LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12339

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 14 June 2018

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.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, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12341

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

12342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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

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

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12343

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

DR RAYMOND SO WAI-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

12344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now continue to consider the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please speak.

GUANGZHOU-SHENZHEN-HONG KONG EXPRESS RAIL LINK (CO-LOCATION) BILL

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount.

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point of order?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen pointed out to you yesterday that a committee of the whole Council in consideration and the Legislative Council should be two bodies. Therefore, Members from the pro-democracy camp who were expelled from the Legislative Council ought to be able to return to the Chamber to participate in consideration by the Committee. Yesterday, you seemed to have mentioned that you would meet with Mr CHAN in private to talk with him. I wonder if such a meeting was held. Can you give us an explanation?

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12345

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Pursuant to the past practices of the Legislative Council, the meeting held yesterday and to be held today by this Council are the same meeting, and this point was already expounded in the circular issued to Members yesterday.

According to Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure, a Member ordered to withdraw from the Legislative Council may not participate in the remainder of that meeting, including consideration by a committee of the whole Council. By the same token, a member ordered to withdraw from a committee of the whole Council by the Chairman may not continue to participate in the remainder of that meeting. Such a rule has not been amended in recent years. I simply enforced the rule pursuant to the past practices, i.e. the order of withdrawal is applicable to the whole meeting, including consideration by a committee of the whole Council.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please speak.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): When I spoke for the second time during the Committee stage, I intended to express my views on the amendment proposed by Mr Dennis KWOK and aspects of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") which the public find very confusing.

Before all else, I hope to refresh the memories of the public and Honourable colleagues of the background of the design of "one country, two systems" to uphold the rule of law. Let me quote two remarks. The first one was made by JIANG Zemin on 6 December 1989: "On the issue of one country, two systems, I quoted the Chinese proverb well water does not intrude into river water during my conversations with many people from the commercial and industrial sectors in Hong Kong and members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"). Some people of Hong Kong did not entirely understand, saying 'well water will not intrude into river water but river water will some day intrude into well water for sure'. Actually, the entire Chinese proverb quoted by me should read, 'well water does not intrude into river water and river water does not intrude into well water'."

The second remark I wish to quote was the one made by DENG Xiaoping during his meeting with members of the Basic Law Drafting Committee of HKSAR in 1987, "The Central Authorities will definitely not meddle in the 12346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 specific affairs of SAR. Neither will there be any need to do so. However, … if the Central Authorities give up all their powers, some chaotic situations may arise, thereby jeopardizing Hong Kong's interest. Therefore, it will do Hong Kong more good than harm for the Central Authorities to retain certain powers."

Honourable Members, judging from the enactment of the Basic Law and its provisions, we can note from the remarks made by JIANG Zemin and DENG Xiaoping the design of a mechanism. Under this mechanism, in most circumstances, "river water does not intrude into well water and well water does not intrude into river water". In other words, the two places have separate legal systems. Only through a few doors can Beijing meddle in or influence Hong Kong's legal system.

According to my shallow understanding of the Basic Law, the "doors" are: Article 18 of the Basic Law stipulates that national laws may be listed in Annex III to the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") for application in Hong Kong; Article 20 stipulates that "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may enjoy other powers granted to it by the National People's Congress, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress or the Central People's Government." These provisions were quoted when the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance was enacted. In addition, the "doors" include Articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, which have been mentioned by Honourable Members many times already.

The design of this system is very clear as it has "a few doors" only. I note that, and many Honourable colleagues have also mentioned that, the entire co-location arrangement of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") and the biggest problem of the Bill is that the original idea of the legal systems of China and Hong Kong has been damaged, as I pointed out just now. Such destruction can be traced back to the fact that NPCSC has not used the adoption of the decision made with respect to Articles 18, 20, 158 and 159 as the source of laws in HKSAR.

I hope Members can appreciate or at least have an in-depth understanding of Mr Dennis KWOK's brilliant idea behind his amendment. He proposed in his amendment adding to the Preamble "To avoid doubt, the instruments referred to in the preamble of this Ordinance do not form part and parcel of the Basic Law or any laws of Hong Kong.". The real purpose of adding this provision is to affirm and accurately express the legal relationship between China and Hong Kong which has been improperly damaged. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12347

Regarding the accurate expression of the legal relationship between China and Hong Kong, I am not sure if some pro-Government colleagues have paid no attention to it or acted deliberately. Let me cite Dr Priscilla LEUNG as an example. In my opinion, she was somewhat deliberately pointing out that all decisions made by NPCSC would be binding on Hong Kong. In that case, the Basic Law can basically be discarded. Her point of view denigrates a very basic presumption: the aforesaid four provisions of the Basic Law are binding on NPCSC.

After listening to the speeches delivered by a number of Members, I find that only Mr Paul TSE has considered this point, that is, we have to manifest the different designs of the legal systems of China and Hong Kong. We should not pass the Bill in the Legislative Council for we will then indirectly open a new door of power which will make changes indefinitely. The right approach should be for NPCSC to interpret Articles 18, 19, 158 and 159 according to the "doors" provided for in the Basic Law. Of course, at least Mr Paul TSE appreciates Mr Dennis KWOK's thinking behind this amendment and supports it.

Despite spending so much time listening to our speeches, members of the public might still not figure out the meaning of the Bill itself. I will attempt to explain in a lively manner what the co-location arrangement is going to do at WKS of XRL. A hole will be dug inside Hong Kong and this "hole" should originally be filled with the "water" of Hong Kong laws. After this "hole" is dug, the "water" should be extracted in the first place and replaced with China's laws. After the "hole" is filled up, armed forces from China will be dispatched to Hong Kong to enforce law. To make the matter more complicated, the reserved matter in the relevant legislation in Hong Kong will be poured back into the "hole". To me, this sort of mixing is like turning the rule of law into a glass of cocktail. In the end, I believe the vast majority public will feel deeply confused. Actually, the confidence of Hong Kong people in "one country, two systems" and whether they still enjoy protection for living in this place will be profoundly affected. Had JIANG Zemin not made the remark quoted by me at the beginning of my speech that "well water will not intrude into river water", the pro-democracy Members who are now sitting on the right side of the Chamber would have been, like WANG Quanzhang, jailed for almost 1 000 days and the relevant cases would still not be heard by court. Why can we still speak here? Because Hong Kong people and we still have a little bit confidence that we will not be punished afterwards in an unruly manner, as what happens on the 12348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Mainland. Nevertheless, such cocktail mixing will actually shake our confidence because we simply have no idea of the situation of Hong Kong's legal system.

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

Deputy Chairman, how would this glass of "cocktail" be mixed inside the "hole" the Mainland Port Area ("MPA")? Actually, Members have raised several questions and proposed relevant amendments. First of all, Mr James TO asked whether the Legislative Council in Hong Kong had the power to decide what could be put into the cocktail if the Mainland Government in China was to enact laws by way of "mixing". I have no idea how Andrew LEUNG got the power to represent Hong Kong people and said that the Legislative Council could not propose which Mainland laws could not be mixed. The second question concerns an amendment proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki. From another angle, he did not ask what China laws should be put into this glass of "cocktail" for "mixing". Instead, he asked whether the relatively positive Hong Kong laws could be put into the "cocktail" for "mixing". As a result, he proposed the inclusion of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance ("BORO").

I have yet another question. The Bill itself is extremely unclear. I have used word search to search for the word "Mainland" and the results showed that "the Mainland" appear 69 times and the expression "Mainland Port Area" 36 times. These results include Interpretation because the Bill is meant mainly to define "Mainland Port Area". This is why Interpretation must be included. The Bill has also interpreted the word "Mainland". It seemed that Dr Priscilla LEUNG disagreed with its interpretation and proposed something like "Mainland" means the part of China other than Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan.

Nevertheless, two quite important expressions are missing from Interpretation. The first one is "laws of the Mainland" and the second one is "Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area". The Interpretation of the Bill does not include the interpretation of "Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area". So how should we deal with it? Because this has something to do with Article 6 of the Co-operation Arrangement. This explains why it is included in small print at the back as "Note" in Schedule 1. Where does the problem actually lie? The first thing to do is to make a list of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12349

"Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area". If we agree, this list should be adopted. According to Article 6 of the Co-operation Arrangement, "Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area" means "immigration inspection authority, customs authority, inspection and quarantine authority, integrated port administration authority and railway police authority stationed by the Mainland". Problems will arise if only the aforesaid Mainland personnel may enforce law in MPA. This has something to do with Mr James TO. Can we propose to the Mainland Government of China including personnel other than those on the list? If we can, how do we go about doing it? Not a word has been mentioned of this point. In other words, China can do whatever it likes. Basically, the Mainland will have no problem including other personnel, be they the People's Liberation Army, armed police or special police, on the list. This Blue Bill is actually useless as it is merely "empty talk".

The interpretation of "laws of the Mainland" is even more bizarre, for it is subject to speculation with no definition found in the entire Bill. The first reference to "Laws of the Mainland" is found in section 3(1)(b), which reads, "a non-reserved matter is a matter to which the laws of the Mainland apply, and over which the Mainland exercises jurisdiction, under Article 4 of the Co-operation Arrangement." Since the Bill includes no interpretation of "laws of the Mainland", we made enquiries with the Government and what we got was a very strange answer from the Department of Justice. It said, to this effect, though the expression is not defined in the Bill, according to usual understanding, "laws of the Mainland" includes the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, the statute law and regulations in force in China and even the Basic Law of the HKSAR. As national laws, the Basic Law of the HKSAR is also regarded as "laws of the Mainland". In other words, it is in force in MPA as well.

I am really baffled by this. If this is really the case, there is simply no need for Dr KWOK Ka-ki to propose an amendment as his amendment seeks to introduce BORO into MPA. If the Basic Law is in force in MPA, is this move redundant? Which provisions of the Basic Law will be in force in MPA? Where can Hong Kong residents lodge their complaints if they think that the right conferred on them by the Basic Law is subject to exploitation in MPA? Will the Mainland courts hear such cases? This general confusing condition is a result of the mixing of the two legal systems of China and Hong Kong to safeguard the "cocktail" rule of law of the entire Bill.

12350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): First of all, Deputy Chairman, I have to make it clear that I will vote against all the 24 amendments proposed by 9 Legislative Council Members. However, I wish to stress that I do not oppose them for the sake of opposition, nor do I oppose them blindly because the 9 Honourable colleagues proposing the amendments all come from the opposition camp. My voting preference is well-founded.

First, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Ms Claudia MO have proposed sunset clauses of various forms, providing that the Ordinance will automatically expire after a period of time subsequent to its gazettal and commencement, in an attempt to force the Government to review the implementation and enforcement of the Ordinance in a specified time frame. I consider it rather frivolous because even if nothing goes wrong with the co-location arrangement of XRL before the so-called "sunset", the Government still has to extend the validity period of the Ordinance in a separate legislative exercise, which is rather cumbersome and will become a convenient excuse for filibustering. The worst case scenario is failure to extend the Ordinance before the "sunset", resulting in forced suspension of the co-location arrangement, which will bring a huge economic loss to Hong Kong and inconvenience to members of the public and visitors, and may even make us a laughing stock of the world.

On the contrary, it is believed that if major legal concerns or enforcement issues unfortunately arise over the co-location arrangement, the Government will not wait till the specified "sunset" date to address them. It will definitely review and address them at once, and if necessary, it may even introduce legislative amendments as a matter of emergency. Hence, I consider a sunset clause simply superfluous.

As for the amendments proposed by Mr Gary FAN, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr Jeremy TAM, I consider them similarly a bit redundant. Mr FAN requests that the Ordinance expire upon termination of operation of the Hong Kong Section of XRL. But if the operation of XRL of Hong Kong really terminates for reasons unknown, actually no one will go through clearance at the West Kowloon Station. Will they possibly head north along the track on foot? Hence, the co-location Ordinance will have in effect been rendered nugatory by then, and the Government will definitely handle the Ordinance in a timely manner.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12351

Mr Dennis KWOK's request to provide that the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("Co-operation Arrangement") does not form part and parcel of the Basic Law or any laws of Hong Kong is also superfluous, or even made out of subjective fear because there is simply no one saying that the Co-operation Arrangement will form part of the Basic Law. The Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress only serves to endorse the legality and constitutionality of the Co-operation Arrangement signed by the two Governments.

Mr Jeremy TAM seeks to provide that the Ordinance will only apply to the Hong Kong Section of XRL and West Kowloon Station ("WKS"), but not to any other railway or port. In fact, the title of the Bill, which reads the "Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill", is already clear enough, and while there is no mention of any other railway or port, it will be unnecessary to add such a redundant clause.

As for the amendments of Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Ms Tanya CHAN requesting continued enforcement of some of the laws of Hong Kong and court orders in MPA being regarded as an area lying outside Hong Kong but lying within the Mainland, they are actually tantamount to overturning the Co-operation Arrangement, thereby making it more difficult for Mainland personnel to enforce laws and creating the confusion of "one area, two laws".

The last one is Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's request to add a number of criminal offence provisions specifically targeting Mainland personnel, punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 30 years and a fine of $10,000,000. I consider that it has gone way too far and constituted vicious discrimination, which is like treating all Mainland personnel working at WKS of XRL as bandits. It is really ironic to see Mr CHAN, who has long been hoisting high the banner of equal rights and anti-discrimination, propose this amendment. If Mainland personnel really go through clearance unlawfully and break the law, deliberately leaving MPA and contravening the laws of Hong Kong in the Hong Kong Port Area, they should be dealt with in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong instead of being specifically treated with a brand new set of draconian criminal offence provisions tailored made with excessive penalties for the reason that they are Mainlanders.

Deputy Chairman, I so submit.

12352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will speak briefly against the 24 amendments proposed by 9 Members. In fact, these amendments will not help solve the various questions raised by them at meetings of the Bills Committee. Some of the amendments, such as setting various expiry dates and introducing offence provisions, are fraught with distrust of the Mainland and SAR Governments as usual, which will only bring uncertainty to the enforcement of law.

The SAR Government proposed the idea of constructing the Hong Kong Section of XRL as far back as 2000. It has taken as long as 18 years for this railway of only 26 km in length to take shape from conception to scheduled commissioning this September. Starting from scratch is by no means easy, and we should encourage the SAR Government's culture of "doing things". Hence, I think I should, in my speech today, thank the SAR Government for its insistence on doing the right thing, the several Secretaries for Transport and Housing for their unremitting efforts, and the staff involved in the design, management and construction of the XRL project for their dedication, so that XRL, an important transport infrastructure, will soon be able to formally provide services to members of the public.

The commissioning of the Hong Kong Section of XRL will link Hong Kong with major Mainland cities with significantly reduced travelling time, thereby fostering closer social and economic ties between Hong Kong and the Mainland, and injecting new momentum into and creating new opportunities for the future development of Hong Kong in the medium and longer terms. As the co-location arrangement is critical to fully unleashing the benefits of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong XRL project, I support the passage of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") introduced by the Government without amendments.

I hope the Government will, after completing the legislative procedures for the co-location arrangement, promptly focus its work on the operational safety and convenience of XRL and eliminate all safety hazards, so that members of the public will feel at ease when travelling by XRL. While the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") has been approved to sell tickets for 18 cities departing from or terminating at Hong Kong, it has not been authorized to sell tickets between Hong Kong and other Mainland cities. I hope that before the formal commissioning of XRL in September, the Government and MTRCL can reach a consensus with the Mainland Government and railway operators concerned on the ticketing options for the convenience of people. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12353

Hong Kong people look forward to ushering in the era of high-speed rail. Despite the current twists and turns, I still hope for the early passage of the Bill after Third Reading in this Council. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I support the amendments to the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") and wish to present the background first.

The "high degree of autonomy" in Hong Kong is attributed to our efforts in defending the systems and upholding our autonomy in three main aspects. First, in regard to Hong Kong's monetary system, as HK dollar is pegged with US dollar, the basic system is maintained by way of the linked exchange rate, and thus a free market and relative autonomy are realized. Another system is the so-called "lame duck" legislative system in Hong Kong, that is, the Hong Kong SAR has its own legislature, which is the most obvious manifestation of the so-called "one country, two systems". Thirdly, it is our jurisdiction which concerns the general public the most. Due to our historical background, the Courts of Hong Kong adopt statute law and common law for maintaining Hong Kong people's lifestyle unchanged for 50 years, that is what we say "horsing racing and dancing as usual".

What do these three aspects have to do with the reasons for my support for the amendments to the Bill? As I have just briefly stated, Hong Kong autonomy is manifested in its monetary system, jurisdiction and legislature and among them, Hong Kong people take pride in our jurisdiction. We call Hong Kong a place governed by the rule of law and we place stress on procedures. Although we do not know if there is justice, there is at least procedural justice.

However, some provisions in the Bill are in obvious contravention of and run counter to the jurisdiction we used to understand. I believe the amendments proposed by Honourable colleagues attempt to resolve or alleviate such contradictions, including the amendments to clause 7 "Savings provision" and clause 8 of the Bill, in particular to the interpretation of the rights and obligations of jurisdiction in the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") under clause 8(1)(b). These amendments are proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Ms Tanya CHAN and Mr Dennis KWOK respectively.

12354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

With respect to specific details of the amendments, for example, Ms Tanya CHAN proposed to delete clause 7(3) which makes provision for determining the geographical scope for specified rights or obligations in the context of MPA being regarded as an area lying outside Hong Kong but lying within the Mainland. As explained by Ms Tanya CHAN yesterday in the debate at the Committee stage, her reason for proposing the amendment is simple. Hong Kong's jurisdiction is relatively incomplete or inadequate in that the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal does not possess the ultimate power. In the event of a constitutional dispute, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") will make a decision by way of interpretation of the Basic Law. However, the Courts seemed to have great powers to determine whether certain laws were constitutional in the past 20 years.

However, if the Bill is passed, its impact on Hong Kong's jurisdiction will be unlike the impact of the interpretations of the Basic Law in the past decades on "one country, two systems". As the Courts of Hong Kong do not possess the ultimate power to defend the rule of law, the introduction of external powers will dig deeper into the existing local loopholes in law. This is an obvious harm of the interpretations.

Clause 8(1)(b) of the Bill concerns the jurisdiction over MPA which will bring even more serious harms than the interpretation of the Basic Law. It will not only strip Hong Kong courts of part of the dignity or powers, but completely bypass the Hong Kong courts. In other words, MPA will be similar to the "No Man's Land" of the Kowloon Walled City before 1997 a few decades ago. Of course, this is an understanding from Hong Kong people's perspective. Deputy Chairman will not agree with me because Mainland laws will be applied in MPA. I said that because we simply do not believe that a country which does not act constitutionally in the first place will act in accordance with the law.

Hence, I think the importance of the amendments proposed by Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr Dennis KWOK lies not in making up for the damages or enlarged loopholes caused by the Bill to the legal system of Hong Kong and, in particular, to the common law system. Their amendments actually serve to reclaim the area over which Hong Kong had jurisdiction and autonomy. In fact, the full implementation of Mainland laws in MPA is unnecessary as, in my opinion, local laws are more comprehensive and trustworthy for handling unforeseeable circumstances in MPA.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12355

For instance, for the publication of online messages inciting or abetting the commission of an offence, there is already the provision on "access to computer with dishonest intent" as if it is the "Internet Article 23". There will be no mishap. To cite another example, if some people assemble together or even demonstrate there due to labour disputes, under the Public Order Ordinance―although to me it is a draconian law―arrests can be made when three or more persons assemble together. Then, why is it necessary to implement Mainland laws in MPA through clause 8(1)(b) of the Bill? Since it is unnecessary, why do we not support the amendments to recover the "high degree of autonomy" of Hong Kong people? The Courts are just restoring their original dignity and powers. I consider these not minor repairs, but the most important aspect of the amendments.

Secondly, let us come back to an issue comprehensible to the general public. I noticed that in the debate at the Committee stage yesterday, Members focused the discussion on the jurisdiction which has been criticized as cession of territory. I consider the arrangement a forfeit of rights and a great insult to Hong Kong. Actually, I cannot understand why the Council will pass a Bill that will eventually forbid Members from monitoring Hong Kong. Have Members and Secretariat staff here any idea when this "lame duck" Council with half of the Members returned through election passed a Bill that eventually rendered Members unable to monitor Hong Kong?

What will the specific situation be? In the event of suspected defective construction works in MPA just like the Shatin to Central Link, matters pertaining to construction and service do fall under our jurisdiction under the savings provision. However, lines are not clearly drawn in MPA. The public security officers sitting there are not completely unrelated to the construction. Suppose a piece of concrete collapsed on a certain floor due to the jerry-built works and killed a public security officer, what should be done? Should compensation be made in accordance with Mainland laws, or should both sides make compensation through third party insurance? Under such circumstances, I believe it will be difficult to clarify the issues. The Courts of Hong Kong have no power to examine the incident. Should the matter be handed back to the Mainland then?

I am not talking about whether it is lawful for Hong Kong people to demonstrate there or for former Member "Long Hair", LEUNG Kwok-hung, to go there wearing clothes with the "Vindicating the 4 June incident" slogan. If he is 12356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 arrested, we would ask why was he arrested? When we asked the Immigration Department for the black list, John LEE gave us the same reply: there is no black list. Some people are simply refused entry. So we asked why some people are allowed entry through MPA while some are not? The Administration replied that "it does not concern Members". This is precisely the case after the passage of the Bill. We will have no right to question the Government on some foreseeable issues. In the event of an accident, we will have no right to investigate it by invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Why? Because that area does not belong to us anymore. If the incident did not happen on any Hong Kong citizen, if a piece of concrete fell down―it is not surprising at all to see jerry-built works when the thickness of the wall in To Kwa Wan could be reduced by half―and killed a public security officer, who will have to make the compensation? There will be no reason to request a funding provision from the Council for making compensation as we have no right to monitor the area anymore. There will be no reason for us to pay the compensation and the repairs out of our pocket. Deputy Chairman, the world does not work like this, does it?

Therefore, we do not need to go so far as to talk about the Courts. Is it possible for Honourable colleagues to pass a Bill that reduces their own powers and thrusts themselves a stab? Would they cut their fully functioning kidney off and give it to someone else? The situation is just like that. But they think it is completely reasonable and they can survive with one kidney missing. It is true that Hong Kong has survived more than 20 years on dialysis, but the situation is completely unreasonable. We do not have to go so far as to talk about the jurisdiction, the rule of law, the Constitution, the ultimate power, the need for interpretation and who should interpret the provisions. We have to ask one basic question only: Is it possible for the Council to pass a Bill that not only limits our powers but cuts off our kidney?

I have the answer to this question. In fact, the Council has cut off its own kidney on several occasions in the past some 20 years. I am not referring to the amendments to the Rules of Procedure or restricting Members' right to speak. In 1996, some 20 years ago, the Provisional Legislative Council was established. On the north side of the Shenzhen River, it reduced Hong Kong people's autonomy by, firstly, repealing the right to collective bargaining; and secondly, reversing the Public Order Ordinance. These two are vital to the general public as they serve to counterbalance major businesses, consortia and the Government so that there would be no collusion between Government and business like LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12357 before. Hence, Chris PATTEN was an eternal sinner in the eyes of LU Ping. However, I have not imagined the Council would become the Provisional Legislative Council 20 years down the line. We are acting like the Provisional Legislative Council now in passing the Bill which cedes―not cedes, but returns a piece of territory at West Kowloon to Mainland China.

Deputy Chairman, for these reasons, I support (The buzzer sounded) … the amendments which are about rights and obligations. I so submit.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG, your speaking time is up.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, last night and yesterday morning, with or without mentioning my name, Mr Holden CHOW and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan respectively quoted a remark made by me last year in the night rally after the judgment of the case concerning the protest against the North East New Territories development ("the NENT case") was handed down. They attacked and ridiculed me and the whole pro-democracy camp. I must admit that my relevant remark was poorly phrased. I also wish to apologize to the 13 friends in the NENT case and activists in social movement for my inappropriate remark.

Nevertheless, Deputy Chairman, making an inappropriate remark is one matter, but lacking morals and credibility is another. While Mr Holden CHOW most righteously criticized the proposal of amendments by the pro-democracy camp as a collapse of rites and decorum last night, I only wish to say that every Member in the whole Legislative Council is qualified to talk about the collapse of rites and decorum except this party comrade of the Deputy Chairman.

Back to the question. This morning, I rose to speak to call on Members to support Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment. His amendment is set out in Appendix 9. It seeks to add subclause (3) to clause 6 of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") to prescribe: "To avoid doubt, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) remains in force in the Mainland Port Area." This amendment is greatly important because it establishes the effect of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance ("BORO") in the Mainland Port Area in the West Kowloon Station, being the most powerful protection for human rights.

12358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Deputy Chairman, this is not a question of whether there is trust or otherwise. BORO is an ordinance enacted by the British Hong Kong Government in accordance with several international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, during the colonial era. At that time the United Kingdom was a State party, and several treaties had been implemented. Being a colony of the United Kingdom, Hong Kong effected the protection of human rights in the treaties through local legislation, benefiting the people of Hong Kong. Hong Kong is certainly not a state. It is by no means qualified to sign such treaties and become a State party. However, through BORO, Hong Kong can be regarded as being on par with the other democratic societies. Apart from fulfilling its obligations under the international treaties and aligning with international standards, it can bring itself in line with the international practice and protect human rights.

The Mainland Government has signed these treaties, too. Deputy Chairman, China is also a State party, but in reality, it has not implemented these international treaties. Neither has it enacted any relevant or similar human rights law. If we now casually allow the Bill on the co-location arrangement to pass and implement on a comprehensive scale Mainland laws rather than Hong Kong laws in the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") in the West Kowloon Station ("WKS"), Deputy Chairman, what will be the objective fact? By that time, Hongkongers in the station will no longer be protected by BORO. For this reason, it is necessary for us to affirm that Hongkongers and other visitors will receive effective and equivalent protection of human rights in this MPA in the future. The most practical, obvious and convenient approach is to ensure that BORO will be continuously in force in MPA.

Deputy Chairman, why do we attach so much importance to the protection of human rights in MPA in WKS? Because too many cases have shown that the Mainland law enforcement agencies and judiciary do not have the same kind of awareness of law enforcement as we do. The most well-known example is certainly the incident of Causeway Bay Books. This incident has been extensively reported. I do not wish to make too much analysis or interpretation here. But the objective fact is that this incident similarly took place in Hong Kong and involved Hongkongers. The persons concerned were taken to the Mainland, made a confession in front of the camera, etc. From the angle of Hongkongers, such things were unimaginable.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12359

Deputy Chairman, let us imagine that the same situation takes place in MPA in the future and Hongkongers cannot receive protection of human rights equivalent to that on the land of Hong Kong. Is this the best protection for Hong Kong? Certainly not. According to Article 9(1) of ICCPR (I quote): "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law." Article 9(3) reads (I quote): "Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgment."

Deputy Chairman, during the course of local legislation, the provisions mentioned just now became Article 5 in section 8 of BORO, virtually protecting the people of Hong Kong. This provision ensures that should Hongkongers be arrested in Hong Kong, they will expeditiously be brought to legal proceedings and receive a fair trial in court. They will not indefinitely wait for the decision of the Court and remain on tenterhooks in custody. We can see the importance of this Ordinance which has become the cornerstone of human rights in Hong Kong. We cannot go without it in Hong Kong. It also accentuates our characteristics under "one country, two systems".

But what about the Mainland? Deputy Chairman, after someone has been arrested, when will the case officially enter legal proceedings? We have no idea at all. Sometimes even after the person in question has been arrested, is his case actually filed? We are not sure about it either because be it the Ministry of State Security or Public Security, very often their practice may not be transparent. Is his arrest reasonable or unreasonable? Does the restriction on his personal freedom have any factual basis? Sometimes will it even implicit his family members? We have no idea at all. When such things are there for all to see, they will induce a kind of fear. Hence, these things are not groundless. Everything is well-founded with justifications.

Deputy Chairman, come to think about it. If a place in Hong Kong is not under the protection of BORO, and there are not sufficient checks and balances on the political regime or the executive, how can we protect the personal safety 12360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 and civil liberty of members of the public entering and leaving this place? This is no empty talk. Rather, it is something practical which may happen very soon. If the co-location arrangement is passed under the present circumstances, a vacuum of human rights will arise. Hence, we absolutely have got reasons to implement BORO in MPA to prevent anyone from abusing his power in the station to unreasonably detain foreign tourists or Hongkongers or even escort them to the Mainland. By that time, we will be unable to rescue them even if we wish. For this reason, the amendment proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki is most important. Here I hope that even if Members of various political affiliations dislike us the pro-democracy camp, they will still support Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment for the sake of protection of human rights in Hong Kong.

Deputy Chairman, Mrs Eleanor ROOSEVELT, the late First Lady of the United States who was a crucial promoter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations, once said: "When will our conscience grow so tender that we will act to prevent human misery rather than to avenge it?" This quote explains the importance of legislating for protection of human rights and checks and balances on the political regime. It is impossible for us to just wait for a tragedy to happen and then try to remedy it in a flurry. Nor can we slack off, thinking that we can muddle through, mistaken that as long as we treat the political regime well, so will the political regime to us. This is not any grudge or prejudice against a political regime. In fact, checks and balances are crucial to any place in the world. The establishment of systems is precisely based on this point. For this reason, we must not forget that very often, in light of its nature, a political regime needs monitoring. To put it in a more realistic way, if we wish to ensure that those in power will exercise their power properly rather than using it to do evil deeds, we need all the more to put in place checks and balances. This is the spirit of the rule of law.

Deputy Chairman, strictly speaking, Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment should not be regarded as an amendment. Rather, it affirms the rights and freedom to which the people of Hong Kong or visitors should enjoy in WKS in accordance with the law. The Civic Party certainly opposes interference by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") in Hong Kong's judicial independence through its mechanism of decisions. Nevertheless, this time let us leave everything aside for the time being and look at the Decision made by NPCSC in December last year. It clearly states that the co-location arrangement "does not undermine the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with law". Deputy LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12361

Chairman, Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment actually seeks to affirm this principle. The protection of human rights to which Hong Kong residents are entitled under BORO should remain in force in MPA in WKS. Given our capacity as Members and gatekeepers of the legislature, it is all the more necessary for us to uphold such protection and safeguard Hongkongers' inherent human rights.

Deputy Chairman, Members of the pro-establishment camp may wonder, since the Decision of NPCSC already states that the co-location arrangement "does not undermine the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with law", whether it is still necessary for us to pass this amendment. However, I need to point out that if the Legislative Council incorporates this amendment into the Bill and passes it, it will become a written requirement which must be fulfilled by the officers in MPA then. Not only can this protect Hongkongers. Actually it can also protect the relevant Mainland law enforcement officers who will serve in MPA. Why? Because there will be a law which they can follow. They can do what they should in accordance with the express provisions. I believe none of the Members present wishes to see any Mainland law enforcement officer working in MPA break the law inadvertently in the future. In fact, not only can the passage of Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment provide them with protection. It can even give them a guideline, letting them know what they should or should not do in the course of law enforcement.

Come to think about it. Now some Hongkongers are still full of doubts and worries about the co-location arrangement and actual law enforcement in MPA in the future. If it can be explicitly stipulated that BORO will remain in force in MPA and Hongkongers will still receive full protection there in future, is this not the best and most obvious demonstration to the whole world, especially Hongkongers whose minds are still full of misgivings and question marks now, that they will be fully protected in MPA in the future?

Deputy Chairman, I do not see any reason for Members to raise objection. In fact, not only can this amendment ultimately protect Mainland law enforcement officers but also exhibit the merits of the co-location arrangement. It can even let the whole world know that despite this special arrangement, the laws of Hong Kong will remain intact on the land of Hong Kong. This amendment will indeed bring nothing but advantages. What is more, if the Decision made by NPCSC, that means the content quoted by me just now, is truthful and accurate, I do not see any conflict between this amendment and the 12362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 original Decision at all. On the contrary, it can perfect the original Decision and better manifest the protection afforded by this decision to human rights in Hong Kong.

Hence, Deputy Chairman, I hope that with careful and thorough consideration, we can put aside our original political dispute and take a closer look. This Bill of Rights is internationally recognized. It can also give outsiders confidence that "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong will not lose shape or go out of form in West Kowloon. Apart from carrying protection of human rights on our lips, we need to put it in practice and keep it in sight. The most effective way is of course passing the relevant amendment through the Council. In this way, we can fully exhibit our determination.

I hope Members can understand this point because now society is full of doubts about the co-location arrangement and the future WKS. I also understand that we should put aside our political difference and deal with this matter properly. I hope, through actual and positive action in the Council, we can show the people of Hong Kong with the greatest sincerity that be it the pro-establishment or pro-democracy camp, Beijing or the Special Administrative Region Government, we are most sincere and committed. We should show everyone that the future WKS is not going to carry out any "cession-based co-location arrangement". It is not a place where Hong Kong laws will be completely gone upon its cession. Such being the case, why not put this most meaningful and effective BORO of the greatest commitment to human rights in force in WKS?

For this reason, I hope Members can appreciate these remarks I made just now, which may sound like cliched but which actually carries profound significance. I hope Members can support Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment eventually.

I so submit.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I rise to speak against all the 24 amendments proposed by Members of the pro-democracy camp, for I hold that by proposing these amendments to the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"), they are simply acting vexatious and confrontational in an attempt to scupper the Bill. The pan-democratic Members dwell on the premise that the Bill lacks legal basis and propose LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12363 amendments for this reason. But the fact is that the issue of legal basis of the Bill has been discussed for a long time, with the various misgivings already explained by the authorities and the question of the Bill contravening the Basic Law discussed by all sectors in the community. This cooperation arrangement for clearance is made possible only by the mutual agreement of the Mainland Government and the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government, then the endorsement of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") in its Decision and finally the approval of the Legislative Council following deliberation and voting. So the co-location arrangement has to gain the triple authorization of the two Governments, NPCSC and the Legislative Council of Hong Kong. How can it possibly lack a legal basis?

Deputy Chairman, I find the amendments proposed by pan-democratic Members not only groundless but also ludicrously naïve. They propose, for instance, to change the commencement date of the enacted Ordinance to the 300th day on which the enacted Ordinance is published in the Gazette, or to change the commencement date to the 365th day after the day on which the Bill is passed by the Legislative Council. This sort of amendments, which undoubtedly seeks to arbitrarily delay the commencement date of the Bill, is utterly reckless in disregarding not just the actual commencement and operational needs of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") but also the overall interests of the people of Hong Kong.

Another example is those amendments proposing the addition of an "expiry date" to the Bill. I consider this sort of amendments the product of pure imagination, as there is no substantial ground whatsoever in reality to justify such an expiry date. They also propose an amendment to provide that "if any part of the enacted Ordinance is adjudicated to be in contravention of the Basic Law: the enacted Ordinance ceases to be valid forthwith", which I find ludicrously naïve. As a matter of fact, the pan-democratic Members have probably failed to get one point straight: the Bill is based on the Decision made by NPCSC and thus will not contravene the Basic Law. It is downright implausible and ridiculous for a lawmaker to assume a piece of legislation in formulation to be unconstitutional but propose amendments to it all the same.

The co-location arrangement is made purely from the perspective of the interests of Hong Kong. I really wish to ask what harm will it do to the country if Hong Kong fails to implement co-location? Honourable colleagues from the pro-democracy camp insist that "the co-location Bill is a draconian law" which should be opposed as forcibly as the bid to amend the Rules of Procedure was 12364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 opposed. This will inevitably alienate themselves from the entire city and its people. With co-location bringing forth massive opportunities and convenience to Hong Kong, I do not see how Hong Kong will be harmed or impacted in any way. Why must Honourable colleagues from the pro-democracy camp use these nonsensical amendments to twist the goodwill of the Central Government and the SAR Government into malice, gauging the heart of people of integrity with their own mean measure?

Deputy Chairman, rather than wrangling further with Honourable colleagues from the opposition camp and getting entangled in any way in these frivolous amendments, I wish only to take this opportunity to convey a message: with Hong Kong being a Special Administrative Region of the country, and Hong Kong and the country being one single entity, the co-location arrangement precisely reflects the advantages of "one country, two systems". Hong Kong must take the full advantage of "one country" and make the most of the convenience offered under "two systems", getting on board the high-speed train of national development, striving for the people of Hong Kong more room for development, boosting their competitiveness and fighting for their actual well-being. In their incessant smearing campaign against co-location and their protracted attempt to obstruct the Bill's passage, which includes such deplorable stunts as making lengthy speeches, filibustering, microphone-snatching, disrupting the proceedings of the Council and proposing amendments, the pan-democratic Members have undoubtedly set themselves against the economic and development interests of Hong Kong. When I worked in the district recently, people regularly came to me, expressing their hope for the expeditious passage of the Bill by the Legislative Council, as it would not only bring forth new opportunities in such diverse aspects as their contact with the country, travel and employment, it would also enable Hong Kong people to benefit from the State's support of Hong Kong.

Deputy Chairman, I sincerely hope that Honourable colleagues of the pro-democracy camp can stop putting ideology first, blowing the issue of co-location up out of proportions, unnecessarily spreading fear in society, confining themselves to a box, resigning themselves to the fate of marginalization and sacrificing the interests of Hong Kong people. In concluding my remarks, I urge Members to turn around before it is too late. I hope Members can support the smooth passage of the Bill so as to bring more opportunities and hope to Hong Kong.

I so submit, Deputy Chairman.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12365

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please speak.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount.

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

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

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): A quorum is present in the Chamber. Committee will now continue. Mr Gary FAN, please speak.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in rising to speak, I wish to debate the amendment proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki. Dr KWOK Ka-ki proposed that the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) ("BORO") be applicable to the Mainland Port Area ("MPA"). He adds new subclause (3) to clause 6 of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") to stipulate that to avoid doubt, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) remains in force in MPA.

Deputy Chairman, I must reiterate my position, that is, even if this amendment is passed, I will still maintain my fundamental stance of opposing the Third Reading of this Bill because on the whole, the Bill is designed to bore a big hole in Hong Kong's geographical environment and in the Basic Law. In this big hole, the laws of Hong Kong are no longer in force and the system and order of the Mainland are adopted instead. Therefore, in supporting the amendments proposed by other Members, I only wish to do my utmost to stem the raging tide and explain clearly to the Hong Kong public the grounds for my opposition to the Bill, as well as what risks they will be exposed to if the amendments are not passed.

Just now, Mr Wilson OR talked about "the country" repeatedly in his speech but I wish to stress that the amendments proposed by Members of the pro-democracy camp is designed to strike a balance with the so-called national 12366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 interests, that is, in the face of "co-location"―rather, we call it "cession-based co-location arrangement"―in the face of a lack of protection for the rights of residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, what goals we as representatives of the public want to achieve in proposing the amendments, rather than talking about "the country" all the time like Mr OR but forgetting about what treatment is extended to the rights of Hong Kong people and how they are compromised when ceding Hong Kong's territory to introduce the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station ("WKS") and under the Bill.

Deputy Chairman, I believe BORO must continue to operate in MPA at WKS of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. Human rights are the cornerstone of Hong Kong's civil society and they protect the personal freedoms of Hong Kong people from being infringed upon by public power and this is important. For this reason, the President also ruled that Dr KWOK's amendment is relevant to the Bill.

The main basis and source of reference of BORO is the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR"). The former Legislative Council enacted BORO in June 1991 to provide that local Courts can rule on cases of violation of the provisions of ICCPR as applicable to Hong Kong, and to provide redress through BORO for cases of violation.

In view of this, Deputy Chairman, here, I must explain the spirit of ICCPR and why the spirit of ICCPR has to be manifested in the Bill currently under examination through BORO by keeping it in force in MPA.

Since ICCPR defines the relationship between the State and individuals―Mr OR, I reiterate the word "individuals"―stating that the State should not interfere with and infringe upon certain individual acts, including freedom of speech, freedom of writing and publication, freedom of thought and conscience, freedom of gathering and association, etc., if Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment is passed, the spirit of ICCPR of all people enjoying fundamental freedoms can serve to restrict, by dint of the local BORO, the actions of the State taken by Mainland law enforcement officers in MPA, so as to prevent them from infringing the personal freedoms and rights of Hong Kong residents. Of course, this also amounts to a response to the criticism levelled by Mr Tony TSE just now. More specifically, he criticized the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, querying if Mr CHAN, in advocating equal rights, was practising discrimination against Mainland law enforcement officers. Mr TSE failed to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12367 understand clearly that the powers of law enforcement officers, who are vested with public powers and even carry weapons with them, must be subject to restrictions and clear definition, so the issues should not be confused. The so-called equal rights for LGBT refer to equal rights for people with different sexual orientations, and so his attempt to confuse this issue with the present solemn discussion on how to restrict the conduct of Mainland law enforcement officers under this Bill, which cedes Hong Kong's territory to bring about co-location, is to make an inappropriate analogy.

Deputy Chairman, some people believe that the Cooperation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("the Cooperation Arrangement"), which was confirmed by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") and the Basic Law, will not compromise the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people in MPA. However, I wish to stress that Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment can precisely serve to provide a solid legal basis, so that BORO can restrain the Government and Mainland law enforcement officers, and in the event that they violate BORO, legal proceedings can be initiated in courts or tribunals in Hong Kong.

Civil rights are based on the principle of equality, that is, "everyone is equal before the law". In the absence of discrimination, all people are protected by the law. Any policy or law should not make distinction of any kind among people of different race, colour, sex, language, religion, political opinion or national origin, or accord discriminatory or unfair treatment to them. This principle of equality is spelt out clearly in Article 1(1) and (2) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.

For this reason, Deputy Chairman, I believe that if Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment is passed, the principle of equality found in international covenants and BORO can be manifested in the Bill now under examination to ensure that Mainland law enforcement officers will not impose any unfair or discriminatory policy or law enforcement actions on Hong Kong residents in MPA. In other words, Hong Kong citizens will not be subjected to differential treatment by Mainland law enforcement officers in MPA on account of being Hong Kong people.

12368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Deputy Chairman and other Members here, of course, it is no paranoid to worry about the infringement of Hong Kong people's human rights by Mainland law enforcement officers in MPA, rather, it is founded on clear evidence and grounds. Hong Kong people remember all too clearly that in the incident related to Causeway Bay Books, Mainland officers were suspected to have crossed the boundary to seize a Hong Kong resident within Hong Kong's territory, then extradited and transferred him at will and clandestinely to the Mainland. Since Mainland law enforcement officers can cross the boundary and seize someone within Hong Kong's territory with impunity, if BORO cannot remain in force in MPA, the personal safety of Hong Kong people in MPA will be devoid of protection. I hope Mr Tony TSE can understand and grasp the point I am making now. This is not about the assertion made by him just now that Mainland law enforcement officers should not be subject to discrimination. Then, he confused this point with the campaign for equal rights that has been waged by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen all along. He should not confuse the issues.

Deputy Chairman, Article 5(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights stipulates that "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.". This Article also echoes Article 9 of ICCPR and is also the core value and spirit of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 5(4) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights also specifies that "Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.". Deputy Chairman, if BORO can remain in force in MPA, in the event that any unreasonable capture, cross-boundary capture or detention of passengers is made by any government or law enforcement officers in MPA, the rights conferred by BORO can be exercised to deal with them through the system of courts in Hong Kong, including the institution of legal proceedings.

Deputy Chairman, Article 5(5) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights also states that "Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.". That means in the event that Hong Kong people unfortunately encounter groundless capture, there are still channels to seek compensation from Mainland law enforcement agencies and officers. This is one way of providing redress mentioned by me in my speech just now.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12369

Apart from making captures at will―this happened in the incident related to the Causeway Bay Books―the rights of detained persons, for example, the right to see lawyers, be remanded on bail, have one's family notified and be put on public trial, are not protected and Mainland agencies―also called "powerful agencies"―can even confine and detain the people concerned in secret venues and these venues of confinement are not monitored and in the past, instances of torture did occur. Deputy Chairman, Mainland law enforcement agencies often abuse the power of confinement and some suspects were detained for 30 days before they were formally arrested.

In the Cooperation Arrangement, Articles 9 and 10 state that passengers bound for Hong Kong, before leaving MPA, and passengers bound for the Mainland, upon entering MPA, are to be regarded as being present in the Mainland and are subject to regulation in accordance with the laws of the Mainland. This is precisely my worry. If all Mainland laws are enforced in the entire MPA, no one knows what facilities there actually are in MPA. Secretary Frank CHAN did not let us make site visits in the course of scrutinizing the Bill to see if there are, for example, a large number of detention rooms―incidents of power abuse, including secret confinement and torture, have happened on the Mainland before―to put our minds at ease with the knowledge that such facilities are not found in MPA and have become its hardware. What did our Secretary do? The Secretary repeatedly turned down, time after time, Members' request to make site visits in the course of scrutinizing the Bill. He deprived us even of this right to know.

Therefore, the importance of making the Hong Kong Bill of Rights applicable to MPA lies in the fact that Article 3 therein specifies that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.". If Hong Kong passengers unfortunately encounter inhuman treatment in MPA, the laws of Hong Kong can be used as the basis to ascertain the responsibility of the Mainland agencies or law enforcement officers concerned within Hong Kong's judicial system. This is the reason for my support of Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment.

Deputy Chairman, the international community is concerned about how in recent years, the confessions to crime made by illegally arrested people were often broadcast on television in China. Members who spoke earlier also pointed out that the great majority of them had not been put on trial and many of them 12370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 had not even been formally arrested and detained according to the Chinese way of instituting prosecution. Those who refuse to cooperate would be tried secretly. In the future, I absolutely do not wish to see any Hong Kong resident being shown to have made confessions to crime on television or being subjected to torture in some unknown location in Hong Kong's WKS, that is, in the places that Secretary Frank CHAN did not allow us to visit.

