratic process in the Legislative Council, the constitutional authority.

In the past, we and Members had divergent views on bills and we had heated debates. There were cases where a bill submitted by the Government was vetoed after thorough debate. The Marriage (Amendment) Bill 2014 which sought to allow transsexual persons who have received a full sex re-assignment surgery to be entitled to the legitimate right to marriage is a case in point. In other cases, individual provisions under the bills proposed by the Government were vetoed. The Race Discrimination Ordinance in 2008 is an example. Moreover, there were cases where Members' amendments opposed by the Government were passed, such as the case of the Interest on Arrears of Maintenance Bill 2001. But on every occasion, the Government respected the mechanism and accepted the result, so that dispute in society can come to an end and Hong Kong can move forward instead of idling in place. Why have we lost this ability to solve problems? I think some Members from the pan-democratic camp will certainly point the finger at the Chief Executive, claiming that it is his fault entirely. However, the people of Hong Kong with discerning eyes will see that the culture of the legislature has degenerated. Some Members from the pan-democratic camp resort to filibuster as a means of resistance. They refrain from attending meetings frequently, deliberately abort meetings, propose adjournments and motions to adjourn proceedings and remain indecisive. They have brought the Legislative Council to a state of imbalance, and they think that all policies or bills not to their favour should never be introduced, which is not realizing the spirit of democracy. As a result, the legislature loses the ability to solve problems for society, which is worrying and discouraging.

Since Members are vested with the power to enact and amend legislation and approve funding applications, when the legislature ceases to function effectively, the impact will be far-reaching. Take this legislative year as an example. The legislature has spent 74 hours on the examination of the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014. If the examination continues till early March, it will account for 20% of the total meeting hours of the 27 meetings of the year. As for the Finance Committee, it has so far held 32 meetings, yet only three works projects and five non-works projects have been approved. In the 5796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 remaining period of less than five months, the Legislative Council needs to process as many as 27 bills, whereas the Finance Committee needs to examine and approve 50 projects and the 60 and 30 items which have to be first discussed by the Public Works Subcommittee and the Establishment Subcommittee respectively. All these legislative proposals and funding proposals have a bearing on economic development and improvement of people's livelihood, representing the aspirations of the districts and residents. I implore pan-democrat Members as representatives of the public to be pragmatic and stop the filibuster. I urge them to examine proposals submitted by the Government in a rational and pragmatic manner so that the operation of the Legislative Council will get back on track.

President, although the three-day motion debate is filled with anxiousness, pessimistic sentiments and a mood of opposition, and although Members and government officials, which may include the President, have shown a sense of helplessness and worry in various degrees, I still have full confidence in Hong Kong, a city we treasure, love and appreciate, and high hopes in our young generation. Mr James TO and I too follow a faith, yet I will pray not only for God's protection like he does, nor will I feel disheartened like Dr LAM Tai-fai. The principal officials of the SAR Government and I, as well as the Civil Service, will continue to collaborate fully with the Legislative Council in a humble and peaceful manner of trying to convince people with reasoning and to serve the public.

Lastly, President, please allow me, a Catholic, to quote the remarks made by Pope Francis to the Congress of the United States as an encouragement for Members from different political parties and groupings and each other. In his speech, the Pope mentioned the hatred and violence now found in different countries around the world, and he reminded the public that, "Our response must instead be one of hope and healing, of peace and justice. We are asked to summon the courage and the intelligence to resolve today's many geopolitical and economic crises. Even in the developed world, the effects of unjust structures and actions are all too apparent. Our efforts must aim at restoring hope, righting wrongs, maintaining commitments, and thus promoting the well-being of individuals and of peoples. We must move forward together, as one, in a renewed spirit of fraternity and solidarity, co-operating generously for the common good."

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5797

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The five debate sessions on the Motion of Thanks end.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew LEUNG, you may now speak on the amendments. The speaking time limit is five minutes.

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, this year, seven Members in total have proposed amendments to the Motion of Thanks. The relevant amendments, which are proposed by Members in their personal capacity, have not been discussed by the House Committee. Neither do these amendments represent Members' consensus. Since I am now speaking in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee, I should not, nor would I express any views on or urge Members to support or not to support the amendments proposed by these seven Members.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG, you may move your amendment to the motion.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion be amended.

Mr Frederick FUNG moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add ", but the address fails to deal with the current core problems of Hong Kong, including disregarding the serious erosion of 'one country, two systems' and the deepening of China-Hong Kong conflicts, and showing no intention to improve the poor relationship between the Executive and the Legislature, coupled with the Chief Executive's incompetence in governance, his wanton instigation of social conflicts, and his refusal to reflect on the blunders in policy implementation and identify inadequacies, etc., causing the public to feel extremely disappointed and angry; in addition, this Council expresses deep regret that on the issues of implementing a universal retirement protection system, enacting legislation on standard working hours, and reducing the 5798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Mandatory Provident Fund offsetting proportion, etc., the Chief Executive keeps procrastinating with interminable discussion and consultation, completely reneging on the pledges made by him during his election campaign" immediately before the full stop."

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

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, are you going to vote?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung, are you going to vote?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5799

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): When a division is in progress, Members who are in the Chamber must press the "Present" button.

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

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

Mr KWOK Wai-keung did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

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

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN 5800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr WONG Kwok-kin did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 17 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 amendment was negatived.

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the Motion of Thanks or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

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

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5801

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

(No hands raised)

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

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the Motion of Thanks or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, you may move your amendment.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion be amended.