Therefore, since the Mainland does not respect these rights of Hong Kong people, in view of the Mainland Government's persecution of dissidents through the judicial process and the continual surveillance and suppression of human rights activists―this is common knowledge in Hong Kong and the international community―I think that based on the foregoing reasons, I must support the amendment proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki, so that BORO will remain in force at MPA. At least, this can protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of Hong Kong people and reduce the risk of their being subjected to physical harm caused by the Mainland law enforcement agencies.

Deputy Chairman, (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, your speaking time is up.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will express my views on the amendments related to the expiry of the Bill. These amendments can be divided into two categories. Those in the first category concern whether the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") should have a so-called sunset clause specifying an expiry date. Those in the second category deal with, among other things, the commencement date of the Bill. Of course, the pan-democratic Members have proposed various amendments, with some proposing that the expiry takes effect on the 300th day or 365th day.

Let us first examine the so-called sunset clauses proposed by various Members. While Dr Fernando CHEUNG proposed that the Bill shall expire at midnight on 30 June 2023, Mr CHU Hoi-dick proposed another date. Also, some Members proposed that the Bill shall expire automatically under certain circumstances.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12371

On the sunset clause, Deputy Chairman, I have expressed my views on a number of different occasions, including in this Chamber. All in all, Deputy Chairman, I must first emphasize that, under usual circumstances, I have great reservations about sunset clauses. Under the present circumstances, however, I have a different view and I will now explain the reasons.

Actually, the so-called sunset clauses are rarely seen in many common law countries. What I mean is they are rarely seen, but not absent. Moreover, they are used in a very cautious manner. For instance, sunset clauses are found in some laws in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia. Such clauses can also be found in the civil law in other countries not practising common law, such as South Korea and Germany. There are three main types of sunset clauses, and most of the sunset clauses proposed by Members belong to the same type. In other words, it is set out clearly in the Bill when and under what circumstances the Bill will expire automatically.

Under the most basic principle of parliamentary sovereignty, the Legislative Council or the parliamentary assembly of a country or region will definitely exercise their legislative power in an effective and open manner in lawmaking. By the same token, if the legislature of a country or a region is to repeal a law, under normal circumstances, its Legislative Council or legislature should, depending on the circumstances, enact another piece of legislation or propose amendments to repeal the piece of legislation that has already been enacted. Doing so can precisely manifest the so-called parliamentary sovereignty and legislative independence.

However, on some occasions, especially under special circumstances, we see a different case. For instance, the anti-terrorist legislation enacted in Britain in 2005 contains a sunset clause. Why does the legislation contain a sunset clause? It was because the anti-terrorist legislation, which was passed by the British Parliament in 2005, had many adverse impacts on basic human rights, including the enormous search power possessed by the anti-terrorist forces, the powers possessed by the Police to detain and inquire into terrorists, and so on. All this will have an enormous impact on the most basic human rights enjoyed by a country where human rights are respected. This explains why the British Parliament has retained a tail to provide that this anti-terrorist Act must be reviewed before a certain period of time.

12372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

I would also like to highlight another question. Do sunset clauses automatically expire only on a certain date or under certain circumstances proposed by Members? If we take a look at the practice of other countries, we will find that our sunset clauses can be divided into three types. Although I cannot say categorically here if it is appropriate for sunset clauses to set an expiry date, I still wish to take this opportunity to explain to Honourable colleagues that other types of sunset clauses are applicable to the Bill, too.

Other common law countries adopting one of these types of sunset clauses require that the legislature shall reaffirm the validity of an ordinance within a certain time limit or before a specified date. For instance, the legislature must reaffirm the validity of the Ordinance within five years or prior to 31 December 2025. If such sunset clauses are applied to the Bill, we can make use of the specified time limit or period to examine the enforcement of the enactment and our concerns, such as the legal basis and the Mainland personnel who might enter any area outside the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") through a certain channel or enforce law in Hong Kong after entering any area outside MPA. Of course, the pro-establishment Members will say that there is no need to worry about all this, but still I cannot convince myself. Neither can I convince all Hong Kong people that such concerns are unnecessary. If this type of sunset clauses is put in place, we will have an opportunity in a couple of years to reconfirm and affirm that there is no need to amend the law and it can continue to be implemented.

As for another type of sunset clauses, there is a clause stipulating that the Ordinance must be reviewed in five or 10 years to ascertain if it is working properly. An alternative arrangement will be made if it is not functioning well. This type of sunset clauses is most applicable to the Bill because both the co-location arrangement and even "one country, two systems" are unprecedented. As we all know, the arrangement of "one country, two systems" is an entirely new idea. Of course, 21 years on, we can now identify quite many problems. The co-location arrangement is like another black hole dug out under "one country, two systems", and the laws of the Mainland will be implemented in most areas of this hole. However, there is yet a safe harbour in this black hole as some Hong Kong laws are still applicable. Buddy, I guess only such a "smart" Hong Kong Government can come up with such a complicated arrangement and innovative idea. No other place in the world could have come up with such law. The Government has once told us that co-location arrangements are put in place in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12373 such places as the boundary between Canada and the United States, the boundary between the United Kingdom and Ireland, and the control points of the Channel Tunnel. However, these co-location arrangements are unlike the arrangement made under the Bill. Deputy Chairman, I have used the Channel Tunnel for more than 10 times. Basically, the French law enforcement officers have to abide by the laws of the United Kingdom when performing clearance or quarantine formalities at the British control point (formerly in Waterloo but now in St Pancras).

In the latter half of my speech, I will say a few words about the hope expressed by Honourable colleagues in their proposed amendments for the Bill be not implemented until 300 or 365 days after it has been passed and gazetted. The co-location arrangement is a novelty. Actually, there are many administrative or legal problems we have yet to consider clearly. What is more, the Government has yet to come up with solutions to the problems raised by us. I think the Government will work out solutions only after problems have arisen. Such an attitude is utterly ridiculous. The problems raised by us are mainly legal problems. They can be divided into three major categories: Firstly, are the international agreements signed between Hong Kong and other countries and regions applicable to MPA? If not, does it mean that we have violated the international agreements signed? The international agreements we have already signed include some 100 to 200 agreements related to double taxation, aviation and economic cooperation. Even though the Department of Justice holds that we are not in violation of these international agreements, but according to protocol, is the Special Administrative Region Government obliged to remind or inform the signatories to the agreements of the changes to the interpretation of Hong Kong and then seek their consent? Although I have heard Secretary Frank CHAN say countless times that there is little chance of that happening or running into problems. But according to protocol, has the Government sought advice from the Central People's Government on whether we need to inform these signatories?

The second serious legal problem concerns the powers and responsibilities of insurance agreements and quasi-commercial agreements. Do we need to update each and every signed agreement? I am talking about novation, which is very troublesome. To update a commercial agreement, various signatories must give consent and sign the agreement. This is a major commercial problem.

12374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

The third problem is certainly related to law. It is also a relatively practical issue concerning the handling of accidents involving underground pipelines of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and the conflict of law arising from the use of different approaches.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

As for the fourth problem, I have contemplated it for quite some time and made enquiries with Secretary Frank CHAN. It has something to do with international laws and I hope he knows how to give me answers. Firstly, is the West Kowloon Station ("WKS") situated under any international flight path, that is, is there any international flight path above WKS? If not, there is no need for Secretary Frank CHAN to answer my question. However, if WKS is situated under a flight path, and in the unfortunate event of an accident involving the crash of a helicopter, drone or even a plane, and different floors of WKS, including the Hong Kong Port Area and MPA, are accidentally destroyed, the boundary between these two jurisdictions might be flattened, thereby resulting in space collapse. Members who have studied physics should know that space can collapse. In that case, how should this legal problem be resolved? I hope the Secretary can answer my questions.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I have reserved 36 hours in total for the consideration of the Bill. As of 10:00 am today, this Council has spent almost 26 hours on it, with about 10 hours left. Excluding the 6 hours reserved for the Third Reading proceedings, the committee of the whole Council now has about 4 hours left to examine the Bill.

To allow sufficient time for the public officers and 9 amendment movers to speak again, I will start to call upon them to speak at around 12:00 noon today, and the amendments will then be put to the vote.

After the committee of the whole Council has completed examination of the Bill, I will deal with the remaining proceedings, including the motion for Third Reading. As announced by me just now, the time so allocated is about 6 hours. I expect to complete all the proceedings of the Bill today.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12375

Members who wish to speak at the Committee stage, particularly those who have not yet spoken, will please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"), but I cannot support any of the amendments. I think the Government has made enormous efforts to bring the Bill to this stage, so in my speech, I will basically analyse the amendments selected by me for discussion from the legal, political and livelihood perspectives. One of the amendments mentioned by a number of Members is the one proposed by Mr Dennis KWOK which, as described by Mr James TO, is the "heart and soul" of this batch of amendments. Why such a description? Because this amendment actually reflects that the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("the Co-operation Arrangement") signed by the two Governments is still unacceptable to Members from the opposition camp. In the final analysis, as he cannot accept it, he has proposed specifically the stipulation that the Co-operation Arrangement between both sides does not form part and parcel of the laws of Hong Kong.

Nevertheless, we have now adopted a "Three-step Process", with the first step being the signing of the Co-operation Arrangement between the two Governments in relation to the co-location arrangement, followed by the Decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") before coming to the legislative process in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong today, seeking to implement the details of the Co-operation Arrangement between both sides in relation to the co-location arrangement. Hence, how will it be possible to specifically stipulate that the Co-operation Arrangement does not form part and parcel of the laws of Hong Kong? In fact, our purpose is to implement the content of the Co-operation Arrangement.

I believe insofar as the arguments of law over the co-location arrangement, Members, particularly those from the legal sector, have so far been divided. But I very much hope that Members holding different views, particularly those from 12376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 the legal sector, may sit back and listen. I know that those holding dissenting views have long been suggesting that they, from the perspective of the common law, do not see why the current arrangement is possible under the Basic Law, thinking that we should either add the law to Annex III pursuant to Article 18 or seek an interpretation of the Basic Law. Nevertheless, Members may read the Basic Law carefully. In fact, since the passage of the Basic Law to its current version, it is evident that in addition to the many characteristics of common law―credit should certainly go to the then Basic Law Drafting Committee for this―the provisions of the Basic Law also carry characteristics of the laws of the Mainland. No matter whether Members accept it or not, it is a legal fact, and the Basic Law passed by NPCSC is a national law within the constitutional order of the Mainland. A number of words in Articles 17, 18, 158 and 159 of the Basic Law are actually not those used in common law, clearly showing that there is another kind of order in place, i.e. the constitutional order put in place by China when enacting the Basic Law. The Basic Law is a piece of legislation enabling the implementation of Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, authorizing Hong Kong to implement "one country, two systems". It does provide that within the limits of the autonomy of the Hong Kong SAR, the Courts of Hong Kong may adjudicate cases in full accordance with the common law tradition. In retrospect, more than 95% of the cases have been adjudicated actually in accordance with the common law tradition in the past 21 years, as long as they are within the limits of the autonomy of the SAR. I believe the major controversy lies in the relationship between the Central Government and its local administrative region, and the Basic Law already contains explicit provisions on this, such as Articles 17, 18, 158 and 159, all relating to the relationship between the Central Government and its local administrative region. That is why such disputes concerning the constitutional order of China will arise. While China always sees it this way, some people in Hong Kong find the "one country" in "one country, two systems" totally unacceptable. For this reason, the Central Government has to exercise its powers and role in its relationship with its local administrative region.

The Basic Law actually contains the DNA of both common law and the laws of China. Hence, for such cases concerning the limits of the autonomy, we fully adopt the common law. But once they involve interpretations of the Basic Law, decisions, amendments to the Basic Law of Hong Kong, and national laws mainly related to defence and foreign affairs to be passed when necessary, they will be applicable in Hong Kong only if they are added to the list in Annex III. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12377

So far, we have not undertaken any procedure of amending the Basic Law, but the provisions do carry some constitutional characteristics of China. For example, the power to propose bills for amendments to the Basic Law shall be vested in the State Council, NPCSC and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and amendment bills shall be submitted to NPCSC, which are outside the system of the Hong Kong SAR.

As stated by Mr James TO earlier on and repeated by Mr CHU Hoi-dick several times, the most controversial issue is the role of interpretations of the Basic Law and decisions within the constitutional order of China. We should know that NPCSC is the highest organ of state power under the constitutional system of China, but to Hong Kong, the crucial point is that it will make decisions and interpretations, and amend, enact and pass national laws. If the national laws passed by NPCSC, such as the National Anthem Law of the People's Republic of China, are expressly applied to Hong Kong, they will be relevant to Hong Kong. In my view, over the past 21 years since the reunification, NPCSC has been most restrained in exercising such powers, without using them arbitrarily. It will exercise such powers only when major controversies are involved, such as the relationship between the Central Government and its local administrative region. Indeed, NPCSC will certainly need to exercise such powers only when there are controversies, such as the controversy over the right of abode in 1999; over the constitutional reform in 2004 and 2005; over a diplomatic act of state in 2011, and over oath-taking in 2016. They are all major events, which require interpretations of the wording of the provisions of the Basic Law. Before the reunification, an interpretation had also been made specifically of the nationality issue of overseas returnees without arousing any controversy as it was supported by Hong Kong people.

Nevertheless, in addition to interpretations of the Basic Law, another point of relevance within the constitutional order of China to Hong Kong people is "decisions", and many people have neglected such decisions. In fact, since the promulgation of the Basic Law on 4 April 1990, a series of decisions closely related to Hong Kong have already been in place, but hardly anyone would mention them, and people would only think of Article 158. For example, such decisions include the Method for the Formation of the First Government and the First Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and the decision adopted on 28 June 1990 that in case of discrepancy between the two texts in the implication of any words used in the Basic Law, the Chinese text shall 12378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 prevail. As for decisions relating to the constitutional reform, they were made in 2004 and 2007, as well as the best known 31 August Decision made recently in 2014. All such controversies were resolved by decisions.

The controversy over the co-location arrangement arose in 2017. The co-location arrangement should be addressed by way of a decision instead of an interpretation of the Basic Law because just like the constitutional reform, it also involves some arrangements within the constitutional order of China. As the saying goes, "keep your friends close but your enemies closer". Even if we are reluctant to listen to or learn about such things, it does not mean that they do not exist. As NPCSC's acts can actually be regarded acts of State, its decisions and interpretations have the highest constitutional status, both to Hong Kong and nation-wide.

Nevertheless, it has adopted the approach of "decisions" in some cases and "interpretations" in others. I have listened to Members' speeches just now. They consider the situation alarming because it may choose not to invoke Article 158. In that case, will decisions not be made frequently? But in fact, it will not make decisions frequently because we know it well that no such decision may contravene the "one country, two systems" principle and the established policies of the country regarding Hong Kong.

Next, we should examine whether the decision this time around contravenes the "one country, two systems" policy. I consider the co-location arrangement a good thing, and judging from the legislative intent of the Basic Law, it is a living constitutional instrument, which is also a social contract in the macro perspective. Well devised, the co-location arrangement will bring benefit to both our livelihood and development, and it does not contravene any provision of the Basic Law. Our belief that it is not recognized by the common law should not stand in the way of the development of Hong Kong because countries worldwide, particularly those which have a written constitution, such as the United States, even given its two-century-long history, will not be able to enact provisions ahead of time for such things as the co-location arrangement, artificial intelligence and unmanned aerial vehicles emerging only at a later stage.

Hence, it must involve the legislative intent, i.e. the promotion of "one country, two systems", which is desirable to both Hong Kong and the Mainland. I think the co-location arrangement fully accords with the legislative intent of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12379

Basic Law, without contravening the Basic Law and the established policies relating to "one country, two systems" regarding Hong Kong. The Decision was made completely on a constitutional basis, thereby providing a sound legal and constitutional basis for the co-location arrangement.

How does the Court treat such decisions? In fact, the first case that attracted most controversy was the NG Ka-ling case as far back as 1999. Speaking of the constitutional status of the Provisional Legislative Council ("PLC"), the Court made it clear in paragraphs 167, 168 and 169 of its judgment that on 14 March 1997, the National People's Congress resolved to approve the proposal to form PLC made by the Preparatory Committee. When dealing with the decision relating to PLC, the Court of Final Appeal also made particular reference to the decision.

Hence, I think the Court of Hong Kong was well aware of the circumstances under which the decisions of NPCSC should be respected, so it repeatedly mentioned that the arrangement to confer authority on the Preparatory Committee to prepare for the formation of PLC was already covered by that decision. What made it necessary for the Court to raise this point repeatedly in its judgment? Because they were well aware of the constitutional status of the decisions made by NPCSC. I understand that some from the legal sector who are completely ignorant about the laws of China find it hard to accept, but even so, it will not be wise to say that it is unconstitutional day after day. Frankly, in addition to being offensive, such words will also affect the relationship between the Central Government and its local administrative region. As the saying goes, "keep your friends close but your enemies closer". We should know that it can exercise its powers, and we should minimize the need for it to exercise such powers, instead of saying that we have no idea at all. I have had a debate with certain people. Their response is that there is no need to understand the constitutional order of China as it has nothing to do with them, so the debate simply could go no further. After listening to them, I think I should at least make it clear that the decisions adopted by NPCSC have a clear constitutional status.

Mr James TO has repeatedly mentioned partial jurisdiction in respect of the customs, immigration and quarantine ("CIQ") procedures. Frankly, I already put forward such a proposal as early as in 2015. But we should understand that for any arrangement involving both sides, i.e. the Central Government and its local 12380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 administrative region, it is not up to us to decide. Some say that all we need to do is authorize Hong Kong law enforcement officers to carry out such work. But we have not won the trust of the Central Government as we have yet to enact legislation for Article 23. Can our performance earn us such authorization? We should also reflect on ourselves.

As for Article 18, I have pointed out that if we adopt the approach as provided for in Article 18, there will at least be 10 odd national laws to be applicable in Hong Kong. I do not think that such an approach will serve the best interest of Hong Kong. In this sense, the current approach is actually the outcome of the strenuous effort of the Government.

What about the political front? Politically, I think the panic among people and the incident of Mr LEE Po actually have nothing to do with the co-location arrangement because when the incident took place, the co-location arrangement had actually not been proposed. I can appreciate their fear and political concerns, but they do have choices. In fact, the clearance procedures under the relevant arrangement are nothing much different from those conducted at Luohu and Huanggang. The only difference is that they are reluctant to see its implementation at West Kowloon as it is too close to the urban areas. But in fact, the jurisdiction, enforcement and cooperation between both sides remain unchanged.

Hence, I do not think ignorance or misunderstanding should be an excuse, and I wish to talk about something I heard from the community. Yesterday, I had lunch with 10-odd volunteers at West Kowloon. They asked me, "Dr LEUNG, how much longer do we have to wait? Can it commence operation earlier?" In this respect, Hong Kong should catch up, stop standing still, and look to national and international development. In this regard, I hope Members may offer actual assistance to enforcement officers of both sides and come up with ways to improve their communication, thereby reducing disputes caused by misunderstanding. We should not act as if we are ready to pick on their mistakes, giving people the impression that we have already discriminated against them before they undertake duties in Hong Kong. For this reason, I consider it inappropriate to propose such amendments.

Chairman, I have spoken in support of the Government's motion, and oppose all the amendments today. Chairman, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12381

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, the situation of the examination of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") by the Legislative Council today is grossly absurd. Chairman, just now you announced your ruling on how the rest of the meeting will be conducted today. I wonder what has caused you to rush in such a manner. It has been reported that even the pro-establishment camp is unhappy with you cutting short the Second Reading proceedings in this way.

Chairman, I am not commenting on or challenging your ruling. Your ruling is absolute, right? Now everything in this Legislative Council is absolute, while the decision of Beijing is absolute outside. Hence, I am not commenting on or challenging your ruling. Nevertheless, I need to point out that the absurdity of the passage of this Bill is in fact closely related to your practice. You can review your approach in handling the Second Reading yesterday. And now you suddenly announced that there might be less than two hours left at the Committee stage after which we would not be allowed to speak anymore.

Such a situation really gives us the impression that the Chairman times the proceedings backwards with a pre-set target so that the Bill can be passed tonight. In fact, Members of the pro-establishment camp have rarely spoken at this stage or during the Second Reading debate. Basically, those who spoke on the amendments at this stage merely said that we were wasting time, the amendments were meaningless, etc. Actually, the amendments are not meaningless. They said the amendments were meaningless only because they would not let them pass. But have they read the amendments actually? Various Members just spoke briefly. Basically, they only stated their stance and that was all.

However, the speech delivered by Dr Priscilla LEUNG just now was better. After all, she presented a lot of her viewpoints in law. No matter whether we agree with her or not, her speech did have some substance. Yet most Members merely made use of this period to speak to show their loyalty and then called it a day. This feels like at school when we were children. Some classmates would turn over the pages of the exercise book to peep at the answers at the back before doing the exercise. This is exactly the President's approach. Given that the Bill will definitely be passed, why does the pro-democracy camp need to waste time and effort on proposing so many amendments? Why not just let the Bill pass and even enjoy this process? Such is the current state of the Hong Kong legislature. It also reflects the misery felt, the helplessness faced and the absurdity seen by us during the present discussion on this Bill.

12382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Hongkongers are so disheartened by such conduct that they feel hopeless. We in the pro-democracy camp are the remaining ones calling on Hongkongers not to lose hope. This is the reason for our insistence on trying every means to amend this Bill which is unconstitutional. Even though, as we have said, there is no way our proposed amendments can make the Bill constitutional, we still insist on doing so in order not to let the Bill pass casually. We continue to do what they regard as futile. We just want to tell Hongkongers to never give up hope. Otherwise, Hong Kong will indeed be doomed.

I would like to briefly respond to part of the speech made by Dr Priscilla LEUNG just now. Just now she said many of her volunteers hoped that the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") could be commissioned earlier, so this was a good thing. However, if their view is wrong, we have got to tell them how they are wrong. We absolutely should not think that since the co-location arrangement will be implemented in the West Kowloon Station where the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") is very close to Hong Kong, it is no different from implementing it on the Mainland. It is just like Hongkongers going to the Mainland through such places as Lo Wu and Huanggang. In reality, it is indeed different because there is no co-location arrangement at those places.

Do not distort the matter. The co-location arrangement will turn the land of Hong Kong into a place under Mainland jurisdiction, so the situation is vastly different. Furthermore, now the co-location arrangement is set in a core zone in Hong Kong which is within her constituency. This will become a precedent. If there is such a precedent, we are worried that such cases will continue to take place. As we can see in the Legislative Council, the approach has been tightened one time after another. Starting with the interpretation of the Rules of Procedure, they have changed those rules which they deem unfavourable. The overall situation in Hong Kong is actually similar. Now we need to let Hongkongers see such absurdity and danger.

Next, I especially wish to speak on some important amendments proposed by Members and explain why I support these amendments. For example, Dr KWOK Ka-ki proposes in his amendment adding subclause (3) to prescribe: "To avoid doubt, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) remains in force in the Mainland Port Area". As far as the co-location arrangement is concerned, according to the present arrangement, all protection which Hongkongers now receive under the Basic Law and common law will be completely gone in this area. For this reason, we need to maintain this piece of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12383

Hong Kong legislation and implement the Bill of Rights, which is an international covenant, in MPA. As pointed out by the document of the United Nations, a treaty, once implemented at a place, cannot be scrapped or undermined. The Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance ("BORO") is a law enforcing Hong Kong's compliance with the international treaties. We must facilitate its implementation everywhere in Hong Kong, including MPA. Otherwise, we will fail our obligations under such treaties.

Moreover, the United Nations holds a clear stance on human rights treaties. The Special Administrative Region Government said the area involved in MPA was small, so it would not have any great impact, it does not matter. This point is absolutely untenable. As the saying goes, "A mouse dropping will spoil the whole pot of porridge." It should not be determined merely by the area. Moreover, with a high flow of people, that district is crucially important. Taking also the complicated issues brought forth by the co-location arrangement into account, we find it most important to provide sufficient protection there.

As a matter of fact, BORO provides many other kinds of protection. It can assist Hongkongers in respect of problems associated with law enforcement by Mainland officers which we feel concerned. For example, Article 5(1) stipulates: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law." Article 5(4) stipulates: "Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful." Article 8(4) stipulates: "No one who has the right of abode in Hong Kong shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter Hong Kong." Article 16(1) stipulates: "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference." Article 16(2) stipulates that "[e]veryone shall have the right to freedom of expression." Article 17 stipulates: "The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." 12384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Chairman, if some people say that Mainland laws rather than Hong Kong laws must be enforced in MPA, first of all, I consider that Hong Kong's commitment to the international treaties is absolutely a more important consideration which should be accorded priority. Besides, as I mentioned just now, one of the Government's justifications is that the area of MPA is small. Even if Hong Kong laws are not enforced there, the actual impact on Hong Kong will be very small. If it is said that its area is small, then compared with the whole China, it is even smaller. For the very same reason, we should not be afraid of maintaining a certain important Hong Kong law in force in this area. The impact on the whole China should be minimal. It should be acceptable and worthy of support.

To put it more widely, is protection of human rights the most fundamental protection for people? Is it protection for the people of any country and for everyone on the world? If human rights are something good, why do we not take this opportunity to put them in place? If we can find a way acceptable to the Mainland, it will also be beneficial to the Mainland. This is precisely what we wish to achieve. In integrating with China, why must we follow its practice rather than asking it to follow our good one? This is exactly what I think. Why is Hong Kong unable to take this step to make a big contribution to the country, bringing human rights into its so-called jurisdiction? As a matter of fact, that place belongs to Hong Kong. Our standard should not be dragged downward. We wish to take this opportunity to raise the standard of the whole country, enabling China to provide on the land of Hong Kong under its direct jurisdiction protection of BORO which everyone should enjoy. I find this approach more in line with the interests of the people of China and Hong Kong.

Moreover, I wish to speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's amendment. Her amendment seeks to change the commencement date of the Bill to "the 365th day after the day on which this Ordinance is passed by the Legislative Council", since the Bill really still has many problems. The co-location arrangement and XRL themselves also have many problems which are yet to be resolved. For this reason, implementation should be postponed so that we can have more opportunities of consideration here. We should not work in a way similar to that in the Bills Committee or here, merely pressing the button, going at excessive speed because they have already seen the answer and know the result. As I said just now, they have decided to act in this way, so they will not consider anything else.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12385

However, we do have many questions. A certain busybody has recently smeared me, saying that after this law is passed, someone like Charles Peter MOK will be pleased to travel by XRL. I have no idea what this busybody was thinking. How would he be able to tell what is in my mind? Of course, given his mentality, how would he know what is in my mind? What he thought was wrong. He said I would travel by XRL. Never mind. But he added that I would be most pleased. I guess this busybody must be dreaming. Here let me formally say that I will not and do not intend to do so. I absolutely will not be pleased to use the co-location arrangement because it violates the Basic Law of Hong Kong and the Constitution. Hence, will those people please go farther away. They had better not return to Hong Kong.

Too many problems remain unsolved. Be it the actual loss XRL will incur, the patronage, the frequency of train trips, whether the MTR Corporation Limited will pay any rent to the Government, whether the Mainland Government will pay any rent to Hong Kong, and what will be done should a legal dispute arise in the port area, there are indeed too many questions. Frankly, the Secretary has not answered all our questions in the Bills Committee. For this reason, I absolutely consider that we should support the amendment proposed by Ms Claudia MO.

Chairman, I am worried that many Members who wish to speak will be unable to do so in the remaining time at the Committee stage. Hence, here let me make my last remark. I strongly advise you to not arbitrarily impose a "cut-off" and end this debate. Otherwise, as I said when the Council meeting commenced yesterday, if any problem appears, you, the Chairman, shall indeed be held fully responsible.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I hope my speech will not be axed by you. When I spoke on the previous occasion, I already mentioned that the point of contention over the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") this time around was not whether we liked to travel by XRL or would organize tours for members of the public to travel to and from the Mainland, as the point is not here or there, and whether XRL would shorten the time of travelling to farther places was not our point of contention either. In fact, we are discussing the price we may have to pay for such benefits, so the point of contention over the Bill actually originates from the idea of constructing XRL. A long time ago, we already likened the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station ("WKS") to a cession 12386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 of land in Hong Kong because a certain part of the basement floor of WKS would be regarded as an area lying outside Hong Kong where the laws of Hong Kong would no longer apply, and Mainland personnel would also be deployed to the area.

I believe several hundred officers may be deployed to the area on the basement floor of WKS by then, and being there will be no different from being on the Mainland, which is a serious matter to Hong Kong. While Members from the pro-establishment camp and the Government see no problem with that, our utmost concerns remain how best the Basic Law, "one country, two systems" and Hong Kong's jurisdiction can be upheld, and whether the human rights of Hong Kong people entering the basement floor of WKS will be protected, which are constitutional disputes that have also prompted nine Members to propose various amendments to the Bill.

In the final analysis, the last thing we wish to see is violation of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law. Hence, I hope members of the public will see that our current point of contention is the need to uphold the system and jurisdiction of Hong Kong, and to block the passage of any legislation in contravention of the Basic Law in the Legislative Council. Hence, I believe that while the amendments proposed by nine Members look like nonsense, the passage of the Bill will subject it to judicial review on the grounds of contravention of the Basic Law later on.

Chairman, apart from constitutional issues and the purpose of preventing distortion and deformation of "one country, two systems", when we look at the whole process of scrutiny of the Bill, we will find that it is unconstitutional and in violation of procedural justice. First of all, under the "Three-step Process" to put in place the co-location arrangement, the Mainland and the Hong Kong SAR Governments are to reach the "Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement" ("Co-operation Arrangement"). And the second step is to seek the involvement of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") in Beijing, which will finally make a decision approving and endorsing the Co-operation Arrangement.

We see these placards that read "Legislative Council castrated". What does it actually mean? In fact, the relevant arrangement is decided by Beijing before it is discussed by the Legislative Council in Hong Kong, and that means it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12387 is decided by the executive authorities before it is considered by the Legislative Council, which has contravened the Basic Law. We often say that the executive authorities shall be answerable and accountable to the legislature, and subject to monitoring by the Legislative Council. But now, led by the executive authorities, the Legislative Council has even had its functions castrated. Moreover, during the consideration of the Bill in the Legislative Council, we know it well that Chairman Mrs Regina IP and Deputy Chairman, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, of the Bills Committee are themselves Executive Council Members. Both the positions of Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Bill have gone to them. In fact, as Executive Council Members, they themselves are tasked with the political mission of pressing for early passage of the Bill, which involves conflicts of roles and interests.

Mrs Regina IP has grasped the nettle of the Bill. Every time we scrutinize a Bill, we are supposed to start with its long title, to be followed by clause-by-clause examination before proceeding to the schedules finally. At the final stage, we are actually supposed to go through the five schedules once again right from the beginning, but she did not allow Members to ask questions, indicating that they had already been discussed during the examination of the clauses. In fact, we have participated in many meetings of various Bills Committees and scrutinized a number of Bills, such as the Waterworks (Amendment) Bill 2017. During our discussion of the schedules, we would not be prohibited from discussing those issues already gone through. During the earlier discussions on the clauses of the Bill, did Mrs Regina IP indicate that no discussion on the schedules would be allowed afterwards? She advised that Members might have a joint discussion on the schedules, but did not say that no further discussion on the schedules would be allowed after that. Consequently, she put the Bill to vote amid confusions, passing it in a hasty manner. After that, she felt like throwing a feast to celebrate her getaway. Chairman, you are out of luck. When you took over …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please come back to the subject of the debate at the Committee stage and do not discuss issues irrelevant to the subject.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): … At the beginning of my speech earlier on, I could already anticipate that you would again be unable to refrain from interrupting me. That was why I asked you not to intervene. I have not 12388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 digressed from the subject at all as we must explain why we support such amendments, not just because the provisions are unconstitutional, but also because the whole process and operation have violated procedural justice. Chairman, you go even further than Mrs Regina IP does in presiding over meetings. Mrs Regina IP's approach has made us reminiscent of the tyrannical way she handled the legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law, and this time, you have stolen the show, becoming the forerunner in the legislative history of the Hong Kong legislature. What is your blemish? Last Wednesday, 11 Members already pressed the "Request to speak" button, ready to speak on the Second Reading, and they had never spoken …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, I remind you again to come back to the subject of debate in Committee.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): I have come back to the subject, discussing why I support the relevant amendments, and it is because you have violated procedural justice. Instead of filibustering, Members only wished to speak once in the Second Reading debate. But even if they had pressed the "Request to speak" button, you would not allow them to speak, as a result of which the meeting last week ended in chaos. In fact, had you allowed them to speak, it might have taken just a bit more than an hour to complete the relevant procedure. But you would not allow them to speak, eventually rendering it impossible for the meeting to proceed.

This week, you again called upon the Secretary to speak right at the start of the meeting yesterday, turning a deaf ear to the points of order and questions relating to RoP raised by Members. Instead of addressing them, you just called upon the Secretary to continue making his speech, thereby reducing the Council to a messy market where Members tried hard to get themselves heard at the top of their voice. Who is to blame for the current situation? You are the one. You often say that the rulings of the President are not subject to challenge. That is right, but there are rules in place here. Which rule of our RoP confers the power on the President to prohibit Members from speaking even once in the Second Reading debate? The Basic Law stipulates that Legislative Council Members are vested with legislative power, and in the legislative process, we have to go through First Reading, Second Reading, consideration of amendments at the Committee stage and the eventual Third Reading. There is simply no LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12389 filibustering. When Members press the "Request to speak" button and you do not allow them to speak even once, it may actually attract judicial review. It was only because of your unfair decision that a stir was caused among Members. You then gave no response and turned a blind eye to it. You are really awesome, leaving a blemish in the history of Hong Kong.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, this is my last warning to you. If you keep digressing from the subject instead of speaking on the clauses of or amendments to the Bill, I will direct you to discontinue your speech. Please continue.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have not digressed from the subject at all because I am concluding whether the whole process of scrutiny is convincing with procedural justice upheld. If you force things through and fail to convince Members, we will not accept it. We will not accept this Bill either because we have grilled the Government in our speeches on many occasions, yet it is unable to address the relevant constitutional issues. Now you are forcing things through, indicating that NPCSC has granted approval after discussion, and we may just get things settled by blindly voting for it. Hence, you called upon the Secretary to speak right from the start, not allowing other Members to speak again, or you would instruct the security officers to remove us. Ten-odd security officers eventually took action to remove Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Andrew WAN …

(Mr Paul TSE raised his hand in indication)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, what is your point?

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Chairman, allowing Members to speak in violation of the rules is in itself a failure to enforce RoP. While Dr Helena WONG has been speaking for quite many minutes, I have heard nothing relevant to the amendments in her speech. Chairman, given such a tight schedule, it is inappropriate to allow her to deprive other Members who truly wish to express their views on the amendments of their speaking time.

12390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TSE, you have got your point across.

Dr Helena WONG, I have given you repeated warnings. If you keep digressing from the subject, I will direct you to discontinue your speech. Please continue.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, let me finish this. The blemish you have left in the history is your failure to convince Members that your decisions are impartial and fair. You have forced things through with a high-handed approach in the Council.

Chairman, you will hold office as the President of the Council for one or two years more. If you fail to act in an impartial manner, the dignity of the whole Legislative Council will ultimately be undermined. You will also leave the security officers and Members injured, and abuse the service of the Police, which will all be recorded in history.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please stop speaking.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, Members have held a number of meetings to discuss the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). Regarding the discussion on the motion on taking forward the follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), the Legislative Council has spent 27 hours holding three meetings on 26 October 2017, 1 November and the following day, and 15 November, whereas the Bills Committee has spent 45 hours holding 17 meetings. Adding to this the five hours spent by the Panel on Transport, Panel on Security, Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services and House Committee and the four Council meetings held over these two weeks, I believe up to 100 hours have been spent on discussing the Bill.

Chairman, I did not speak in the numerous meetings held so far. Why? I have been asked by a friend of mine if I do not have any views on the Bill. I wish to say that in an opinion poll conducted by the Liberal Party in August last year, about 67% of the public expressed support. In another opinion poll conducted by the wholesale and retail sector, to which I belong, about 1 000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12391 people from the business sector were interviewed and 95% of them expressed support, too. But why have I not expressed any views so far? Chairman, I have been told by many members of the public that, during the discussions on the Bill, they noted that Members from the non-establishment camp spoke most of the time, whereas many Members of the pro-establishment camp seldom spoke because Honourable colleagues of the pro-establishment camp and I shared the same view that time was running out. Moreover, XRL had to be commissioned and the Agenda of our meeting was very tight. Should we continue to speak, the time for Members from the non-establishment camp to speak would become even shorter. This was why we hoped to allow them to use up the speaking time so that they could put questions to government officials. However, we noted that they kept repeating their questions over a long period of time. Although the Government sought to answer their questions by all means, it seemed that the disputes would still occur frequently because of their completely different points of views.

Chairman, my colleagues and I had actually prepared a 2 600-word script to be read out at the meeting held on 26 October last year. It was mainly about the benefit brought about by the co-location arrangement to Hong Kong's business environment, the convenience enjoyed by the public, and the benefit brought to Hong Kong's economy in the future. Actually, there is no need for me to add anything as many Members of the pro-establishment camp have already pooled the wisdom of the public and advanced all the arguments.

I think that many Hong Kong people perfectly understand that the co-location arrangement will facilitate the movement of the public, give a boost to the economy and retain Hong Kong's status as China's "South Gate". Should this Bill, which is related to the co-location arrangement, cannot be passed this time around, the "South Gate" will retreat back to Shenzhen. This is not welcome news to Hong Kong people.

Members can find many placards here bearing the expression "cession of land and self-castration". In my opinion, it should read "self-destruction" instead. How? If this Bill, which is about the co-location arrangement, cannot be passed, I believe Hong Kong will ruin its own economy.

I attended all the meetings held by the Bills Committee and, during the meetings, I had repeatedly heard many Members from the non-establishment camp advance many arguments, but the most important point was that the co-location arrangement violates the Basic Law. Despite the repeated 12392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 explanations given by the Government and the Department of Justice ("DoJ"), these Members cited the views expressed by the Hong Kong Bar Association ("HKBA"), saying their advice must be heeded.

Chairman, I have on hand a report carried in the newspaper, THE SUN, on 9 October 2014 and entitled "The Hong Kong Bar Association: Occupiers should respect the rights of others" (and I quote): "The Occupy Central movement, which has lasted more than 10 days, has seen large numbers of people occupying the three strongholds, namely Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mong Kok. The Bar Association has, for the first time, issued a statement saying if a person is charged with a criminal offence, even if he has a lofty motive, civil disobedience cannot be used as a defence. The occupiers should not only respect the rights and freedom of other people, their action should also not cause excessive harm and inconvenience to society." (end of quote) Why did Members from the non-establishment camp not heed the advice of HKBA at that time and bring Occupy Central to a halt? Was it because they disapproved of the comments made by HKBA or they would only listen to views selectively according to their own political orientation?

Anyhow, Chairman, on the legal issues, the two sides have different views. The Government and DoJ simply do not see eye to eye with Members from the non-establishment camp. Hong Kong is the best place, for people might as well file judicial reviews. Nevertheless, I wish to point out that many people think that should some people really wish to file judicial reviews, they should not ask some uncles or elderly people to apply for legal aid to launch a legal battle with the Government. If they really have great confidence and trust that the arrangement is in breach of the law, they should use their own money …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU, I have to remind you to come back to the debate subject, which is under examination by the Committee.

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Fine, Chairman. The contents of the amendments proposed this time by Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Dr Fernando CHEUNG are confined to expiry date, expiry, cessation to take effect, "sunset clause", and so on, whereas Ms Tanya CHAN proposes in her amendment to delete certain provisions. These amendments will indirectly make it impossible for the co-location arrangement to operate. For this reason, I will not support any of these amendments. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12393

Chairman, as I said just now, I will not use up the 15 minutes as time is running out. I believe many people in Hong Kong know better than Members who are here the significance of XRL to the economic benefits of Hong Kong people and Hong Kong itself. This is why I hope Members from the non-establishment camp can enable the Bill that implements the co-location arrangement to be passed expeditiously.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to thank President Andrew LEUNG; Chairman of the House Committee, Ms Starry LEE, Chairman of the Bills Committee, Mrs Regina IP; Vice-chairman of the Bills Committee, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan; and Mr Martin LIAO and Mr Holden CHOW for chairing the public hearings. It is because I saw many of them challenged by many Members from the non-establishment camp. We all have to work hard to ensure the passage of the Bill.

Furthermore, I would like to take this opportunity in particular to thank Secretary Frank CHAN, Secretary John LEE, and Secretary Teresa CHENG for their perseverance. I believe all members of the public who have expectations for Hong Kong, including us and Members from the non-establishment camp who are here, are grateful to them. I would like to express our gratitude to them here.

Thank you, Chairman.

MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): I rise to speak in support of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). As to the amendments―24 in total―proposed by 9 Members however, none of them will have my support. I must point out that in the scrutiny stage of the Bills Committee, they had already put forward such amendments, which were all negatived. Now that we are at the Committee stage, I do not see any change in circumstances or reality that would justify acceptance afresh of these amendments by Members.

At the end of the day, the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station will in essence enable Hong Kong to fully unleash the advantages of high-speed rail, ensuring the transportation, economic and social benefits brought forth by the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. Moreover, such an arrangement has the backing of the majority public: over 50% of the people support the co-location proposal, as opinion polls on co-location―conducted by both leftist, centrist and rightist organizations in the 12394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 community―clearly showed. All of these polls also found that most members of the public believe the co-location arrangement will have no impact on "one country, two systems". In the face of such overwhelming public opinion, Legislative Council Members―known to all as representatives of public opinion―have indeed a rightful responsibility to oppose these amendments and support the expeditious passage of the Bill.

For some time in the past, it has been the habit of some Members to spin livelihood issues into political events. When these political events festered and got out of control, they would change tack and seek resolution in law instead. It can thus be surmised that the political bickering in respect of co-location will not come to an end even if the Bill passes Third Reading. As certain Members have pointed out, it is expected that the enacted Ordinance will probably be challenged by judicial review. Lastly, I hope members of the public can see clearly why in the course of deliberation, from Second Reading to the Committee stage, the Bill has been obstructed and delayed in every turn. I am sure the public with their discerning eyes can see through the reasons behind it.

I so submit, Chairman.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak in this session to express the support of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong to the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") and the Alliance's objection to all the amendments proposed by non-establishment Members.

Chairman, it is indeed a hard-won accomplishment for the consideration of the Bill to come to this step today, an accomplishment made possible by the joint effort of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"), the relevant authorities and organizations of the Guangdong Provincial Government and all sectors of the community under the support of the Central Government.

In July 2017, the HKSAR Government and the relevant Mainland authorities reached a consensus on the framework for implementing a co-location arrangement, which allows passengers to complete clearance procedures of both Hong Kong and the Mainland at the West Kowloon Station ("WKS") in one go, and announced that the arrangement will be implemented pursuant to a "Three-step Process". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12395

On 15 November 2017, this Council passed a non-binding motion moved by the Government in support of the Administration in taking forward the various follow-up tasks of the co-location arrangement pursuant to the "Three-step Process". Thereafter, the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government formally commenced the first step of the "Three-step Process" by signing with the Mainland the "Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement" ("Co-operation Arrangement") on 18 November. On 27 December that year, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") made the Decision to approve and endorse the Co-operation Arrangement, completing the second step.

As for the final step, the SAR Government introduced the Bill to the Legislative Council in January 2018. Comprising 64 Members, the relevant Bills Committee conducted a 3-month scrutiny totalling over 60 hours of the Bill, including two public hearings lasting 19 hours in total, and organized site visits to WKS for members. The Bills Committee endorsed on 7 May the resumption of the Second Reading debate in this Council.

Obviously, with the proactive participation of the HKSAR in every step, the "Three-step Process" has in no way undermined the high degree of autonomy enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong. The Decision of NPCSC also endorsed the HKSAR's implementation of co-location through local legislation. This undoubtedly serves as a forceful rebuttal to the absurd assertion that NPCSC can now arbitrarily enforce Mainland laws in Hong Kong.

Chairman, to ensure the co-location arrangement's compliance with the Constitution of China and the Basic Law, NPCSC made the Decision to approve and endorse the Co-operation Arrangement on the bases, among others, that the co-location arrangement is consistent with the "one country, two systems" principle, and that the territorial boundary of HKSAR will remain unchanged. Such Decision undoubtedly provides the co-location arrangement with a legal basis that commands constitutional standing and is vested with supreme authority in law.

The application of the laws of the Mainland and the delineation of jurisdiction are keys to implementation of the NPCSC-approved Co-operation Arrangement. The Co-operation Arrangement has clearly defined matters over which Hong Kong would exercise jurisdiction (i.e. reserved matter) and those 12396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 over which the Mainland would exercise jurisdiction (i.e. non-reserved matter) in the Mainland Port Area ("MPA"). MPA is established for the purpose of meeting the practical policy and operational needs, i.e. the special purpose of conducting Mainland clearance procedures for passengers of the high-speed rail link, and will not cover the entire HKSAR. Hence, the Co-operation Arrangement does not contravene Article 18 of the Basic Law, which intent is to restrict the general application of national laws on all persons within the HKSAR in order to safeguard the high degree of autonomy and the legal system of the HKSAR.

After the Bill's passage, all passengers will be aware of the arrangement of jurisdiction in MPA and can freely choose whether or not to travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland by the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). There is no practical difference between a person entering MPA of WKS and a person entering other restricted port areas (e.g. Luohu and Futian Ports) in the Mainland. It offers maximum convenience to those who travel to and from the Mainland by XRL and will not undermine the rights and freedoms enjoyed by residents of the HKSAR in accordance with the law.

Of the 75 amendments to the Bill initially proposed by 13 Members, 24 were ruled admissible by our Honourable President after comprehensive consideration of various factors. These 24 amendments were deemed admissible by the President as they were within the scope of the Bill. However, if these amendments were passed, there would be adverse consequences to the effective operation of WKS and XRL.

Eleven of the Amendments, for instance, relate to commencement or expiry dates of the enacted Ordinance. Mr CHU Hoi-dick's third to sixth amendments provide that when any part of the enacted Ordinance is adjudicated by the Court as conflicting with the Basic Law, the enacted Ordinance ceases to be valid forthwith. Members should note that he was talking about any part of the Bill, and he did not specify clearly the adjudication by which level of courts of Hong Kong. There would be too much uncertainties if the Bill was to be constrained by such easily-triggered conditions in the future and faced the threat of cessation at the slightest pretext. In other words, the normal operation of XRL could screech to a halt at any time. However, seemingly dissatisfied even with that, Mr CHU proposed in his second amendment to stipulate that the enacted Ordinance will expire five years after its commencement date, which sounds most trifling and baffling.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12397

Hence, I think Members should examine the Bill and the relevant amendments the same way as other Bills are scrutinized, considering first and foremost the policy intent of the Bill, then examining the provisions of the Bill with reference to the terms of the Co-operation Arrangement before exercising the legislative power of this Council.

Chairman, it is the prevailing view in Hong Kong that Members of the Legislative Council should be practical and realistic, casting aside their preconceived political bias for an expeditious completion of the examination of the Bill, thereby ensuring the smooth commissioning of XRL and the realization of the expected economic and social benefits to be unleashed by this massive project of cross-boundary infrastructure.

I so submit, Chairman.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") but against the 24 amendments proposed by 9 Members, namely Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Ms Claudia MO, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr Gary FAN, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Jeremy TAM and Ms Tanya CHAN.

Chairman, after reading the amendments and listening to the speeches of a number of Members, I find their amendments consistent with their usual attitude of opposing China on every front, opposing for the sake of opposition and stalling things as much as they can. The amendments proposed by them are all unnecessary, with some of them being even ridiculous.

For instance, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Ms Claudia MO propose to amend the commencement date to the 300th day after the publication of the Ordinance in the Gazette or the 365th day after the Ordinance is passed by the Legislative Council. They completely disregard the public aspiration for the early commissioning of the Express Rail Link ("XRL") and the implementaion of co-location. It is also against the interests of Hong Kong to commission XRL without the co-location arrangement as the overall efficiency of XRL will be significantly affected. It will be impossible to operate XRL if passengers cannot complete customs clearance conveniently. Therefore, their proposals that the 12398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 commencement date of the Bill be amended to the 300th day after its publication in the Gazette or the 365th day after it is passed by the Legislative Council are actually made for the purpose of stalling.

Moreover, a number of amendments seek to add a sunset clause to specify an expiry date of the Bill or to stipulate that the Bill will expire in five years. What substantive reason is there to support their argument that certain laws must expire? Should every law in Hong Kong have this stipulation? Hence, these amendments are completely unreasonable.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick has also proposed an amendment specifying that when any part of the Ordinance is adjudicated as conflicting with the Basic Law by the Court, the Ordinance ceases to be valid immediately. We all know that the Bill was formulated on the basis of the Decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") and is in conformity with the Basic Law. As Members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, it is really ridiculous to assume a piece of legislation in the process of enactment is unconstitutional and thus, make an expiry provision for it. If Members consider the Bill unconstitutional, they should vote against it instead of proposing amendments. If they consider that there are some major problems in the Bill, as they have said, they are free to initiate a judicial review and let the Court adjudicate on it. Hence, these amendments are completely unnecessary and made purely for the purpose of stalling.

In addition, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen proposes to make a provision for offence of officers of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area entering any area outside the Mainland Port Area ("MPA"). We all know clearly that officers who cross the border illegally and take unauthorized enforcement actions within the jurisdiction of Hong Kong are subject to the laws of Hong Kong. There is no need to made an additional provision. Just like the Shenzhen Bay Port, the Mainland did not make an additional provision stipulating how it should be handled if Hong Kong officers cross the border. Hence, the amendment also serves to delay and intimidate Hong Kong people.

Another example is the amendment proposed by Mr Jeremy TAM which stipulates that this is a one-off arrangement for the purposes of the Hong Kong Section of XRL and the West Kowloon Station, and will not apply to the customs clearance, immigration control and quarantine of any other railway or any railway in the future. As Members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council, we should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12399 understand very well that this amendment is unnecessary as a separate piece of legislation will have to be enacted in case of other co-location arrangement in the future. Hence, there is no need to made an additional provision. Therefore, we can see that the amendments are all unnecessary and meaningless.

After listening to the speeches of Members of the opposition camp these two days, I found that they look at any arrangement related to the Mainland with suspicions or resign it to the conspiracy theory. They assume or believe that the Central Government deliberately sabotages "one country, two systems". The Bill is an example. The co-location arrangement means Mainland laws will be applied in Hong Kong arbitrarily and Mainland public security officers will take law enforcement actions in Hong Kong arbitrarily. This is nothing but a conspiracy theory which shows their lack of understanding of the rules, legislation and constitution of the country. It also shows a lack of understanding, communication and confidence between them and the Central Government.

For this reason, I encourage pan-democratic Members of the opposition camp to open their minds and visit the Mainland more often so as to communicate with the officials and learn more about the development of the country. The Chinese President and officials at various levels have pointed out time and again that "one country, two systems" is the most beneficial arrangement for the country and for Hong Kong. In the many years since the reunification, we really have not seen any deliberate attempt to sabotage "one country, two systems" by the State. What is the benefit of sabotaging "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law for the country and Hong Kong? Why would the State want Hong Kong in chaos? Only some people of the opposition camp would oppose the Government and the Central Authorities for the sake of opposition. They claim to act for the benefit of Hong Kong, but in fact they are creating chaos in Hong Kong, ignoring the interests of Hong Kong people and the long-term development of Hong Kong.

XRL and the co-location arrangement have commanded popular support over the years. Even foreigners living or doing business in Hong Kong are eager for the implementation of co-location. Furthermore, as we all understand, the XRL network will extend in all directions which is essential to national development. Without XRL and the co-location arrangement, Hong Kong will stick to the old rut, creating a major obstacle for its future development.

12400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

We are also well aware that all eyes around the world are focused on the development of China. Hong Kong enjoys an edge under "one country, two systems". How can Hong Kong continue to develop if they oppose anything related to the State, even go so far as to refuse granting funding for the purchase of Dongjiang water?

A number of opinion polls have shown that more than 50% to 60% of the public support the co-location arrangement. Without the opposition camp's constant smearing of the co-location arrangement and misleading Hong Kong people, I believe the level of support would have been even higher. They often say the co-location arrangement is unnecessary as customs clearance can be completed at any port in the Mainland. However, they completely disregard the actual arrangement needs. After boarding in Hong Kong, passengers may get off at any station in the Mainland. Do we have to request every port in the Mainland to set up an immigration passage for Hong Kong people? It is impossible. Hence, apart from the co-location arrangement, there is no other practical arrangement that can maximize the effectiveness of XRL and facilitate the public.

So, please do not deceive Hong Kong people anymore. Please do not delay and do not make up intimidating stories to scare Hong Kong people anymore. There are many People's Liberation Army soliders right next to where we are, but they have never come out to harass or arrest Hong Kong people arbitrarily. So, please do not intimidate Hong Kong people anymore. We should understand that if Hong Kong does not complement the national development by giving play to our advantages and catering for the needs of the country, Hong Kong's future development will be greatly affected, in particular the young generation. Therefore, for the future of Hong Kong, I hope they will stop opposing for the sake of opposition and stop opposing China on every front.

Chairman, I support the Bill. Thank you, Chairman.

(Mr SHIU Ka-fai stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-fai, what is your point?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12401

MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I wish to clarify the contents of the speech delivered by me just now. It should be Mrs Regina IP and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan who chaired the public hearings.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The time for you to make a clarification has already ended.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, just now, Dr Elizabeth QUAT said that the opposition Members were conspiracy theorists, and they opposed for the sake of opposition. Actually, many Members of the pro-establishment camp advanced a similar view in their speeches. I would like to point out solemnly that I am no conspiracy theorist, and I will give the matter its fair deal. I believe many pro-democratic Members will hold the same attitude, too. I hope the pro-establishment camp, the authorities concerned and the Central Government will not dismiss our arguments simply because of what the opposition Members are. Instead, they should explore the problems in a rational manner in pursuance of the greatest interest of Hong Kong people and do something good for Hong Kong.

Chairman, many Committee stage amendments ("CSAs") have been proposed this time around. I will express my views on a couple of these CSAs. First, I would like to discuss the one proposed by Mr Jeremy TAM, which proposes that the Ordinance be defined as a one-off arrangement and that it will not apply to other circumstances. In my opinion, among the numerous CSAs, the one proposed by Mr Jeremy TAM is the most important and it involves the core issue of the entire co-location arrangement, too. Since the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") was described by many Members as unconstitutional, many Members and members of the community consider that this will be a unique case and will not be repeated in the future. The point that the co-location arrangement will not be repeated in the future is most important. Therefore, I think that Members should seriously explore the CSA proposed by Mr Jeremy TAM.

Why do some Members think that the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional? I have heard many pro-establishment Members mention in expressing their views in the Committee of the whole Council that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") as the highest constitutional organ has already made its decision. This argument is reasonable 12402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 in the sense that, for instance, NPCSC enjoys a lofty status in the constitutional system. I believe no one can deny this. Meanwhile, we are talking about governing the country in accordance with law. Judging from the concept of the rule of law, all constitutional organs have their powers conferred by and, at the same time, regulated and restrained by the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution confers powers, rights and obligations on public bodies and individuals as well as regulating them. NPCSC is no exception.

That said, it is undesirable to legitimize all the decisions made by NPCSC due to its lofty status. Regardless of how lofty its status is, NPCSC is likewise regulated by the Constitution. Just as the Chief Executive certainly enjoys a lofty status in the constitution system of Hong Kong, but can the Chief Executive make laws? No. This is the limitation imposed by the Constitution.

Chairman, this is an important issue. In fact, there is a very clear distinction in the Basic Law: Under what circumstances is the National People's Congress ("NPC") or NPCSC involved? For instance, Article 2 of the Basic Law stipulates that "The National People's Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy …". Such power is possessed by NPC rather than NPCSC. However, Article 17 of the Basic Law stipulates that "Laws enacted by the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region must be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for the record. The reporting for record shall not affect the entry into force of such laws." This provision clearly spells out the power possessed by NPCSC. In other words, this power was conferred by NPC on NPCSC when the Basic Law was enacted.

In fact, the power of NPCSC is clearly stipulated in the Basic Law. I pointed out during the Second Reading debate that the power of NPCSC is derived from Article 67 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. Insofar as Hong Kong is concerned, the power of NPCSC is derived from Articles 17, 18, 20, 90, 158, 159 and 160, Annex I and Annex II of the Basic Law. These provisions clearly define the scope of powers of NPCSC: It may return the law enacted in Hong Kong, apply national laws in Hong Kong, grant other powers to the Special Administrative Region ("SAR"), interpret the Basic Law, amend the Basic Law, declare laws to be in contravention of the Basic Law when SAR was established and give approval to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executives. The aforesaid provisions spell out the relevant scope of powers in these areas.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12403

We must note that none of the aforesaid provisions stipulates that NPCSC may make a decision by virtue of the Basic Law to achieve an effect of lawmaking in Hong Kong. NPCSC is not granted such power by the Basic Law. Unless we say that in addition to the power granted by the Basic Law, NPCSC has infinite power, that is, the so-called "residual power". It is so powerful that it can do anything. Nevertheless, I believe Honourable colleagues who have knowledge of the evolution of China's legal system will know that China has evolved from having a relatively weak sense of rule of law to gradually developing a relatively comprehensive legal system. This is the process of constitutional development. One of the key elements of this process is the restraint on the power of government organs. I believe even the legal sector in the Mainland will agree with this point. It is very dangerous to arbitrarily exercise power which is not specified in law. It is a retrogression in the rule of law, too.

Chairman, there is another important reason for me to support the CSA proposed by Mr Jeremy TAM. Basically, the Decision made by NPCSC has neither invoked any provision of the Basic Law or the Constitution nor used it as its constitutional or legal basis. In the absence of a constitutional or legal basis, I find it very dangerous for NPCSC to rely merely on its authority to exercise its power from whatever point of view of rule of law.

Some people say that since China practices the civil law system, it is different from Hong Kong where common law is practiced. Moreover, it is completely wrong to understand and criticize the civil law system from the viewpoint of common law. Of course, I am no legal expert or authority. Nevertheless, I believe Members will also agree that civil law and common law are the world's two major, most important and relatively sophisticated legal systems, and a sophisticated legal system must be built on a solid legal foundation. Civil law attaches great importance to statute law, meaning that the interpretation of existing laws is based on the very comprehensive statutes and regulations enacted in the past.

However, regarding the Decision made by NPCSC this time around, we have not seen it quote any records, documents, legal or constitutional provisions made during the enactment of the Basic Law. It made the Decision merely on the co-location arrangement. In my opinion, a decision without a legal basis might not be convincing even judging from the angle of civil law. Many legal experts who are sitting here, such as Dr Priscilla LEUNG, should be well versed in the Mainland's civil law. If she holds a different view, I hope she can explain the stringent legal basis of this Decision to us from the angle of civil law rather 12404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 than telling us not to make criticisms when we know nothing about civil law. For the purpose of convincing the public, NPCSC should advance ample arguments if the Decision made by NPCSC is based on civil law.

We have great respect for the power of NPCSC, but the question is: Does it have the power to make a decision to regulate Hong Kong's affairs? I personally have great respect for civil law because it is a very stringent system. Nevertheless, was the Decision made by NPCSC subjected to stringent inference and how did it come up with its present Decision? What is its basis? I think that a clear explanation must be offered to these queries. Otherwise, the only justification for the Decision is: This is the Decision made. Full stop. Given that the Decision has already been made, we can certainly not carry on. However, I think it is very important that the co-location arrangement will not be repeated in the future.

Chairman, this is the first CSA I wish to discuss. Another set of CSAs I wish to discuss concerns the proposals made by a number of Members, such as Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr Gary FAN, to add a sunset clause to the Bill. I will use commonsense only to interpret the Bill. Now we are talking about leasing a place within the Hong Kong SAR to the Mainland as a jurisdiction. Generally speaking, both parties will specify when and how the lease period will terminate. Arrangements will still be made even if it is a permanent lease. The questions are: Under what circumstances will the lease period terminate? Under what circumstances will it terminate or not terminate? Should it be spelt out more clearly? Even the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance has an expiry provision. In theory, a lease agreement should contain a recovery arrangement. It should contain clear provisions even if the lease is permanent.

Chairman, this aside, I still wish to say a few words about the debate arrangement for the Bill. I can see that the names of Members waiting to speak are no longer displayed on the screen. According to the initial arrangement made by the Chairman, 22 hours should be allocated to the Committee stage, if my memory has not failed me. However, our debate has lasted for only about five hours, from about 4:00 pm yesterday to the suspension of the meeting last night. It adds up to less than 10 hours even if today's meeting that began from this morning and lasts till this very moment is taken into calculation. What is more, the total time spent will just be 12 or 13 hours even if the time spent on the reply to be given by the Secretary and the voting to be taken later on is factored into it. It is a far cry from the 22 hours initially promised by the Chairman. Although the screen showed that 16 Members had pressed the "Request to speak" button, they were not given an opportunity to speak. Some of them might not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12405 even have a chance to speak in the committee of the whole Council. Why were they not allowed to speak? Why do you, Chairman, impose restrictions one after another to prevent many Members from speaking? Chairman, I hope you can give us a clear explanation.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now call upon the public officer to speak. After the public officer has spoken, I will call upon the nine amendment movers to speak again. Then, the debate will come to a close.

(Mr Alvin YEUNG stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, what is your point of order?

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, first of all, as Mr IP Kin-yuen pointed out just now, you stated earlier that there would be 22 hours for examination of the Bill in the committee of whole Council. We are now still a long way from that 22-hour deadline.

Secondly, according to Rule 38(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), a Member can speak more than once in the committee of the whole Council. I hope the Chairman will take RoP 38(1)(a) into consideration and allow Members who have indicated a wish to speak the opportunity to speak.

(Mr Dennis KWOK stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, what is your point of order?

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, the committee of the whole Council provides Members with an opportunity to debate the amendments to the Bill and Members can speak unlimited times. I too have pressed the "Request to Speak" button in the hope of speaking on another amendment proposed by myself. Indeed, the debate of the Committee is not yet finished as numerous Members still wish to express their many views. By deciding to abort the debate now, the Chairman has absolutely contravened RoP.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki stood up)

12406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, since the committee of the whole Council began its examination of the Bill at around 3:00 pm yesterday, the debate has lasted less than nine hours so far with 16 Members still waiting for their turn to speak. I too have not yet finished speaking on the amendment I proposed. Did you repeatedly deprive Members of their legitimate parliamentary rights in the Legislative Council because some pro-establishment Members have to travel abroad to attend the graduation ceremony of their children, as media reports suggested? It was already outrageous of you to initially dictate that the committee of the whole Council could examine the Bill for no more than 22 hours. It is downright nonsensical to call it to a halt when the debate has gone on for less than 10 hours.

(Mr Jeremy TAM stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point of order?

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, despite having given my remarks on the amendment I proposed, I have yet exercised my right to speak on other amendments. I have pressed the "Request to Speak" button and am now waiting for my turn to speak. My priority to speak however is low as I am one of the amendment movers and have spoken once already. As a result of your restriction, I can speak only on my own amendment for 15 minutes and have no opportunity at all to present my views on other amendments. Given that, as other Members pointed out just now, you have earlier set a deadline of 22 hours and there are still 16 Members―many of them have never spoken at the Committee stage―waiting for their turn to speak, why are you ending the debate now? Please give a clear account. Thank you.

(Mr Charles Peter MOK stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point of order?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12407

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, only an hour and a half or so has passed between your announcement this morning that the committee debate would end by noon and the formal conclusion of the debate now, a fact you can confirm later on. It must be a sudden decision on your part, or you would have supposedly made the announcement last night. Many Members did not realize that the debate was about to end until you gave the notice this morning. Some of them probably failed to return to the Chamber in time to press the "Request to Speak" button, being thus denied the opportunity to speak even once. It is most unfair of you to make the announcement just an hour and a half before the end of the debate, which is time enough for just six Members to speak. Leaving aside Members who are denied the chance to speak a second time, those who have never spoken will probably have no opportunity to do so.

Will the Chairman please tell us which Members―irrespective of their affiliations―out of the 16 Members who have pressed the "Request to Speak" button have yet to speak in the committee debate, thus becoming casualties of your decision?

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, while Members should be able to speak an unlimited number of times in the committee of the whole Council, they were left with just 22 hours to examine the Bill following your ruling. The committee of the whole Council began its examination of the Bill at around 3:00 pm yesterday which went on for less than six hours before the suspension of meeting at 9:00 pm. The meeting resumed today at 9:00 am and has gone on for 3 hours so far. That means the relevant examination has taken less than 10 hours in total. How are Members supposed to cope when you moved the goalposts before the game began, imposing a 22-hour limit on the otherwise unlimited speaking time, then did so again after the game had begun, shrinking the 22 hours further down to god knows how many hours?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members, I notified you all on 4 June that I would set aside some 36 hours for the consideration of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"), scheduling around 8 hours 12408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 for the Second Reading debate, around 22 hours for examination by the Committee and around 6 hours for proceedings of the Third Reading―around 36 hours in total. I also said Members could decide on their own how to allocate their speaking time between the Second Reading debate and the examination by the Committee, which has around 22 hours to examine the Bill. As I said just now, I have followed this direction in addressing the questions raised by Members. Hence, my approach has been consistent and there is no question of me moving the goalposts. If Members have made full use of the debate sessions, there should be enough time for this Council to deal with all the proceedings of the Bill.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Transport and Housing, please speak.

(Ms Tanya CHAN stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, what is your point of order?

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I too wish to remind you that I have in hand the two letters you mentioned just now. In the one dated 6 June, you mentioned for the first time the urgency of the Bill. It turns out that nothing is more urgent than enabling your colleagues to attend the graduation ceremony of their children.

Second, in your reply to the letter from five Members of the Civic Party on 12 June, you mentioned "allocation of time" in paragraph 3, stating that there would be around 22 hours for the Committee's examination. Are you overturning your original decision when we are now barely 10 hours into the examination? Why such urgency? You should at least give your reasons to Members. Chairman, the Express Rail Link will not commence service until September. It is 14 June today and there are four more Legislative Council meetings―two each in this month and the next―before the Council rises after the meeting on 11 July. May I ask what is the urgency of passing the Bill? Who is pressing you to do so? Does the so-called urgency lie in the need of your party comrades having to attend the graduation ceremony of their children?

(Mr Charles Peter MOK stood up)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12409

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point of order?

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Will you please accede to the request I made just now and tell us which Members among those who were waiting to speak had never spoken, and the number in total.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr MOK, I will later on instruct the Secretariat to provide you with the relevant information.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Why not give an account of it now, Chairman? Why can you not give an account right away when the information in question is so simple? Is the information very shocking? You gave a notice of just an hour and a half before forbidding Members from speaking further. Why can you not provide this information here and now?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Transport and Housing, please speak.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, how can you call upon the Secretary to speak? Secretary, please stop holding the microphone and reciting your prepared remarks. Chairman, I have not yet finished―you have gone too far.

(Ms Claudia MO stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point of order?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): We are supposed to reason with others in accordance with the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). Yet, as many people have pointed out, it is pointless to reason in this Council. Members should be able to speak for an unlimited number of times in the committee of the whole Council. While this is not feasible in practice, the Chairman should give us the opportunity 12410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 to speak a couple of times. How can you abort the debate and deny me the chance of explaining my proposed amendment? You have stressed repeatedly the importance and urgency of the Bill, how important and urgent is it exactly? By whom are you pressed to get the Bill passed as soon as possible? Your approach is totally unreasonable, which I find deeply regrettable. You should explain clearly, not just to this Council but to each and every one in Hong Kong, why the Bill must be passed in such an urgent manner? With the Express Rail Link commencing service after the summer holiday, why the rush when it is only June now? You said the Bill is important. No one says otherwise. It is precisely because the Bill is important that it must be explained clearly in this Council. I hope you can be reasonable, dispensing with your stony attitude and the refrain that your ruling is final and that it brooks no debate and warrants no explanation. I am simply reasoning―not debating―with you in accordance with RoP.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, in the letter addressed to Members on Tuesday, you mentioned the arrangement for the rest of the consideration process of the Bill, stating in paragraph 11(b) that the rest of the proceedings of the Bill would be dealt with in accordance with the proposed allocation of time. As far as Members understood, it meant the Committee would have 22 hours to debate the Bill. Yesterday before you called upon the Secretary to reply, I had raised this very question, requesting you to state clearly whether the rest of the proceedings would be dealt with based on the proposed allocation of time with 22 hours set aside for the debate of the Committee. You refused to reply at the time, pointing out that I was raising an enquiry, not a point of order. It was not until this morning that you finally announced that the debate would end by noon. Is your approach not misleading to Members?

(Ms Tanya CHAN stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, what is your point of order?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12411

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, my point of order relates to Rule 38(1)(a) of the Rules of Procedure. Let me read out the content of the letter you sent us two days ago. It says in paragraph 3: by virtue of the aforementioned constitutional basis and having regard to the urgency of the Bill, the President―meaning you―has decided on the proposed allocation of time for consideration of the Bill (estimated to be around 8 hours for the Second Reading debate, around 22 hours for the examination of the Committee and around 6 hours for the proceedings of Third Reading―36 hours in total) so that Members can properly arrange their speaking time and content, thereby optimizing the Council's time and ensuring the timely completion of the Bill's consideration by the Council. Chairman, this is your own decision. If you wish to overturn the decision you made two days ago, an explanation is in order. You cannot simply make a decision without offering any reason …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As explained clearly just now, I notified Members on 4 June that this Council would set aside around 36 hours to process the Bill in three phrases. However, if Members did not make full use of the time …

(A number of Members spoke aloud in their seats)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quite.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Chairman, in respect of the remarks made by Members in the joint debate on the amendments, I have listened to their views carefully. Some of those views have already been discussed in depth in the Bills Committee, and many of them were raised yet again in the resumed Second Reading debate, to which I have responded in my Second Reading reply, I will make no repetition here. I wish to focus on responding to the 24 amendments proposed by 9 Members.

(A number of Members stood up and spoke aloud)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have finished dealing with your points of order. Will Members please keep quiet.

12412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Members have proposed two amendments in total to clause 1(2) of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"), stipulating respectively different commencement dates for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), namely "this Ordinance comes into operation on the 300th day after the day on which this Ordinance is published in the Gazette" and "this Ordinance comes into operation on the 365th day after the day on which this Ordinance is passed by the Legislative Council".

(A number of Members kept yelling aloud)

Pursuant to clause 1(2) of the Bill, the enacted Ordinance following the passage of the Bill comes into operation on a day to be appointed by the Secretary for Transport and Housing by notice published in the Gazette. The Mainland Port Area ("MPA") will be established and commissioned upon the operation of the Ordinance. This commencement date will be the date of "commissioning" of MPA at the West Kowloon Station ("WKS") mentioned in Article 4 of the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("Co-operation Arrangement") and the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Approving the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("the Decision").

Attempting to amend the commencement date of the Ordinance, the current amendments will in effect alter the nature of the arrangement envisaged in the Co-operation Arrangement and the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"). The Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government does not see any substantive ground for introducing such arbitrary figures as the 300th day and the 365th day as the commencement dates of the Ordinance. Moreover, the passage of either of the two amendments will in effect prevent the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") from coming into service in September this year. This will incur losses to society of Hong Kong and defy public expectations for early enjoyment of high-speed rail service. The SAR Government does not support these two amendments. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12413

Five amendments proposed by Members stipulate that, following the passage of the Bill, the enacted Ordinance may expire on a certain date, or in relation to such occasions as cessation of operation of the Hong Kong Section of XRL and the expiry of the lease arrangement of MPA.

(A number of Members kept yelling aloud)

The SAR Government has repeatedly explained that the delineation of applicable laws and jurisdiction (including jurisdiction of the Courts) in respect of MPA to be implemented by the Bill originates from the NPCSC Decision and the approved Co-operation Arrangement, and has no direct relationship to the acquisition of the right to use, duration and fees of the venues within MPA, the details of which will be set out in another contract to be signed by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") Government and the Mainland authorities. Linking the Bill with the right of using the venues is thus uncalled for.

I must point out that the SAR Government finds it hard to ascertain any justification for specifying a certain expiry date for the Bill. As stated in a written reply by the SAR Government to the Bills Committee, the NPCSC Decision endorsed on 27 December 2017 did not specify any expiry date for the implementation of the co-location arrangement at XRL. As a matter of fact, neither has the Co-operation Arrangement itself specified any date on which the Co-operation Arrangement shall expire. Hence, we cannot arbitrarily add an expiry date to the Ordinance.

(A number of Members yelled aloud, while some Members yelled: "Shame on you, Andrew LEUNG!")

On the other hand, a Member proposed two amendments specifying that the Bill "expires on the day of the termination of operation of the Hong Kong Section of the Express Rail Link". While the SAR Government does not at this stage envisage that the Hong Kong Section of XRL will cease to operate, if such a scenario does arise, Article 16 of the Co-operation Arrangement has already put in place a concrete mechanism: "If this Co-operation Arrangement needs to be amended as a result of any change in the conditions of operation or regulation of the West Kowloon Station Port or for any other reason, the two sides must, after consultation and reaching consensus, sign a written document and submit it to the Central People's Government for approval." Should there be a need to amend the Co-operation Arrangement, the SAR Government will submit an Amendment 12414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Bill to the Legislative Council in the light of actual circumstances with a view to implementing the amended Co-operation Arrangement which has been approved by the State Council. At that juncture, the Legislative Council may decide whether the Amendment Bill should be passed. As such, we consider these amendments unnecessary and will not support them.

Apart from the five amendments mentioned, a Member additionally proposes four amendments that introduce new clauses on how the provisions of the Bill should be dealt with in the hypothetical scenario where any part of the Ordinance is adjudicated to be in contravention of the Basic Law.

As stated by NPCSC in the Decision, NPCSC confirms that the Co-operation Arrangement is consistent with the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the Basic Law. This is consistent with the view taken by the SAR Government.

(A number of Members kept yelling aloud)

Moreover, as the Court of Final Appeal pointed out in the case of Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration: "In exercising their judicial power conferred by the Basic Law, the courts of the Region have a duty to enforce and interpret that law. They undoubtedly have the jurisdiction to examine whether legislation enacted by the legislature of the Region or acts of the executive authorities of the Region are consistent with the Basic Law and, if found to be inconsistent, to hold them to be invalid." As the case has already established clearly the principle that the Courts of Hong Kong have the jurisdiction to adjudicate and declare a legislative provision contravening the Basic Law to be invalid, we consider it unnecessary to make such a provision again in the Bill.

A Member's amendment seeks to introduce three penalty clauses (clauses 9 to 11) against the personnel of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area. As for new clause 12 proposed under the same amendment which attempts to set an expiry date for the Ordinance, I have already presented most clearly my case of objection in response to similar amendments proposed by other Members, so I will not repeat it here.

Among the proposed new clauses, clauses 9 and 10 both relate to the personnel of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area leaving the Mainland Port Area ("MPA"). The Co-operation Arrangement, to that end, has stipulated in Article 6 that the personnel of the Mainland Authorities LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12415

Stationed at the Mainland Port Area will perform duties and functions in MPA in accordance with the laws of the Mainland. They shall not enter any area outside MPA to enforce the law, and have no law enforcement powers outside MPA. Moreover, NPCSC also stated clearly in the Decision that the Mainland will exercise jurisdiction over the WKS MPA in accordance with the Co-operation Arrangement and the laws of the Mainland with effect from its commissioning date. While Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area will perform duties and functions in accordance with the law, these authorities and their personnel shall not enforce the law in any area outside the WKS MPA. Should there be any case of violation coming to light, the SAR Government will certainly follow it up with the Central Government and deal with it seriously.

As for clause 11 …

(A number of Members chanted aloud: "Shame on you, Andrew LEUNG!")

As for clause 11, the amendment proposes that any person recognized by the Central People's Government as an officer of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area who engages in acts of the so-called assault or intimidation shall be dealt with in accordance with the SAR laws. However, as we have repeatedly stressed, law and order inside MPA is a non-reserved matter and shall be handled by the relevant Mainland authorities in accordance with the Mainland laws.

(A number of Members chanted aloud: "Shame on you, Andrew LEUNG!")

Also, the SAR Government has previously explained that it is not the Bill's objective to create new criminal offences, whether targeting at passengers, designated personnel of HKSAR, personnel of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area or any other potential users of the WKS MPA, who should be governed by the respective laws under the delineation of jurisdiction as described in the Co-operation Arrangement and reflected in the Bill. The amendment also confuses the respective powers and jurisdiction of the law enforcement departments of both places. We do not support it.

An amendment proposes the introduction of a new clause stipulating that the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) shall remain in force in MPA. However, pursuant to Article 4 of the Co-operation Arrangement, whether the laws of Hong Kong or the laws of Mainland shall be applied in MPA depends on whether the matter is one stipulated in Articles 3 and 7 of the 12416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Co-operation Arrangement (i.e. "reserved matter" defined in the Bill), and thus the issue cannot be dealt with in general terms. The proposed new clause clearly deviates from the Co-operation Arrangement, so we do not support this amendment.

(A number of Members chanted aloud: "Shame on you, Andrew LEUNG!")

As a matter of fact, the co-location arrangement will not alter the immigration regime of HKSAR, nor the rights and obligation of passengers undergoing clearance procedures. For a passenger entering MPA, it is no different from entering another Mainland port where the Mainland laws apply. In this connection, the implementation of co-location does not undermine the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the residents of HKSAR in accordance with law.

A Member's amendment proposes the inclusion of a new clause (i.e. clause 9) to the effect that the Co-operation Arrangement and the NPCSC Decision are specified as not part and parcel of Hong Kong laws.

As stated in a letter by the SAR Government in response to issues raised by the Legal Service Division of the Legislative Council, the Co-operation Arrangement is in nature an agreement entered into by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the Mainland. Its conclusion is an act of the executive. The Co-operation Arrangement could only be implemented in Hong Kong after the passage and coming into effect of the Bill. And the Decision was made by NPCSC in accordance with the laws of the People's Republic of China (including the Constitution of the People's Republic of China). The Decision is a law under the Mainland legal system. We consider the nature of the Co-operation Arrangement and that of the Decision unmistakably clear which warrant no separate explanation.

In respect of the same new clause, a Member proposes in his amendment to specify that the Ordinance is a one-off arrangement for the purpose of the Hong Kong Section of XRL, and will not apply to the customs clearance, immigration control and quarantine of any other railway or any railway in the future.

As the SAR Government has repeatedly pointed out, the entire "Three-step Process", including the Co-operation Arrangement, the NPCSC Decision and the Bill, merely deals with the co-location arrangement of the Hong Kong Section of XRL (i.e. a specific case). The clearance procedures of other cross-boundary transport infrastructure are not within the scope of the Bill. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12417

The SAR Government stresses that we have at this stage no plans to apply the co-location arrangement to cross-boundary transport facilities other than WKS and the Shenzhen Bay Port. That said, we cannot agree to an amendment that expands indefinitely the scope of the Bill and stipulates a provision completely irrelevant to the co-location arrangement of the Hong Kong Section of XRL. Hence, we oppose this amendment.

(Some Members kept yelling aloud)

A Member has proposed seven amendments in total, seeking to delete clause 7(3), clause 8 as well as Schedules 4 and 5. Before discussing these amendments, we must understand the legislative intent of the relevant provisions.

When implementing co-location arrangement at WKS, one of the issues is whether the geographical scope for certain pre-existing rights and obligations should or should not include MPA on or after the commencement date. In this connection, clause 7(3) specifies that in determining the geographical scope for the rights or obligations mentioned in clause 7(3)(a) to (d) and Schedules 4 and 5, MPA is to be regarded as an area lying outside Hong Kong but lying within the Mainland.

For example, under clause 7(3), if a person has been issued (i.e. before the Ordinance comes into effect) a removal order by the Immigration Department pursuant to the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115), the Department may, after the commencement of the Ordinance, enforce that order by simply transferring the person to MPA, which will be regarded as a completion of the removal process. Such an arrangement can avoid the confusion in jurisdiction and enforcement arising from a situation where the person being transferred to MPA still insists that he is within the territory of Hong Kong.

(Some Members kept yelling aloud)

Rights and obligations relating to clause 7(3) do not cover those arising from documents of a private nature (e.g. pre-existing employment contracts, etc.). In general, the geographical scope of the rights and obligations arising from such documents will not be affected. It is because the parties concerned can vary the documents in the days to come. Respecting their wishes, the Bill leaves to the parties to decide among themselves whether the geographical scope concerned should continue to include MPA in the future.

12418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Clause 8, meanwhile, deals with future documents, i.e. documents made on or after the commencement date.

In interpreting a reference to Hong Kong or part of Hong Kong in a future document under clause 8, the default position for the scope for a right or obligation that may be exercised or discharged in relation to a non-reserved matter is that MPA is an area lying outside Hong Kong but lying within the Mainland.

However, the private parties can choose instead to express a contrary intention in the relevant document rather than applying the aforementioned default position. This can ensure that the wish of the private parties will be respected and allow them to choose whether MPA is regarded as an area lying within Hong Kong or the Mainland in respect of the geographical scope of the rights and obligations in relation to a non-reserved matter.

Clause 8 does not apply to enactments, statutory authorities and Court orders. It is because with enactments, statutory authorities and Court orders coming from government departments/statutory bodies and the Courts, the related documents or authorities generally originate from statutory powers and are regulated by public law, which falls within the scope of law applicability and jurisdiction rather than that of private wishes. Since there is no question of the so-called contrary intention, such documents and authorities should be interpreted pursuant to clause 6(1) of the Bill: in cases involving a reserved matter, MPA would be regarded as an area lying within Hong Kong; in cases involving a non-reserved matter, MPA would be regarded as an area lying within the Mainland.

(Some Members kept yelling aloud)

It can thus be seen from the aforesaid analysis that by rationalizing the interpretation of existing and future rights and obligations after the commencement of the Ordinance, clause 7(3), clause 8 and the related Schedules 4 and 5 all exist for a purpose. Hence, we do not support the relevant amendments.

A Member proposes to change the colour used to signify the Shek Kong Stabling Sidings in Schedule 3 of the Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12419

We should bear in mind that a schedule in every Bill must be read in conjunction with the relevant provision. Clause 4 of the Bill stipulates that the area delineated and coloured orange on Plan No. 1 and Annex 1 to Plan No. 1 in Schedule 2 would be declared as the WKS MPA. Hence, no matter what colour is used to signify the Shek Kong Stabling Siding in Schedule 3, the area of WKS MPA will not be affected. As a matter of fact, Article 2 of the Co-operation Arrangement has made it clear that the Shek Kong Stabling Sidings does not form part of MPA.

The provision that has an actual linkage with Schedule 3 is Article 2, which provides for the interpretation of Shek Kong Stabling Siding as the area delineated and coloured orange on the plan in Schedule 3. That being the case, if this amendment is passed and the colour used to signify the Shek Kong Stabling Siding is changed to pink, the interpretation in Article 2 of the Bill will be rendered inoperable. Hence, we do not support this amendment.

(A Member indicated aloud a wish to raise a question)

A Member proposes an amendment which adds a provision under clause 2 setting out another definition of the term "Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area".

As a matter of fact, the SAR Government has already explained to the Bills Committee that the term "Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area" is used in Article 7 of the Co-operation Arrangement and defined in Article 6 of the Co-operation Arrangement. To assist readers in reading Article 7 of the Co-operation Arrangement as reproduced in Schedule 1 (as well as its English translation), a note is added to provide a piece of factual information on how the term is defined in the Co-operation Arrangement. The note is thus an aid to readers in reading Article 7 of the Co-operation Arrangement with the benefit of an existing definition that has already been provided in the Co-operation Arrangement.

The Member's amendment, if passed, will give rise to an anomaly where two definitions of the term "Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area" will co-exist in the Bill, i.e. (i) the definition in the newly added provision in clause 2; and (ii) the definition which is reproduced in the existing Schedule 1. This will cause confusion in the interpretation of the term, especially when it has 12420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 already been defined in the Co-operation Arrangement. In this connection, this amendment will make the clause which it proposes to amend incomprehensible, and we do not support it.

(Some Members kept talking aloud)

Chairman, this concludes my response to the amendments proposed by Members. I hope Members present will take into consideration the views of the SAR Government and vote against the 24 amendments to the Bill by the 9 Members.

I so submit, Chairman. Thank you.

(A number of Members remained standing and talked aloud)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will not deal with any point of order unless Members keep quiet. Ms Tanya CHAN, what is your point of order?

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, as I suggested just now, first of all, could you please explain if you have made a new decision and overturned the time allocation arrangement mentioned in paragraph 3 of your letter dated 12 June? What is the latest arrangement like? What are the grounds for overturning the previous decision? Let me quote your letter, to this effect, "The President decided to prescribe the time allocations for consideration of the Bill" and the time for examination by the Committee of the whole Council was originally set at approximately 22 hours, followed by 6 hours of debate on Third Reading. I do not know what your latest arrangement is now.

Also, Chairman, as pointed out by me just now, please take note of Rule 39(a) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). Mr Jeremy TAM also pointed out yesterday that …

(Mr Gary FAN talked aloud in his seat)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Miss Tanya CHAN's microphone has already been switched on but she is not wearing it.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12421

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): I did not say anything, so why are you interrupting me? Am I not speaking now?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I was only talking to Mr Gary FAN.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): My voice is so loud and clear, it is only you who could not hear it, Mr Andrew LEUNG! It was only because I did not wish to disconcert the colleagues providing interpretation that I did not raise my voice. I wish to raise a point of order according to RoP 38(1)(a) and RoP 39(a).

According to RoP 39(a), "A Member shall not interrupt another Member, except … by rising to a point of order, when the Member speaking shall resume his seat and the Member interrupting shall direct attention to the point which he wishes to bring to notice"―I have already indicated countless times that I wish to raise a point of order―"and submit it to the President or Chairman for decision".

Chairman, firstly, this statement shows that the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council and the President of the Legislative Council are not the same and that the meetings of a committee of the whole Council and Legislative Council meetings are two different meetings. Secondly, RoP 38(1)(a) stipulates that a Member may not speak more than once on a question, except in committee of the whole Council. Can you explain this?

(Dr Fernando CHEUNG stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, what is your point of order?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, when the Legislative Council convenes a meeting, it follows a set of rules. Each time before a meeting is convened, the Secretariat would prepare a script for all parties and the procedure of the whole meeting is set out clearly therein. Since the meeting has reached the present stage, as the Chairman of the committee of the whole Council, the President should ask, "Does any other Member wish to speak?". If no Member wishes to speak, officials are called upon to speak. It is only after this that the nine Members who have proposed amendments are called upon to speak again. 12422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

It is now only mid-June and there are several months to go before the commissioning of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). Even if the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") has to be passed in June, the commissioning of the XRL will by no means be hindered or delayed due to the longer time spent on the debate. At present, 18 Members have pressed the "Request to speak" button but have not yet spoken. I do not understand why you do not just allow them to speak as much as they want, then examine the Bill in the usual manner according to the meeting procedure set out by the Secretariat according to RoP. I call on you to give a clear explanation.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I wish to raise a point with the Chairman of the committee of the whole Council, who is now sitting in the Chair. The logic of this point is actually the same as that followed by the President in expelling five Members yesterday. According to the paper issued to us by the President, the committee of the whole Council has 22 hours to debate the Bill. When Mr Martin LIAO proposed an amendment to RoP last year to change the quorum of committee of the whole Council to 20 Members―I will only quote one line―at that time, he said that the Legislative Council meeting and a committee of the whole Council were two different entities. Subsequently, the President made a ruling on a resolution proposed by a Member to amend RoP of the Legislative Council and pointed out that "The above features, arguably, indicate that a committee of the Council, operates separately from the Council. Assuming that this view is correct, it is possible that the quorum requirement under Article 75 of the Basic Law would not be interpreted as applicable to a committee of the whole Council.". If you were acting in your capacity as the President of the Legislative Council when issuing a notice to Members, why can the Chairman of the committee of the whole Council overturn, at the Committee stage, a decision of the Legislative Council President publicized through a notice?

(Ms Claudia MO stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point of order?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12423

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Power abuser Mr Andrew LEUNG, I wish you will understand that the Legislative Council should be the playing field for Members, in particular, those Legislative Council Members who joined the Legislative Council by winning tens of thousands of supporting votes in direct elections. Just now, a number of Members raised a large number of points of order but you ignored them completely, letting Frank CHAN "occupy the Legislative Council" and go on talking on his own, saying "does not support" to all amendments proposed by Members and that is it. However, Members have not yet finished their discussion on the Bill.

I hope you will explain why, firstly, given that a number of Members have risen to indicate that they intended to raise points of order just now, you ignored them completely, so what kind of ruling is this? Secondly, I asked you earlier on what the importance and urgency of the Bill was but you did not reply. Of course, you would say that there is no need to reply but do you mean there is no need whatsoever to give an account to Hong Kong people? Such behaviour is most despicable!

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Concerning the debate and voting arrangements made by me on 4 June, if Members think that any arrangement is not in order, they can follow it up through other channels but should not obstruct the meeting proceedings by raising points of order.

On the issues raised by Members, I issued letters to Legislative Council Members on 6 June and 12 June respectively to explain all justifications clearly. The President presides over meetings by virtue of the powers vested in him by Article 72 of the Basic Law. It is only after examining the urgency of the motions and the use of debate time in the past and striking a balance among the different views of Members that I made the arrangement to reserve 36 hours in total for debate and voting.

I remember that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen asked me earlier on if there was any flexibility in this arrangement. At that time, I told Mr CHAN that if Members made full use of the debate time, I would exercise flexibility. However, the situations at the meetings last week and this week indicate that Members have not made full use of the debate time, so I will uphold the decision of reserving approximately 36 hours.

(Mr Gary FAN stood up) 12424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, what is your point of order?

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, you must not abuse the power you may exercise in your capacity as the Chairman to lie in the meeting. You accused Members of failing to make good use of their time to speak. In fact, during the Second Reading stage, 11 Members pressed the button to wait for their turn to speak. Today, 18 Members had pressed the button to wait for their turn to speak during the Committee stage, but some of them were not given the opportunity to speak for even the first time. The Chairman must not allege that Members have failed to make good use of their time to speak and discharge their duties during the Second Reading and Committee stages. You are absolutely abusing your power.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, do you wish to speak again?

(Mr Jeremy TAM stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point of order?

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, Rule 36(5) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") stipulates clearly that a Member shall not, without the permission of the Chairman, make a speech lasting more than 15 minutes. RoP 38(1)(a), or the rule mentioned by Mr Alvin YEUNG just now, also stipulates that a Member may speak only once on a question.

I understand, from the wording or something else, RoP may, as the Chairman pointed out yesterday, enhance and at the same time restrict his power and, more importantly, protect Members' power. RoP set out clearly that a Member may make a speech lasting up to 15 minutes once during the Second Reading debate or, just like now, the Committee stage.