Mr WU Chi-wai moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add ", but expresses deep regret that the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has put the focus of the address on 'One Belt One Road' to curry favour with the Central Government in return for its support for his re-election, while failing to honour his election pledges, which include enacting legislation on standard working hours, abolishing the Mandatory Provident Fund offsetting mechanism, safeguarding academic freedom and the autonomy of educational institutions, allowing declaration of income and assets on a personal basis for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme for the elderly, allowing people with loss of one limb to apply for Disability Allowance, defending 'one country, two systems', developing a democratic political system, resolving social conflicts and improving people's livelihood" immediately before the full stop."

5802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr WU Chi-wai to Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung rose to claim a division.

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

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5803

HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

Mr KWOK Wai-keung did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

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

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

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr WONG Kwok-kin did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 17 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 amendment was negatived.

5804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

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

MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion be amended.

Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add ", so as to follow the convention of the Legislative Council; but expresses deep regret that the address has not made any undertaking to implement a universal retirement protection scheme, and requests the Government to devise a proposal for the universal retirement protection scheme under the principles of sustainability, robustness, replacement ratio and affordability, expeditiously draw up an implementation timetable and earmark $100 billion as a seed fund for the scheme" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che to Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion, be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung rose to claim a division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5805

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

Mr KWOK Wai-keung did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

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

5806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

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

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr WONG Kwok-kin did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 17 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 amendment was negatived.

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

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

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

"To add ", but expresses deep regret that the Chief Executive fails to honour his undertaking to 'adopt measures to progressively reduce the proportion of accrued benefits attributed to employer's contribution in the MPF account that can be applied by the employer to offset long-service or severance payments' as set out in his election manifesto, and continually procrastinates the legislative work on standard working hours" immediately before the full stop."

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5807

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

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

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

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

Mr KWOK Wai-keung did not cast any vote.

5808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Geographical Constituencies:

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

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

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr WONG Kwok-kin did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 17 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 amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO, you may move your amendment.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion be amended, and I claim a division.

Ms Cyd HO moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add ", so as to follow the convention of the Legislative Council; given that in the address, the Chief Executive has reneged on all his promises in the aspects of constitutional development and people's livelihood, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5809

focusing merely on currying favour with the Central Authorities while disregarding the interests of Hong Kong people, this Council hopes that this is the last time that Mr LEUNG Chun-ying delivered his address in the capacity as the Chief Executive, and that he will announce not to seek re-election, so that the SAR Government can return to the right track and rekindle hope of Hong Kong people, thereby enabling Hong Kong to have a fresh start" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Ms Cyd HO to Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion, be passed.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Cyd HO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher 5810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

Mr KWOK Wai-keung did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

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

Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.

Mr Paul TSE abstained.

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr WONG Kwok-kin did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment, 15 against it and one abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5811

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you may move your amendment.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion be amended, and I claim a division.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add ", but expresses deep regret that the Government insists on taking forward various major infrastructure projects and the extension of new towns, and quite a number of such infrastructure projects are 'white elephant projects', disregarding people's livelihood and wasting public money; and that the Government has 'jumped the queue' by arbitrarily giving priority to these infrastructure projects over livelihood-related projects in an attempt to coerce Members into approving the relevant funding applications" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion, be passed.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

5812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

Mr KWOK Wai-keung did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

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

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

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr WONG Kwok-kin did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5813

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 17 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 amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, you may move your amendment.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion be amended, and I claim a division.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To add ", but as the address fails to implement a universal retirement protection system, improve work and livelihood security for employees (including failing to legislate standard working hours and introduce overtime limits), and increase the number of subsidized places for programmes of post-secondary colleges and provide interest-free loans for students enrolled in such programmes, thus hindering young people's opportunities for studying in post-secondary colleges and enhancing their knowledge, this Council expresses deep regret and requests the Government to make improvements expeditiously" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung to Mr Andrew LEUNG's motion, be passed.

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

5814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG abstained.

Mr KWOK Wai-keung did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5815

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

THE PRESIDENT Mr Jasper TSANG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing and Mr WONG Kwok-kin did not cast any vote.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and one abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment and 17 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 amendment was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew LEUNG, you may now reply and you still have nine minutes and six seconds.

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the motion debate on the Policy Address this time around has taken up 32 hours and 14 minutes, and 63 Members in total have spoken. Members have expressed many views in relation to their areas of concern. Considering that there are inadequacies in the Government's policies, some Members have lavishly hurled criticisms. But some of them have recognized the work of the Government. Apart from that, Members have also spent much time on a heated argument over who should be held responsible for the violent clashes that took place in Mong Kok. Anyhow, I hope the Chief Executive and all principal officials will adopt an open attitude, agree to disagree and listen to the views of Members from various sides. In fact, every individual and the community as a whole have to carefully consider and face this incident of violent clashes in Hong Kong.

5816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

President, the debate on this Motion of Thanks mainly serves to provide a platform for Members to express their own views on the Policy Address. The motion itself does not point in any direction. Now all amendments have been negatived, and only the original motion proposed by me remains. I hope Honourable colleagues can support this symbolic motion.

Thank you, President.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, some Members yelled in their seats)

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

(After the division bell had been rung for one minute, some Members spoke aloud in their seats)

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016 5817

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Vincent FANG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

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

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

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

5818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 19 February 2016

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 30 were present, 21 were in favour of the motion and nine against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 32 were present, 15 were in favour of the motion and 16 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.

(Some Members spoke aloud in their seats)

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

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11 am on Wednesday 24 February 2016.

Adjourned accordingly at 6.42 pm.