May I ask the Chairman according to which rule of RoP you may deprive Members of their right to protection afforded by RoP without being obliged to abide by RoP? I hope the Chairman can give us a clear explanation because you merely said yesterday that your decision was final without giving an explanation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12425 to us. How could you override these rules? Chairman, if this is so, there is actually no need for RoP to exist because you will invariably say that RoP only grant the President more power rather than restricting his power. Such a claim is indeed extremely dangerous. Does it mean that Members of this Council may opt not to speak in accordance with RoP every day and follow the procedure, whereas the Chairman has all the say from now on?

I hope the Chairman can explain clearly the power you have exercised to exempt you from abiding by RoP?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, please stop speaking. Had you noticed the reply given by the Secretariat on 12 June on my behalf, you would have known that the constitutional basis was clearly stated in the second paragraph of the reply letter. If you do not understand it, you may ask the Secretariat to explain it to you. This constitutional basis was also the basis of my decision. Should Members consider the basis of my decision illegitimate, they may challenge the decision through other channels.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick, do you wish to speak again?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to raise a point of order.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, what is your point of order?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): A point of order, Chairman. Dr Fernando CHEUNG has just mentioned that, according to page 7 of the script, the Chairman is supposed to say, "If no Member wishes to speak, I will now invite public officers to speak." However, you did not read out from the script just now. To my understanding, the script was prepared by the Secretariat in accordance with RoP. If you intend to abuse your power next time, you should inform the Secretariat beforehand not to include such wording. Although these words are found in the script, you have opted not to read from it.

12426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, do you wish to speak again?

(Mr Charles Peter MOK stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point of order?

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman Andrew LEUNG. Just now, you made a very serious allegation against Members, claiming they did not make good use of their time to speak. I think you should explain your allegation clearly. Which Members were you referring to? Were you referring to us or Members of the pro-establishment camp? Why could you make such a decision? We hold that you, Andrew LEUNG, are the one who have failed to make proper arrangements and give Members adequate time to speak during the Second Reading and Committee stages. Can you explain which Member you were pinpointing just now and how Members made use of their speaking time in an inappropriate manner?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Secretariat already issued a letter on 12 June on my behalf to the five Members from the Civic Party to clearly explain the relevant arrangement in detail. Members may read the letter carefully.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): But the letter you are referring to was issued to the Civic Party.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): A copy of that letter was also circularized at the same time to all the Members of the Legislative Council. There is nothing I can do if you do not read the content of the letter carefully.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Which Members have failed to make good use of their time to speak?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12427

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick, do you wish to speak again?

(Ms Tanya CHAN stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, what is your point of order?

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Under Rule 41(5)―no, Rule 41(4) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), I raise a point of order. I have carefully read your letter to Members. Let me read out paragraph 9 of the letter dated 12 June. "He"―that is, you―"also reminds Members to seize the opportunity, make good use of time and be concise." I have gone through the whole letter, in which you have not accused anyone of not making good use of time. But just now, you made such an accusation.

Now I wish to point out that under RoP 41(4), "It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of the Council." I feel deeply offended. What does it mean by "not making good use of time"? While you have not accused us of not making good use of time throughout the letter, you have now made such an accusation and even sounded like you stand supreme. How did we not make good use of time? I consider your remark offensive and demand that you retract it.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I raise a point of order under RoP 38(3). Chairman, you said just now that Members have not made good use of their speaking time at the Committee stage. I have spoken twice respectively on my amendments seeking to add clauses 9 and 10, each of which not exceeding 15 minutes. May I know whether I am one of the Members referred to in the President's earlier remark that "Members have not made good use of their speaking time"? If so, I seek an elucidation from you as to why you consider that I have not made good use of the time in the debate? 12428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, there are certainly objective criteria for determining whether Members have made good use of their speaking time, and I have not singled out any Member. It is just stated in a general and objective sense that Members have not made good use of time.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick, do you wish to speak again?

(Ms Tanya CHAN stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, what is your point of order?

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, sorry, let me pick from where I left off with my point of order. Just now I mentioned RoP 41(4) which reads that it shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of the Council. You should either specify the Member or retract the relevant remark. Even if you casually refer to more than one person, it is still offensive. You either specify it or retract the remark. It is very simple.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. Please sit down.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): How is it not be a point of order? Chairman, this is about Rule 41(4) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). Are you illiterate? "It shall be out of order to use offensive and insulting language about Members of the Council."

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, please sit down. Mr CHU Hoi-dick, do you wish to speak again?

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up but did not start to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you wish to speak again?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12429

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am about to speak.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, please speak.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am speaking. Now Members can see that the Legislative Council has already complied with the "Three-step Process" for the co-location arrangement. In fact, in abusing power and depriving Members of their right to speak, the Legislative Council is undergoing a "Three-step Process", too. First, RoP clearly stipulates that Members may speak, but Mr Andrew LEUNG can disallow them to do so. When Members protested, you required the security officers to remove them from the Chamber. The third step is filing a report with the Police and then inviting the Court to deal with Members. Now it seems there is a fourth step. Mr Paul TSE is the Chairman of the Committee on Rules of Procedure. According to media reports, he seemed to have talked about the need to devise greater punishment. If a Member has been removed from a meeting, left his seat, etc., he will be fined or prohibited from coming back to attend any meeting within a certain period of time. Regarding such gestures of yours, we actually know very well what is going on. When your justification does not hold water, you want to force through the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"), but you fail to get the recognition of the people of Hong Kong. So you resort to violence in the Council, violence of the system, the security staff and the Police. This is obvious to all. But why am I still speaking here on my feet? Because we know this Council is only one of the links in the democratic movement in Hong Kong. We must remain steadfast in our position and let the people of Hong Kong hear our voices. We are the basis and also a trigger point of the democratic movement in Hong Kong. Hence, no matter what, I will continue to speak.

In my last speech at the Committee stage, I mainly wish to respond to the speech made by Dr Priscilla LEUNG just now. Actually, as Members can see, one of the signs of degeneration of the Legislative Council is that basically, not too many Members discuss the question. Starting from the Bills Committee, no Member has really looked into the Bill and the correspondence between various Members and the Government carefully. Up to the present stage of considering the amendments, which Members have seriously checked how many CSAs (i.e. Committee stage amendments) have been submitted by Members, then how many 12430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 of them have been cut by Mr Andrew LEUNG, the nature of the present 20-odd amendments which eventually remain, and the actual purpose of the proposed amendments?

From the adjournment motion, Second Reading to the present debate at the Committee stage, I think one of the subjects which warrant a clear explanation is the following question which has been repeatedly raised by Dr Priscilla LEUNG: Can the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"), purely through the decision model, bring about the implementation of a Hong Kong local law which obviously contravenes the Basic Law? This is a most important constitutional issue in Hong Kong.

Just now I listened to Dr Priscilla LEUNG's speech. I think she has misread a very important point. What has she misread? All of us know that the decisions of NPCSC exist. They started in 1990s and then appeared in the existing Annexes to the Basic Law. There are many decisions made by NPCSC. They do exist. We did not say they do not. However, these decisions can be differentiated. The first type of decisions is about matters not specified in the Basic Law. An example is the decision made on 31 August 2014. This decision had a bearing on the arrangements for the future constitutional development in Hong Kong, and neither Article 45 nor Annex I to the Basic Law touches on this issue. Hence, this decision of NPCSC did not violate the Basic Law. For this reason, even though we opposed this decision, considering it unreasonable and betrayal of the trust of Hongkongers in Beijing, at least we understood the reason for incorporating this decision into the Annex to the Basic Law.

However, now the decision of NPCSC relating to the co-location arrangement for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link is of a different nature. This concerns the provisions carrying specific requirements in the Basic Law, especially Article 18 of the Basic Law. Now the point I wish to make is that Dr Priscilla LEUNG often puts up the label of Chinese constitutional order, so to speak, and hurls it at me like a heavy rock which I cannot move, claiming that such people who study common law in Hong Kong can pack up because they have no knowledge of this matter. I think there is indeed justice in the world, in that the Government cannot contravene a law enacted by itself. This is the first point. Secondly, if the Government intends to do something in contravention of a law enacted by itself, it must first amend the law. In my view, be it civil law or common law, both principles are applicable.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12431

Hence, we should look at the Bill again. To begin with, if the Special Administrative Region Government just casually submits this Bill for the establishment of the Mainland Port Area and implementation of Mainland laws there, can the Bill stand the test of the Basic Law and Hong Kong's judicial system on its own? I believe the Department of Justice will try to say this approach can stand the test. That is why, as we can see, the Government replied that Article 18 of the Basic Law was not engaged. That means it is not applicable at all. This is the explanation thought up by the Government on Article 18. Certainly, this interpretation is based on the remarks made by ZHANG Xiaoming, the Director of the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office. First, is the Government itself confident that the law for the co-location arrangement can stand alone? If not, it will have to take the second step. That means the Government believes it needs support from other backers because, as Mr James TO said, the relevant law is not "authoritative" enough. Such being the case, it will carry enough weight if the Co-operation Arrangement and the Decision of NPCSC are cited.

I have heard Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and many Honourable colleagues point out that the "Three-step Process" is well supported in this way. Yet my core question is that one of the props of it, i.e. the Decision of NPCSC, is not clear in itself. We see that it violates the Basic Law promulgated by itself in 1990. This cannot be right. Hence, we are back to the present question. It is actually very simple. As far as I understand it, we should still distinguish the nature of this Decision of NPCSC. This Decision of NPCSC backing the Bill is inappropriate and wrong.

Just now Dr Priscilla LEUNG mentioned that in many past cases, the Court in Hong Kong would cite the decision of NPCSC as the basis for deliberation in making its judgment. If she agrees with this point, I think she might as well support Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment to prescribe: "To avoid doubt, the instruments referred to in the preamble of this Ordinance do not form part and parcel of the Basic Law or any laws of Hong Kong." Because according to her understanding, basically she is sure that in making its judgment, the Court in Hong Kong will take into consideration the decision of NPCSC as it did in the past. In that case, she should support Mr Dennis KWOK's amendment to affirm her view.

Actually, with the discussion having come to this point, I wish to make clear the focus of the debate to the people of Hong Kong. We have proposed some 20 amendments to mitigate the harm. In fact, from the very moment the 12432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Government proposed last year that there is no need to handle the co-location arrangement in accordance with Articles 158, 159 and 20 of the Basic Law, the harm has been done. In addition, Mr Andrew LEUNG and various Honourable colleagues of the pro-Government camp have fully cooperated with each other, causing damage to this Council. After all, to what kind of situation will such harm lead us? Will it lead us to a Council as silent as the grave? Will it lead us to a place where the Communist Party of China overrides the law, only the wishes of the "Northern Overlords" prevail, and all opposition voices will be wilfully silenced?

Now we really do not know how the situation will develop. I wonder if they still have a bottom line deep down in their hearts. I heard many Honourable colleagues in the pro-establishment camp say that now they also feel miserable. Keeping their mouths shut, they could not speak in the Second Reading debate. Nor can they speak at the Committee stage. If this is what they think, that means they also believe at the bottom of their hearts that the right to speak is the most basic right of Members. Presentation of speeches is a crucial element of the Hong Kong Legislative Council established under the Basic Law, during which Members enact legislation, examine budgets and monitor the Government. If they also hold such a view, they should really ponder whether they themselves will ultimately step on this way to hell which they are now paving. Moreover, please do not forget that all dictators have limited patience. The closer someone is to a dictator, the greater the danger. Have Members not heard of the saying that pandering to the emperor is like pandering to a tiger? Donald TSANG went to jail, having no idea whether he would be jailed again after his release. LEUNG Chun-ying thinks that having assumed the post of Vice-chairman of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, he can be free from worries. But he does not know that next time if he enrages the "emperor", he will go to jail, too, as in the case of those people around KIM Jong-un in North Korea. Some were subjected to "execution by dogs", and some ripped apart by anti-aircraft guns.

Being in the pro-Government camp, they have got to bear in mind such a phenomenon. The way Hong Kong stays as Hong Kong is actually a kind of protection for them. Its system and civilization is a kind of protection for everyone. We should treasure, nurture and participate in it, rather than following Andrew LEUNG―of course, Andrew LEUNG is merely dancing to the beat of the "Northern Lords". If they wish to degrade themselves in this way, will they please quit as Members because the way they are degrading themselves now will in fact take Hongkongers down with them.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12433

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you wish to speak again?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): According to Article 72 of the Basic Law, the President of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") shall exercise various powers and functions, and the first item is to preside over meetings. Hence, the President invokes this provision to expand his power to the maximum extent. During the examination by the committee of the whole Council, Members can speak for an unlimited number of times, yet the President rules that Members can only speak for 22 hours. For the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") as a whole, there will be 8 hours for the Second Reading debate, 22 hours for the examination by the whole Council and 6 hours for the Third Reading debate. In fact, at this very moment, I am still not sure if we will have six hours for the Third Reading debate.

I wish to make one point. Even if he is conferred with the power under Article 72 to limit the duration for the examination by the committee of the whole Council to 22 hours, why can the Chairman at the committee of the whole Council override the decision made by the President of the Legislative Council? I will not debate with you now. Yet, you should explain this clearly in writing afterwards.

Apart from Article 72 of the Basic Law, Article 73 also empowers the Legislative Council to exercise the following powers and functions. I consider that one of the most important provisions is Article 73(1): "To enact … laws in accordance with the provisions of the Basic Law and legal procedures"; and Article 73(6): "To debate any issue concerning public interests".

Today, we have to debate the Bill, the committee of the whole Council has to debate the amendments to various clauses, which is definitely important and certainly involves public interests. Members need to speak to debate the question. This is the fundamental right, power and function of Members conferred by the Basic Law, which should not be deprived or reduced, and it should not be subject to unreasonable restriction. During the examination by the committee of the whole Council, Member may speak for an unlimited number of times according to the original practice. I will not argue with you over this now but will discuss with you the 22 hours time frame set by you. It turns out that such restriction is not impossible, and Members' right to speak is at the mercy of the President. The first point is that, it is at your mercy to grant us more time or 12434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 less time. Yesterday, I initially planned to ask Carrie LAM whether she had set a deadline for Andrew LEUNG to have the Bill passed within this week. Why does it have to be set at 36 hours? Why can it not be set at 48 hours? Yesterday, the meeting ended at 9:00 pm, then why can the meeting not be continued till 10:00 pm? I thus discover that Members' chance of speaking is not merely at his mercy but is also a matter of competition. For within his framework of mercy, Members have to compete for priority in pressing the "Request to speak" button, and the slower ones will not have the chance to speak. This is the second point.

Third, Members are requested to make good use of the time for debate. It means a condition is imposed, and if this condition is not met, this time slot will be cancelled or shortened. The flexibility mentioned by the President is not about relaxing the limit. Initially, the provision of discretion is to give room for leniency, but now it is being used reversely to tighten the restriction. My earlier question is about my speaking time during the committee of the whole Council. Just now, I have spoken two times, focused on my amendments to make new clauses 9 and 10 under the part "Miscellaneous". On these two occasions, I only discussed clauses 9 and 10 and was not challenged by the Chairman for digression or repetition. Hence, I suppose I am not those Members who failed to make good use of our speaking time as he referred. But still, this is not alright. Members may think that they can speak if they behave well by not requesting headcounts, speaking seriously, focusing on the provisions, not repeating and straying from the question, yet this is not the case. Now, there is an additional condition. If other Members are considered by the Chairman as not using their speaking time properly, I will also be deprived of the opportunity to speak even though I have used my speaking time properly. As Prof Joseph LEE said last week, he did not care what others did, but the point was that he had to bear the punishment imposed by the President for not having the chance to speak even once during the Second Reading debate. How can we continue with this game?

I have proposed five amendments this time around and three amendments have been approved. I will not argue with you any more about the justifications for granting approval to certain amendments but not the others, for I only wish to make good use of my time to elaborate and explain my amendments during the committee of the whole Council. Otherwise, the pro-establishment camp will blow up the issue and depict me as being hostile to communists and China and trying to set certain restrictions to trouble Mainland law enforcement personnel. It is smart of me to put the amendment in the beginning, but regrettably, I can only have two opportunities to speak. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12435

During the present session for conclusion, I definitely will discuss one more amendment if the time allows and that is, the addition of new clause 11 under the part "Miscellaneous". Yet, it is far less meaningful to do so now, for before I speak on my amendment, the Secretary has already given his reply. Since he has not yet heard my speech, how can he respond to it? Besides, though you may disagree with my remarks, my remarks are reasonable.

Hence, Mrs Regina IP will get away after today. The worst is yet to come. Regarding the Bills Committee and the Second Reading and the committee of the whole Council today, even if one intends to apply for judicial review, one will not target at the Bills Committee. Am I right?

(Mr Steven HO stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, what is your point of order?

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): I have been listening to the speech of "Slow Beat" attentively, yet in the past five minutes, he has not drawn any conclusion on his amendments. This is another way of wasting time.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr HO, please be seated. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please continue.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I ask you to rule whether or not I have talked about my amendments. I am saying that I merely had the time to explain clauses 9 and 10 earlier, and I will talk about clause 11 now.

In gist, the amendment stipulates that any personnel of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area resists, obstructs, intimidates and assaults any personnel of the Hong Kong authorities in performing their duties will be liable to punishment. I will not talk about the number of years and the amount of fine imposed for punishment, yet I would like to state clearly the primary principle. My objective of proposing this amendment is crystal clear. I wish to clarify the ambiguity in Article 7(1) of the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing 12436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Co-location Arrangement ("Co-operation Arrangement"), so as to protect the safety of personnel of the Hong Kong authorities at the Mainland Port Area ("MPA"), ensuring that they can perform their duties properly and that the West Kowloon Station can operate safely and smoothly when personnel of the Hong Kong authorities can perform their duties free of worries. Since the amendment involves the ambiguity in Article 7(1) of the Co-operation Arrangement, I will also discuss the ambiguity concerning the reserved matter under Article 7(1), so as to facilitate Members in understanding my justification for proposing this amendment.

First, I would like to state my reasons for proposing the amendment. What has prompted me to do so? One of the reasons is the series of unfortunate events that occurred in May, where many Mainland law enforcement officers assaulted journalists from Hong Kong. The most horrifying part is that those Mainland law enforcement officers had taken away the press permits of Hong Kong journalists and did not return them to them, and they went further to assault the journalists. The incident reminds me that these documents are very important. If a person does not have the document or if a person's document is confiscated, it means that the person is relieved of his duties. In that event, personnel of the Hong Kong authorities will not be able to perform their duties and will be treated arbitrarily. If a person does not have the document, he will not have the power to perform the relevant duties in the Mainland. If Mainland public security officers do not want personnel of the Hong Kong authorities to perform their duties, a simple way is to confiscate their documents, so these officers will take away their documents in the first instance. Have Members noticed this situation from the examples in the past? After that, the documents taken will not be returned. Under Article 7(1) of the Co-operation Arrangement, it is stipulated that personnel of the Hong Kong authorities must possess valid permits issued by the Hong Kong Government or the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") to enter MPA to perform duties. This means that if Mainland law enforcement officers confiscate the documents of personnel of the Hong Kong authorities, the personnel affected cannot perform their duties, and they may be excluded from the protection of the reserved matter under the Bill. In other words, the personnel affected will not be protected by the laws of Hong Kong. Initially, I wanted to lay down only the regulation on confiscation of documents so that Mainland law enforcement officers cannot confiscate or keep the documents used by personnel of the Hong Kong authorities to enter MPA to carry out their duties. Yet, I then realized that this approach could merely deal with a single situation and the protection provided for personnel of the Hong Kong authorities would be inadequate. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12437

Another reason that prompted me to propose this amendment is one of the charges the Government initiated against Mr HUI Chi-fung some time ago, and that is, obstructing public officers in the execution of duties. I include this offence in the Bill to ensure that personnel of the Hong Kong authorities will not be subjected to nuisance by Mainland law enforcement officers. Sometimes, when the Government do bad things, it may provoke me to do some good things. Some people ask why the relevant penalty is targeted at Mainland law enforcement officers but not all the people in MPA. This involves another serious concern, and that is, the ambiguity in Article 7(1) of the Co-operation Arrangement for the co-location arrangement. Let us read Article 7(1) carefully: "the performance of duties and functions or matters related to the performance of duties and functions by designated personnel, i.e. holders of valid permit issued by the HKSAR Government or the Hong Kong operator of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link who enter the Mainland Port Area or pass through the Mainland Port Area to other places within the West Kowloon Station to carry out duties and functions," (SAR exercises jurisdiction over such matters in accordance with the laws of SAR) "Save as stated above, these personnel should comply with the laws of the Mainland inside the Mainland Port Area and be subject to regulation by the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area;".

At first glance, the provision seems to be clear, that is, when personnel of the Hong Kong authorities are in or passing by MPA and if they are not performing duties, they have to comply with the laws of the Mainland and are subject to the surveillance of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area. Yet, if Members read it carefully again, they may notice one question: Who can decide whether or not the personnel are performing their duties? If the personnel of the Hong Kong authorities consider that they are performing their duties but Mainland personnel think otherwise and even prevent them from performing their duties by checking, confiscating or detaining their documents, how should the situation be tackled? Let me cite a simple example to illustrate my point. Assume a Mainland law enforcement officer bumps into an officer of the Hong Kong authorities who is going to a certain location in MPA to carry out his duties, the Mainland law enforcement officer considers that the officer of the Hong Kong authorities has not yet started to perform his duties and is thus subject to the regulation of Mainland law enforcement agencies. The Mainland law enforcement officer then requires him to submit his work permit to verify his identity and whether his work permit is issued by SAR Government or MTRCL. After the officer of the Hong Kong authorities submits his work 12438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 permit to the Mainland law enforcement officer, he naturally cannot go to the location where he has to perform his duties. Come to think about it. What if incidents in which journalists are beaten and their documents confiscated as we have seen previously happen in MPA? What protection do personnel of the Hong Kong authorities enjoy? According to the laws of the Mainland, Mainland law enforcement officers truly have the power to request and check the work permit of personnel of the Hong Kong authorities without offering any reasons for doing so and there is no law requiring them to return the relevant documents. Hence, according to Article 7(1) of the Co-operation Arrangement, it is possible that law enforcement officers of Mainland law enforcement agencies may request work permits from personnel of the Hong Kong authorities and do not return them, and they may indeed have the power to do that. By then, the officer of the Hong Kong authorities, who has been hindered by the Mainland law enforcement officer continually, will not be able to perform his duties. Since he has no permit and is not performing duties, he cannot but be subject fully to the regulation of the laws of the Mainland.

Article 7(1) is unclear. This provision under the Co-operation Arrangement fails to address a major problem, that is, the possible difference in the interpretation of performing duties between Mainland law enforcement officers and personnel of the Hong Kong authorities. Under general circumstances, Mainland law enforcement officers may impose their interpretation of performing duties on personnel of the Hong Kong authorities, so that Mainland law enforcement officers may influence freely personnel of the Hong Kong authorities who are performing their duties. I do not have enough time to elaborate each and every reason in detail. Why are Members allowed to speak for an unlimited number of times in the committee of the whole Council? For if other Members do not understand my point after I have spoken, they may ask questions, and after asking questions, they may refute my points. However, under the present circumstance, these situations will not arise. I would like to draw a conclusion for the three amendments I have made, particularly on clauses 9 and 10. According to the Co-operation Arrangement, Mainland personnel at MPA cannot enter areas outside MPA to enforce laws. At the meeting of the Bills Committee, the Government said that they are not allowed to enter areas other than MPA, yet this is not stated clearly in the provision. Although the situation is chaotic just now, I have put on my headset to listen to the Secretary's speech. What did the Secretary say about it? He said in the event of such an incident, it will be followed up with the Central Authorities and handled seriously. Ha ha, what a remark. If that is the case, the examination of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12439 the Bill by Members would not be necessary, would it? The Secretary trusts that they will not do so, they definitely will not do so and he is 99% certain that they will not do so. Even if they do so, it does not matter, for the Secretary will tell the Central Authorities that he does not know why they have enter such areas and it is heard that they just come in for shopping. What can you do? You will handle it seriously, right?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, do you wish to speak again?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): This morning, I saw a most flamboyant display and act of power abuse. Last night, I read the following comment on the Internet: "Co-location―a deceitful act of cession of land, opening the gate for the Qing forces and self-castration of the Legislative Council". Members may consider this description a bit exaggerated, yet it is not far from the truth.

I think another incident should also be put on record. Last night, according to the display on the computer on our desk and my phone, the list of Members waiting to speak included the name of Mr Paul TSE, who would speak before me. However, when his turn came, he suddenly stood up and claimed that he had not pressed the "Request to speak" button. He was playing trick and wronging the Secretariat. His request to speak is not a casual matter, is it? This act of his is extremely undesirable and mean. He is not merely acting cowardly and like a quail, he is hypocritical. It is wickedness. This should be put on record.

MS CLAUDIA MO: I have otherwise prepared my speech in English. This is a very upsetting day in the legislature's history, a very dark day, all thanks to you, and probably also to all the Beijing toadies.

This Council is supposed to be represented by legislators, especially, popularly elected lawmakers, who came in with tens of thousands of votes to represent the people to make sure and to monitor the Hong Kong Government from harming and hurting Hongkongers' interests. No, we could not do so, because we are outnumbered by all those so-called Beijing loyalists. Just because they have the majority by numbers, by sheer numbers, you think you can get away with anything, just anything. Look at all the happenings in the past two days, or the weird, the strange, the bizarre―everything you can think of has happened in this Council.

12440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

You have tried very best, your very best, to limit and to circumvent the scope and the time for lawmakers―the opposition ones, of course―to oppose, to express and to voice their dissent for this Bill, the so-called high-speed rail thing. But it is so harmful to Hong Kong, not just in the long run, probably in the short term as well. But then, you allowed everyone else, yourself included, to keep queuing behind you or behind the Government―to "caravan" behind the Government to just do whatever the Government wants and to suit whatever the Government needs.

And so, my amendment says, if this Bill is actually passed, can we not have a grace period? Some sort of a buffer zone for everyone to calm down, the Government in particular, so that it can think twice, probably thrice to decide whether the whole thing could just, at the end of the day, take Hong Kong out and take Hong Kong down. It is so harmful, it is so undesirable that we should not proceed with it after all.

But of course, you would say the fact that you have already ruled my amendment admissible means that you are not particularly stringent neither. But then, you knew and I knew what has been happening: what is going to happen is actually written on the wall already, it is in the cards, because you have the majority, you are bound to win. And then, you would be thinking: let us give the dog the bad name―the opposition; let us suppress the dissent; let us silence them, for they are the baddies, they are obstructing Hong Kong's progress. In Chinese, they say, "Do not prevent the world from turning." How absurd! How ridiculous!

Because if there is any interest in their favour, of course, they can even sell their own mothers. But to oblige, you have ordered our opposition colleagues out, and then you ordered at least five security guards to surround one protesting democratic lawmaker, you called in the Police, you allowed the Police in here to gather evidence―unthinkable―and you wanted to make sure that the opposition―what you think is on a losing streak―will just carry on. You just do what you want―with amendments or no amendments, right? And in the meantime, you park yourself in there, putting on this poker face and thinking that you can just get away with it. But in today's news and tomorrow's history, you will be judged. The whole thing is so preposterous, disgusting, simply sick!

I was saying: I was hoping that with my amendment that we should have a one-year buffer zone before the law is put into practice. It is mainly for the Government to think: or maybe we can have a more healthy discussion within the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12441 civil society; maybe there are ways to better this supposed Bill, right? The Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill starts with "Guangzhou". By the way, we paid a colossal sum for this "white elephant" project to start with. And now we are throwing our legal and political interests down the drain, down the toilet. You have been trying to use this co-location business as a camouflage, I should think, as some sort of screen, a blind, to pretend that this sort of legal, so-called, and political arrangement is going to work after all.

Now, seriously, I do believe human nature tends to be kind. But despite all the willingness to be trusting and credulous, this is horrible, what you call it, the black cloud, this horrible lurking suspicion in the head that you are not just doing this once. The Government will do it one more time later in due course. They are going to claim that, with experience, with practice, it is proven to work. Hey, it works. We can extend it, probably. Who knows? We are now talking about something called the Mainland Port Area. Later on, maybe 10 years from now―you never know―we may have, God knows the "central business area", the "Kowloon West Cultural Area" and what else can you think of? The "Mainland Political Area", i.e. this particular legislature. You would say, "Oh, this is very far-fetched." It is far-fetched, except that this so-called co-location arrangement right under our nose is also unthinkable, completely unimaginable, but it is happening. It is actually happening before our eyes. And they are not objecting, you are not objecting, because you are just Beijing's toadies. You are Beijing's tagalongs. You need favours. So, you will do everything to show Beijing that you are very obliging in every way.

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

Subsequently, this Government can just twist and mould laws and things, policies, right? To do whatever they want. And it is very dangerous for Hong Kong. You are not just betraying Hong Kong for once; you are flushing Hong Kong's interests down the loo. The whole thing is a very cheap affair and it is bound to happen. And I am sure you are going to have it one more time, and two, normally, comes with three.

Many people would think, "Ah, we thought and thought and puzzled and puzzled, why all this hassle about co-location?" Indeed, about 10 years ago when I first heard or read about this co-location business, I was baffled. I was 12442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 wondering, is it all about quarantine, immigration and customs? What is the big deal about it? Ah, no, they need to assign or set aside a certain area to make sure that Mainland officials can come in to execute Mainland laws on Hong Kong soil. What on earth? Why bother? They knew they are going to face very strong opposition and objection. They need to do it. Why? Because they need to suck Hong Kong into this Mainland black hole. In "one country, two systems", "one country" comes first, and this "one country" black hole is a bottomless pit. You lot, you think you are not Chinese, you are Hongkongers. The young people in Hong Kong are now saying that or speaking aloud on this subject. Well, make sure that you realize Hong Kong is merely a part of the Mainland. And you are Hongkongers? Fine, but you are Chinese―it is all very Chinese.

Of course, our Government are also hoping that unsuspicious Hongkongers would think, "Come on, this is a minor affair. This so-called Bill here, what are so you worried about? This high-speed rail is so jolly fast and jolly convenient. It is all for the sake of our daily life and convenience. Why are you so upset about the nitty-gritty, or they would say, 'legal and political issues'? Never mind. Let livelihood issues, i.e. convenience, the fastness of the train override." No, we cannot. We cannot do that. In a modern world, we need to know what sort of society we are living in. To say that we do not need to pay attention to legal and political tangles is a joke. You will just be treated like an animal in a zoo.

Earlier, I saw this "Transport Somebody" sitting there looking all hearty and happy doing his recital, his monologue. That was the farce about this legislature. You let government official speak, but you would not even bother to listen to what lawmakers on the opposition side have to say. The crux of the matter (The buzzer sounded) … of course, is the unconstitutionality.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, your speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG, do you wish to speak again?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12443

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, there are two parts to my amendments. The first part limits the validity period of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") to five years. As I have explained at the Committee stage, an expiry date aims at enabling the Government to review the consequences brought about by the Bill after the validity period and make necessary amendments accordingly before referring it to the Council for scrutiny again. The second part of my amendments aims at restricting the application of Mainland laws in the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") to matters related to immigration control, customs clearance and quarantine. Although we oppose the Bill in principle, knowing that the Bill will definitely be passed with pro-Government Members dominating the Council, I have proposed the two parts of amendments in the hope of minimizing the harm.

Our legal basis will be undermined by the Bill because it clearly contravenes the Basic Law. The Basic Law stipulates the relationship between Hong Kong and the Central Government after the reunification and under what social systems Hong Kong people would continue to live. The spirit of the Basic Law is "one country, two systems" which ensures "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" and that our way of life, legal system, finance, society and other aspects will remain unchanged.

Therefore, Article 1 of the Basic Law stipulates that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China; Article 2 stipulates that the National People's Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication; and Article 18 clearly stipulates that national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong. There are many provisions in the Basic Law that limit the powers of the Central Government or Mainland Government in Hong Kong. For instance, the executive authorities and legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be composed of permanent residents of Hong Kong, that is, "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong". This is the foundation of Hong Kong as it is. The continuance of our way of life is protected under the law.

Enacting a law that contravenes the Basic Law, which Article 11 forbids, is a complete breach of the commitment China made to the world and to Hong Kong people when it recovered Hong Kong, affecting our next generation or even their next generation. As the Bill compromises the fundamental commitment, we cannot take it as lightly as everyone else and call it a day.

12444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

We have heard time and again the pro-establishment Members and the Government claim that the Bill does not contravene the Basic Law for two reasons. First, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") has made the Decision to approve the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("the Co-operation Arrangement"), which specified that the co-location arrangement will be adopted. NPCSC has the supreme power to interpret and amend the Basic Law. NPCSC has exercised its power of interpretation of the Basic Law on several occasions in the past. Some of these interpretations were obviously unlawful additions and distortions of the Basic Law. Interpretations can be made to render undesirable law desirable even though there are clear stipulations in the law. NPCSC will never contravene the Basic Law with such power.

Deputy Chairman, in that case, it is unnecessary to follow any procedure. As pointed out by Mr CHU Hoi-dick just now, the State or the Government should not contravene any law enacted by it. However, it is quite the opposite now. It transpires that it is fine for the decision made by the highest power organ of the Government to contravene the law just because it is the highest power organ. In other words, since the highest power organ has legislative power, it does not have to act in accordance with the law. Making a decision that clearly contravenes the law, instead of giving an interpretation or making amendments to it, is not giving play to the rule of law but the rule of man. This is the difference between the rule of man and the rule of law.

You said it has the supreme power, so it can disregard the law and let man override the law. That is the difference between the Mainland Government and Hong Kong. Hong Kong upholds the rule of law. Legislative amendments must comply with certain procedures. If the law is unsatisfactory, it should be amended before implementation, which is at least compliant with procedures. But they are not doing that now. Consequently, any decision made in the future may entirely contravene the Basic Law. As long as the Central Government finds it necessary, the SAR Government will certainly cooperate fully and the pro-Government camp will go along with it. Then, a cooperation arrangement will be signed with a certain Mainland province or municipality. There is no problem even if the cooperation arrangement contravenes the Basic Law as long as NPC gives the green light. Is it not lawless? That means the effect of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12445

Basic Law on restricting the Government's actions will vanish. Hong Kong people will be exposed to great risks as we cannot foresee when this regime will make a decision in defiance of the law. The Legislative Council is now going along with this, the pro-Government camp is going along with this, supporting it. Do everyone think this is right?

Their second reason is that, although it is stipulated in Article 18 of the Basic Law that national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong, the provision only applies to general situations and laws imposed on all people. If national laws are not applied in the entire Hong Kong but in a certain area only, it is not subject to Article 18. But this is not the stipulation of Article 18. No murder but killing of a certain type of people is allowed? No theft but stealing of chewing gums or specified items is not an offence? Does it work like this? No. The Department of Justice said it can be explained by internal and external factors and looking at the Basic Law as a whole in terms of general and designated application of Mainland laws. In that way, there is no contravention of the Basic Law.

Given the abundant information, we sought evidence on the reinterpretation of the Basic Law from the Administration. There was none. The explanation given by the Administration was feeble. We were accused of stalling, hindering the process and filibustering? The Government said the construction of XRL would be completed in 2015. What year is it now? It has dragged on for three years. The controversy over the co-location arrangement has lasted 10 years. When did the Government introduce the Bill to the Legislative Council? XRL will start to operate in 2018, but the Bill was only introduced to the Legislative Council in January 2018. Who was filibustering then? The Government has filibustered for 10 years and left only three months for scrutiny, then it went ahead and called voices of opposition filibustering. The Government did nothing but telling us an announcement would be made in due course in the past 10 years. XRL will start to operate in September, yet the Government introduced the Bill to the Legislative Council in late January only. Was that not stalling? We wanted to express our opinions here, but we were not allowed to. Our speaking time and the content of our speeches are restricted. This is really outrageous.

The authorities stated that there is no need to worry. The public can make their own choice of whether or not to enter MPA. Those who do not want to enter MPA may simply stay out of it. As I have clearly pointed out at the 12446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Committee stage, many people, such as those who work in MPA, may not have the choice. The major difference this time is that MPA is situated within Hong Kong territory. We are protected by the Basic Law in Hong Kong, but this arrangement that cedes the jurisdiction clearly contravenes the Basic Law. Hong Kong people who work in MPA have no choice. If their jobs require them to enter MPA for maintenance, cleaning or security duties, they have no choice but to stay unprotected under the Basic Law and be subject to Mainland laws in case of an incident. I do not know how the Hong Kong Government will protect them.

The pro-Government camp asked us to be practical, put aside our prejudice and stop getting in the way. I think their prejudice is even stronger. There is clear stipulations in the Basic Law and the Bill is obviously in contravention of the Basic Law, but they completely ignored it because their eyes are set only on the economic and social benefits. The amendments and restrictions proposed, such as the stipulation that it is a one-off arrangement, setting a validity period and limiting the application of Mainland laws to customs clearance, immigration control and quarantine, can at the very least mitigate its damage of the Basic Law. However, they only know to act as instructed by their masters and turn a blind eye to everything else. The Decision of NPCSC and the Co-operation Arrangement override all. The President ruled amendments proposed by Members inadmissible on the ground of inconsistency with the Co-operation Arrangement. His practice is utterly perverted.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, do you wish to speak again?

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I speak as a continuation of Dr Fernando CHEUNG's speech. Indeed, everything has been turned upside down. It has been less than a year since the new Carrie LAM Administration took office, and I would say that this co-location arrangement is a full manifestation of rites and decorum being in tatters and the cart being put before the horse. Initially we all thought that an announcement would be made before the departure of LEUNG Chun-ying. It finally turned out that we were kept waiting. On 25 July last year, we all wanted to know what arrangements would be made. Things have developed to this state today. Before the launch of the "Three-step Process" they even had to lay a red carpet and pose nicely for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12447 photo shoot, intent on passing a motion with no legislative effect. Today, we have seen not only the barbarous, unreasonable acts of the Government. More importantly, we have experienced the bizarre approaches taken by the Bills Committee and President Andrew LEUNG in presiding over meetings.

I think when some remarks are made too many times, probably they may really become obsolete or annoying platitudes. I do not wish to go too far in my remarks but I have come to realize that there is no such thing as "the worst", for things can be worse than the worst. I am referring to the approach of the President, Mr Andrew LEUNG, when he presided over meetings. Having said that, today I have at least found out that he may have some hearing problems and he should have a check-up.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG talked about the remarks made by the pro-establishment Members earlier, and I particularly wish to respond to the remarks made by Mr Paul TSE of the pro-establishment camp―not Mr Paul TSE, but Mr Tony TSE―as Mr Paul TSE did not speak at the second stage, namely, the Committee stage. After Mr Tony TSE was elected a Member, if a meeting would be held in the morning, say, at 8:30 am, I would see him waiting for an elevator at 8:25 am and more often than not, he would arrive much earlier. Besides, when he claimed the floor, he would give an analysis of the provisions or explain the reasons why he did not support them, unlike certain colleagues who mainly wanted to seize the opportunity to hurl criticisms at filibustering, and so on.

I noticed that Mr Tony TSE had described clauses specifying an expiry date as superfluous―He is back in the Chamber now, as I told him that I might respond to his speech when I met him in the elevator before I came in―and in response to his comment that clauses specifying an expiry date are superfluous, as I particularly pointed out in my speech, if a lease is involved in this arrangement―Deputy Chairman, you probably own some properties, too―an expiry date has to be stipulated. But first, the Secretary has time and again evaded this question and now, he even does not dare to say whether or not this is arranged by way of a lease; and second, we have not seen any information about a lease being involved. The inclusion of a clause that introduces an expiry date or specifies that an ordinance will expire at a certain time or under certain circumstances is actually a normal and common practice. When we lease a property, we also specify the tenancy period or at least the circumstances under which the property can be resumed. The Government also sets out these 12448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 conditions in land leases and sales. So why can we not include a clause to introduce an expiry date in the the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill")? This is absolutely not superfluous.

On the contrary, I have seen instances of the truth being distorted in the Bill. Clause 6 is a case in point and I find it most interesting. Clause 6(2) purposely stipulates that the boundary of the administrative division will not be affected by the proposed arrangement, which seems to be a deliberate clarification. But if Members care to refer to the Basic Law, they will see that it is actually very clear as to whether any changes are made. As mentioned in clause 6 of the Bill, Instrument 11 of the Basic Law, namely, Order of the State Council of the People's Republic of China No. 221, clearly stipulates the boundary of the administrative division of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The relevant description states that a sea sector is included and besides, geographical coordinates and a map are also set out, which clearly cover the entire West Kowloon Terminus. However, I have no idea why the Bill, with considerable changes made, still stipulates that actually no changes are made. Deputy Chairman, this can be compared to people who got drunk but stress that they are not drunk. Is it true that they are not drunk? Obviously they are drunk. I have played host to some intoxicated friends before, and while they sat there and said they were not drunk, they dropped off to sleep in the blink of an eye. I have no idea whether the Bureau is drunk or it has other reasons in saying that there are no changes even though it is clear that changes are made; but we are in a sober state of mind.

Besides, Mr Tony TSE also talked about the amendment concerning "one-off arrangement" proposed by Mr Jeremy TAM. Of course, I think Mr TSE has a point there. He said that since the Bill clearly makes reference to the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), only one station will be involved after all. But I think he can understand why this arrangement is necessary, and I believe the Government actually does not want to say that this is a "one-off arrangement".

Members may recall that after the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress had made the Decision on 27 December 2017, the Chief Executive, the then Secretary for Justice and the Secretary for Transport and Housing held a press conference which I would describe as an occasion on which they were merely parroting what others had said, for that press conference was convened right after the press conference held by LI Fei. When a reporter asked LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12449 whether this would be the one and only one occasion for such an arrangement to be adopted, Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN gave a most ambiguous reply. But no sooner had he finished speaking than Carrie LAM hastened to add that good things like these surely would not take place just once and asked why they should not happen again in future. She was telling us that this would not be the one and only one occasion.

However, I wonder if the pro-establishment Members had long since had the foresight to envisage these developments. Members may recall that in the month right after the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance was enacted, the pro-establishment Members already proposed that the co-location arrangement implemented only at the Shenzhen Bay Port at the time be extended to all immigration control points and even at heliports. We then realized that they actually could not wait to see this arrangement being implemented disregarding whether it is effective or not, for it is most important to have more such areas designated and to make these designated areas increasingly bigger and wider. Then there is the problem of "one region, two laws", but Deputy Chairman, this problem has long arisen, and it arose exactly because of this Bill. Why is it not "one region, two laws"? The Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance provides greater clarity though, as it is stipulated that this area, after being leased, is within the jurisdiction of Hong Kong and that this arrangement shall expire on 30 June 2046 (sic). However, this Bill now does not provide for an expiry date and this is precisely "one region, two laws" because otherwise, why should there be provisions made on reserved matter and non-reserved matter? Take a look at the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance. Are there provisions on reserved matter and non-reserved matter? Of course not, and this cannot be clearer. This Bill is actually a monster. It is neither fish nor fowl. It pretends to be "Shenzhen Bay Port 2.0" but it is a sham, a downright robbery.

Moreover, I believe Members are actually very concerned about matters relating to economic benefits. But I really must remind Members once again that when the Government said the first time in the beginning of 2000 that XRL would be constructed, the internal rate of return was estimated to be over 10%. But when the Government sought approval from the Legislative Council the first time for a provision of $66.9 billion, it said that the rate of return was 6%, which had plunged considerably. I wonder if the Under Secretary has read the relevant papers but I think he should know it only too well. When the Government sought supplementary provisions from the Legislative Council the second time, 12450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 the rate of return already dropped to 4% and now, the figure is not even mentioned. As Dr Fernando CHEUNG said, the Secretary for Transport and Housing most likes to say that he will brief Members on the situation in due course, but what does "in due course" mean? Could it be that this has become a shield for him? This is totally abused by him.

Next, they accused us of filibustering. Deputy Chairman, I am really at a loss. In fact, I have no idea how we could possibly filibuster, and had our filibustering been that effective, things would not have been degenerated to such a sorry state. Members can refer to this "Report of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link Independent Expert Panel". The then Secretary for Transport and Housing, Prof Anthony CHEUNG, said at the time that he was suddenly informed by the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") some time ago that there would be cost overruns and delays. Subsequently, on 15 April 2014, during the course of meeting with the press, he said, "I have to say I was totally caught by surprise by such information, and obviously I felt very disappointed and deeply concerned about the delay." The Government has really lost a lot of time.

But never mind about that, for they could have more opportunities to discuss the co-location arrangement. XRL was originally scheduled for commissioning in 2015 but it has been delayed until now, and it turned out that they had already reached a consensus. Having regard to the time factor, the Government was resolutely unwilling to table a proposal to us. Its purpose was to drive us to the wall as we were not given time to scrutinize the Bill and we had to complete deliberations in three months. So who were filibustering? Maybe MTRCL was filibustering. But let us not forget that under the Transport and Housing Bureau there is the Highways Department, under which there is the Railway Development Office and its Monitoring and Verification ("M&V") Consultant is responsible for monitoring this project. As for the construction works of the Shatin to Central Link, we need not ask further questions about that. What is the duty of the M&V Consultant? We have made criticisms of it before. So by whom the delays are caused? Who is derelict of duty? Whose fault is it? But accusations are made of us now. The amendments under discussion are all logical. But much to our regret, I wonder how many Members, especially the pro-establishment Members, have really read the Bill. My copy of the Bill here is worn as I have flipped through it too often, and I do wish to borrow their copies.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12451

Deputy Chairman, they have claimed that XRL would have a long-term bearing on the future of Hong Kong, and that it can give a boost or even a double boost to the overall economy and future of Hong Kong. They said that it would bring innumerous benefits, sounding as if Hong Kong would be going nowhere without XRL. If such being the case, they all the more should make an effort to examine the Bill in detail, in order to understand our reasons for opposing it as well as the contents of the amendments proposed by us, rather than just making remarks blindly and casually. For instance, as I have mentioned, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen proposed that the definition relating to Mainland law enforcement personnel should be formally incorporated into the main text of the Bill, rather than being written as a Note in tiny fonts. I wonder if the Under Secretary has read the Bill. The font size of the Note is really extremely small. This really strikes me as strange, and I wonder if the officials in charge of the relevant policies have read the Bill.

At this stage of the "Three-step Process", actually we are all duty-bound to read all the information carefully. Certainly, when I speak in the Third Reading later on, I will be very careful with the part relating to the process of development from the Shenzhen Bay Port to these scenarios today. I have to take this opportunity to particularly thank former Member of this Council, Dr Margaret NG, once again. It is because the issue of the Shenzhen Bay Port was discussed during the time when our former Party Chairman, Mr Alan LEONG, was running in the Chief Executive Election in 2007. Back then, former Member Dr Margaret NG made a lot of efforts in the Legislative Council to scrutinize the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Bill with great devotion and professionalism, raising many issues that warranted concern and attention and also pointing out some fallacies on the part of the Government.

Unfortunately, however, things have developed to this most absurd state now. I noticed that the responsible official back then was not the Secretary for Transport and Housing, but the Secretary for Security. At that time, he said, "I wish to stress here that the SAR is competent to acquire additional powers from the Central Authorities under Article 20 of the Basic Law. The SAR Government must exercise these additional powers in accordance with the Basic Law, and we will not, and I stress, will not, deprive the SAR of its rights protected by the Basic Law." Obviously this undertaking has vanished into thin air. The arrangement proposed today is not only an out-and-out violation of the Basic Law. It has also deprived Hongkongers of the protection afforded to them by the Basic Law.

12452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

At this juncture, I can see that the Secretary has returned to the Chamber, and I would say that his performance is spectacular. But never mind. In Hong Kong there are still professional bodies and Members who will, at critical moments, continue to say what should be said and do what should be done or what we consider to be right. The many amendments proposed by us today will not be passed today but here, let me affirm on behalf of the Civic Party that we will support all the amendments to be put to the vote later on, including the amendments proposed by other Members. I so submit.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, do you wish to speak again?

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, as the President of the Legislative Council, Mr Andrew LEUNG's tactic―it is a tactic―in handling the speeches at the Committee stage today has violated the Rules of Procedure which clearly stipulates that Members may speak more than once without any time limit and timeline during the amendments debate at the Committee stage. Why is there such an arrangement? Because the debate in the Committee serves to allow Members, in particular Members proposing amendments, to try to convince other Members to support their amendments by speaking more than once. Other Members may also speak more than once to advance reasons for their support of or opposition to the amendments, then Members proposing amendments may response to questions of other Members and try to convince them again. This is the original intent of the debate arrangement at the Committee stage.

I have proposed two amendments, unfortunately, since yesterday evening, I have not heard any Member from the pro-establishment camp, in particular Members with legal background, explain why the rights conferred by the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) ("BORO") and the International Covenant on Human Rights can be denied in a certain place in Hong Kong. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") should be applied to the entire Hong Kong, why is it now not applicable to a certain area in Hong Kong? How should the legal issues be addressed?

I read out General Comment No. 26 of the United Nations Human Rights Committee ("the Committee") yesterday evening, which clearly stated that once adopted, ICCPR does not permit withdrawal or termination of certain provisions, or termination in certain part of the place where it was adopted. It is clearly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12453 stated in the General Comment of the Committee. Article 39 of the Basic Law also stipulates that Hong Kong people shall enjoy the rights as prescribed by ICCPR. Hence, one of the important amendments proposed by the Civic Party aims at stipulating that BORO remains in force in the Mainland Port Area ("MPA").

I have not heard any response from the pro-establishment camp, especially from Members with legal background, explaining how ICCPR can be terminated. As Andrew LEUNG has blatantly curtailed the debate at the Committee stage, it was a shame that I was unable to listen to opinions in this regard. Just now, 16 Members who had pressed the "Request to speak" button have not had a chance to speak, including some pro-establishment Members. They might have points in law for the termination of BORO and ICCPR under Article 39 of the Basic Law.

To make things worse, as the debate at the Committee stage was cut short, I did not have the chance to explain in detail the legal issues. Section 6(2) of BORO stipulates that "No proceedings shall be held to be outside the jurisdiction of any court or tribunal on the ground that they relate to the Bill of Rights." How should this section be applied now? How should this section be interpreted and how should it co-exist with the full application of Mainland laws in MPA under the co-location arrangement? We must bear in mind that the jurisdiction of the Courts under BORO is very clear and cannot be reduced or eliminated. So why would the jurisdiction of the Courts vested by BORO vanish in MPA? For us, this is a legal issue of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") and for this reason, we find the co-location arrangement in contravention of the Basic Law, BORO and ICCPR under Article 39 of the Basic Law.

Deputy Chairman, please allow me to read out General Comment No. 26 again which describes the importance of ICCPR and the fact that ICCPR cannot be terminated or deemed inapplicable in a certain place or area. I quote:

"Furthermore, it is clear that the Covenant"―that is, ICCPR―"the Covenant is not the type of treaty which, by its nature, implies a right of denunciation. Together with the simultaneously prepared and adopted International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Covenant codifies in treaty form the universal human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the three instruments together 12454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

often being referred to as the 'International Bill of Human Rights'. As such, the Covenant does not have a temporary character typical of treaties where a right of denunciation is deemed to be admitted, notwithstanding the absence of a specific provision to that effect."

In short, as I have just highlighted, ICCPR cannot be denounced, repealed or terminated. Once adopted in a country or region, it cannot be terminated. The next paragraph in General Comment No. 26 states that:

"The rights enshrined in the Covenant belong to the people living in the territory of the State party."―that is, Hong Kong people―"The Human Rights Committee has consistently taken the view, as evidenced by its long-standing practice, that once the people are accorded the protection of the rights under the Covenant, such protection devolves with territory and continues to belong to them, notwithstanding change in Government of the State party, including dismemberment in more than one State or State succession or any subsequent action of the State party designed to divest them of the rights guaranteed by the Covenant.

"The Human Rights Committee is therefore firmly of the view that international law does not permit a State which has ratified or acceded or succeeded to the Covenant to denounce it or withdraw from it."

The Committee has clearly pointed out that these rights are accorded to the people, notwithstanding change in government or regime. Once it comes into effect, ICCPR cannot cease to be applicable in a certain region, and the rights accorded to Hong Kong people cannot be denounced all of a sudden because they belong to Hong Kong people.

The co-location arrangement now declares a certain area in Hong Kong out of Hong Kong's jurisdiction, which de facto causes a termination of rights accorded to Hong Kong people under ICCPR in the area. As indicated in the General Comment read out by me just now, the rights accorded to Hong Kong people cannot be withdrawn or denounced, or else the principle of International Law of the United Nations will be violated. However, the Secretary did not mention in his reply just now how these issues pertaining to international law can be addressed. Neither did he mention how to address the legal issue that ICCPR cannot be terminated, as stated in General Comment No. 26 of the Committee.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12455

Why did the Secretary not say anything? He had the time to do so. The Chairman gave him sufficient time to reply just now. Members of the pro-establishment camp can argue that they had pressed the "Request to speak" button, but they were not given the chance to speak as the Chairman had curtailed the debate at the Committee stage. I expect Secretary Frank CHAN to give a response here at the very least. If he does not know how to or does not want to give a response, the Secretary for Justice should give an explanation on such important legal issues in the Legislative Council. He cannot argue that a response had been given in the Bills Committee because, for one thing, he had not done so; and for the other, even if he had, they should state their views on these legal and international law issues in the Legislative Council Chamber in order to leave a verbatim record. However, the Secretary made no mention of this matter at all, which is extremely regrettable.

In addition, some Members and I have proposed amendments which, for instance, in order to avoid doubt, specify in the Preamble that the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Approving the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("the Decision") and the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("the Co-operation Arrangement") do not form part and parcel of the Basic Law or any laws of Hong Kong. In this connection, I have not heard from any pro-establishment colleague explain why this is not feasible or unnecessary in law. If they agree that the Co-operation Arrangement and the Decision do not form part and parcel of Hong Kong laws and the Basic Law, they should at least support making a clear stipulation in the Bill regarding Hong Kong laws, in particular the unconstitutional part, so that when we hold discussions on these issues again in ten or eight years, we will be well aware that the Decision and the Co-operation Arrangement do not form part and parcel of Hong Kong laws and the Basic Law. Moreover, some Honourable colleagues have proposed sunset clauses so as to ensure a review of the Bill after a certain period of time. By that time, we may examine whether there is still a need for the co-location arrangement in light of problems with the actual operation, if any.

12456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

It is difficult for the amendments to rectify the Bill which is fundamentally unconstitutional, but it is still a worthy cause. Regrettably, this debate will end soon and we will never hear the Secretary or Members debate the various legal issues or other issues raised by us. Some people may say that it is unnecessary to debate anymore because the Bill will definitely be passed all the same. In that case, what is the point of the parliamentary procedures? If the procedures allow Members to state their position only and nothing more, then Members had better save their energy and stop acting. Why are Members allowed to speak more than once at the Committee stage? It is for Members to convince each other, as the essence of the Rules of Procedure is to allow Members to reason with each other, which is not the case now due to the President's brutal termination of our debate. I believe there is no need for Members to reason with each other anymore in the future.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, do you wish to speak again?

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I very much agree with the speech made by Mr Dennis KWOK just now. Presently, in this Chamber, are Members just waiting for the 36 hours to pass and to press the button to fulfil their obligation? Will Members still have the spirit that though they may disagree with the opinions or perspectives of certain people, as well as the preference of certain political parties or motions proposed by the Government, they will rise to speak so that their views will be put on record and the public will understand why the issue is supported or opposed by people? This is procedural justice. This is the reason for the existence of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") and the reason for some people proposing to amend RoP some time ago.

If a person has infinite powers to the extent of ignoring the rights vested in every Member by RoP, I believe this is tyranny, autocracy, monocracy and dictatorship. I wonder when Hong Kong has become like this, and I do not understand why the legislature has become like this. I am extremely disappointed. Deputy Chairman, regarding the scene I saw just now, I consider it a total disregard for Members' right to speak as conferred by RoP. Of course, Deputy Chairman, you will ask me to return to the subject very soon. I will not give you the chance to say that. After all, you are all doing a show. Am I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12457 right? Should you put on the show this way? You should at least act professionally and pretend to be professional. You should at least state according to which rule of RoP that you order Members to sit down.

I have been in the legislature for two years. When I see that Members are unwilling to play their primary role in this show, which is laid bare in front of us now, I feel extremely saddened. Deputy Chairman, I really do not understand why we have come to this pass. I recall that a few days ago, the former Financial Secretary said that in the past, the legislature was a place where ladies and gentlemen engaged in debates and he did not know when the legislature had changed to the present condition. Certainly if we merely look at one or two scenes, where people are quarrelling and making a fuss, we may come to this conclusion. Yet, what is the reason behind all these? The answer is power abuse, Deputy Chairman. The reason is that they are abusing their power rather than convincing others with reasons. They always say that Hong Kong should be ruled by law, and now we are ruling the legislature by RoP. If so, how should Members speak accordingly? During the Second Reading, I should present relatively macroscopic views, concerning the pros and cons of the motion, and then debate the main direction of the motion. When it comes to the examination by the committee of the whole Council where amendments are proposed, I will have the opportunity to discuss the amendments proposed by other Members. Now, at this juncture, I should respond to the views expressed by various Members on my amendment and the reasons put forth by the Government to oppose my amendment. I have to explain my reasons for proposing the amendment and persuade Members to support my amendment.

Yet, I can hardly do this now. Why? Because the debate has only lasted for a couple of hours just now, and not every Member has had the chance to tell me why he or she opposes my amendment. Later on, I may see from the screen that they have pressed the red button, yet I have no way to know why they oppose my amendment. This is the same case for the Secretary. Just now, he spoke for 20 to 30 minutes, but I did not hear clearly what he said. I was very attentive―if Members had noticed, I had put on my headphone. Just now, he said that the Government opposed all the amendments. I intended to refute his remarks, yet I did not have the chance, for he was speaking in the midst of chaos just now. Deputy Chairman, how can I fulfil my duties and functions? I really do not know.

12458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Under this circumstance, I can only repeat the reasons for proposing my amendment. I have no option but to do this. Deputy Chairman, initially, I planned to respond directly to the reasons stated by the Secretary regarding the Government's opposition, but now I cannot do that. To go further, now … let it be. I really do not want to talk about RoP anymore, Deputy Chairman, for we have already talked a lot about it. Perhaps I should say that I am just like talking to myself, for there is no response. It seems like I am talking to the air. We seem to be in different times and spaces. I say what I say and the President says what he says. In fact, he did not answer us. He simply ignored us and said that we were playing for time or not using the time properly, and he needed not specify which Member he was referring to. What if I say Members sitting in this Chamber are rubbish, will it be offensive? It is definitely offensive. Though I have not specified which Member, I am actually saying that all Members sitting in this Chamber are problematic. Why would the Chairman's comment not be problematic? Why would it be alright for him to say that? I really am baffled.

This amendment proposed by me is necessary, for the Bill on co-location arrangement should not have been proposed in the first place and it should never be done again. The Bill will definitely be passed. The script is on the wall and they will press the button 36 hours later. Despite that, is there any exit? What do I mean? I am saying that regarding the present approach and arrangement, I wish to restrict their application to this time only via my amendment. However, they oppose it. Why? I do not know. Do they oppose my amendment because they truly think that the proposal is very good, just as Carrie LAM said the other day that the co-location arrangement was a great thing, so they consider a promise for not doing it again unnecessary? Does it imply that the Government will continue to think in this direction and adopt this mindset of convenience comes first, thereby implementing the co-location arrangement at other ports? Will the Government continue to lease areas in Hong Kong―as Members may not like to use the word "cession"―and forgo the jurisdiction over these areas to the Mainland once and for all? Is it what it wants?

The people of Hong Kong cannot but feel worried about this. Let us refer to the wording used by the Government in the past. In the paper submitted by the Department of Justice, the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Highways Department to the Legislative Council on 8 January 2016, it is pointed out that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12459 since the West Kowloon Terminus of the Hong Kong Section of XRL is situated in the Kowloon Peninsula, it is certainly within the geographical area of SAR. Even if the co-location arrangement of the customs, immigration and quarantine facilities of SAR and the Mainland at the West Kowloon Terminus is implemented, no area within the West Kowloon Terminus will be carved out of the SAR's territory. He meant to say that the area has not been ceded and still belongs to Hong Kong.

However, what wording is used in the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("the Co-operation Arrangement") by the Mainland authorities? Or what is the wording of the arrangement agreed by the Mainland authorities and the Hong Kong Government? It is stipulated in the Co-operation Arrangement that for the purposes of the application of the laws of the Mainland and the delineation of jurisdiction, the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") of the West Kowloon Station ("WKS") will be regarded as being situated in the Mainland. Deputy Chairman, the concept behind the two presentations is quite different. The first presentation says that the area will not be carved out of Hong Kong's territory and it is not an area of the Mainland. This is the presentation of the relevant authorities of the Government in 2016. However, according to the Co-operation Arrangement, in the eyes of the Mainland authorities, that area has already been regarded as an area situated in the Mainland. Moreover, it is stipulated under the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") that MPA is to be regarded as an area outside Hong Kong but lying within the Mainland. The pro-Government camp has all along been saying that this is not "cession-based co-location arrangement", and they consider that we should not say so. However, as evident in the wording, it is certain that the area will be carved out of Hong Kong's territory. If this practice continues, which area will be carved out of Hong Kong's territory next time?

Moreover, Members had spent quite some in this Chamber to discuss the proposal of the former Secretary for Justice in the past. He pointed out that the arrangement should be made according to Article 20 of the Basic Law to obtain authorization from the Central People's Government, so that the area concerned may be handed over to the Mainland authorities for implementation of the 12460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 co-location arrangement. When this discussion was conducted in this Chamber back then, Secretary Frank CHAN was here, too. They made a vigorous effort to "hard-sell" Article 20. I really do not understand why we had come to that dispute and spent so much time on the discussion of Article 20 of the Basic Law, as it turns out that the invoking of that article is unnecessary. I really do not know the reasons. Had it been such an easy arrangement, we would not have spent so many years on the discussion. Certain Members said that no one has ever thought that we would have aerial photography or certain technological development today, so by the same token, Members could not have foreseen the present scenario back then.

Yet, how complicated is XRL? Deputy Chairman, is high-speed railway a very advanced technology? I heard of the bullet train in Japan when I was small. High-speed railway is not an advanced technology, is it? It is not "The Galaxy Express 999", so what makes it unforeseeable? Even if this is unforeseeable, the Legislative Council had noticed this problem when it granted the approval for the funding application. Back then, Margaret NG who was standing here in this Chamber―not in this Chamber but the former Legislative Council Building―had mentioned all these issues. These are not new issues. Why would it be an unsolvable problem? If the approach was considered feasible back then, it should have been implemented long since. Am I right? The Government should have put forth the present proposal back then. Yet it has not done so. After spending almost 10 years, it then put forward this trash proposal and said that the proposal does not contravene the Basic Law.

Hence, according to the remarks of Rimsky YUEN in 2015, the relevant laws of the Mainland should be included in Annex III to the Basic Law to allow Mainland prosecution officers to enforce the relevant laws of the Mainland in the specified area within WKS, and this is one of the proposals examined by the Government in addressing the co-location arrangement for XRL. Why? For national laws outside the limits of autonomy of SAR can be included in Annex III according to Article 13 of the Basic Law, and the authorities should not overtly contravene the Basic Law and undermine "one country, two systems". In other words, in 2015, the Government still considered it necessary to address the provision under Article 18 of the Basic Law, and that any amendment to legislation required for implementation of the co-location arrangement might contravene Article 18 of the Basic Law.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12461

However, by December 2017, Rimsky YUEN said that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") had approved the Co-operation Arrangement, which provided the legal basis for regarding the future MPA of WKS as an area within the Mainland. The approach adopted by NPCSC is built on a constitutional foundation, and it is addressing the issue from a higher level and with a more secure approach. This is worrying, for NPCSC needs only convene a meeting to address the issue from a higher level and with a more secure approach, simply ignoring the provisions of the Basic Law. This is neither an interpretation of nor an amendment to the Basic Law but a decision made by NPCSC at a meeting. If they say it is alright, it can be done. When have we come to this pass?

Some people said that NPCSC is the highest authority of the State, that I agree and I will not disagree. Since NPCSC has already made the decision, and after all, the power to interpret the Basic Law is vested with NPCSC, the two are just the same. Deputy Chairman, this makes me feel worried. In Hong Kong, the Court rules whether or not a person is guilty or innocent according to the laws of Hong Kong. How do the laws of Hong Kong come into effect? They are enacted by the Legislative Council. Can we then say that since the laws are enacted by the Legislative Council, there is no need to amend the laws, for the Legislative Council may simply conduct a meeting to discuss the case and rule if a person is guilty or innocent? The logic is that since the laws are enacted by the Legislative Council, it definitely has the power to bypass the Court to rule the case direct. Yet, this is not the logic we follow, for in Hong Kong we attach importance to the separation of powers. However, the Government interprets the decision of NPCSC along this line of thought in handling this issue which is so controversial in Hong Kong.

Hence, I have proposed this amendment to try to prevent this thinking from developing further, as I consider it comparable to cancer. I hope that the co-location arrangement will end here. I urge Members to ponder whether we are debating or just trying to pass time. I so submit.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, do you wish to speak again?

12462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in less than eight hours, this show will be over. Various clowns, like Andrew LEUNG and Frank CHAN, have shown Hongkongers how despicable they can be. In the past, when we ridiculed political parties in the pro-establishment camp, we said there was no limit in being shameless. But now what we have seen is that there is no limit in being despicable; neither is there any in being degenerative.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, just now did you use "degenerative" or other insulting words to describe Members of this Council or the public officers present?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Everyone is welcome to fly into the pigeon hole of his own accord.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, if you used any derogatory word to accuse Members of this Council just now, please withdraw the relevant remark. Please make it clear whether you have made such an accusation of Members of this Council.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): You will hear it when I continue to talk.

Now let us state it clearly: today in the Chamber, all the people of Hong Kong can see that a most solemn Legislative Council can be transformed into one which has no power to stop a draconian law. Actually, many Hongkongers may not be keenly concerned about the co-location arrangement. Yet in the Legislative Council, Members know that it will indeed threaten the protection accorded to us by the Basic Law, including its upholding of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", as well as Article 18 which expressly stipulates that national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong except for those listed in Annex III to the Basic Law. My amendment is based on Article 39 of the Basic Law. That means the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and other international treaties as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force and shall be implemented through the laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR"). Hong Kong residents enjoy rights and freedoms. This is perfectly clear. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12463

However, given this so-called project of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") which is laid and lined fully of lies, the protection for our rights has formally come to an end. One of the lies about XRL is that, actually it is never an express rail link. As we all know, the XRL trains will come to Hong Kong through tunnels. It is thus a "slow rail link". Initially, when the Government pressed ahead with the funding application lodged with the Legislative Council for the XRL project, it gave such undertakings as no need for any co-location arrangement and no cost overrun. Back then, actually no one believed it. Now it has even been proven that one lie was used to cover another. What is most lamentable is that we see the SAR Government allow the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" conferred by the Basic Law to be killed by its own hands. All the officials in the SAR Government, be it Carrie LAM, Teresa CHENG or Frank CHAN whom I call a clown, have acted together with oily smiles, watching Hong Kong change all the way.

As indicated by Andrew LEUNG's "performance" just now, should there be any draconian law in Hong Kong in the future, including the legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law, he will act according to this "script", bring a swift end to everything without discussions. He has established such Council proceedings in which the President has the so-called supreme authority. He can cut everything at one stroke, and the Government needs not deal with anything seriously.

Upon the passage of my proposed amendment, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance ("BORO") will carry legal effect in the Mainland Port Area ("MPA"). If there is any breach of this Ordinance, we must have jurisdiction to take the case to a court or tribunal in Hong Kong. Initially I thought Teresa CHENG would attend the debate on the Bill. Even though it is a show, she should still turn up to say a few words about how the Government would uphold the rule of law. Regrettably, the Government does not even bother to stage a show. Given such lousy tactics, no one knows what Frank CHAN has uttered amid chaos with the microphone in his hand. He spoke for some 20 minutes, but no one heard what he said. We have been continually deprived of our due rights in the Council.

I did not see how Members of the pro-establishment camp have seriously examined the Bill and responded to the amendments. Some Members have asked why it is necessary to maintain BORO in MPA. Let me cite a few 12464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 examples. Article 5(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights reads: "Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.". Similarly, Article 37 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China ("the Constitution") reads: "The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable." Let us look at the countless cases of infringement on human rights in the Mainland. I will not talk about those which happened long ago. The most recent one is the case of LIU Xia. LIU Xia's family was broken. With insufficient treatment in prison, LIU Xiaobo, her husband, was not saved in time and died. His family members and parents could not visit him even when he was on the verge of death. His family members are persistently subjected to unfair trials. LIU Xia has become a widow for almost a year, but she still does not have any freedom of person. She told a foreign democracy activist over the phone that she would rather die than continue to suffer. If Article 37 of the Constitution guarantees that the freedom of person of citizens is inviolable, then how should LIU Xia's experience be explained? Seeing such continual infringement on human rights, what would Hongkongers think?

As a matter of fact, counting on the Court and legal system in Hong Kong, or the rights conferred by Articles 18 and 39 of the Basic Law, Hongkongers originally felt somewhat assured. Regrettably, the SAR Government has removed and destroyed this last line of defence with its own hands. Article 5(4) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights reads: "Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful." Article 125 of the Constitution reads: "All cases handled by the people's courts, except for those involving special circumstances as specified by law, shall be heard in public. The accused has the right of defence."

This may be the biggest joke. So many human rights activists and lawyers in China were unreasonably detained, unable to hire any legal representative. They were even forced to accept lawyers assigned by the authorities as their representatives. During the trial process, their family LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12465 members could not have any participation at all. WANG Quanzhang has gone missing for more than 1 000 days. His wife travelled all the way to the court in Tianjin to look for him. As at today, there is still no news about WANG Quanzhang …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please point out how your repeated and detailed mention of these cases is relevant to the amendments under discussion.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): My speech is based on Article 5(4) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. Deputy Chairman, if you do not know, let me tell you that the law which will be implemented in the West Kowloon terminus is the Constitution mentioned by me just now. If there is infringement on anyone's right in the station, it will be handled in accordance with the existing precedents. Now I am talking about what has happened under the jurisdiction of the laws of China. This is the most basic perception which can distinguish the human rights law in Hong Kong.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, if what you said applies, you may just discuss everything relating to the Mainland in this session.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I will not, and did not do so.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, please focus on the relevant amendments.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I should have said these things to Hongkongers in the first place. Had Andrew LEUNG not abused the Rules of Procedure here, I would not have to say these things at this stage. These were supposed to be expounded during Third Reading.

12466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Article 8(4) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights stipulates: "No one who has the right of abode in Hong Kong shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter Hong Kong." Article 16(1) stipulates: "Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference." Article 35 of the Constitution stipulates: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration." This is simply a dream. As soon as someone came forward or wrote some humane remarks on Facebook―sorry, Facebook is barred in China―on WeChat, he would be arrested by the public security officers or national security officers. He could be forced to disappear for days, and then for some unknown reasons, he could have already undergone a trial. Let us not talk about cases which took place far away. Let us talk about Hong Kong. The incident of Causeway Bay Books is a notable example. Those escorted away include GUI Minhai, LEE Po and many persons involved in the case. Their treatment was absolutely inconsistent with the rights conferred by the Constitution.

For this reason, I have proposed in the amendment that the Hong Kong Bill of Rights shall be maintained in MPA so that no Hongkonger will be deprived of his right when he steps into the West Kowloon Station which is in fact within Hong Kong territory.

According to Article 17 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, "The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those imposed in conformity with the law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." Article 28 of the Constitution stipulates that "[t]he state maintains public order and suppresses treasonable and other counter-revolutionary activities …". Then we noted the incident of TAN Zuoren in Sichuan. As we all know, jerry-built projects were no fresh news. TAN Zuoren and many parents were the victims. Their family members or children were killed in the incident. TAN Zuoren and other people used their own humble strength to search for evidence, but then what happened? He was taken away by the national security and public security officers, and brought to trial and sentenced to imprisonment by court for the offence of inciting to subvert state power.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12467

Deputy Chairman, there are so many examples that I cannot cite all of them even if I can speak for a few more days. The reason why I have proposed this amendment is that we have seen many lawless cases take place on the Mainland. We do not wish to see Hong Kong degenerate to such a state. Just now I heard a certain Member of the pro-establishment camp say that it does not matter. Why is it necessary to implement Mainland laws? Because there is no national security law in Hong Kong. Dr Priscilla LEUNG made this remark. So many corrupt officials have sent their children to Hong Kong and bought luxury flats here because there is a big difference between Hong Kong and the Mainland. They will not suddenly disappear from the surface of earth like those corrupt officials on the Mainland. Neither will they become prisoners like SUN Zhengcai and those people who used to be "princes". That is why they have sent all their family members and wealth to Hong Kong. If they are told that Hong Kong will implement a national security law in the same way as the Mainland, they will lose no time in leaving. Who will still stay here? No kidding!

International investors are still willing to come to Hong Kong to do business, work and sign contracts because in the whole China, few places have clear legislation, open law courts and unequivocal human rights laws. These things have not come by easily. Today they make use of XRL which actually resembles the Trojan horse in Troy. It is merely a pretext for setting a destructive precedent for enforcing national laws in Hong Kong or implementing a national security law in the future. In fact, everything is in the script. As Hongkongers can see, there is no limit in being degenerative. I so submit.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, do you wish to speak again?

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point of order?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order because I notice that Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") provides for the procedure in committee of the Whole Council on a Bill and the order set 12468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 out therein is to deal with the clauses first, then the schedules and then the preamble. I notice that at present, the clauses, new clauses, schedules, the preamble and all amendments are all included in the same debate, then voted on one by one. I hope the Deputy Chairman can clarify if this is non-compliant with RoP 58.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, on the point of order raised by you, I believe this arrangement of the Council has not violated RoP because in the past, joint debates and similar debate arrangements were adopted a number of times in dealing with other Bills. As regards the relevant arrangements for the Bill, I am not going to discuss them with you in detail here and you can approach the Secretariat for enquiries. All along, the Council makes the relevant arrangements in accordance with RoP to ensure that the procedure is in order.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I understand this. Allow me to simply read out RoP 58(8), particularly the provision on the preamble therein and I hope Honourable colleagues will listen. The rule states that "When every clause and schedule and proposed new clause or schedule has been dealt with, the preamble, if there is one, shall be considered …". In other words, it is evident in RoP 58(8) that there is a sequence in consideration. I think the remarks made by the Deputy Chairman just now are inadequate in explaining why the preamble is not dealt with separately according to RoP 58(8) and why no separate procedure was adpopted for it. The Deputy Chairman did not give us any explanation about this.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, the Council always deals with the debate arrangements as well as the voting procedures for each and every Bill in a stringent manner. As regards the specific arrangements, please approach the Secretariat for enquiries. I am not going to have a debate with you here. Please sit down now.

Mr Gary FAN, do you wish to speak again?

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick talked in his seat)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12469

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have already dealt with the point related to RoP raised by Mr CHU Hoi-dick and given him a clear explanation. Mr Gary FAN, do you wish to speak again?

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick continued to talk in his seat)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, this is not an occasion for debating meeting procedures. I have reminded you that if you have queries concerning meeting procedures, you can make enquiries with the Secretariat. I remind you for the last time that you should stop raising procedural issues in this regard. Mr Gary FAN, please speak.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick continued to talk in his seat)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, if you do not wish to speak, Committee will proceed to the voting stage.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick still continued to talk in his seat)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please began.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick continued to talk in his seat)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, if you are not going to speak …

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, actually there is no big difference between you and President Andrew LEUNG …

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up and talked aloud)

12470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I will not discuss with you again. Please sit down.

(Dr Fernando CHEUNG stood up)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, what is your point of order?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, just now Mr CHU Hoi-dick clearly pointed out that Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") prescribes the debate arrangements for a committee of the whole Council. He stated that just now the procedure at the Committee stage was in contravention of RoP 58. I hope you will give the Secretariat an opportunity to explain how the Chairman's arrangements have not contravened RoP. I consider a clear explanation necessary because a Member has formally raised a point of order. He has also clearly pointed out which rule has been contravened and how. I think it will be more reasonable to make an explanation.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, being a senior Member in this Council, you should know fairly clearly the procedural arrangements of the Council. If Members have any questions about the arrangements, they should raise them with the Secretariat before the meeting. Furthermore, now this Council has already entered the debate session of the second day of the meeting this week. If you notice any problem during the meeting, you may immediately consult the Secretariat. Just now I made the same request on Mr CHU Hoi-dick twice already. It is not a convention of this Council to explain the procedural arrangements during a meeting. Moreover, the voting arrangements for the amendments have been verified by the Secretariat and the Legal Adviser beforehand. I will not allow setting such a precedent for the Secretariat to make an explanation at this stage. Will Dr CHEUNG please consult the Secretariat in accordance with the convention of this Council. I will not debate this matter with Members again during the meeting.

(Ms Tanya CHAN stood up)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12471

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, are you raising a point of order in respect of this matter? If yes, I will not discuss with you either.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, it is very simple. Now I have on hand a circular issued to us by the Secretariat which said to this effect: "After meeting with Members today, the President of the Legislative Council has directed me to provide all Members with the attached information on the said arrangements". In the circular, there is only information but not any explanation. I may not be as well versed in RoP as Mr Paul TSE, and I learnt about it only when Mr CHU Hoi-dick mentioned it just now. I hope the Deputy Chairman will understand that the Chairman's arrangements did not explain …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, I have explained it many times already. If Members have similar questions, please make enquiries with the Secretariat. I will not give any explanation on these questions again.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): No, Deputy Chairman, you have merely explained your reason for considering it repetitive, but the Secretariat has never given any explanation. Neither did the Chairman do so …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN, just now I already reminded you that you could make enquiries at once with the Secretariat outside the Chamber, and I have made the decision. Mr Gary FAN, do you wish to speak?

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order?

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the question is not about the decision. Rather, it is about the fact that taking the Chair as Deputy Chairman, you once misled Members into thinking that they could only speak on 12472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 the amendments. Regarding the arrangements of the joint debate, I did not particularly raise any question, but I did point out in my speech that Members should actually be allowed to speak on the long title and the preamble because there is no amendment to those parts …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, this is not a point of order, and I did not mislead Members. Neither did I say that Members could only speak on the amendments in this debate. If you wish to comment on my style of presiding over the meeting, please do it on another occasion. Now will you please sit down.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen continued to talk in his seat)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I believe Members wish to proceed with the meeting in accordance with RoP.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what you raised just now was a comment rather than a point of order. Now I let you give a brief explanation.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): In the past, since there were separate sessions for clauses with amendments and clauses with no amendments in a debate, the preamble and the long title would be handled in the session for those with no amendments. However, under the arrangements of the joint debate, since the Chairman has so-called drawn the line, Members do not have any opportunity to debate the preamble and the long title. Hence, in respect of Mr CHU Hoi-dick's question, you cannot say that we should have raised it earlier. I reasonably expected that we could speak on the preamble and the long title within 22 hours, but in the end there was no such opportunity.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12473

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, before this Committee proceeds to vote on Members' amendments, I could like to sum up the contents of the amendments and give some responses to them. I particularly wish to respond to some allegations, fallacies, and ambiguities found in pro-establishment Members' speeches.

Deputy Chairman, you and Mr Andrew LEUNG share the same style of chairing: repeatedly making reference to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") without giving clear or definite responses to Members' queries. In the whole process of the deliberation of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"), neither the relevant chairmen and President nor the Government have sought to address the problems associated with the Bills. Instead, they let the problems continue to exist. In the eyes of Hong Kong people, this is a reflection of the second-rate deliberation work of the Legislative Council with every attempt to distract the public's attention. It is okay for pro-establishment Members to express their personal views and criticize democratic Members for proposing vexatious amendments in order to substitute concepts and confuse the public. It is just fine for them to refute our claims and carry out a debate before voting against our amendments. This is what we as Members should do. But those refutations and debates ought to be to the point. Giving vague criticism and staging negative attack are undesirable, just making me doubt if some Members have ever studied all the amendments.

Deputy Chairman, I propose to include an expiry date in the Bill, stipulating that the Ordinance expires on the day of the termination of operation of the Hong Kong Section of the Express Rail Link ("XRL"), and that the SAR Government recovers its jurisdiction over the West Kowloon Station ("WKS") Mainland Port Area ("MPA") immediately after the expiry of the WKS MPA lease. The inclusion of an expiry date is to prevent the eternal loss of Hong Kong's jurisdiction over MPA following the commencement of the Ordinance, leading to the ceding of Hong Kong land permanently. I have made it very clear that if the Government uses the Shenzhen Bay Port ("SBP") as an example to promote the current co-location arrangement at WKS, it should also make reference to the co-location legislation for SBP. There is indeed a sunset provision in the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Ordinance. Hence, when we debate on this amendment, we should explain specifically how the differences between XRL at WKS and SBP has led the SAR Government or the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") to decide not to include the sunset provision in the Co-operation Arrangement. I wonder if 12474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 pro-establishment Members could make their criticisms up to point and explain their arguments with clarity. Deputy Chairman, please do not adopt Mr Andrew LEUNG's style of chairing. To him, what he says are representative of the Council and what he rules are unchallengeable and unalterable, without any need for explanations or justifications.

Deputy Chairman, the amendments proposed by Members represent their last attempt to improve various details of the WKS co-location arrangement, with the focus on the technical aspect, so as to minimize the adverse impact of the arrangement on the city and to better safeguard the personal liberty and basis rights of Hong Kong people.

Despite the fact that I have prepared four speeches for this debate session, I could only speak twice this morning. Along with other 16 Members, our right to speak in the debate has been forcibly exploited by Chairman Mr Andrew LEUNG. In my previous speech, I have highlighted the amendment proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki, which calls for the application of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance to MPA. This is a full realization of the principle laid down in the Co-operation Arrangement that the establishment of MPA "does not undermine the rights and freedoms enjoyed by the residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in accordance with law". His amendment seeks to allow the spirit of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to continue to display at MPA through the application of the existing Hong Kong law to MPA. Why is it not acceptable? Why do you think there are problems with the amendment? It is stipulated in Article 39 of the Basic Law that "The provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights … as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force …" The amendment only intends to ensure that the Basic Law's provision on the continuous implementation of the international covenants will remain in force at MPA, thus avoiding any possible grey area and disputes over the implementation of international law, reducing the risk of Hong Kong people being deprived of human rights and freedoms, and enabling us to be accountable to the international community. The amendment is proposed with seriousness and due consideration. Why do the pro-establishment camp and the royalists consider this amendment as fussing for the sake of fussing? Why do they think the amendment is not serious at all?

Deputy Chairman, I will use the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen as another example. Pursuant to the proposed new clauses 9 and 10 under the proposed new Part 4, any Mainland enforcement officer who enters any LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12475 area outside MPA (within the Hong Kong territory) and any person (non-MPA officer) who assists that Mainland enforcement officer in entering the Hong Kong territory commits an offence and is liable to a fine of $10 million and to imprisonment for 30 years. The two clauses are proposed on the basis of Article 6 of the Co-operation Arrangement. Secretary Frank CHAN, what are the significances of the proposed amendments? While the Co-operation Arrangement states that officers of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area, including those from immigration inspection authority, customs authority, inspection and quarantine authority, integrated port administration authority and railway police authority, shall not enter any area outside MPA to enforce the law, and have no law enforcement powers outside MPA, it does not provide for the penalty. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendments seek to make up for this.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

Besides, pursuant to the proposed new clause 11 under the new Part 4, any officer of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area who resists, obstructs, intimidates, or assaults any Hong Kong officer in the performance of his duties at MPA commits an offence and is liable a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for 10 years. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment seeks to affirm the content of Article 6 of the Co-operation Arrangement in the Bill, and to provide for the penalty. In this respect, how can we criticize the amendments of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen for its frivolousness and its breach of the Co-operation Arrangement? The amendments only seek to make up for the deficiencies of the Bill. But the pro-establishment Members and royalists still say no to them. Then, what will be the objective consequences brought about by the opposition?

Does the opposition imply that we will give tacit consent to Mainland enforcement officers to enter non-MPA or the Hong Kong territory by various excuses without facing any penalty? The truth is under which provision of law we can penalize them? Does this imply that we will give tacit consent to powerful agencies in the Mainland to make cross-boundary arrests in Hong Kong as if there was no boundary between the two places? What Hong Kong people can do if this sort of unfortunate incident befalls them and they are unreasonably treated? It is necessary for us to explicitly stipulate in the Bill how we can hold Mainland enforcement officers accountable for their violation of human rights of 12476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Hong Kong people. Hong Kong people really feel the worries. The incident on a bookstore in Causeway Bay as well as the violent obstruction of the lawful news coverage of Hong Kong reporters in the Mainland are the major reasons prompting us as elected representatives in the Legislative Council to propose these amendments during our deliberation of the Bill. But what are the responses of the royalists? They think the amendments are proposed on the basis of conspiracy theories seeking to create panic. They choose to ignore the cruel reality which objectively exists before us as they try to deceive themselves and others.

Chairman, some Members oppose my amendments as they believe the amendments are used to procrastinate. I wish to respond to their criticisms. In vetoing my amendments, they are actually extending the termination date of XRL to an eternity. What Secretary Frank CHAN has said about this? He says he does not expect XRL to cease operation. This is an irresponsible remark. Even the Government can only provide the projected economic benefits of XRL for as long as 50 years. Neither can it project the loss to be incurred by the express rail link during its initial operation when asked about such a figure. In case XRL records loss in its very first day of operation, does the eternal arrangement of the co-location clearance imply that the Government has to allow XRL to suffer loss forever and can nothing with this? In this respect, the inclusion of an expiry date in the Bill is basically to put in place a stop-loss mechanism in advance, preventing XRL to become a financial black hole digging into the pockets of the MTR Corporation Limited, the SAR Government, and the Hong Kong taxpayers as well. The vetoing of the amendments by royalist Members will in effect open a financial black hole to allow XRL to lose money since its initial days of operation and forever.

Chairman, the objective facts make us worried. The amendments proposed by other Members and me represent our very attempt to remedy the worst scenario and minimize the negative impact to be brought about by the co-location arrangement. The proposal to incorporate the relevant provisions into the Bill seeks to ensure that Hong Kong people would not have to bear unforeseeable financial risk forever.

Many pro-establishment Members have said the NPCSC's Decision forms the basis of the Bill, calling on us to accept the constitutional order of the Mainland. But what is the order they actually refer to? As other democratic Members have repeatedly said, when we see dissidents are subject to judicial persecutions as well as suppression other than legal means while civil LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12477 organizations are under close surveillance or even personal persecutions, there is an increasing need for us to put in place a mechanism to combat this sort of abuse of power and rule-breaking by enforcement officers.

Hence, the amendments aim to minimize the appearance or reduce the possibility of the appearance of the so-called forceful agencies' order in Hong Kong. Chairman, you said yesterday that RoP in effect reinforced your power, further strengthening the power conferred on you by the Basic Law. What you have said will make Hong Kong people wonder if the SAR Government, the Central Government, the pro-establishment camp, and the Mainland enforcement officers all share this mindset, and whether they will put this thought into action one day and exercise their unlimited powers. Does the designation of MPA at WKS through the NPCSC's Decision and the Co-operation Arrangement in effect strengthen the power of Mainland enforcement officers to make cross-boundary arrests? This Mainland's constitutional order is essentially a regression, compromising the spirit of rule of law and human rights that we treasure so dearly. Hence, we have to explicitly build up a mechanism of checking, monitoring, pursuing, and penalizing in the Bill through proposing amendments to it.

I call on the Government and pro-establishment Members to look into the justifications of and the logic behind our amendments. As elected representatives in the Legislative Council, it is incumbent upon us to monitor the Government and scrutinize various bills. These are the duties and responsibilities that we should not duck or abdicate. Chairman, I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee will now put to vote the amendments.

The order of voting on the amendments is set out in the Appendix to Part 1A of the Script. As some of the Members' amendments are interdependent, whether the remaining amendments may be moved will be subject to the voting results of the relevant amendments in committee of the whole Council.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up)

12478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point of order?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): The Deputy Chairman did not answer my question earlier. I notice that the debate arrangement and the present voting arrangement are actually against Rule 58 of the Rules of Procedure, especially in relation to the Schedule and Preamble. It is stated clearly in the Rules of Procedure that they should be respectively considered and put to the vote after the clauses have been disposed of.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, the Deputy Chairman just answered your point of order, and her answer is completely in line with my understanding. You wrote to me on 2:30 pm and asked me to reply within one hour, but I was chairing the meeting and was unable to reply your letter. I will give you a written reply in due course.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now votes on Mr Gary FAN's first amendment, moved earlier on, to amend clause 1.

I now put the question to you and that is: That the first amendment moved by Mr Gary FAN be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12479

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

12480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 7 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of any provisions of or any amendments to the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill, this committee of the whole Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Starry LEE be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12481

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, are you going to vote?

(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung cast his vote)

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

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted against the motion.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted for the motion.

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU 12482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted against the motion.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 24 were in favour of the motion and 7 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 17 were in favour of the motion and 12 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of any provisions of or any amendments to the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill, this committee of the whole Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move your first amendment.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I move my first amendment to amend clause 1, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 1 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the first amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick be passed.

CHAIRMAN (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 ― 14 June 2018 12483

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHU Hoi-dick rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

(Mr Christopher CHEUNG stood up)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, what is your point?

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I want to vote against the amendment, but have pressed the wrong button.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Clerk has already recorded your voting intention in the voting system.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

12484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move your second amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12485

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I move my second amendment to amend clause 1, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed Amendment

Clause 1 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the second amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHU Hoi-dick rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

12486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12487 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.

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

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my second amendment to amend clause 1, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 1 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the second amendment moved by Mr Gary FAN be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

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

12488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12489

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move your first amendment.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my first amendment to amend clause 1, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 1 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the first amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

12490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

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

(While the division bell was ringing, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the contents of his amendment)

(Mr James TO raised his hand in indication)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, what is your point?

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, may I ask will the contents of amendment read out just now by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be put down in record in the Official Record of Proceedings of the Meetings of the Legislative Council? If so, his microphone should be switched on, otherwise, staff members of the Legislative Council Secretariat will not be able to hear his voice and hence cannot record what he says.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members are not required to read out the contents of the amendment. But I will not stop Members from doing so if Members insist to read them out.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): The microphone of the relevant Member should be switched on in order to allow everyone to listen to what he says.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's microphone is not switched off.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up and kept speaking aloud)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will ask our staff to take note of that.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12491

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

12492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 7 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, you may move your amendment.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Chairman, why have you not reminded Mr Dennis KWOK that he had not cast his vote just now?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, are you going to move your amendment?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my amendment to amend clause 1, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 1 (See Annex I)

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

CHAIRMAN (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 ― 14 June 2018 12493

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

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Claudia MO rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

12494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move your third amendment.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I move my third amendment to amend clause 1, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 1 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the third amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12495

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHU Hoi-dick rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(While the division bell was ringing, Mr CHU Hoi-dick read out the contents of his amendment)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, are you going to cast your vote?

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen cast his vote)

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie 12496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move your fourth amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12497

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my fourth amendment to amend clause 6, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 6 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the fourth amendment moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHU Hoi-dick rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(While the division bell was ringing, Mr CHU Hoi-dick read out the contents of his amendment)

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

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

12498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12499 two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now deals with Dr Fernando CHEUNG's third amendment to add the new Part heading and new clause to the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): New Part heading Part 4 Miscellaneous before new clause 9

New clause 9 Expiry of this Ordinance.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you may move your third amendment.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my third amendment to read the new Part heading before new clause 9 and new clause 9 the Second time, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Dr Fernando CHEUNG's third amendment that the new Part heading before new clause 9 and new clause 9 be read the Second time.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

12500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Dr Fernando CHEUNG rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(While the division bell was ringing, Dr Fernando CHEUNG read out the contents of his amendment)

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12501

Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now deals with Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's third amendment to add the new Part heading and new clauses to the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): New Part heading Part 4 Miscellaneous before new clause 9

New clause 9 Offence of persons recognized by the Central People's Government as officers of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area entering any area outside the Mainland Port Area

12502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

New clause 10 Offence of aiding, abetting, counseling or procuring persons recognized by the Central People's Government as officers of the Mainland Authorities Stationed at the Mainland Port Area to enter any area outside the Mainland Port Area etc.

New clause 11 Offence of obstructing any person who holds a valid permit issued by the HKSAR Government or the Hong Kong operator of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link from performing duties and functions under this Ordinance etc.

New clause 12 Expiry of this Ordinance.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move your third amendment.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my third amendment to read the new Part heading before new clause 9 and new clauses 9 to 12 the Second time, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's third amendment that the new Part heading before new clause 9 and new clauses 9 to 12 be read the Second time.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12503

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

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

(While the division bell was ringing, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the contents of his amendment)

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG 12504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now deals with Mr CHU Hoi-dick's fifth and sixth amendments to add the new clause to the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): New clause 9.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12505

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move your fifth amendment.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my fifth amendment to read new clause 9 the Second time, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr CHU Hoi-dick's fifth amendment that new clause 9 be read the Second time.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHU Hoi-dick rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

12506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12507 two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you may move your sixth amendment.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my sixth amendment to read new clause 9 the Second time, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr CHU Hoi-dick's sixth amendment that new clause 9 be read the Second time.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHU Hoi-dick rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

12508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12509 two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, you may move your second amendment.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my second amendment to amend clause 2, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 2 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the second amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

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

(While the division bell was ringing, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen read out the contents of his amendment)

12510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12511

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you may move your amendment.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my amendment to amend clause 6, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 6 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division.

12512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(While the division bell was ringing, Dr KWOK Ka-ki read out the contents of his amendment)

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12513

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 7 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now votes on Ms Tanya CHAN's first, fourth and fifth amendments together.

As Ms Tanya CHAN's first amendment is the same as Dr Fernando CHEUNG's first amendment, Dr Fernando CHEUNG may not move his first amendment, irrespective of whether Ms Tanya CHAN's first amendment is passed or not.

Ms Tanya CHAN, you may move your first, fourth and fifth amendments.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my first, fourth and fifth amendments to amend clause 7 and delete Schedules 4 and 5, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendments

Clause 7 (See Annex I)

Schedule 4 (See Annex I)

Schedule 5 (See Annex I)

12514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the first, fourth and fifth amendments moved by Ms Tanya CHAN be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Tanya CHAN rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

(While the division bell was ringing, Ms Tanya CHAN read out the contents of her amendments)

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendments.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12515

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendments.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendments.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendments and 24 against them; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendments and 17 against them. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendments were negatived.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you may move your second amendment.

12516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my second amendment to delete clause 8, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 8 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the second amendment moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Dr Fernando CHEUNG rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12517

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 were present, 12 were in favour of the amendment 12518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, you may move your second amendment.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my second amendment to amend clause 8, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 8 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the second amendment moved by Ms Tanya CHAN be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Tanya CHAN rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12519

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

12520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, you may move your first amendment.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my first amendment to amend clause 8, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Clause 8 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the first amendment moved by Mr Dennis KWOK be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Tanya CHAN rose to claim a division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12521

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

12522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now deals with Mr Dennis KWOK's second amendment to add the new Part heading and new clause to the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): New Part heading Part 4 Miscellaneous before new clause 9

New clause 9 Instruments referred to in the Preamble not part of Hong Kong law.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, you may move your second amendment.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my second amendment to read the new Part heading before new clause 9 and new clause 9 the Second time, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12523

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Dennis KWOK's second amendment that the new Part heading before new clause 9 and new clause 9 be read the Second time.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Dennis KWOK rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie 12524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now deals with Mr Jeremy TAM's amendment to add the new Part heading and new clause to the Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12525

CLERK (in Cantonese): New Part heading Part 4 Miscellaneous before new clause 9

New clause 9 This Ordinance as a one-off arrangement.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, you may move your amendment.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my amendment to read the new Part heading before new clause 9 and new clause 9 the Second time, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Jeremy TAM's amendment that the new Part heading before new clause 9 and new clause 9 be read the Second time.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Jeremy TAM rose to claim a division.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

12526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12527

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, you may move your third amendment.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my third amendment to amend Schedule 3, as set out in the Appendix to the Script.

Proposed amendment

Schedule 3 (See Annex I)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the third amendment moved by Ms Tanya CHAN be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Ms Tanya CHAN rose to claim a division.

12528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr SHIU Ka-chun voted for the amendment.

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

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted for the amendment.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12529

Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Vincent CHENG voted against the amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 8 were in favour of the amendment and 24 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 29 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.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): All the vote on the amendments have been concluded in committee of the whole Council. I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 1 to 8 and Schedules 1 to 5 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

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

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

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

12530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted against the motion.

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

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 62 Members present, 41 were in favour of the motion and 20 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 58(8) of the Rules of Procedure, the committee now deals with the preamble to the Bill.

I now put the question to you and that is: That this be the preamble to the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12531

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote. Mr CHU Hoi-dick, are you going to vote?

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick cast his vote)

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, 12532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted against the motion.

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

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 62 Members present, 41 were in favour of the motion and 20 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): All the proceedings on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill have been concluded in committee of the whole Council. Council now resumes.

Council then resumed.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I now report to the Council: That the

Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill has been passed by committee of the whole Council without amendment. I move the motion that "This Council adopts the report".

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Transport and Housing be passed.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, this motion shall be voted on without amendment or debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12533

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 CHAN Chi-chuen rose to claim a division.

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

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.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

12534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted against the motion.

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

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 62 Members present, 41 were in favour of the motion and 20 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

Third Reading of Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Third Reading.

GUANGZHOU-SHENZHEN-HONG KONG EXPRESS RAIL LINK (CO-LOCATION) BILL

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I move that the

Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill be read the Third time and do pass.

Does any Member wish to speak? Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12535

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I do not support the Third Reading and passage of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). President, here are my reasons: First, President, I think your performance in presiding over the Third Reading debate session of today's meeting in respect of the Bill was rather disappointing because Members were not given sufficient opportunities to debate the Bill.

Second, President, I query your role and your capacity. You are the managing director of certain companies, in particular listed companies. Actually, are these companies/groups or their subsidiaries involved in any commercial contracts related to the operation of the West Kowloon station? I wonder if you have ever carried out relevant due diligence exercises and ascertained that you do not have any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter under consideration prior to taking the chair to preside over this meeting. Regardless that you might have made a declaration to the Legislative Council as required, but President, you must understand that declaration of interest by Members is only the first tier of declaration. As far as the passage of a bill by this Council is concerned, any Member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the Bill which contradicts that of the general public in Hong Kong has to abstain from voting.

So, you preside over the meeting … my question is: Have you ever carried out any relevant due diligence exercises to see if the various listed companies/groups with which you are connected have anything to do with the commercial contracts concerning the West Kowloon station? Well, you do not have to answer the question. I only think that, if you have never carried out any due diligence exercise, I will have to query if you, the President, have been fair and just when chairing this meeting. You may choose not to answer and I do not believe that you have ever carried out any due diligence exercise, for all that you have already made a declaration to the Council. I only wish to point out …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, as this Council is conducting the Third Reading debate, Members should speak on whether they support the passage of the Bill by giving it a third reading.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am speaking on the Third Reading of the Bill right now to make clear that I do not support giving the Bill a third reading because of your poor performance.

12536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, if you keep on straying from the question under debate, I will direct you to stop speaking.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): I just stop speaking right now.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, as it stands the "cession-based co-location arrangement" will definitely be put in place, but Members of the pro-democracy camp and I have not changed our stance from the beginning. Even though we have come to this stage that the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") will be endorsed with the blind support of the pro-establishment camp. As long as the Express Rail Link ("XRL") can be commissioned in time by September, all the questions relating to the breaching of the Basic Law as well as a host of problems which have occurred during the XRL's test-run will be forgotten.

Nevertheless, I have to take this opportunity to deliver my final speech to reprimand the absurdity of the co-location arrangement as well as the snooty face of the Government in disregard of public opinion, because it is the fundamental right of each and every Member to speak in this Chamber. I have to put it on record that this Bill is unconstitutional, so that Hong Kong people will be able to learn the shamelessness of the Government; and the fact that the Chairman of Legislative Council has abused his power in order to disregard public opinions and restrict Members' right to speak.

First of all, I have all along been pointing out the most important issue in the co-location arrangement, that is, the Government has never launched any pubic consultation. The Government simply acts arbitrarily and tries to forcibly launch the arrangement. Actually, when the Government was seeking the Legislative Council's funding for XRL in 2009, a lot of Members had raised their concerns about the arrangement, including the doubtful legal points concerning the implementation of the co-location arrangement. However, the Government has been evading the matter and saying that it would conduct a timely study and inform Hong Kong people in due course. Eventually, the funding proposal was endorsed under unclear circumstances and the seeds were sown with the blind support of the pro-establishment Members.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12537

After that, the date of commissioning has been delayed time and again while there were incessant construction cost overruns. It was dragged for seven years. What has the Government done during this period? We do not know. The Government has never publicized any research papers concerning XRL, and it has never conducted any public consultation. Not to mention public consultation, the Government has never discussed the matter with the legislature. During the 7-year period, civil organizations and Members have been calling the Government to publicize the options being studied. Unfortunately, the Government has never made any direct response.

Time flies. The Government abruptly announced in July last year the co-location arrangement which had been studied for some time by the Department of Justice and relevant Mainland authorities. Therefore, we questioned what the Government had done over the past seven years. Why had it come up with this arrangement? Not only did the Government put forward this co-location arrangement, it also announced the "Three-step Process", a legislative proposal which sought a swift passage. One may see that the co-location arrangement is extremely opaque and unreceptive from the research stage to the finalizing stage. The Government may use the Bill to coax the pro-Government camp and people who support the Government, but I believe it can never deceive the discerning eyes of Hong Kong people.

Just now I have heard Secretary Frank CHAN said that the Government has done a lot of consultation work and that the Government knew public views on the co-location arrangement in his reply during the Second Reading. However, it is unfortunate that the Government maintains its autocracy, acts arbitrary, and tries to forcibly pass the co-location arrangement by ignoring the facts and the absurdity. As far as the public are concerned, since the Government has a majority support in the legislature, it can achieve a lot of bogus things, including fake consultation, but does it matter? In this imbalanced legislature, especially under the circumstance that we who have a clear public mandate cannot contend against the pro-establishment camp, the Government can do whatever it wants.

In fact, it has been almost nine years since the XRL's funding proposal was passed in 2009. What kind of public opinions has the Government listened to? The Secretary proudly said in the public hearing that the majority of organizations were in support of the co-location arrangement. This kind of hypocrisy and his 12538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 ugly face really makes me sick. If the Government deems that it has consulted all the people in Hong Kong by launching one public hearing, then I think the Government needs not to consult the public in future on any policy. It can consider that a public consultation has been conducted after one or two public hearing sessions are held in the legislature. It can save up a lot of time and resources in future.

On the other hand, the argument put forward by Secretary Frank CHAN to solicit Members' support of the co-location arrangement really makes me sick, he said that …

(Ms Claudia MO stood up)

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

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please continue with your speech.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Just now I have mentioned that when the Secretary was trying to seek Members' support, he said that we should swiftly pass the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill for the future of Hong Kong people, especially young people in Hong Kong. I consider it too ironic and unsympathetic for a senior Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12539 official to say such things. It is because in recent years, the Government has become increasingly rampant to suppress Hong Kong young people. Some young people who are taking a step forward in certain movements are deprived of their rights to participate in politics. The Government even made use of the courts of law to instigate political prosecutions by passing heavy sentences and sending them to jail one by one. In yesterday's Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session, Mr SHIU Ka-chun asked the Chief Executive if she would set up an investigation committee to look into the Mong Kok riot which took place on the first day of the Lunar New Year, why young people were discontent with political matters, with a view to reflecting on the deep-seated cause, with a view to understanding their views and mending the social cleavages. Nevertheless, the Chief Executive only said that she would not, and then made an counter-argument by saying that if an investigation was to be conducted, the unlawful elements should be under investigation …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, during the Third Reading debate, Members should only explain if they support or oppose in general the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill, instead of mentioning matters irrelevant to the question. Members should not repeat their arguments being brought up in the Second Reading or the Committee Stage. Please make your speech as concise as possible and return to the theme of the debate.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, just because when the Secretary was seeking our support, he said that we should think about the future of our young people. However, I dispute his argument. Therefore, I have to point out that the Government has been showing no care or concern about our young people all along. Yet, why should the Secretary ask us to think about our young people when we are debating about the co-location arrangement? In particular, I have also mentioned just now the Secretary said that we should think about the future of our young people, so that they could enjoy the fruit of economic success in future and so on. I consider him simply trying to coax our young people. Does the Secretary understand what young people are thinking? Does he know that if they are in support of the co-location arrangement? If the Government wants to know more about the thoughts of our young people, I hope it will conduct an investigation and see what kind of mindset our young people have and see if they support the co-location arrangement. However, the 12540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Government dares not do so. This only reveals that the Government is just trying to coax others.

Another important point is, a lot of pro-democracy Members have reiterated that the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") on Approving the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement (Co-operation Arrangement) has no legal basis. It does not even belong to any part of Hong Kong's law. It will relinquish all the existing rights of Hong Kong under the Basic Law and the jurisdiction of the Courts of Hong Kong. It contravenes human rights and the constitutional spirit. And in the long run, it will set a bad precedent to allow the direct implementation of national laws to be applied in Hong Kong under the guise of NPCSC's Decision and the Co-operation Arrangement, which have bypassed Annex III of the Basic Law. Hong Kong can conduct its local legislation in name, but as the legislature is dominated by the pro-establishment camp, the Government can easily get any legislation passed without much resistance. When the Government is asked if it is only a one-off measure for the Government to conduct the so-called local legislation on the basis of NPCSC's Decision, the Government dares not deny it categorically. In that case, does the Government intend not to put an end to it after the Pandora Box is opened? This is quite worrying.

Moreover, I note that a lot of pro-establishment Members have been reiterating that the XRL co-location arrangement may generate economic benefits for Hong Kong. In fact, even the Chairman of the China Railway Society, Mr LU Chunfang, told Hong Kong media in an interview that since the construction method of XRL was different from the construction of high-speed rail in China, therefore Hong Kong needed to develop more lands to supplement the railway operation cost. For that reason, it is doubtful if we can recover the costs of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong XRL after enormous amounts of public money have been spent on its construction.

According to the papers submitted to the Legislative Council by the Government earlier, the land and the structures in respect of land for the operation of the Hong Kong Section of the XRL should be assigned to the Government's LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12541 wholly owned Kowloon-Canton Railway Corporation ("KCRC") at a nominal premium of $1,000 and it only needs to pay a Government Rent at 3% of the rateable value for a 50 year lease period. At the same time, a service concession to operate the Hong Kong Section of the XRL would be granted to MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") under a Service Concession Agreement as early as this December. Nevertheless, under such an arrangement, the Government will never be able to recover the construction costs of XRL. It has to wait until XRL is making a profit before it can collect its share of the dividends.

In this connection, Secretary Frank CHAN has admitted that XRL would only make profits after operating for 8 to 10 years. Thus it is highly unlikely that the Government can recover billions of construction costs. The Government has no intention to conduct any consultation on the issue. As to the question that the Government is unable to recover billions of construction costs, how will the Government be accountable to the public? When the Government came to the Legislative Council and made the funding request at the beginning, the Government only emphasized the so-called economic benefits and avoided the issues concerning revenues and cost-recovery period. Now everything is "signed and sealed", then the Administration reveals that it may take a long time to recover the costs. But it is questionable whether the Government can recover all the costs. It is tantamount to dumping taxpayers' money into the sea. As far as Hong Kong people are concerned, is it a responsible way to do it?

When the Government was first promoting XRL, it was stated that the rate of return would be as high as 10%. By the time the funding request was approved, the Administration gave itself away by saying the rate of return was only 6%. By the second time the Government came to seek supplementary provision, the rate was downward adjusted to 4%. I do not know if the Secretary can tell us today of the rate of return percentage. The poor management of MTRCL over the last few years has led to cost overruns and delay of the XRL project. Each time the Government comes to the Legislative Council to present strong grounds, it only wants to seek public funds to fill the deficits. Besides, in spite of various problems cropped up during the test run, including numerous occasions of water seepage problems in various stations as well as derailing incidents, MTRCL was still awarded the service concession. How well has the Government performed in its monitoring work and will this set a bad precedent?

12542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

The most outrageous thing is that even there is very little time left until the commission of XRL, the Government is still unable to provide the lease information of the Mainland Port Area at the West Kowloon Station. Even the cooperating agreement between MTRCL and the Mainland has not been implemented. The Government mentioned nothing about this at all. Since the Government is unable to answer the question about the daily train frequencies, how can it be considered accountable at all? Is the Government being responsible at all? For that reason, if we pass the Bill today, we are just telling the public clearly that we are simply a rubber stamp. We will do whatever the Government asks us to do. We are unable to monitor the Government, and we cannot force the Government to give a clear account to the public. Finally, what we can see in this case is that we will not only waste manpower and resources, but we will also have to pay a price for the important core values of "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy". Therefore, we cannot (The buzzer sounded) … accept the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please stop speaking at once.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I must congratulate you for your name will certainly be left in history after the scrutiny of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). As the President of the Legislative Council, you have failed not only to safeguard the Council's dignity but also to manifest political neutrality as you take the lead to cooperate with the executive authorities. While knowing perfectly well the availability of sufficient scrutiny time, you try the best that you can to connive with the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government and handle the Bill coercively in total disregard of standard procedure. If I had the chance, President, I would definitely recommend you for the Grand Bauhinia Medal, so that you could stand on the same historical level as such dignitaries as LEUNG Chun-ying and YEUNG Kwong.

President, you disallowed the pan-democrats to put forth amendments, restricted Members' speaking time during the Second Reading, expelled Members from the Chamber arbitrarily and deprived them of the chance to participate in the Committee stage …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12543

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, I have reminded Members repeatedly that they should only indicate whether they support the Bill in general during the Third Reading debate. They should neither comment on issues irrelevant to this question nor repeat arguments raised in the Second Reading debate. Please come back to the question under this debate.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Civic Party and I might perhaps change our voting preference later today because of your enlightenment. So, I would suggest you let me continue with my speech.

President, what actually is the nature of the committee of the whole Council? Last time when we amended the Rules of Procedure, the pro-establishment Members said that the committee of the whole Council was not the Council. But now you insist to bar the colleagues in this Council from entering the Chamber. President, the FIFA World Cup game is now around the corner. I am sure any team that has you on board would be the champion, as you are an expert in moving the goalpost.

President, I do not expect this Council to make glorious history or to establish a parliamentary tradition that stands tall in the world under your leadership. I am not that naïve. Yet, it is my frustration and regret to see you literally committing a self-destruction.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, I will order you to stop speaking if you continue to dwell on issues unrelated to the present question. Now, please continue with your speech.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the passage of the co-location arrangement is now imminent. There is little that the pan-democrats can achieve despite their wish to make a last-minute turnaround. But I would like to remind all of us that during this Council's deliberation of the funding application for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") in the 2009-2010 legislative session, veterans from the Civic Party predicted, among others, that the XRL would suffer severe cost overruns and the co-location arrangement would certainly be unconstitutional. It is with great regret that all these predictions have come true one by one. Today, in the tradition of the veteran Civic Party 12544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 lawmakers, I will give six heads-up. And the Civic Party will surely vote against the Bill because of them.

The first heads-up: more unconstitutional arrangements would be tabled to the Legislative Council in the future. Beijing will in all likelihood invalidate functions of a certain Basic Law article in the days to come, citing national interest. The pro-establishment camp in Hong Kong will then obey and abolish the functions of the relevant provision obligingly. The co-location arrangement in question strips the Hong Kong courts of the jurisdiction they have over the Mainland Port Area in the West Kowloon Station. This is tantamount to forfeiting the power of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal over this port area in contravention of Article 19 of the Basic Law and the judicial power of the Hong Kong courts at all levels under Article 80 of the Basic Law. Under the co-location arrangement, national laws, instead of Hong Kong laws, apply to the Mainland Port Area in the West Kowloon Station. What else can we say about this apart from this is a contradiction to Article 18 of the Basic Law? The pro-establishment camp will of course continue to support the Bill. But then following its passage, to what extent will the dignity of the Basic Law remain intact, given the plausible curtailment of the spirit of "one country, two systems" and human right protection in Hong Kong?

The second heads-up: the Government will continue to sacrifice the rule of law in Hong Kong in the name of promoting economic development. In law, there is a principle called proportionality. In the context of the legislature, proportionality means whether the sacrifice to be made is proportional to the gain from the passage of the law. This time, the Government asks the Council to endorse an unconstitutional bill in the name of convenience. Is this a good enough reason justifying the constitutional price we pay? Perhaps, we should now review the importance of the constitution.

President, the Basic Law, as our constitutional document in Hong Kong, imposes a limit to the Government's power and thus preventing the Government from abusing people's rights. If the Executive Authorities arrest people arbitrarily, exercise violence or even kill someone, they will face legal sanctions. If the Government commits an offence or violates human rights in the process, it also has to face the law. Now that we hand over part of Hong Kong's land and its jurisdiction to a country which ranks much below us in terms of the rule of law and which very often curtails people's freedom in the name of law. President, all I can say is that the relevant aftermath will run far and deep.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12545

Some Members planned to move amendments to preclude the occurrence of other arrangements similar to the co-location arrangement in question. But unfortunately, the relevant amendments can in no way appear on our Agenda. The Transport and Housing Bureau has also written to oppose the amendments proposed above, in a display of the Government's belittlement of constitutional integrity. In future, will the Government invalidate relevant provisions of the Basic Law in the name of administrative convenience? President, we do not wish to see the hard-earned rule of law in Hong Kong debase to the level of Chinese-style rule of law one day. I all the more would not wish to see "one country, two systems" become "one country, one system", in an affinity that denies individuality.

The third heads-up: the Hong Kong Government will, from now on, be awfully likely to surrender a piece of land to the Mainland Government arbitrarily. It may cede or lease the piece of land, but this does not really matter. In the future, so long as a site is chosen by Beijing, it will be placed under Mainland's jurisdiction. At the beginning of last year, both the Secretary for Justice and the Secretary for Transport and Housing said the Mainland Port Area in West Kowloon Station would be "leased" to the Mainland Government, modelling on the experience of the Shenzhen Bay Port. In less than a year, however, land leasing as an option has unexpectedly disappeared altogether from the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement which came out in December and also from the subsequent decisions made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. In short, once the Central Government says a certain site in Hong Kong should come under its jurisdiction, Hong Kong will oblige. When even an area in downtown Hong Kong can be surrendered to the Mainland, would it be a surprise if the Lok Ma Chau Loop on the border is one day placed under China's jurisdiction? This approach is so awful that I do hope I am just scaremongering and being oversensitive.

The fourth heads-up: in future, the administration of frontier closed areas can easily be handed over to any commercial enterprise. Under the Public Order Ordinance and the actualities of the present-day scenario, President, frontier closed areas in Hong Kong are usually administered by government departments such as the Immigration Department or the Customs and Excise Department. But, under the co-location arrangement, who is going to administer the Mainland 12546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Port Area in West Kowloon Station? The MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"). Despite the fact that the Hong Kong Government is the major shareholder of MTRCL, the latter remains a listed company and a commercial enterprise. MTRCL may run into many political and policy issues in its administration of the frontier closed area. Does it have the necessary experience and capability to negotiate and work with the Mainland officials? Does it have the skills needed to deal with the Mainland Government and protect Hong Kong people's interest in case it meets controversial issues in the future? President, all these questions have never been properly answered. The SAR Government is actually skirting its responsibilities over these issues and passes down to MTRCL its rightful duty in safeguarding Hong Kong people's interest. Apart from "irresponsible", I cannot think of another appropriate expression to describe our SAR Government.

President, I am going to give the fifth heads-up as we have come to the topic of absence from duty and being irresponsible. While the Bill is going to effect fundamental changes to Hong Kong's constitution, it is surprising not to have seen the Secretary for Justice coming to the Legislative Council today, only the Secretary for Transport and Housing. President, the Chief Executive may consider the Secretary for Transport and Housing very talented and further believes that he is able to deal with the entire Legislative Council unaided, capable of explaining to us single-handedly the highly complicated constitutional issues in the debate. But what worries me is that the SAR Government may regard the co-location arrangement merely a transport arrangement which does not involve any legal issues. Given such an important constitutional change, the Secretary for Justice's absence from our meeting is startling. After shying away from us because of the illegal construction at home, she once again stays away from the Chamber and such is the bottom of the problem. President, a government should be accountable to its people and the Secretary for Justice should come over to this Council to answer our queries and to convince us with her legal knowledge. But unfortunately, he who comes to the Council is the Secretary for Transport and Housing. With due respect to Secretary Frank CHAN, I wonder why an engineer comes to us now when we do have a Senior Counsel working as our Secretary for Justice?

President, it is even more worrying that the Hong Kong people may have gradually got used to such an arrangement. This desensitized and laid-back attitude, President, may warrant our concern all the more. Some people may regard the legal dispute over the co-location arrangement technical in nature and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12547 believe it bears no serious impact on their own interest. But then, President, an old Chinese saying has it right that "ceding five towns today may lead to ceding ten towns tomorrow". The Hong Kong Government is now adopting salami tactics under which our interests are given away bit by bit. It might be too late when we realize one day the severe impacts of land cession and right cession on our actual interests. But Members from the pro-establishment camp may be unaware of the problems; otherwise, they may have turned a blind eye to them. President, by the time when totalitarianism reigns, the pro-establishment Members might have risen so much in rank that they can ignore other Hong Kong people's rights. The last heads-up that I am going to give is that pro-establishment Members may soon receive medals after forcing through the passage of the co-location arrangement in question. Our President and Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Bills Committee, are both recipients of Gold Bauhinia Star or GBS in short. We may also understand GBS as "Great Betrayer of the SAR". If they further receive the Grand Bauhinia Medal, or GBM, then they may become "Great Betrayers of Morals". We definitely should congratulate them on their gain in ascendancy.

Of course, President, if the last prediction comes true, I do have to congratulate you and Mrs Regina IP. Apart from this one, however, I personally would hate to see the realization of the other five heads-up above. I hope that I am indeed a paranoid and that I, Alvin YEUNG, or the Civic Party is actually scaremongering and over-suspicious. Looking back at the heads-up given by our Civic Party veterans eight or nine years ago, which unfortunately have come true one by one, I do hope that my fear will not be realized in the future. My fear is that in eight, nine or even more years, when we no longer sit in this Council, when our successors sit here instead, they may find out one day from the Hansard that all the heads-up I give today have come true.

President, lastly I would like to remind all of us, and especially the President, the spirit of "one country, two systems". "One country, two systems" celebrates differences. With his outstanding percipience and broad-mindedness, DENG Xiaoping at that time understood that the Hong Kong people in the 1980s might not accept the systems adopted in the Mainland and hence he introduced "one country, two systems" to allow two distinct systems to coexist in one single country. These two distinct systems differ not only economically but also in terms of ideology and the legal system. It precisely is because of these differences that "one country, two systems" is begotten, it precisely is because of these differences that we can coexist under "one country, two systems" and it 12548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 precisely is because of these differences that Hong Kong people continue to stay in Hong Kong contentedly. But, when differences between the two systems become fuzzy, when the two systems gradually lose this visible line of divide they should have, what exactly is left with us?

It is true that XRL might be a convenient railway; it is also true that the co-location arrangement will bring convenience to XRL users. But what are the repercussions of the co-location arrangement? Will it strengthen "one country, two systems" or will it blur further the dividing line between the systems? With the current debate, are we going to become more resolved and confident in convincing Hong Kong people that "one country, two systems" will stand tall in history? Or, will Hong Kong people worry all the more about "one country, two systems", fearing its destruction even before 2047?

President, systems are built by people, by those people who are sitting here. True, each Member of the Legislative Council differs markedly in political beliefs and positions. But I cannot envisage anyone sitting in this Council today would like to see the failure of "one country, two systems". However, I do worry that we fail to protect "one country, two systems" effectively today because of the differences we have over the understanding and expectation of "one country, two systems".

President, all the speeches we make today will be part of history. While some of these historical speeches may become childlike fairy tales; others may become scaremongering tales. And my worst fear is that the 15-minute speech I made just now will be realized.

With these remarks for the record, I so submit. The Civic Party will vote against the motion in the Third Reading.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, as mentioned by the leader of my political party, it is important to put our speeches on record. Why is this so important? It is because under the leadership of our President, Mr Andrew LEUNG, the speaking time of 15 minutes for each Member may soon become history. This speaking time of 15 minutes may be taken away from us very soon. Perhaps the President will decisively shorten our speaking time to three or two minutes, or even follow the example of Mrs Regina IP, Chairman of the Bills Committee, who appeared to be magnanimous enough in allowing each Member LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12549 only one minute to speak in the Bills Committee meeting. Therefore, we need to even cherish more the reasonable speaking time of 15 minutes that we still have at this moment.

For the sake of implementing the co-location arrangement, we see how corrupt this Council is, how anxious the Government is, and even how the Government has kept Hong Kong people in the dark for all these years. The implementation of the co-location arrangement will not only open the floodgate of the Basic Law, but also highlight how ridiculous the just mentioned interlocking food chain is. I will definitely oppose the implementation of the co-location arrangement, and one of the reasons is the high-handedness and unreasonableness of Mr Andrew LEUNG as the President. I am criticizing you. It is also because of you that I am more determined to oppose the co-location arrangement.

We talk about separation of powers. How can Hong Kong come to this stage today? It is attributive to our independent judicial system that Hong Kong can become a relatively safe and prosperous city with the rule of law. The Legislative Council has its own terms of reference and the Government has to administer Hong Kong according to the law. However, what do we see today? We see that for the sake of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") … I am not going to speculate on whether some people have a deliberate plan behind to mix up the Constitution of the Mainland with the Basic Law of Hong Kong, as we cannot differentiate them very clearly now. I do not want to make such a speculation and I would not take it as true for the moment, as we should not always accuse others of having dubious intention. We should not make such speculations of other people.

Nevertheless, we clearly see that the authorities are asking us to support the implementation of the co-location arrangement with the incentives that XRL will bring economic benefits and is speedy and convenient. But can we really quickly reach the destination by taking XRL? I have tried it myself, and it really depends on where you want to go. If you like going to the zoo, it will surely be a speedy means. But if you have to go to the city centre, it will be slow and expensive by taking XRL. When the Government pushed through this concept, however, it told us that a "one hour living sphere" could be materialized. Of course, this can be your living sphere if you are willing to live in a remote area. Will it be quicker to reach the destination by taking XRL? Yes, it will be quicker to go to certain places. Will XRL be connected to many routes in the 12550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 whole country? Yes, I agree that it will be connected to many routes in the whole country. But let us look at the figures. Only about 18% of travellers will go beyond Guangdong Province, and most of the destinations are within Guangdong Province …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, I have reminded Members many times that during the Third Reading debate, Members should only express whether they support the Bill in general and should not discuss the XRL or other matters. Please get back to the theme of this debate.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I am at my wits' end. If you are unable to follow what I am saying, I will try to tell you in a simpler way. I am against the co-location arrangement. This is due to the various economic reasons cited earlier, in addition to the reason of you that makes me even more against the arrangement.

President, do you understand now? Then I will continue with the economic reasons just mentioned and my reasons for opposing the co-location arrangement. It is because of the XRL project that the Administration rolled out the co-location arrangement. If there was no XRL, there would not be a co-location arrangement. Without XRL, there would not be any co-location arrangement. President, I am also confused by you. But never mind, I will try to change the way I present so that you can understand what I am saying.

What we are now driving at is the cause for the co-location arrangement. Many years ago, a project called XRL was endorsed for construction. But since the legal disputes involved could not be resolved, the co-location arrangement was then envisaged. This is why we have this Bill today. President, is that right? We should all understand the picture now.

I now continue with my speech. Therefore, the co-location arrangement was introduced. Does it carry any economic incentives? Does the co-location arrangement have a genuine economic incentive? I said in my many speeches delivered earlier that there is an economic incentive. Honourable Members, I acknowledge that there is an economic incentive. But how great is that economic incentive? Is it so great that we do not even have to safeguard and take heed of our Basic Law?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12551

First of all, it is a matter of principle. We should not, in principle, care about whether the co-location arrangement carries an incentive, no matter how great it is, because we have to safeguard our principle and bottom line. This is the first point which I support.

The second saying is that we may, from a practical point of view, see whether the co-location arrangement carries a very great incentive. If the incentive is really very great, can we relax a bit when it comes to the rule of law? This may be what some Hong Kong people think, but I do not have a conclusion of whether it is right or not to think it that way.

However, is that economic incentive really that great? We do not think so. Is the projected rate of return for 50 years that favourable? We do not think so either. Of course, you may say that we should not be so short-sighted, as apart from railway service, it can provide you with many other things. But does the implementation or not of the co-location arrangement make such a great difference in respect of the many other so-called incentives?

As I just mentioned, if this co-location arrangement Bill is not endorsed and we implement the separate-location arrangement or the co-location arrangement in Futian that we proposed earlier, how much damage will be done to the whole case?

President, I really cannot see any serious impact. There will be some impact, but it will not be so serious and can be coped with by some means. First of all, according to the authorities, if a passenger takes XRL from Hong Kong to Beijing or Shanghai in future, he will arrive at the destination when he wakes up. Nevertheless, knowing that many railways have to be under repair and maintenance at night, and that he has to sit in the second class train carriage of XRL for nearly 20 hours before arriving at Shanghai, why does the passenger not take a plane but has to take XRL? I thus cannot understand why the authorities have to push it through. Does the implementation or not of the co-location arrangement really make such a great difference? Anyway, my opposition is ultimately based on the major principle of safeguarding the Basic Law.

As I also highlighted in an earlier speech, the question does not lie in whether we have considered this case before, but what we are trying to safeguard. When there is a need but you cannot cope with it within the current limit, you should think of a way that can cope with it without breaching the rules, or a way 12552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 that can accomplish the task through minor alteration of certain regulations, and this is fine. Hence, I always say that we are not asking too much as to amend the Basic Law, but we are now distorting the principle, which is comparable to the distortion of the Rules of Procedure by the President. It is sad enough that I cannot challenge the President, as he always say that his final decision cannot be challenged. I have no idea about the origin of this kind of culture. Is it originated from the Council, the Government or some other major institutions?

Nonetheless, as I have currently observed, the Council, the Government and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") all have the attitude that "when I say that it is fine, it is fine", and that anyone who puts forward any views is standing in the way. But in the example of MTRCL, it has already set up an independent Commission of Inquiry on the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") project, showing its willingness to conduct an investigation into the matter. What we are concerned is not the final voting result, but the process of the matter is also very significant. MTRCL said in the first place that it was not a big deal and it was fine as long as SCL was safe at the end. It really said the above on the first day. In its view, it does not need to give an account on the matters unrelated to the public, as its discussion with the subcontractors is not the business of the public. This kind of attitude is obviously unacceptable to the public.

The same logic applies here in this Council. We are informed that we can talk to the Secretariat later if we have any views towards the meeting arrangements. But by that time, the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") would have been passed. What is the point of voicing our views again later? We cannot go back on certain things. And now, the President is bulldozing the Bill through the legislature with his power.

As in the present Bill, we have voiced many legal points of view and various questions. President, I must point out that all these do not merely come from Members, but actually also from the Hong Kong Bar Association. Of course, you can say that it is impossible to allay all legal disputes, as certainly some people will share view A while some people will share view B. You may argue that every lawyer will have his own views. However, you cannot say that judicial review or interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress can be sought for whatever question. You should not hold this kind of attitude. If the Government intends to deal with every issue with this kind of attitude, I wonder how long it can keep going like that. Will the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12553 continue to rule Hong Kong with this kind of nearly high-handed and autocratic approach? If the Government was willing to reason with us in an open and transparent manner, the contents of many proposals could be submitted earlier for discussion.

However, the Government is not taking this approach. It is not the situation that we have not asked the Government, but the Government simply ignores us, nor is it the situation that the Government has not followed up the progress, but it just does not want to give an account to the public on the progress. This is the area that I am not pleased and also the reason that led to rifts among the people. Of course, the "father of rifts" must be "689" or LEUNG Chun-ying, and this is not arguable. But should the incumbent Government mend or remove the rifts properly? However, instead of doing so, the Government is still using a barbaric way to bulldoze this co-location arrangement through the legislature. And the terrifying part is certain Members' cooperation, under which the Council has lost its function of monitoring the Government. Members of the Legislative Council have the function of monitoring the Government, while the President should use his power to assist Members in monitoring the Government instead of suppressing Members' right or power to speak given by the Rules of Procedure …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, I now warn you for one last time. If you keep on digressing, I will order you to stop speaking. Please continue.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, do you base on any reason in warning me? Can you be more specific?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, you have already digressed from the subject. During the Third Reading debate, a Member should only state whether he support the Third Reading of the Bill or not. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, in that case, let me state again that one of the reasons for my opposition to the Bill is related to you.

12554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You are repeating your argument.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Now I understand. I am repeating my argument and not digressing from the subject. You should have told me clearly whether I was repeating my argument or digressing from the subject.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You are both repeating your argument and are digressing from the subject. If you do not come back to the subject of this debate, I will ask you to stop speaking.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): So I am repeating my argument, and I understand now. I will not repeat saying I am not pleased with which person, but that person's attitude is another thing that upsets me. This point has not been mentioned and I am not repeating. Attitudes are very important. How can we achieve effective administration and social harmony? While the attitude of the SAR Government is important, the attitude of the President of the Legislative Council is also very important. When you have assumed a high position, you should not think that your capacity and status will necessarily be high. When you are sitting in that chair, must you be respected and admired by all people? You should not have this kind of attitude but should convince others with justifications. This argument has not been repeated, right? He should reason with us.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, please stop speaking. Mr Charles Peter MOK, please speak.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, since Mr Jeremy TAM only has only 1 minute and 30 seconds left, you should allow him to finish his speech. You have gone too far in stopping Mr TAM from speaking without explaining how he has strayed from the question under debate. You just stop a Member from speaking when whose speech fails to please you.

(Mr Jeremy TAM remained standing while speaking)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12555

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, I have warned you repeatedly, but you still strayed from the question under debate.

I have repeatedly made clear the point that Members should discuss in general their reasons for supporting or opposing the Bill during the Third Reading debate.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Was Mr TAM not discussing exactly his reasons then?

(Mr Jeremy TAM kept on standing while speaking)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, as you have not yet delivered your speech on the Third Reading of the Bill, I allow you to finish your speech.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): I really do not understand. Is it stipulated in the Rules of Procedure that Members cannot mention in whose speeches anything about the President/Chairman?

All I would like to say is that we hope Hong Kong can really move on instead of depending solely on being pressurized to do so by the Government. Say, is it the case that when the Government moves a motion, we have to take it any way because it will definitely secure sufficient votes for the bill to be passed by the Council? Fine, we take it, but what then if someone does not take it? Well, never mind, the Council will take complementary actions to facilitate the passage of the bill in any case. Yet, the situation is not supposed to be like this and people must resist one day. The Government may think that members of the public are not on our side today. Well, this may be true for today, but every step the Government takes will contribute to the mounting of grievances among the Hong Kong people, and too many grievances will lead to public outcry one day, that is, outburst of people's grievances. And it is the Government itself as well as those people who ignore law and order because of whose high morals and standing to blame then.

I so submit.

12556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, you kept interrupting Members just now, and reminding them that they should focus on the reasons for supporting or opposing the Third Reading of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") in this debate session. President, please take a good rest and let the Deputy President chair the meeting fairly, and I believe she will definitely do so.

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

The President wanted us to focus on the reasons for supporting or opposing the Third Reading of the Bill and not to digress, but sometimes I feel that for those who have never pondered over the reasons why we are opposing the proposal in question, they can of course never understand what we are saying. Therefore, no matter what Members are saying, the President would try to interrupt, although I dare not assert that the whole reason for doing so is to suppress dissenting or criticizing voices. However, the President may have never thought that Members do have their reasons to oppose to the idea, and he can thus never understand our points. There is really nothing we can do about it.

Deputy President, the Bill is a lousy legislative attempt, but it will definitely be passed in a confusing state tonight, just like what we were doing previously during the Second Reading and Committee stage. Can this still be regarded as deliberation of a bill? What kind of legislature is this? What kind of procedures are these? People can only see the prevalence of power politics, and those in power can do whatever they want no matter what it takes. The Legislative Council is supposed to be a place where we should uphold order and law, but all these have completely vanished now.

As Mr Alvin YEUNG has stated just now, it would be very difficult to establish a system, but just a piece of cake for us to destroy it, and we are now witnessing the destroy of our system bit by bit. The aim of the Bill is to upset our system, and this is one of the reasons why I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. The way how this meeting is chaired today through such procedures is nothing but clear evidence that pro-establishment Members sitting here are tolerating the complete destruction of our system. Our law, the Legislative Council, all procedures and everything else will then basically become nothing but their tools.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12557

The Bill has now come to the Third Reading stage, but the Secretary for Justice and Secretary for Security have still not attended the relevant discussions here, and is it really impossible for them to attend the meeting today due to other businesses? I hope the Secretary would offer an explanation later and tell us what other engagements have prevented them from attending the meeting today.

Many Members oppose the Third Reading and the Bill because it is unconstitutional. When it comes to the question of unconstitutionality, it seems to me that the Secretary for Justice should definitely be the one who speak in defence of the Government and give a detailed explanation. However, it turns out that a brief speech has again been made by the almighty Secretary for Transport and Housing, but he has neither put forth any new argument nor made any explanation specifically on the query about the unconstitutionality of the Bill. Under such circumstances, having expressed our objection to the Bill previously during the Second Reading and Committee stage, how can we possibly change our stance suddenly and support its Third Reading now?

I believe the Deputy President might also recall that during deliberation by the Bills Committee, the Secretary for Justice, Secretary for Security and Secretary for Transport and Housing have on several occasions attended meetings of the Bills Committee and answered questions raised by members. No matter whether we were satisfied with their replies or not, it is a good thing for them to attend meetings in this Council. However, it is puzzling to me that government officials and Secretaries of Departments have attached more importance to Bills Committee meetings than Council meetings. Where have they gone at this critically important stage for the deliberation of the Bill?

Someone may say that perhaps they would attend the meeting later tonight. Would it be a good idea to invite them to come here to witness this historical moment together, and celebrate with us the smooth passage of the Bill? Why does the Secretary not do us a favour and invite them to the meeting later tonight?

Deputy President, as a matter of fact, during deliberation of many bills, more than one Bureau Director would attend meetings in this Council, and sometimes several Bureau Directors and even Secretaries of Departments would attend the oral questions sessions of Council meetings to give replies to questions relating to their respective portfolios. When deliberating on many bills, different Bureau Directors may speak on issues relating to the policy areas of their corresponding bureaux, but this is not the case for the Bill. I think 12558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Secretary CHAN is really something, and he should in fact be granted triple pay for what he has done. Deputy President, this is all I have to say about this point.

As for another reason why I am of the opinion that I cannot support the Third Reading of the Bill, I will not go into detail because some Members have already spoken on the same point earlier. However, we really cannot understand why the President has to rush through the scrutiny procedures of the Bill, thus depriving many Members of the chance to speak at the preceding stages. Members have no idea either as to whether the current debate session will end suddenly, and hence render it impossible for all Members who have pressed the "Request to speak" button to rise to speak.

I wonder if, as rumours have it, these are meant to ensure that some Members may board the plane and leave Hong Kong as scheduled, because we all are football fans and the World Cup Finals will start tonight, which may be the reason why there should be a cut in our debate time. In fact, if we wish to end this meeting as early as possible, consideration can be given to adjourning the meeting at once and continuing with our debate on the Bill at the Council meeting to be held next week. There will then still be sufficient time for us to grab some snacks and return home for the matches tonight. Hence, this is also a reason why I cannot support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Deputy President, the deliberation process on the Bill has shown to us how the Central Authorities, the Hong Kong Government and the completely obedient members of the pro-establishment camp have worked in coordination to castrate the entire Legislative Council. We can also see clearly how they have breached procedural justice and forcibly passed a bill which is considered unconstitutional by the Hong Kong Bar Association, a large number of people and many members of the legal sector. The Government has also failed to clearly explain to us with convincing reasons why the Bill should be allowed to override the system of separation of powers in Hong Kong, and deal a great blow to the principle of "one country, two systems" as well as the Basic Law. This is of course a strong reason for not supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

In his speech during the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill, Secretary Frank CHAN said, "the Bills Committee has held thorough discussions on the Bill, acquired a clear understanding of public views on the co-location arrangement and arranged a number of site visits, and its deliberation was conducted in a meticulous, detailed and comprehensive manner". First of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12559 all, I have to point out that such remarks are totally inconsistent with the truth, but I also have to make it clear that I actually did not catch what he said then. My colleagues have listened to a replay of the audio recording and jotted down these remarks for me, and they are really inconsistent with the truth.

For a major bill of such importance, I do not know how the Secretary can confirm that he has acquired a clear understanding of public views on the co-location arrangement when the Government has never conducted any public consultation on its details. The Secretary may have genuinely acquired such a clear understanding and listened to many opposition views, but he has chosen to ignore them. In order to fulfil the mission given by the Central Authorities, he has tried by all means to divert public attention and tell lies. The Secretary said that arrangements had been made for Members to conduct site visits, but as we all know, many Members complained after such visits that they were not allowed to enter and inspect many places which they deemed useful and necessary for the visits. Under such circumstances, how can he say that the "deliberation was conducted in a meticulous, detailed and comprehensive manner"? The Government considers the whole process a meticulous, detailed and comprehensive one, but in the opinion of many people and Members, it is not meticulous, detailed and comprehensive at all. I therefore consider it necessary for me to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

As we can all see, Secretary CHAN has had a really hard time delivering his speech yesterday, when he had to hold the microphone in his hand, keep speaking loudly, pay no regard to the protests staged by Members and with the help of the President, try strenuously to finish reading from the whole speaking notes. Deputy President, what kind of situation is it? If the Secretary does have reason on his side and is able to make a convincing case, why need he use such methods? This can only reveal clearly to everyone that even though the Government manages to secure passage of the Bill, it can only be passed forcibly under an embarrassing situation, so how can the public be convinced?

Seeing the deliberation process on the Bill, Hong Kong people would only feel that the Government is being unreasonable and the pro-establishment camp is giving support to a tyrant, thus allowing the villain to do whatever he wants when there is a loss of balance in the legislature and the Rules of Procedure have been amended. The Bills Committee convened its first meeting on 12 February 2018, and its deliberation on the Bill was made to complete on 7 May. Though a bill 12560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 of such importance, only less than three months have been spent on scrutinizing the Bill before the deliberation work was high-handedly brought to a halt by the Chairman of the Bills Committee.

Comparing with what we experienced these two days, I really do not know who was acting more high-handedly, the Chairman of the Bills Committee or the President of the Legislative Council. I only have the impression that the President has kept abusing his power. As the President of the Legislative Council, he should in fact strive to maintain the image of the Legislative Council as a whole, including that of pro-establishment Members and pro-democracy Members. The current incident has totally undermined the image of the legislature, and this is also a reason why I think that we should oppose the Third Reading of the Bill, lest it would be passed under such procedures at this most critical stage.

Deputy President, how many Members have spoken during the Second Reading debate? Only 31 Members, less than half of all Members of the Council, managed to do so. Please do not mistake that this is due to Members' absence from the meeting, and although a headcount was requested several times then, many Members have returned to the Chamber. Fellow colleagues of the pro-establishment camp have also done their best and dared not leave. However, only 31 Members have spoken during the Second Reading debate, and pro-democracy Members who oppose the Bill have of course seized the chance to speak, but there were still seven of us who did not manage to do so.

We had to handle 24 amendments during the Committee stage, but how much debate time has been set aside for us to speak? Only about nine hours were available. Statistics on the total speaking time during deliberation of the 24 amendments reveal that for each amendment, only 10 Members were given a chance to speak, and this is really outrageous. Under such circumstances, how can we lightly support the Third Reading of the Bill and have it passed? This is certainly one of the reasons why I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

What has our legislature turned into? A time limit is set for almost every Agenda item, which will then be forcibly put to vote when pro-establishment Members wish to complete deliberation and knock off on time. The Government claimed that it wanted to obtain the support of the Legislative Council, but if we had known beforehand that this legislative exercise would be taken forward in such an outrageous manner, there was no point at all to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12561 implement the "Three-step Process" and move that motion not intended to have binding effect at the outset. It is just a waste of efforts, and the Legislative Council should no longer exist. Since everything has been predetermined, all voting results of this Council should also be decided beforehand, so as to make things easier for the Government in the future when it wishes the Legislative Council to endorse a particular bill. Why bother to put up a show and make everyone a rubber stamp? It would even be better to save us all the trouble to go through the voting procedures.

The deliberation process this time is truly eye-opening, and it has at least shown to us how unjust the whole process can be. The President has also set an example for many pro-establishment Members, and demonstrate to them how far can we go to cater to the wishes of the Central Authorities. We therefore cannot let this erroneous situation continue to exist in Hong Kong, and in order to express our dissatisfaction, we should of course oppose the passage of the Bill. There are indeed problems with the Bill itself, but when it comes to the reasons why we oppose the Third Reading of the Bill, I think all unjust practices mentioned above are contributing factors for taking such a stance.

This legislature should be a place for elected representatives to discharge their responsibility of monitoring the performance of the Government, instead of a forum for a group of flunkeys who kneel down before the authoritarian government to show loyalty. Yet, pro-establishment Members should still rise to speak if they wish to show their loyalty. I do not know how many pro-establishment Members will be given a chance to speak later during the Third Reading, or will there be enough time for them to speak under the restrictions imposed by the President. Perhaps the President can cut the speaking time of all pro-democracy Members, just like what he has done earlier to Mr Jeremy TAM's speaking time, so that pro-establishment Members will have the chance to speak and show their loyalty.

If we keep breaking established rules like this and depriving Members of their power to speak on and discuss the Government's proposals, the Legislative Council will turn into a machine which endorses the Government's proposals only without any debate. As suggested by the slogan we were forced to chant earlier, this is really shameful! Under such a shameful situation, we cannot support the Third Reading of the Bill.

12562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the speeches of Members, especially pro-establishment Members, over these few days have often stressed that after the passage of the co-location arrangement, Hong Kong will benefit very greatly because it can connect to the national express rail link network. They have also asserted that as long as we can leverage on the Motherland, we can have greater achievements. I believe this is the advantage that the pro-establishment camp or representatives of the industrial and business sector stress very much. But Members should go back and think about one thing. Hong Kong's advantage as we often talk about is our leverage on the Motherland and also our international outlook. Hong Kong's advantage in its international outlook is based on the protection of Hong Kong's society enshrined in the Basic Law. Set out very clearly, the provisions enable us to know the rules and regulations and the difference in the legal systems of Hong Kong and the Mainland under "one country".

The international community will naturally keep observing the degree of Hong Kong's compliance with the Basic Law in handling problems in the course of implementing "one country, two systems". The pro-democracy camp is already very discontented to see that the Central Government has time and again resorted to its power to interpret the Basic Law and impose new contents on it that go beyond our understanding. But in any case, the power to interpret the Basic Law is stipulated in Article 158 of the Basic Law. Like it or not, the Court of Final Appeal has explained the constitutionality of reinterpreting any provisions therein. In other words, when businessmen or international traders come to Hong Kong to seek business opportunities, they may still have a general grasp of Hong Kong's circumstances. This is what we call "basis".

But Members should really think about one question about the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). In particular, I hope people from the industrial and business sector can tell me if this is how they understand the matter: The addition of new contents to original Basic Law provisions, meaning the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement signed between the SAR Government and the Mainland Government, the acknowledgement of its legality and constitutionality through the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12563

("NPCSC") and its endorsement through the subsequent enactment of legislation in Hong Kong's Legislative Council will not open a backdoor in the practice of "one country, two systems" as stipulated in the Basic Law and give rise to various uncertainties in its implementation. Have Members ever thought about this?

Today, Members think that the co-location arrangement is desirable because it will bring forth much convenience. But once this backdoor is opened, people actually do not know how it will be used in the future. In that case, the Basic Law's assurance that "one country, two systems" shall be practised in Hong Kong society will precisely be overshadowed by a huge question mark. Certainly, Secretary Frank CHAN has repeatedly asserted that with its constitutional status, the Central Government can naturally acknowledge the arrangement made by both Governments through NPCSC's decision. Even if the relevant arrangement goes against our previous understanding that national laws will not be applied in Hong Kong (except those relating to defence and foreign affairs as well as other matters outside the limits of Hong Kong's autonomy, which may be applied after being listed in Annex III), they may be implemented in Hong Kong all the same. And I have not heard any convincing answer to the question of constitutionality all along. What will be the repercussions? Without a convincing answer, people will think that the Bill is sloppy, and its passage will jeopardize the implementation of "one country, two systems". Besides, since the Bill is likely to give rise to judicial reviews and NPCSC's interpretation of the Basic Law in the future, there are bound to be more question marks in the days ahead.

Even though Members may think that we have repeated our arguments many times, I must still say them out. The reason is that we think a very important principle is involved, and it is also the fundamental reason why we oppose the implementation of the Bill in Hong Kong. The pro-democracy camp has all along maintained that the price we have to pay for undermining "one country, two systems" is not small, particularly when we consider this along with the Central Government's assertion that since Hong Kong will assume major roles, functions and duties in the economic development strategy for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area in the future, its systemic advantages must be optimized.

As Members all know, Hong Kong's fundamental systemic advantages lie in our rule of law and legal system. The most important reason why the legal system of a place has appeal to other investors or countries is that its clarity, 12564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 stability and certainty can let them know that as long as they do things according to the law, any legal challenge they face will also be handled in accordance with procedures. But now, a backdoor has been opened in the Basic Law, and this backdoor … Many pro-establishment Members have told us about their awareness to the opening of such a backdoor long ago because we are a Special Administrative Region established under a mini-constitution which was enacted by the Central Government with the power conferred on it under Article 31 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. They have therefore asserted that the Central Government is certainly vested with supreme power. However, without any restraints on this supreme power, the implementation of "one country, two systems" will sustain a severe blow.

Some will agree to our earlier analysis of our benefits and some will not. But I wish to tell those people who are watching the live television broadcast that the pro-democracy camp raises opposition precisely because of this fundamental issue.

Certainly, Members will say that the co-location arrangement will bring about many benefits. But disappointingly, as also asserted by Secretary Frank CHAN, most of the 116 pairs of trains that will be deployed during peak periods every day under the existing design are mainly for short-haul journeys between Guangzhou South, Humen, Shenzhen North and Futian Stations. From this, we can see that no direct trains will actually run through the entire country, and passengers must inevitably interchange for other trains at interchange stations. Has the SAR Government or the Secretary told Hong Kong people clearly about this picture?

Members may think that it is quite good to see that 13 pairs of trains will be deployed every day for direct connection to 14 places in the whole country. But train frequency under this arrangement actually differs greatly from the train frequency at interchange stations. From the huge discrepancy in train frequency, we can see that our actual benefits are still very limited. Unless the Secretary can tell us that an overwhelming majority of the 116 pairs of trains that start from Hong Kong's West Kowloon Station every day in the future will head for various places of the whole country, it will be inevitable that Hong Kong's West Kowloon Station can merely perform the function as an interchange station. We cannot deny this. But has the Secretary told us about this? Does he have any intention to tell Hong Kong people that there will be better ways to connect to various places of the country in the future? Is it possible to instead adopt LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12565

Hong Kong as the origin station of trains that currently start from Shenzhen North Station or Guangzhou South Station as the origin stations? If we cannot do this, shouldn't the Government tell Hong Kong people frankly that despite the lavish design of Hong Kong's West Kowloon Station, it can actually serve as a mere interchange station for connection to places such as Shenzhen North Station and Guangzhou South Station and mainly provide such train service?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, I remind you that this Council is now holding a debate on Third Reading.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I understand that. I am about to state the grounds for my opposition.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The arrangements for the express rail link as you mentioned just now are not directly related to the Bill. In the current proceedings, Members should not discuss any individual clauses or amendments, or repeat the arguments they already put forth during the Second Reading debate or the Committee stage. Please focus your discussion on the topic of this debate.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Understood. Deputy President, I wish to point out my objection to the Bill. My speech actually focuses on the grounds for my objection to the Bill.

I pointed out two parts just now. One part was about efficiency, and the other part concerned Hong Kong's long-term interests.

The third point I wish to raise is that many Members have endeavoured to put forth amendments to the Bill. But sadly, all amendments have been voted down. The passage of the amendments would have brought the Bill more in line with Hong Kong people's expectations all along. Even if we will see the enforcement of the Mainland's national laws in Hong Kong, we must try to minimize the impacts. I believe this is the aspiration of the general public. But regrettably, all the amendments have been voted down. Some amendments were even ruled inadmissible.

12566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Has the SAR Government given any serious thoughts to Hong Kong people's concerns in this process? If Members still remember, they will be able to recall a problem with the Bill. Before the incumbent Bureau Director assumed office, his predecessor Prof Anthony CHEUNG was still unable to "come up with anything" before 30 June. But the incumbent Bureau Director was able to "come up with something" soon after assuming office. The development was very fast. This reflects that if the SAR Government refuses to rationalize people's concerns about this important Bill as the first step and conduct consultation, all sorts of questions and queries about the Bill will arise among people.

Finally, I think that the rulings made by President Mr Andrew LEUNG in the course of discussing the Bill were very unwise. While he must control the time for debate during our discussion on the Bill in the Legislative Council, he was even unwilling to defend Members' right to speak when this right came under challenge. As a result, when the legislature discusses the Bill … He asserted that Members had repeated their arguments in their speeches. But delivering speeches is actually a duty of Members. We must clearly tell Hong Kong people for the record that the legislature should not operate this way. If Members are even ripped of any protection of their right to speak in the legislature, then the Legislative Council will fail to live up to its name as a legislature. The President is duty-bound to maintain order at meetings. But he does not have the power to deprive Members of their right to speak. Even the amended Rules of Procedure has clearly stipulated that Members' right to speak shall be protected.

Therefore, the last reason why I oppose this motion is my discontent with President Mr Andrew LEUNG as he was domineering and unreasonable during the scrutiny of the Bill, and he used his power to the fullest extent. He imposed a time limit on our debate, and this has set a very undesirable precedent for the legislature's scrutiny of Bills. Particularly, he limited the time for our Second Reading debate which had been resumed, the speaking time for Members, and the speaking time for Members in discussing amendments. I find all this absolutely unacceptable.

The Democratic Party opposes the Bill.

Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12567

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the time for debating the motion on the Third Reading of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") has come at last.

Mr Alvin YEUNG have "congratulated" the President for elevating his fellow Members to a higher level after his rise to power. Yet, I find that he looks quite pale and seems to be not so pleased with such compliments. And so, I wish to pay him my regards, especially after he daringly said that amending the Rules of Procedure was purely for the sake of enhancing his power. This is a sign telling us that he must be in a very bad state, the worst condition ever indeed. Since the President should not be of such a low level, I really have to ask after him.

In my opinion, it may be a good thing if we can conclude the meeting as soon as possible because the longer the meeting, the more records of the President's abusing whose power will go down in the history of shame. During the Second Reading debate, I had asked after Secretary Frank CHAN regarding his mental health. Then at the beginning of the Third Reading debate, I also wish to, apart from the President, ask after Mrs Regina IP. She generously undertook a great mission by assuming the chair role of the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bills Committee") and even bought some roast pork for celebration on having accomplished the mission. Nevertheless, according to Mrs IP, despite her appropriate efforts, the Government did not act appropriately in return. It did not even say "Thank you" to her. Well, I really have no idea if there will be disparity in treatment, where the Government will thank the power-abusing President in a serious manner instead.

We all know that Mrs IP would not mind that but we do think she deserves due respect for the efforts she made, and the Government should not have acted in a way of being nice when in need of help but not feeling grateful to those who had lent a helping hand afterwards. I would like to take this opportunity to say to the pro-establishment Members …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, I remind you that the Council is now having a Third Reading debate. You have spoken for two minutes just now, mainly commenting on the President of the Legislative Council 12568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 and the Chairman of the Bills Committee Mrs Regina IP. You should focus on whether you support the Third Reading of the Bill instead of commenting on the style of other Members in chairing meetings. Should you have any comments, you can talk to them after the meeting. Now, please speak on the question under Third Reading debate.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Alright, Deputy President, I do hope that you can adopt the same set of criteria applied for those Members who have delivered their speeches just now. Some Members have pointed out just now that one of the reasons for their opposing the Bill has something to do with the people concerned, namely the President and the Chairman of the Bills Committee Mrs Regina IP; it also has something to do with their styles in handling discussions or their performance in managing meetings. I also have something to add in this regard.

In the light that the Government did not say "Thank you" to Mrs Regina IP in recognition of her efforts, I wish to remind the pro-establishment Members one thing: While they have been trying to be the "good kids" as expected by those in power, there is no guarantee if they will not be "dumped right after use". Worse still, people will no longer remember their merits after the high-speed rail is commissioned. On the contrary, people will recall how they acted peremptorily and unreasonably back then in case any accident occurs upon the commissioning of the high-speed rail because their act of voting in favour of the Bill will go down in history.

Now that we have reached the stage of speaking on the Third Reading of the Bill. Initially, Members have the right to speak in the Second Reading debate and speak on the Committee stage amendments moved during the whole Council, but the power-abusing President has "moved the goalposts" by requiring Members to complete Second Reading, proceedings of the committee of the whole Council and Third Reading of the Bill within 36 hours as if it is a package. He even reprimanded us for not dexterous enough in making good use of the time allowed. Originally, Members should have the opportunity of giving their views in full, but the power-abusing President kept interrupting Members while they were delivering their speeches, and myself is among those Members. He would accuse me for having strayed from the question under debate every time I tried to digress a little. How am I supposed to make full use of the 36 hours to express LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12569 my views, may I ask? I cannot think of any expressions other than "power-abusing" and "moving the goalposts" to describe the performance of the President.

The Deputy President has reminded me not to stray from the question under debate just now. Please be assured that next, I will expressly state my views on the co-location arrangement for I want my such views to be taken down in writing and recorded in the Official Record of Proceedings of the Legislative Council. Just as what Mr CHU Hoi-dick has said just now, this Council has been declining. Throughout the course of the debate, the pro-establishment Members never engaged in a genuine debate but only attempted to convince us that the results should override everything instead by putting aside any basis for discussion so as to avoid exploring the issue in depth. This is the saddest part of the proceedings concerning the Second and Third Readings of the Bill.

Why are Members of the pro-democracy camp so furious then? It is because we really care about the Bill. Matters concerning the co-location arrangement for the high-speed rail had triggered a never-ending series of lies throughout the three terms of office of the Government, ranging from that about the construction cost, train speed, convenience and efficiency, ticket prices, passenger loads, payoff period, immigration law enforcement, etc. Back then, Eva CHENG (former Secretary for Transport and Housing ("STH")) had underestimated the overall cost while overestimated the passenger loads; Anthony CHEUNG (former STH) had kept stalling and avoiding dealing with the arrangements for immigration clearance. Now, after Frank CHAN succeeded the two as STH, the real plot finally comes into light. The Chief Executive Mrs Carrie LAM audaciously claimed that since the high-speed rail has secured extensive support from the public, it is most likely that the part of the Bill concerning the co-location arrangement will be passed even if it is unconstitutional. However, it is the reality? Well, the truth is, the majority of seats in this Council are taken up by royalists who always "follow the tail of power" and work hand in glove with the Government. No matter how slipshod the Bill is, they will help make is passed by the Council. To put it more blatantly, even Mrs Regina IP, who was once so dissatisfied with Mrs Carrie LAM's assumption of the office of Chief Executive, is willing to fight "bare-chested" in her favour for which she sometime has to fall out with other Members. Given these facts, is it possible for any bills not to be passed in the end?

12570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

The co-location arrangement is indeed a magic mirror that allows the people of Hong Kong to see the true colors of the those pro-establishment aristocrats. While the Hong Kong Bar Association has come forward to make certain fair and just remarks for restoring public confidence in itself, Mrs Carrie LAM has turned to making personal attacks. I am afraid that the previously training for Administrative Officers which she had received is all gone now. She is actually so much cleverer than LEUNG Chun-ying in that she was more generous in giving out sweeteners and decided to allocate an additional sum of $5 billion as recurrent funding for education. Above all, the introduction of new benefits for the elderly people serves as the best example. As to the reopening of the civic square (i.e. the East Wing Forecourt of the Central Government Offices), it illustrates the fact that her Administration is striving to avoid unnecessary controversy so that it can focus its attention on accomplishing one by one the political missions not yet realized previously.

The co-location arrangement is a reflection of the political reality of Hong Kong. Our economic growth is not bad but we are becoming increasing dependent on the Mainland. For all that capital flows have been mobilized southward into Hong Kong from China by the rich and powerful Mainlanders that both the local stock market and property market are invigorated as a result, members of the public do not have any share of such benefits. In fact, the wealth gap is wider than before and public resentment keeps mounting.

Consider this: It has not been made possible for every single Member to speak at least once during the Second Reading debate on a bill as important as this one which is probably unconstitutional, even Members waiting in line were not necessarily given the opportunity to speak. In contrast, however, Frank CHAN himself alone could speak for as long as 30 minutes. Actually, the Government has been acting like a recording machine in giving replies to Members' questions where the questions were not at all answered. The Bill itself is full of loopholes while the high-speed rail is fraught with problems, such as insufficient passenger loads as well as perpetual costs overruns and deficits, and not really as time-saving as claimed by the Government. Besides, the Government is willing to cede Hong Kong land to the Mainland, leaving the rule of law in the hands of the Mainland Government. This does not make any sense at all, right?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12571

The high-speed rail boasts convenience and efficiency, but most of the passengers will be short-haul passengers in fact. People in Hong Kong can actually go to places like Guangdong and Shenzhen by cross-boundary coaches instead of proceeding to the remote West Kowloon Station to board the high-speed train. Moreover, for the so-called "most time-saving train", only one trip is provided every day. We can imagine this: A bus company claims to run a time-saving bus route, but there is only one single trip departing at 6 o'clock every morning for conveying passengers directly to the destination. For other trips, the bus stops at every bus-stop. What is more, the route is meant to bring deficits and all passengers must pay expensive bus fares in a sense to make up the loss incurred by the route. Similarly, the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), as a listed company, will have to shoulder the loss incurred by the high-speed rail. But if the profit of MTRCL drops as a result of this, how is it supposed to answer to its minority shareholders? The Hong Kong Government is actually doing something beyond its means in order to impress the Central Government. To defend China's national dignity, our Government will make us all shoulder the loss incurred by the high-speed rail. Yet, are we glad to bear the consequences resulted from dereliction of duty on the part of senior officials in this connection?

Post-colonialist scholars often mention the point that those people who had once been colonized usually do not realize that they are still being colonized, and will thus subconsciously let their colonialist mentality come into play in decision-making. Some may even expose the hidden characteristic of a slave. Simply put, they just cannot get rid of the Stockholm syndrome.

The high-speed rail and the co-location arrangement are twins, but regrettably, due to the fact that details of specific arrangements had yet to be disclosed by the Government, campaigns launched against construction of the high-speed rail in those days just failed to arouse public awareness of such a significant issue in Hong Kong. I still remember some Members belonging to the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions had remarked that those campaigns were meant to get in the way of workers making a living, while a group of experts who were not quite "down-to-earth" said that the high-speed rail would bring huge economic benefits. Their such remarks had messed up the core of the subject. Back then, Eva CHENG, Raymond HO and people alike supported the construction of the high-speed rail had long since disappeared, but the adverse consequences will have to be borne by every Hong Kong citizen. Please bear this in mind: When justice is not realized at the present moment, history can only 12572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 exist amid unjustness. At this moment, I really feel like paying tribute to those who have worked hard to filibuster and stood up against the construction of the high-speed rail.

The co-location arrangement has never convinced us as a reasonable option. It is taken as an option purely because, as Fred MA put it: "It is really okay if we tell you so." And when they said that things would be made open and transparent, they did not really mean what they said. All that they have been doing is making impressive yet deceptive remarks to make us believe the Mainland will uphold the rule of law. Regrettably, on looking back, they will find that our confidence in the Mainland's rule of law has already been seriously eroded. Just as Xi Jinping had said, some leading cadres did not abide by law and even bent the laws to suit their own purposes. Yet, a person without credibility will not succeed.

Let us have a brief review of some old cases, namely the suspected case of "the Causeway Bay Books saga" which involved the Mainland's cross-boundary enforcement; the case in which the subject, not carrying his Home Visit Permit, was kidnapped; and the case in which the "forceful department" ignored the laws in execution of its duties and treated its targets in a peremptory manner. In 2013, YIU Man-tin, a seller of prohibited books, was arrested and sentenced to 10 years in jail by a Shenzhen court; in 2013, PUN Wai-hei, a Hong Kong businessman, was kidnapped and taken to the Mainland where he was sentenced 16.5 years in jail; in 1995, SU Zhiyi, a Hong Kong businessman, was arrested by the Mainland authorities and subsequently escorted back to Hong Kong by officials of the Zhaoqing Public Security Bureau to obtain evidence before he was finally sentenced to life imprisonment. In addition to these cases, it happened in 2004 that some Mainland Public Security Bureau officials were arrested by the Hong Kong Police who were suspected of carrying out cross-boundary enforcement actions in Mount Davis in Hong Kong. Yet, they were released eventually, leaving the case unresolved.

In promoting the co-location arrangement, government officials repeatedly compare the situation with that of Britain, France, the United States of America ("the US") and Canada, but in my opinion, I think the situation in China is incomparable to that of European and American countries. According to the Rule of Law Index published annually by the World Justice Project detailing the extent to which 113 countries/regions adhere to the rule of law in practice, Britain and France ranked at 10 and 21 respectively; the US and Canada ranked at 18 and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12573

12 respectively; China and Hong Kong ranked at 80 and 16 respectively. However, the prerequisite for co-location arrangement requires that the two jurisdictions involved should be comparable in terms of degree of civilization. For instance, in the case of Britain and France, the difference is 11 places, while that in the case of the US and Canada is 6 places. Since the difference between the rankings of Hong Kong and the Mainland is 64 places, it is really difficult to compare this case with that of the US and Canada. Hence, even if the US wishes to implement co-location arrangement with other countries, Cuba will not be her choice. Similarly, Britain will not consider implementing co-location arrangement with Russia, and neither will South Korea put in place co-location arrangement with North Korea …

(Mr Jeffrey LAM indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please hold on, Mr SHIU Ka-chun. Mr Jeffrey LAM, please sit down first.

I remind you the second time, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, that this Council is having a Third Reading debate right now. You have spoken for a while just now but mainly on the high-speed rail and other background stories. I will not allow you to continue your speech if you keep on straying from the question under debate. Please focus your speech on whether you support giving a third reading to the Bill.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): I oppose the Bill for two reasons: First, it is because of the way the President has behaved; second, it has something to do with the issue of legal basis.

Under the co-location arrangement between the US and Canada, the US can only exercise its power to refuse entry of a person to the US and has no power of arrest beyond the US boundaries. In case the US law enforcement officers posted overseas want to arrest any suspect, they will only inform their counterparts working at the US airport in secret and ask them to effect the arrest upon the arrival of the aircraft concerned instead of taking cross-boundary enforcement actions themselves. In the case of the high-speed rail, both the train tracks and tunnels are outside the Mainland's jurisdiction. If it happens that a Mainland offender jumps onto the track, will the case be taken over by the 12574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Hong Kong authorities? Should a dispute arise when a fake owner proceeds to claim the property dropped onto the track by someone else, which side should take charge of the case? If, while the training is running outside Hong Kong, a Hong Kong resident immediately pulls the brake handle to stop the train or breaks the train window to jumps out of it on being intercepted by Mainland Public Security Bureau Officials for political reasons, will the Hong Kong Police hand over that person to the Mainland security officers? And will anyone who uses the Internet illegally (e.g. forwarding Falun Gong messages) on the platform be arrested by Mainland Public Security Bureau Officials? All these issues have something to do with jurisprudence.

Deputy President, "one must regret for the little integrity that he has when he needs it". I do understand that life has never been easy for the SAR Government officials who have to help disguise the rule of men as rule of law. Yet, it should not be forced upon Hong Kong people in any case, I suppose? Chinese human rights activist CHEN Guangcheng once said: "China will bring you autocracy if you do not send her democracy." We have to resist China's rule of men before we have the ability to change our Motherland. By doing so, we can help stop all the disadvantages of autocratic rule from spreading over to Hong Kong. Thus, I will oppose the Bill.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, unfortunately, the Third Reading of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") has come. The Government and the pro-establishment camp may think that they will win a total victory and even exceed the target. Some pro-establishment Members anticipate that it may take four weeks to complete the task. Secretary Frank CHAN told reporters earlier that he anticipated it might take three weeks to do the job. Now they only need two weeks to finish the task. For the first time, they have successfully introduced Mainland laws into Hong Kong. Moreover, the entire process is fraught with loopholes and mistakes as the Administration only wants to pass the Bill as soon as possible. Mr SHIU Ka-chun likes to give his regards to others. I do not know if he is giving his regards in a genuine or roundabout way. He gave his regards to Secretary Frank CHAN after he gave his regards to the President. I also want to give my regards to a person. I want to give my regards to the Secretary for Justice, Ms Teresa CHENG. She seems to be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12575 invisible during the entire scrutiny process of the Bill, including the Second Reading, the Committee stage of the whole Council and the Third Reading. She attended several meetings of the Bills Committee and then she left the remaining tasks to the Solicitor General, Mr Wesley WONG, SC. Certainly, Mr Wesley WONG's replies are more lucid than that of Ms Teresa CHENG. Nevertheless, I always say that one should complete the whole "show". The biggest controversy in the entire process is about Articles 18 and 19 of the Basic Law and other relevant provisions. Has the Bill actually contravened the Basic Law? It is an outright question about constitutional issues.

Over the last two days, as well as last week, Secretary Frank CHAN had been responding as if he was just reading the scripts out regardless it was the Second Reading or Committee stage of the whole Council and reciting loudly something that we have heard many times in the past. The Government has no intention to listen to the debate among Members. I always say that one should complete the whole "show". The Government definitely knows that it will win at the end, as the Bill will be passed during the Third Reading. However, even the Government has nothing to say during the debate, it should send Ms Teresa CHENG to attend the meeting. This is not my personal opinion. Some pro-establishment Members told me in private that it was really outrageous. The Government simply left Secretary Frank CHAN to deal with Bill all by himself. However, as far as the relevant provisions are concerned, they should be taken care of by one department and two bureaux. That is, the Bill should also the Transport and Housing Bureau, the Security Bureau and the Department of Justice. How can the relevant Directors of Bureaux and Secretary of Department know that they are not required to respond to questions raised during the debate? In the final analysis, they are simply reluctant to respond to questions.

At last, the Third Reading stage has come. I have to warn the SAR Government, the pro-establishment camp and Hong Kong people for the last time. After a few more hours, this Bill, which is in contravention of the Basic Law and being unconstitutional, will be passed with very few opposing votes. It is because five Members are being sent off. Deputy President, first of all, my speech during the Third Reading is very clear. I am an experienced Member. I will not repeat the arguments I have made during the Second Reading and the Committee stage of the whole Council. I should explain during the Third Reading why I oppose the Bill after it has passed in the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council. Besides explaining the reasons why I oppose the Bill for being read for the Third time, I oppose to the Third Reading 12576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 because questions raised during the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council have not been resolved, thus concerns have not been properly addressed. In addition, the unfairness involved in the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council is the main reason why I oppose the Third Reading.

For that reason, I will explain in the following part why we consider the Bill has not become more lucid after the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council. Although the Government has responded to some questions, it cannot address the concerns of Members in the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council. In addition, it has breached justice in the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council. I oppose the Third Reading because of these three reasons.

I have to make it clear that although the Bill has passed with a high number of supporting votes during the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council, it is still unconstitutional. After the Third Reading, if the Bill is enacted, Mainland laws will take effect in certain parts of the SAR and hence Mainland law enforcement agents can enforce Mainland laws at the Mainland Port Area within Hong Kong SAR's territory. For this reason, the Bill has obviously breached the Basic Law, in particular Article 18. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. I wish to tell Members a basic principle: If a Member truly believes that the Bill is unconstitutional even it has passed the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council, then he or she should not cast a supporting vote. If he truly believes that the Bill is unconstitutional and then casts a supporting vote, then it has constituted a breach of oath. I am not talking about you, because you truly believe that the Bill is not unconstitutional. But we truly believe that the Bill is unconstitutional. For that reason, if we cast the supporting votes, then we will contravene Article 104 of the Basic Law, and we have breached the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, and violate the Basic Law that we vowed to support. Therefore, regardless of the voting result or the public opinions, as long as we truly believe that the Bill is unconstitutional; we will persist until the end and cast the opposing votes in the Third Reading.

Furthermore, the second question is that we are trying hard to make remedy by proposing amendments during the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council in the hope of amending the unclear parts and deficiencies of the Bill. We know that the Bill will be passed even if we cast the opposing votes during the Third Reading. Nevertheless, during the Second Reading and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12577

Committee stage, we are unable to deal with these unclear matters. For example, Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment seeks to enhance the protection to people working in the Mainland Port Area, but I wonder if the Government has taken heed to his opinion. Why should they oppose all these amendments which seek to clarify the meaning of the relevant provisions and protect the rights of Hong Kong people? Needless to mention my amendments which are considered hostile to Mainland law enforcement agents, even these amendments are negatived later on, the Bill placed in front of us, which will be read the Third time, cannot protect Hong Kong people who will be working in the Mainland Port Area. There are still unclear parts or even contradictions. For that reason, we cannot support its passage.

The Government has not even stated clearly in the Bill if Mainland Port officials shall have the rights to enter non-Mainland Port Area, and that Mainland Port officials shall assume no criminal liability if they obstruct Hong Kong Port officials from discharging their official duties. Due to the loopholes in the Bill, Mainland Port officials may enter non-Mainland Port Area and arbitrarily obstruct Hong Kong Port officials from discharging their official duties. For that reason, the Bill in front of us is extremely unfavourable to Hong Kong people. This is also the reason why I do not support the Bill in the Third Reading.

Besides the fact that amendments will be negatived, it is still a problem-fraught Bill and that is why we cannot support the Third Reading. In addition, as to the defects of the Bill, can they not be rectified at all? Actually, the Government can do something to rectify them. But after the Bills Committee has scrutinized the Bill, the Government has not proposed any amendment during the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council to address the problems pointed out by us. This is also the reason why I cannot support the Third Reading of the Bill. The defects include: The ambiguity of various wordings in the Co-operation Arrangement, and that the Government fails to mark the coordinates of various important areas in various drawings in Annex 2. The Government should have done some remedial work to rectify the issues.

We put forward these issues during the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council, but the Government is reluctant to accept the good proposals and propose amendments. Such as clarifying the definitions of repair and maintenance and environmental regulation and control under the 12578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Co-operation Arrangement, as well as stating in the main body of the Bill that the contracts signed between the train and signal system suppliers and MTRCL shall belong to contracts under Article 7(5) of the Co-operation Arrangement, that is to say, they are under Hong Kong's jurisdiction. Only if the Government proposes the amendments and marks the coordinates in the unclear parts of the drawings, things will be fine. But even things are as simple as that, the Government is just trying to stall the entire scrutiny process. That is, from the introduction of the Bill to the scrutiny of the Bills Committee, to the Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council, the Government is just waiting for the time to come. It is really a "Zen" Government―or not a "Zen" Government, but an "Imperial" Government. When the time has come, when the imperial edict is promulgated, the Bill will naturally be endorsed. The historic mission will be accomplished. This is another reason why I cannot support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Another reason for me to oppose the Third Reading is that the Government lacks the sincerity to answer the questions we raised. Although it was noisy during the Committee stage of the whole Council, I was chanting on the one hand, but listening to the Secretary's speech through the earphone on the other. I put forward my arguments and concerns. I worried Mainland law enforcement agents would cross the boundary but no laws could regulate such acts. Nevertheless, the Secretary only said those few words―if it really happens, he will―"follow up with the Central Government and deal with the matter seriously". This is the attitude of the Government to get the Bill passed.

Another doubt that cannot be dispelled during the Committee stage of the whole Council is the definition of Mainland laws. At present, the Government is unable to explain and reluctant to make an unambiguous undertaking that if Mainland laws only mean laws and regulations in writing. Government officials keep on emphasizing that the public should observe Mainland laws when they enter the Mainland Port Area. However, they have never told us if any act above written laws performed by a Mainland law enforcement agent is under the jurisdiction of Mainland laws. If a Mainland law enforcement agent performs any act above written laws by ordering a Hong Kong resident to do something, should the Hong Kong resident follow the order? The Government simply avoids our question in this regards. Why? Has the Beijing Government ordered Hong Kong Government not to make any pledge that Mainland law enforcement agents would not deviate from the laws when they are enforcing the laws? Should Hong Kong Government not and has it no power to advise Hong Kong people not to follow unlawful orders made by Mainland law enforcement LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12579 agents in Mainland Port Area? Therefore, Mainland law enforcement agents are always rights, under all circumstances. Are the orders given by Mainland law enforcement agents to Hong Kong residents always correct?

In fact, today's Government reply also shows how the Government will deal with future incidents that we have mentioned before. They will deal with the incidents according to those few words: They will follow up with the Central Government and deal with the matter seriously. Members may as well conduct an opinion poll to see if the public believe those few words: They will follow up with the Central Government and deal with the matter seriously. The entire scrutiny process of the Bill involves injustice. It is passed hastily. Earlier in the meetings of the Bills Committee, I condemned Mrs Regina IP for restricting the time for Members to raise questions. However, it turns out that "however strong she is, there is always someone stronger". During the Second Reading, some Members cannot have the chance to even speak once. The total speaking time for the Committee stage of the whole Council is originally 22 hours, but now it is less than 10 hours after we have done some calculations. The worst precedent has been set this time around.

Since each stage has to be concluded within a time limit, as a result, the Government has no intention to give a clear answer to each question asked by Members during the process. It has no intention to address our concerns at all. The prime function of the Legislative Council is to enact laws. Members should debate on policies. While the enactment of laws should include a process for Members to examine the issues of a Bill, so Members and officials may jointly improve a Bill and make it a more comprehensive one. This has been the objective of the Legislative Council's Second Reading and Committee stage of the whole Council all along. But this time around, we find that it is another story when we scrutinize the Bill. It is because we do not have the opportunity to debate. I do not have any chance to debate the Bill with pro-establishment Members. I could only speak twice to explain two points of one of the amendments proposed by me. One can therefore see how hasty the process is.

I have to give a few words to the SAR Government and the pro-establishment camp: I extend my congratulations to you (a sarcastic tone as Michele REIS's remark). Today they have forged two unique lethal weapons, a sabre and a sword. The sword is called the "Three-step Process": namely Co-operation Arrangement, NPC decision, local legislation, the Government may 12580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 make use of this sword in future on any issue. The other one is the sabre for the President: He can limit the debating time during the scrutiny of any Bill; he may also limit the time for the Second Reading. From now on, you people will be the ultimate winner. You are invincible in this world.

On the other day when Ms Tanya CHAN said co-location was even more fearsome and dangerous than Article 23 of the Basic Law, I somewhat disagreed with her. But today, I fully agree with her. It is because Article 23 is only a draconian law. But this time around, the co-location has forged two lethal weapon which could kill without leaving a trace of blood. This "Three-step Process" and the President's power to imposing time limit for voting will always prevail. That can even kill all Hong Kong people. (The buzzer sounded)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Your speaking time is up.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, nowadays, people may not take the rule of law seriously. But the rule of law is like the oxygen in the air. You do not feel its existence, but from the moment it is gone, we cannot survive. This statement is not made or written by me. It is written by Margaret NG.

Last year end, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") adopted the Decision and completed the "Second Step" of the "Three-step Process". Later, the Hong Kong Bar Association ("Bar Association") issued its first position statement on the co-location arrangement. And later, Margaret NG wrote an article in the Chinese newspaper Ming Pao titled "終於走到袁國強也吃不消的'一言九鼎'" (Translation: The "iron-clad promise"―finally reached the point Rimsky YUEN cannot take anymore) I do not know how many people have read this article. I saw the article on that day when I woke. I was speechless after reading it and I shared the article.

I think the most impressive point lies in the last paragraph, in which Margaret NG expounds on how she, as a legal practitioner, sees the rule of law and how she feels when the rule of law is being gradually peeled of, layer by layer, and taken away from the people. The rule of law should be something very humble. Certainly, it takes many people to protect and preserve the rule of law, but at the same time, the rule of law is also protecting all the people, places LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12581 and systems. The rule of law knows no class, race, sex or background. Geographically, the rule of law does not take account of the size of a country, whether it is big or small, or it is a city or a village.

Any government or statutory body has some systems to rely on. Likewise, the Legislative Council should also have some systems or laws to rely on. But why has this Council reached this stage in vetting the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill")? What I find the most disappointing in the entire vetting process is having witnessed the rule of law, the principle of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law, something we created and defended together, being ravaged; and what I find regrettable is that the Legislative Council is no longer a civilized place. Being civilized should not be something difficult to achieve. I believe civilization is unrelated to education. But I do not know why when we vetted the Bill, we saw civilization slowly left us.

Today, I wish to clearly express my objection to the Third Reading of the Bill. I personally do not think the President respect the Third Reading of the Bill because procedurally speaking, there should be Second Reading and the Committee stage before the Third Reading. But the President allowed Secretary Frank CHAN to speak with the microphone closely pressed on his lips and finish his speech in one breath when the Committee was in complete chaos. He did not even care whether Members who had spoken could hear what the Secretary said. Was there any genuine exchange of views between us?

Secretary Frank CHAN may still remember that I put on the earphone at that time, trying to listen to what he said, so that I could try to respond to him when there was an opportunity to do so. Regrettably, I did not have the opportunity. I hope I can do so in the future because even if the Bill receives its Third Reading and is passed today, and obviously and unsurprisingly the Bill can pass through Third Reading with majority votes, there is still a lot of work to follow. This is also one of the many reasons I do not support the Third Reading of the Bill. For instance, Secretary Frank CHAN was still unable to produce a lot of information in the past two meetings. He kept stalling. Of course, Members may think that this is only because the Government has not yet completed calculating the data. But Deputy President, the Government conducted the same calculation 10 years ago. Why can it not do the same today? We find this incomprehensible.

12582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

How much do the Secretary and the pro-establishment camp want to communicate with us? In the end, they simply told us not to talk about the legal matters, saying that they could not agree with us and suggesting that any disputes could be left to the court to handle. Actually, in retrospect, starting from the time when the Government put forth the funding proposal for the construction of the Express Rail Link ("XRL"), the whole matter has been targeted at the rule of law of Hong Kong. Before the co-location issue, I did some homework on the Shenzhen Bay port area and reviewed what many people had said. Today, at this juncture, if this matter is not targeted at the rule of law and seeks not to tidy up the rule of law, the court and judicial system of Hong Kong, why do the authorities have to tackle the Bill in such a rush, and have to pass it with their eyes closed and in violation of the Constitution?

Deputy President, do you think the Bar Association would make a statement on a taxi fare increase or a bus fare increase? Would it issue a position statement on the previous bus accident? Why did the Bar Association have to issue a position statement on the co-location arrangement of XRL? The Bar Association wants to tell the public that the co-location arrangement is not a simple transportation issue; it is also an issue about the law, the rule of law and the Constitution. We are watching the rule of law being peeled off layer by layer to the point that it is no longer identifiable. Should we still not speak out?

I have been waiting for the Government to provide more information, but in return, the information I got is a remark made by ZHANG Xiaoming on 22 December 2017, which can be regarded as a warm-up for the Government. He set out the broad direction, how the interpretation of the Basic Law would be done, what the interpretation would contain and what the Decision of the NPCSC was; and then LI Fei explained everything in one go on 27 December. Why do they still need to interpret the Basic Law? As I said, they did it long ago and the "Three-step Process" is only a coverup. You have also read the information. The first two pages set out in great detail their reasons. Everything is said and done.

Of course, Deputy President, if someone files a judicial review after the Bill is passed, or if the appeal case has any new development, this will give the authorities a valid reason to interpret the Basic Law again. They have time and again interpreted the Basic Law, with each interpretation making a deeper damage to our judicial system and judicial.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12583

The interpretation can follow the approach adopted for the interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law. As a legal practitioner, I find that interpretation, which was made because of the oath-taking case, unprecedented, just like the way President Andrew LEUNG handles the Council meetings. An interpretation should seek to explain a certain article of the Basic Law, but the interpretation made in relation to the oath-taking case also explained the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance of Hong Kong, and dealt with the eligibility to stand for elections as well. Deputy President, this is indeed also a "Three-step Process". How great that is …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN, may I remind you that you are repeating what you said at the Second Reading debate and at the Committee stage. Please be brief with your speech.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): No. No. I really have not said this before. You probably remember wrongly. I am now saying the reasons of my objection. I focused on my amendment and the expiry clause at the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage. You can check it. I originally wanted to spend more time on clause 8, but I talked more on clause 7 in the end because I directly pointed out to Secretary Frank CHAN the part of clause 7 to be deleted and what it was about.

Even if we complete the Third Read and pass the Bill today, we still have a lot of work to do, including asking the Government and the MTR Corporation Limited to resolve their own problems first. The Secretary cannot confirm whether the XRL will be commissioned as scheduled, and whether the issues reported in the Sing Tao Daily today are true. We keep seeing more unexpected incidents being reported. What will happen next? Deputy President, I do not want to repeat what I said at the Committee stage. Since my amendments have been voted down, it means that we will have to set up a commission of inquiry in accordance with Cap. 86 if any irregularities take place in the future. For instance, even if you manage to apply for or are issued an arrest order or seizure order, such an order is not applicable in the Mainland Port Area ("MPA"). I believe an offender knows that he is, to a certain extent, off the hook if he manages to get to the MPA. But if the MPA covers the trains but not the tunnels, and in case there is anything wrong with the tunnels, we can still set up a commission of inquiry to find out the problems with the tunnels.

12584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Deputy President, having reached this point of the meeting, I believe the co-location arrangement will probably be passed. But I am sceptical that the arrangement can be smoothly implemented like the way the Bill is passed. To me, I do not think the Government has thoroughly explained why the Bill has not contravened the Constitution. At the end of the day, they only tell us that the Decision of NPCSC is supreme. Is it so? In fact, the Government has not clearly explained many aspects of the amendments. Of course, I will not speak on the amendments as the debate will be cut in 10 hours.

But I wish to remind the Secretary that even the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison ("Hong Kong Garrison") is regulated by the Law of the People's Republic of China on Garrisoning the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("Garrison Law"); and the courts in Hong Kong will deal with different situations. But now, we do not even have the decision-making power to decide the types of Mainland law enforcement officers in the MPA; we do not know how the Mainland will regulate them. What will happen in the future? He says that these officers will not leave the MPA. The Hong Kong Garrison theoretically also will not violate the laws of Hong Kong, but then why is it necessary to formulate the Garrison Law? Why does he not repeal that piece of legislation as well? I do not know if he has read the Bill, but he should not think with this logic and says that nothing will happen because even the Garrison Law has provided for the punishment for the Hong Kong Garrison if they break the law. So, what we say is actually well reasoned and justified and is logical. But as all the amendments have been voted down, I certainly will not support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Lastly, I wish to say that I actually do not quite know Secretary Frank CHAN. I remember last November the public officer sitting in the opposite side was still the former Secretary for Justice Rimsky YUEN. Is it that even Rimsky YUEN could not take it anymore? I do not know. In his Beijing visit with a group of Bar Association members, Paul LAM, the previous Chairman of the Bar Association questioned whether it is justified for Rimsky YUEN to use Article 20 of the Basic Law to explain the co-location arrangement. Rimsky YUEN was still the Secretary for Justice on that day. Today, I wonder whether Teresa CHENG has completed the law case concerning herself. Her explanation is the same unclear, but I do not think her performance is worse than Secretary Frank CHAN. I thus want to wish him good luck. Today, even if the Bill passes through its Third Reading, the XRL will still be closely monitored by Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12585 people. No matter we support the Bill or not, he will lose his job if he makes any mistakes.

I so submit.

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the scrutiny of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") is coming to an end today. After its First and Second Reading on 31 January, the Bill has undergone three months of scrutiny by the bills committee, and then two weeks of resumed Second Reading debate and Committee stage scrutiny before coming finally to the Third Reading we are in now. I speak on behalf of the Liberal Party to support the Third Reading and the passage of the Bill.

Take a look around and we will see places in every corner of the globe are developing express rail link actively. This is a world trend whose underlying causes we can appreciate. First, express rail link is a high-volume means of mass transport. Second, unlike fuel-engined vehicles, express rail link is an environmental-friendly transport system which helps reduce air pollution due to emission. The National Development and Reform Commission announced in 2016 the "Medium and Long-term Railway Network Plan", introducing the "Eight Verticals and Eight Horizontals" layout to expand the "Four Verticals and Four Horizontals" layout put forth in 2008. It is predicted that the express rail system network in China will top the world in 2025 with a length of 38 000 km. To grasp the business opportunities brought about by the express rail link, the Liberal Party supports the construction of the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") to connect Hong Kong with the super express rail link network in the Mainland, for promoting future development of Hong Kong.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

As a matter of fact, the Hong Kong section of the XRL will connect Hong Kong to Southern China as well as the entire national railway network upon commissioning. By then, the time needed to travel between Hong Kong and 12586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 major cities in the Mainland will be shortened substantially. In future, the travel time from Hong Kong to Guangzhou, Shanghai or Beijing will variably be reduced by half, or even up to 70%. This will help reinforce the connection between Hong Kong and the Mainland in terms of the economy, commerce, trade and various other social aspects, with a view to entrenching Hong Kong's strategic position as a southern gateway to China.

The Liberal Party conducted last year a random telephone survey and interviewed over 1 200 persons successfully. Among them, close to 70% held that the co-location arrangement was most crucial to XRL's efficiency. More than 60% of the interviewed supported the Hong Kong section of XRL adopting the Shenzhen Bay co-location model which allowed Mainland inspectors to enforce relevant Mainland regulations on customs, immigration and quarantine procedures as well as criminal law within Hong Kong border. During the scrutiny by the bills committee, two public hearing sessions were held and they were attended by more than 200 individuals and deputations. The overwhelming majority of them recognized the importance of XRL to Hong Kong and agreed that it would bring benefits to the territory. Mainstream opinion in the community also supports adopting the co-location arrangement at XRL.

Last month, I had the opportunity to use the Shenzhen Bay Port. This port adopts co-location arrangement and is certainly more convenient than those which adopt "separate location" arrangement. To a transit passenger, the co-location arrangement is a better measure. The major difference between the co-location arrangement to be adopted in the West Kowloon Terminus and that adopted in the Shenzhen Bay Port is that the former is to be implemented within Hong Kong border and the latter is done within Mainland border. With regard to the setting up of Mainland port area for implementing the co-location arrangement in the West Kowloon Terminus, the limits of enforcement authority in the Mainland area has clearly been delineated in the legislation and this presumably is helpful to relieving the doubts in society. What is more, the transport network in Hong Kong is so well developed that XRL is not the only option available. People can freely choose other means of cross-border transport.

However, co-location naysayers have spread to the people all kinds of intimidating comments, uttering such expressions as "cession-based co-location arrangement", "Doraemon Anywhere Door", and "sudden disappearance". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12587

Among the threats raised, they said the co-location arrangement would render the Basic Law invalid and related the arrangement to the Causeway Bay Books incident in a far-fetched way. The Liberal Party holds that these are all groundless speculations made irresponsibly. And as a matter of fact, the general public is indifferent to these intimidating comments and supports the early implementation of the co-location arrangement unwaveringly.

President, Hong Kong should grasp the opportunities presented by the growth momentum of China's economy. The Hong Kong section of XRL will connect Hong Kong with China's 30 000 km-strong express rail link system network, helping to enhance the transport connection we have with the Pearl River Delta and the other major cities in Mainland China, by greatly reducing the travel time needed between Hong Kong and the Mainland cities. With access to a large volume of person flow in the Mainland, the economic pie is expected to swell and the four pillar industries in Hong Kong: tourism, financial services, trading and logistics and professional services will receive benefits and experience sustainable growth.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun said earlier that Miriam LAU, an Honorary Chair of the Liberal Party, was a member of the Bills Committee on Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Bill. At that time, she supported setting a time limit to the relevant legislation.

President, while it is true that Miriam LAU was a member of the relevant bills committee, there is no such record as that described by Mr SHIU Ka-chun in the committee report. And yet, as indicated by Mr SHIU Ka-chun, since the lease period of the Hong Kong Port Area in Shenzhen Bay had been fixed, we opted to set an expiry date to the legislation so as to facilitate advance preparation and avoid confusion which might be caused by the non-renewal of lease. This is a technical consideration made for prudence's sake.

But this case does not apply to the co-location arrangement in the West Kowloon Station. According to the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("Co-operation Arrangement"), if Hong Kong people eventually ask for the cancellation of the co-location arrangement, the technical 12588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 arrangement will be amended under Article 16 of the Co-operation Arrangement, to be followed by the local legislative process. Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please rest assured about it.

The Liberal Party reiterates that if the co-location arrangement is unconstitutional, the problem should be tackled by a judicial review but not by formulating a sunset clause.

President, no laws can remain unchanged forever. The Legislative Council is amending laws every day. And Hong Kong is not the pioneer of the co-location arrangement which brings convenience to the people. No expiry date is set with regard to user-friendly measures such as the aviation preclearance arrangements between the United States and Canada, the relevant control arrangements on Eurostar which runs between the United Kingdom and France, and the reciprocal dispatch of United Kingdom and French law enforcement officers on cross-Channel ferry ports. Without a sunset clause, any one of the two parties can give advance notice to terminate the cooperation arrangement unilaterally. There is no need for Hong Kong to devise an arrangement different from the above.

It is worthy to note that when the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress scrutinized the co-location arrangement at Shenzhen Bay Port, some Mainland members reacted strongly to the proposed lease of an extra piece of land to Hong Kong and queried the rationale behind. It was also said that since Shenzhen, unlike the Hong Kong SAR, did not enjoy a high degree of autonomy, the lease of port area must be done in accordance with the national land lease period. Such is the background of the expiry date of the land use period of the Hong Kong port area in Shenzhen Bay. Hence, if Mr SHIU Ka-chun wants to quote other people's comments to support his own argument next time, he should do some more preparation to avoid committing errors.

President, the Liberal Party looks forward to the scheduled commissioning of XRL in September and the implementation of the co-location arrangement. We also support the Third Reading and the passage of the Bill.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12589

MS CLAUDIA MO: What are we dealing with? Stranger than fiction. Thanks to this Carrie LAM Government that is very keen to "kowtow" to Beijing. And very strange indeed, I have just heard the Liberal Party's spokesman is still comparing our "co-location" with the United States-Canadian arrangement or the United Kingdom-French arrangement. Since when the American security officials can perform on Canadian soil and vice versa or French armed officials could enter the United Kingdom territory to perform their legal duties? This is just absurd.

Now one reason, although not the major one, for my objection to the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") is the fact that it is being handled by this particular government official, surnamed CHAN. I do not see why he needs to always look quite so pleased with himself. This attitude is looking conceited, like a peacock talking to the press, like he is the boss, or walking into the legislature as if he owns the place. He must be very pleased with himself, so much so that he is some self-assumed elocutionist (But he does not speak as such). He was nearly reading from script, reciting his monologues. He is just performing this government duty, this fixated idea that we must have co-location or else Hong Kong will collapse. Hong Kong just could not possibly survive on. How more absurd can that be?

As I was saying, he was not actually speaking. He was performing like a puppet on the strings of his master or for that matter, a ventriloquist was speaking through him as a puppet.

This co-location business is a cheap and calculating affair by the Government. And of course, it has got the full cooperation by this Council, thanks to you. I cannot possibly agree to the passage of this Bill because it hampers Hong Kong in every way possible. But of course, the Government is again feeling very clever about it. The way they have done it is so ingenious that they manage to worm its way up and into this Council.

This Bill is against the Basic Law. It contravenes a number of provisions in this mini-constitution of Hong Kong. So, it is unconstitutional. But then, "oh, doesn't matter", according to the Government, for convenience sake, for expediency sake. Let us just get it over and done with and forget about it. People do have very short memories, don't they?

12590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

I am sorry, I have to oppose this. The main reason is that you can see, the executive and the legislative branches are conniving together to harm Hong Kong's interest. You are in effect handing down a death sentence on Hong Kong or be it suspended, we will see, 10 years from now. You are going to hamper Hong Kong interest in at least three major areas, this Bill I am talking about, economically, legally and even culturally. I am talking about economic confidence, legal confidence and even Hong Kong identity. Because Hong Kong is being so lock, stock, and barrel. How could you just make up some law which is fine by you and you just pronounce it: this is it, it is going to work, it is all fine, Beijing says so and that is?

I will be speaking not just as a Carrie LAM Government detractor or some government critic or a Member of the opposition. I will be speaking as an honorary right-minded Hong Kong person looking at this Bill. How I hope against hope that this Government will back off from this Bill or at least make some changes to it, to make it just a bit better. No, they are so adamant, so stubborn. They are so sure of themselves or they simply told they have their rails and they just run on them. The rails supplied and provided by Beijing.

Economically, Hong Kong used to be some gangplank to the vast China market. But we did very well. We have been, I thought, or we had been. I do not know; should I use the past tense? We did rather well on our own as a financial hub. Once upon a time, people talked about London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, and we are or were on the same par. But nowadays, we somehow have become the tail end of Mainland China but just this tiny dot on a map in the South of China. Nothing special about it. Why? Because according to this Bill, somehow this Hong Kong Government, encouraged or endorsed by Beijing, could just make up a new law, saying that a certain part of Hong Kong is no longer seen as a part of Hong Kong. It is outside of Hong Kong territory. As a result, Mainland security armed officials can operate there despite all the provisions that would say no, that have said no in the Basic Law. You are taking international investors for a ride? You think? You think international entrepreneurs do not understand this very curious bit that you can just do anything about the law as you wish?

When China joined the WTO (World Trade Organization), it was stipulated that when you do open trade and so on, you also need a corrupt-free government and a transparent regime, blah, blah, but even more importantly, you are supposed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12591 to display rule of law. Rule of law in China? You are kidding. Rule by law, more like it. But then Hong Kong is different. Despite China's opening up its market in many ways, many people are still … foreigners, foreign investors would still prefer to come to Hong Kong first, headquartered in Hong Kong, so that at least they have some legal protection of sorts. But then what is this about? Very curious, right? Should they not be worried? Some of them told me they are extremely worried.

Mainland law enforcement officials could just operate within Hong Kong, as declared okay by Beijing and the Hong Kong Government, and this legislature would have no say, basically, on this. We can only agree with the arrangement. So, whatever happen to rule of law being a powerful tool to guard against injustice, people have been worried, have been worrying, about doing business in China. Is it good for Hong Kong? I am not too sure that we can proceed …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I have to remind you that your speech has digressed from the scope of the Third Reading debate. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MS CLAUDIA MO: … I will come back. I have been talking about my reasons for objecting to this Bill. I do wonder if you have been listening. But never mind. I am going on to this legal aspect of the Bill. I was talking about rule of law.

Rule of law used to be the very star over Hong Kong, especially amongst our Asian neighbours. But then, again, are we not reducing ourselves as just a sequel to the Mainland China chapter, now that we are belittling, castrating ourselves? I am sure many people would have heard when it comes to the judicial system in town, people would now say that when it comes to political trial there is no point to try to appeal because the Court of Appeal in Hong Kong would just talk about this "evil wind blowing through the society", you would not make it, you would have to at least go to the Court of Final Appeal, and so on and so forth. This is most unfortunate. When we talk about rule of law, it is not just talking about members of the legal sector …

12592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I have already reminded you not to digress from the subject. If you do not return to the subject of this debate, I will order you to stop speaking. Please continue with your speech.

MS CLAUDIA MO: … Right. This is my reason, many of them, one of my many, many reasons for opposing this Bill. I do not see why you keep saying that this is irrelevant. Why is it irrelevant? I am telling you: I will be voting against this Bill. Culturally, you would say, "What is the relevance, still? I do not know if you realize the MTR Corporation Limited would only have simplified characters on their high voltage warnings along platforms because they believe Hong Kong Chinese would not run the risk but then the Mainland tourists are not to be trusted. Things like that. We are talking about Mainland Chinese officials executing their powers on Hong Kong soil hitherto declared no longer Hong Kong.

So, it is "one country" before "two systems". And "one country" first, that mentality you are going to generate throughout the Hong Kong society would be quite something. I am sure that is one of the big, big goals, and that is another reason why I object to this Bill. Do you understand? And you have to go back to the official who is supposed to be in charge of this ludicrous, completely ridiculous Bill. He would talk about the high speed rail is providing a pivotal point in Hong Kong. Pivotal, pivot, three hundred and sixty degrees, when this high speed rail only goes one direction and that is going north. It is only northbound. Wake up! What are you talking about all these stupid political rhetorics, trying to fool the Hong Kong public? And our principles all become just trifles according to the Government. Oh, never mind, throw them away. As long as we have a fast and convenient train, everything can be forgotten. No, not to us. We are principled. Are we conducting scaremongering? No, only time will tell. Providence knew best. Providence always knows best. We will always keep tabs on this very scandalous railway.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): On behalf of the Neo Democrats, I rise to speak in opposition to the Third Reading of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"), the cession-based co-location bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12593

The Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") and the "cession-based co-location arrangement" have been a nightmare of Hong Kong people for 10 whole years. For 10 years, XRL has harmed, infuriated, and disappointed numerous Hong Kong people. The victims are Choi Yuen Tsuen dwellers, whose home village was razed to make way for XRL construction. Despite forcible land resumption, they still adamantly fought for "neither removal and nor demolition". Their resistance culminated in a 10 thousand-strong mass rally against XRL construction and the razing of Choi Yuen Tsuen outside the then Legislative Council Building, and some participants even staged a prostrating walk around the building. Though battered by police pepper spray, many demonstrators born in the 1980s still held their ground outside the Legislative Council Building. At one time, in 2010, villagers thought that their solidarity would make the Government change its mind. But the Government simply refused to be swayed.

Subsequently, the XRL project ran into cost overrun and works delay, because the Government submitted the funding request in too much haste and all the necessary advance works were done sloppily. But the Government and MTRCL simply worked in collusion to keep all this from the public. It was not until 2014 when the media uncovered the problems that they were forced to make disclosure. Yet, their explanation was just a pack of incoherent lies told one after another to deceive Hong Kong people. Pro-democracy Members therefore sought to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance for the purpose of thoroughly investigating the causes of cost overrun and works delay. But their request was voted down by royalist Members, some of whom are present in the Chamber now. As for the three-person Independent Expert Panel set up by the Government, it likewise avoided the question of accountability and responsibility. Many doubts surrounding the causes of cost overrun and works delay are still unanswered. In the end, neither the Government nor the MTRCL is held accountable, but Hong Kong taxpayers must all suffer.

In 2016, Members and the public joined hands in an attempt to stop the Legislative Council from approving any funding request concerning the cost overrun and works delay of the XRL project. But the Government simply brushed aside the established procedures and manipulated the agenda, bypassing the Public Works Subcommittee and submitting the request to the Finance Committee forthwith. Chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr CHAN Kin-por, and Deputy Chairman, Mr CHAN Kam-lam of the Democratic Alliance 12594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"), forbade Members to raise any questions or motions, in a blatant attempt to help the Government force through the $20 billion funding for cost overrun. Mr CHAN Kam-lam even said that he could do anything outrageous with the Rules of Procedure in his hand.

Just several hours later tonight, this Legislative Council, dominated by the institutional tyranny of pro-establishment and royalist camps, will pass this cession-based co-location bill. This will deal the biggest blow ever to the Basic Law and "one country, two systems" since 1997, and bring the anti-XRL campaign to a most tragic end. The year 2018 is a year of disappointment to Hong Kong people. Some have even turned apathetic, filled with a heavy sense of helplessness before the suppression of the authoritarian government. I must therefore explain why I oppose the Third Reading of this cession-based co-location bill. All is because the SAR Government has never answered the many questions asked by Members throughout the scrutiny of the Bill. For example, till now, the Government has not explained why the "cession-based co-location arrangement" is compatible with the Basic Law.

The present Secretary for Justice was not at the meeting back then. Anyway, at that very meeting, government officials could only keep mentioning the decision of the National People's Congress ("NPC") as the last defence, the one ultimate authority. They were simply like Frederick MA, as they sounded like saying "When NPC says it is okay, it must be okay." They simply brushed the Basic Law aside and replaced it by NPC's decision as a means of governance. The whole Bill rests solely on the decision of the NPC. The Government has never announced anything about the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("Co-operation Arrangement"), let alone draw up its contents on the basis of any public consultation in Hong Kong. And, the Government and the Chairman even went so far as to reject Members' amendments on the grounds of contravening the Co-operation Arrangement. All this is simply intended to strip the Legislative Council of its power to scrutinize legislation as the law-making body.

The enactment of local legislation, the last step of the "Three-step Process" for implementing the co-location arrangement, will signify a regression of the rule of law in Hong Kong. For this reason, Hong Kong people are not only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12595 angry but also disappointed. Actually, ever since the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill started its work, all the rules enabling this Council to function have already vanished into thin air. Chairman of the Bills Committee, Mrs Regina IP, was downright haphazard and high-handed in the scrutiny of the Bill. In order to satisfy Beijing's demand, she never hesitated to use, or even abuse, to the fullest extent, all the powers she had as the chairman. She disallowed the usual question-and answer format for members to put questions to government officials. She also shortened the time for scrutiny, giving each Member just one minute to speak. She ignored the points of order which Members raised. And she even stopped Members from asking questions. Worse still, she skipped the Schedule after scrutinizing the clauses and proceeded straight to the scrutiny of amendments. This totally departed from the rules governing the scrutiny of bills as stated in the chairman's handbook. At the end of the process, Mrs Regina IP asked Members to vote straight on the amendments one by one using the voting buttons. All was done as if at light speed, and the voting on Members' amendments averaged about 10 seconds each. This is simply unreasonable, or to put it bluntly, simply scoundrel-like. If any Members can flout the Basic Law and ignore the numerous unsolved doubts about the "cession-based co-location arrangement", how can we expect them to respect the rules of the Legislative Council on the scrutiny of bills as stated in the chairman's handbook? They will simply turn a blind eye to them.

When it came to the committee stage, I myself and other pro-democracy Members wanted to minimize the harm done by this cession-based co-location arrangement to "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law, so we put forward various amendments in the hope of rectifying the inadequacies of the Co-operation Arrangement, or salvaging the situation, as I have repeatedly stressed. But you, the Honourable President, whose lips are dripping with the words of "the President's rulings shall be final", only ruled in 24 of the 75 amendments we proposed, in order to meet the so-called deadline. You also introduced a time limit for debate, capping the total hours of the whole scrutiny process at 36. Later, you even ended the Resumption of Second Reading debate at will, when 11 Members had clearly pressed the "Request to speak" button. President, they had pressed the button already but were still waiting for their turns. But you forcibly proceeded to voting on the Resumption of Second Reading. When Members raised points of order, you expelled them from the Chamber. A Council meeting and a meeting of the Committee of the whole Council are obviously two separate things, but you did not know this and refused 12596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 to listen to our advice. You even forbade expelled Members to re-enter the Chamber. But you know, a Member expelled from a Council meeting in fact has the right to come back and speak in the committee stage. Initially, the Chairman of the Committee of the whole Council clearly stated that we would have 22 hours for scrutiny but then we were given less than 10 hours. Our scrutiny was ended entirely abruptly, and at will. We are allowed to speak for unlimited times during the committee stage …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, you have strayed from the subject. Please come back to the subject of this Third Reading debate.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Okay, I will come back to the subject and continue to criticize you.

President, you have deprived me of the right to speak. Now, it is the Third Reading stage. I must make myself very clear and put on record why I oppose the Third Reading. One reason is that the conduct of scrutiny is not in accordance with due process. The Chairman repeatedly abused his power to deprive us of the right to speak, moving the goalposts over and over and again. You forbade Members to attend the meeting; failed to make rulings according to rules; refused to allow sufficient time for scrutiny; and declined to deal with the points of order raised. As the President of this Council, you have set an extremely bad precedent of abuse of power.

I think ever since the Government put forward this "cession-based co-location arrangement" for the Hong Kong Section of XRL, those Hong Kong people who are concerned about XRL operation and the possibility of "cession-based co-location clearance" have all felt as anxious, angry, and helpless as me. We are anxious because once the Council passes this legislation, which is so very bad, unsatisfactory and detrimental to "one country, two systems", the Basic Law will be reduced to a nominal constitutional document up to whatever interpretation and manipulation by NPC. To Hong Kong people, the Basic Law is the citadel of "one country, two systems". It provides that under "one country, two systems", Hong Kong shall maintain its own laws, and national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong. This means that the laws of the two places shall be kept separate, entirely separate. This principle is a very important one. But the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12597

"cession-based co-location arrangement" requires the cession of a designated site in Hong Kong to the Mainland. They call this leasing. But it is in fact cession, because national laws, all of them, shall be applied in that site. Once this becomes a precedent, the Mainland can always do the same thing again using this as an excuse in the future. But the Government has never worked out any appropriate measures to safeguard Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy in the future. As a people's representative, a Member, I must monitor the work of the Government. Seeing that the Government has put forward a bill so full of legal problems to the Legislative Council for scrutiny, how can I not be anxious?

Pro-establishment Members and the Government have kept saying that the co-location arrangement is cost-effective and, more importantly, fast and convenient. Actually, they all think convenience and speed is more important than the rule of law. Even if the arrangement is against the law and unconstitutional, convenience is still preferred. This is what their words really mean. The Bill has the support of pro-establishment and royalist Members, so Hong Kong will soon run into and must accept a situation where the law courts and government departments of Hong Kong cannot have any jurisdiction whatsoever over the arrests of Hong Kong people in the Mainland Port Area of the Kowloon West Station. The decision of NPC in effect overrides the entire text of the Basic Law, and NPC may thus do whatever it wants. Seeing the sure-fire passage of this cession-based co-location bill, this very bill which will ruin "one country, two systems" and our high degree of autonomy, how can Hong Kong people hold their anger?

Hong Kong people also feel helpless. Why? All is because they realize that no matter how many loopholes pro-democracy Members have identified, and however hard they work on the technicalities, trying to plug such loopholes, improve the Bill and make it compatible with the Basic Law, the ruining of the legislature's Rules of Procedure will go on all the same. The President is bent on giving and rationalizing his dictates, but he never gives any sound justifications. He will only direct the scrutiny process and voting of the Bill high-handedly, with the one and only purpose of meeting the deadline set by the Government. Hong Kong people have witnessed one farce after another in the Legislative Council.

We are anxious, angry and helpless because we care a lot about this matter. We are unlike those pro-establishment Members who so flippantly give live broadcasts of the meetings of this Council on Facebook, making faces at the 12598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 audiences. Throughout the scrutiny of this cession-based co-location arrangement, we have been most serious in attitude, trying to ensure that nothing will go wrong every step of the way, because we want to prevent our fears from coming true. We are obligated to speak up and tell the truth, and we must even propose a solution, an alternative―co-location clearance in Futian. But the Government has refused to listen, accepting the Co-operation Arrangement approved by NPC as the one and only choice and trying to bulldoze through the Bill. I am sure that very soon, we will see the SAR Government seek to enact legislation on implementing Article 23 of the Basic Law in a similar fashion.

President, on 21 March 2018 when I was sworn in as a Member of this Council, I undertook to uphold the Basic Law and perform the duties of a Member faithfully, and every Member did so before they took office. But today, pro-establishment Members want to endorse a proposal that contravenes the Basic Law. With their own hands and acting as accomplices, they are going to ruin "one country, two systems", something treasured greatly by Hong Kong people. Therefore, I need to remind Hong Kong people that the passage of this cession-based co-location bill today actually marks the beginning of an age of authoritarianism marked by all sorts threats, such as the enactment of legislation on implementing the National Anthem Law and Article 23 of the Basic Law. We will probably lose tonight, but we will not yield, nor will we resign ourselves to fate. We have to tell the truth, hold our heads high and oppose this "cession-based co-location arrangement", which violates the Basic Law.

With these remarks, Mr President the King of Power Abuse, I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill on behalf of the Neo Democrats.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I speak in opposition to the Third Reading of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill").

In the speech delivered by a Member earlier, he cast doubt on the Democratic Party in also organizing some tours on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). And the newspaper of the pro-establishment camp also asks why the Democratic Party has to oppose XRL if it loves Hong Kong. Same as Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, they obviously do not understand the picture. In fact, a Member who genuinely loves the country and Hong Kong should be able to see why the Bill is so controversial. This is because it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12599 contravenes the Basic Law by taking the area of the West Kowloon terminus away from the Hong Kong jurisdiction. This site is conspicuously located in West Kowloon, but it is said to be an area of the Mainland. If you explain this to primary students, they will not understand, and neither will university students. Geographically speaking, it conspicuously belongs to Hong Kong. Why do you say that it is a Mainland area? Are you saying that it is a part of the Mainland or that area is within the Mainland territory?

This is comparable to performing a magic trick. Through the Bill, they can make a place disappear. The address and the geographical location of West Kowloon are obviously in Hong Kong, but it can be said as a Mainland area where Mainland laws are applicable. This magical Bill even has to be quickly passed by the Legislative Council within a few months so that Mainland laws can be enforced there, so that Mainland officers can be sent to the second, the third and the fourth floors of the West Kowloon Railway Station, and even to the train carriages there, so that the area originally belonged to Hong Kong can be turned into a Mainland Port Area, so that the usually clear geographical, jurisdiction and judicial delineation between Hong Kong, where "one country, two systems" is implemented, and the Mainland will become totally turned upside down and blurred. Inside the West Kowloon Railway Station in Hong Kong, a magical trick is forcibly performed in a legal way so that it can be regarded as a part of the Mainland, and then people say that it is a part of the Mainland territory where Mainland laws can be applied. In fact, this incident is inconceivable indeed.

Article 18 of the Basic Law states that national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong except for those listed in Annex III to the Basic Law. It says that national laws will not be introduced into Hong Kong. However, I believe that those Members will try all means to have this Bill passed tonight. The passage of this Bill will actually lead to the introduction of national laws into Hong Kong, thus opening the gate for the application of Mainland laws and national laws in Hong Kong, which should be opposed together by those who care and love Hong Kong. Why? If we really believe in the Basic Law, uphold the Basic Law and support "one country, two systems" of the Special Administrative Region ("SAR"), it is impossible for us to arbitrarily open this gate, arbitrarily mix up the Mainland system with the Hong Kong system and blur the delineation between Mainland and Hong Kong, or narrow the boundary of Hong Kong. But unfortunately, many of those sitting in this Chamber who claim themselves to be patriotic are basically glad to see this magic trick and glad to turn a blind eye to the contravention of the Basic Law by this Bill. When "Grandpa" says that this 12600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Bill is fine and does not contravene the Basic Law, they say that it actually is not against the Basic Law and set their minds at ease. They will later press the button to support the Bill.

However, a slightly cool-headed person will understand that in doing so, Hong Kong will no longer be Hong Kong, and West Kowloon will no longer be West Kowloon. Mainland laws will be applicable to the area originally belonged to our Hong Kong, which is most disconcerting. After the Bill is passed, a lot more problems will follow, and no one knows whether there will be similar incidents in the future. Can the Secretary guarantee that there will not be similar incidents in the future? Within the Hong Kong territory, no matter West Kowloon, East Kowloon, New Territories East, New Territories West or the Hong Kong Island, will another area be taken away under a different excuse so that Mainland laws can also be applicable in it? They will then tell us that it is fine so long as we do not go to that area …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please return to the subject concerning the Third Reading of the Bill.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I have not been digressing from the subject.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have digressed too far. Please return to the subject of this debate.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): How far will I stray away? I am after all only discussing why we do not support the Third Reading of the Bill, and the reason is that the Bill has totally turned the legal and administrative delineation between Hong Kong and the Mainland upside down.

President, after this incident, will there be another incident? I think the Secretary is unable to give us a guarantee, even though he asks us to have confidence in the Governments, in the SAR Government as well as the Central Government. It is really a matter of trust. Many people are worried that after our Government has done this, it will make similar move next time. If that is so, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12601

"one country, two systems" will be doomed very soon. In fact, Hong Kong will be changed following the passage of this Bill.

West Kowloon is my constituency. It is now very clear that during the election, there are some places where I cannot go. I cannot conduct any electioneering activities in the Mainland Port Area, right? Because it is no longer an area of Hong Kong. However, can the pro-establishment camp go there? We have discussed this question in the Bills Committee, but we do not have any answer.

President, I reiterate that the Democratic Party is against this Bill, because we insist to defend the genuine "one country, two systems". We do not allow our back door to be opened arbitrarily so that Mainland laws can be introduced here. A part of Hong Kong cannot be taken away arbitrarily. It is a cover-up trick to turn an area conspicuously in Hong Kong into a Mainland area. After performing this magic trick, our principle of "one country, two systems" will become deteriorated and deformed, and Hong Kong will no longer be the same Hong Kong, which is our greatest worry. I do not know who can give us an undertaking that this will be the only case ever. I want to ask the Secretary which person can give us this undertaking. I hope you can reply that similar case will not occur, the Hong Kong territory will not be shrunk, and we will not be casually told that another area in Hong Kong has been identified as a Mainland area. We are very sad because Hong Kong will no longer be the same Hong Kong.

President, I have already raised my protest to you. At this time during the Third Reading of the Bill, I have to voice my protest again. Procedural injustice is found in the whole process of deliberating the Bill and in the meetings of these two weeks chaired by you. During the Second Reading debate and the Committee stage, over a dozen Members have obviously pressed the button and were waiting for their turn to speak. But all of them were not allowed to speak and the debate was terminated. President, what you have done is against the Constitution. You have no power to deprive Members of their right to speak. Without even one chance to speak, they were driven out of the Chamber by you.

The power of the President cannot be abused or expanded infinitely. Hence, the Democratic Party voices our stern protest against your way of chairing the meetings and depriving Members of their right to speak. This kind of procedural injustice will be recorded in the Official Record of Proceedings of the 12602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Legislative Council. We had never been subject to any fixed time limit imposed by the President in the deliberation of a bill, especially when some Members still wanted to speak during the Second Reading debate, such that Members were forced not to speak. You did not even ask "are there any other Members who wish to speak" before indicating that the time was up and inviting the Secretary to speak. As a result, those Members who were waiting for their turn could not speak. Besides, you do not have any concrete justifications to convince Members that you need to set this fixed time limit of 36 hours.

There are still four remaining meetings in this session. Why do we only have 36 hours for this debate? You said that based on your past estimation, this was already enough. But President, your estimation is wrong. You have estimated wrongly, as when you said that the time was up, more than a dozen Members were still waiting for their turn to speak, but you said that they could not speak.

In reality, you have gradually become an autocrat. When we see how the President abuses his power in the course of passing this Bill, we notice the fall of the Legislative Council and this is very saddening indeed.

President, I speak in opposition to the Third Reading of the Bill.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, this moment reminds me of a meeting at the old Legislative Council building in 2010. At that time, we and a group of friends, including pro-establishment colleagues who were already a Member or not yet a Member and members of the public, supported the expeditious construction of the Express Rail Link ("XRL"). We overcame many more difficulties after the passage of the funding proposal. The XRL is now finally completed, and all it takes to maximize the effectiveness of the XRL is to endorse the co-location arrangement.

Frankly, President, the opposition camp has objected the construction of the XRL from the start. They demonize and politicize the XRL. Their ABC thinking, that is, anything but China thinking, rejects anything closely related to the Mainland. These things make some people anxious, perhaps because they think that Hong Kong people will do better if they keep a distance from the Mainland. The longer the distance the better. This certainly does not represent the fundamental interests of the majority Hong Kongers. The majority wants a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12603 speedy, extensive and convenient railway network to commute to and from the Mainland, specially knowing that the high-speed rail in China is the fastest growing railway network in the world. The XRL has now reached 20 000 km in length and will be developed from a "Four Verticals and Four Horizontals" layout to a "Eight Verticals and Eight Horizontals" layout in the future. It is thus evident that the XRL will have a bright future.

Coming back to the co-location arrangement, public opinions are actually very clear. All opinion polls show that the public support implementing the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon and express no doubt about the efficiency of the arrangement both economically and environmentally. Even Mr Alvin YEUNG, the Chairman of the Civic Party, described the convenience of the XRL as "undeniable", and used "undeniable" again to describe the arrangement in increasing the benefits of the XRL. I thank Mr Alvin YEUNG for speaking sensibly at this juncture.

When it comes to the principles of laws, Hong Kong is certainly a society with a system of laws. We uphold the principle of "one country, two systems". Many Members―including Mr CHU Hoi-dick―have used "River water does not interfere with well water", a saying said by JIANG Zemin, when they talked about "one country, two systems". In fact, how should we interpret this saying? We certainly know that river water and well water are two separate water bodies, but if the two water bodies are not connected somewhere, the well will dry up. In fact, to a certain extent, the water table will connect the river water and the well water somewhere.

This is like the relationship between the State and Hong Kong. Hong Kong is part of the State. We have a different social system, but our relationship is still very close and inseparable. Completely separating Hong Kong from the State is the same as sealing up the well and cutting the supply of underground water to the well. The well will dry up and Hong Kong will have no future. Hence, "one country" and "two systems" are not totally antagonistic to each other. We should view it with a development mentality. The concept of "one country, two systems" does not encourage us to build a wall around us. It encourages us to give full play of our unique edges, so that Hong Kong can have a better development itself and tie in with the development of the State at the same time. Hong Kong people can thus share the fruit of synchronized development of the State and Hong Kong. This is the most important direction in implementing "one country" and "two systems".

12604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

A colleague described the co-location arrangement as a political conspiracy of the Mainland. Another colleague said just now that the co-location arrangement would open a door and let the Mainland laws in. I must clarify and make it very clear here that what we are doing in this Council today is to do our job as the gatekeeper. We know that the co-location arrangement is very important to people's livelihood and the transport, and that is why the Government has to allow some Mainland laws applicable in the Mainland Port Area of the West Kowloon Station by way of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") to prevent the Mainland from suddenly seizing a certain piece of land here. This is absolutely impossible. We need to have a prudent local legislative and vetting process, and today we are going through this process.

This approach also shows the strength of "one country, two systems". Some people always regard Hong Kong and the State as two separate entities, like those who describe the co-location arrangement as a cessation arrangement, precisely because they have this mentality. The opposition camp uses many frightening words and groundless accusations against our country. One such example is the "stapler" farce, which left us between laughter and tears.

Actually, I hold that the principles of laws are a matter of confidence. Who will suffer the most if there is no co-location arrangement? In fact, the Central Authorities could not care less. Hong Kong can go without the co-location arrangement and miss the express train to join speedy development of the State. Our neighbour Shenzhen may even snigger at us because the Southern opening to China will be relocated from Hong Kong to Shenzhen, and Hong Kong will then lose this development opportunity. Hence, will it be a loss to Hong Kong or some places else if the co-location arrangement is not adopted? I believe people should know very well the answer. At the end of the day, it is a matter of trust or distrust. If people are still concerned about implementing the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon, they can take other transport modes, and keep the XRL under observation.

Many people were concerned about the Shenzhen Bay Port Area in the past. They worried that there would be chaotic and ambiguous cross-border enforcement activities. Ten years have passed and time has proved that the Shenzhen Bay Port Area did not have these problems at all. Some people are concerned whether Members of the Democratic Party will be barred from normal activities after crossing the co-location port area. Here is a photograph showing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12605 the Shenzhen Bay Port Area where the co-location arrangement is also implemented. The green flag of the Democratic Party is flying under the red emblem of the Communist Party of China, a symbol of socialist core values, creating a beautiful picture. Hence, there is no need to use frightening words to scare ourselves. One person's fear can spread to other people. This is meaningless.

The amendments proposed by the opposition party show extreme distrust. The amendment on the effective date is obviously a trick. Everything is done, but they still propose to add 300 days or 365 days; and the sunset clause is meaningless as well …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, you are talking about the subjects at the Committee stage. Please come back to the subject under discussion now and explain whether you support the Third Reading of the Bill.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): I know. I understand. I want to explain why I support the Third Reading and the problems with their amendments.

Another amendment proposes to conduct customs, immigration and quarantine only, but if we can conduct the whole set of procedures, why do we have to do only half of it and leave a security loophole? This is unacceptable. Another amendment stresses that this is only a one-off arrangement. I fully believe that the co-location arrangement is lawful and in line with the Constitution and we will not do anything reckless. Why do we have to lay down such a requirement to restrict ourselves? This is infeasible.

Lastly, Hong Kong will integrate into the Greater Bay Area while remaining an international and global city. These edges will complement each other. Hong Kong cannot be marginalized. Aside from "one country, two systems" and our sound rule of law, our strong connection with the State is the foundation that makes Hong Kong an international city. Without this strong connection with the State, Hong Kong does not have much value, and it will not be able to elevate to an international level or have any international values. Hence, if we want to maintain our status as the Asian financial centre, the Asian hub and an international city, we must implement the co-location arrangement in West Kowloon to maximize the effectiveness of the XRL.

12606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

We will chase after Secretary Frank CHAN to follow up issues on the fares, more alignment options and a more convenient ticketing arrangement. Last but not least, on behalf of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, I support the Third Reading of the Bill and the co-location proposal in West Kowloon. Thank you, President.

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I speak to oppose the Third Reading of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). I definitely have to do so. It is impossible for the Government to include any laws that are not related to defence and foreign affairs into the Basic Law through the mechanism stipulated in Article 18 of the Basic Law as if such laws were related to defence and foreign affairs. No matter what excuses the Government has used, its attempt is bound to be in vain. We all know the impossibility of doing so. Hence, the Government has tried to force the Bill through the legislature by circumventing Article 18 of the Basic Law, substituting it with the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement ("Co-operation Arrangement") and the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"). The Government is well aware that Article 18 of the Basic Law clearly stipulates that laws to be listed in its Annex III for implementation in Hong Kong shall be confined to those relating to defence and foreign affairs and certain national laws. The drafting of Article 18 is clear enough to prohibit Mainland officers from executing Mainland laws in Hong Kong under the Basic Law.

Actually, the Civic Party questioned the concept of the co-location arrangement and urged the Government to explain its constitutional basis as early as 10 years ago. The Government has kept evading this question over the past 10 years. Back in 2007 when the Government has yet to put forward this co-location arrangement and when the Legislative Council was still deliberating on the Shenzhen Bay Port Hong Kong Port Area Bill, former Member representing the Legal Functional Constituency Margaret NG warned against the duplication of the Shenzhen Bay Port ("SBP") model in Hong Kong because such an arrangement would run against the Basic Law. But then in 2017, the Government officially indicated the intention of the Mainland and Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12607

Governments to implement the co-location arrangement in Hong Kong by copying the SBP model.

Pursuant to the "Three-step Process" to put in place the co-location arrangement, the Hong Kong Government would first reach the Co-operation Agreement with the Mainland to turn part of the area inside the West Kowloon Station ("WKS") of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") into a Mainland Port Area ("MPA"). Following the conversion, Hong Kong laws can no longer apply to MPA and Hong Kong courts no longer have the jurisdiction over that area. Instead, MPA will be within the Mainland jurisdiction and be under the Mainland law. The second step would then be for NPC to approve the Co-operation Agreement. During the whole process, we can see that none of the steps is consistent with the Basic Law; and none of the steps is constitutional with legal backing. The only constitutional basis on which the Government relies is the so-called NPCSC's Decision. However, as we have already pointed out, the NPCSC's Decision must also be consistent with the Basic Law. The Basic Law is a national law promulgated by NPC, and even NPC itself cannot make any decision in contravention of those provisions explicitly provided for in the Basic Law.

During the deliberation, the Government has given two major reasons in its attempt to explain the compatibility of the Bill with the Basic Law. First, since only MPA will fall under Mainland jurisdiction and be under Mainland laws, the co-location arrangement does not entail general application of Mainland laws to all persons in Hong Kong, and is thus not in contravention of Article 18 of the Basic Law. However, the expression of "general application" is not found in Article 18. Hence, it is just impossible for us to come up with this interpretation no matter from what angles we try to interpret the provision.

Second, the proportionality test, the principle of the common law judicial review, is also not applicable to those Basic Law provisions. It is because some Basic Law provisions do not allow for proportionate violation. The requirements under Article 1 or Article 18 of the Basic Law are the absolute bottom lines and there is no room for proportionate violation.

We have proposed to introduce a new clause to the Bill to stipulate that the Co-operation Arrangement and the NPCSC's Decision do not form part and parcel of the Basic Law or any laws of Hong Kong. Regrettably, this proposed amendment was ruled inadmissible by the President. This is the very point we 12608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 particularly wish to raise in the amendment, but was ruled inadmissible by the President.

The Basic Law sets out the laws currently in force in Hong Kong. It also specifies that no laws in Hong Kong can contravene the Basic Law. Likewise, all legislative and legislative amendment procedures of the Legislative Council must respect the Basic Law and must not circumvent the framework established under the Basic Law. In this respect, I would like to respond to the points raised by Dr Priscilla LEUNG. She attributes our opposition to the Bill to our reluctance to accept Hong Kong's cooperation with the Mainland as well as our incomprehension of the constitutional order of the Mainland in the enactment of the Constitution and the Basic Law. The NPCSC's Decision, in her view, is essentially the exercise of the sovereignty of the State by the Central Authority. We have time and again pointed out that the Basic Law, promulgated by the Central Authority before the reunification, is a national law. The Central Authority will thus need to follow the Basic Law in the exercise of its powers in Hong Kong. Under no circumstances can the Central Authorities ignore the Basic Law by making the NPCSC's Decision.

Dr Priscilla LEUNG's arguments are rather superficial. She only talks about the constitutional status of NPC without going into the actual conflicts between the contents of the NPCSC's Decision and the Basic Law. Actually, the core difference between the two systems is that they are based on two different legal systems. Under the framework of the Basic Law, the provisions of the Basic Law will not yield to the NPCSC's Decision.

I have heard Mr LUK Chung-hung saying that we will stir up trouble on every proposal to build up contact with the Mainland, and will raise opposition to every Mainland-related proposal as well. I do not remember if he has joined the Legislative Council's recent visit to the Bay Area. If he has not participated in the visit, he may review what democratic Members have said during the visit, or ask for relevant information from his pro-establishment colleagues who have been in the visit. We have indeed carried out in-depth discussions with Mainland officers about the greater economic cooperation in the Bay Area, and about how we can further develop our economy, professional services, and the financial services in the area without compromising the principle of "one country, two systems". Hence, I would ask Mr LUK Chung-hung to make a better grasp of the situation before putting labels on others and alleging others of rejecting everything connected with China.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12609

Most of the pro-establishment Members who have risen to speak on the Bill are brief in their speeches, mainly expressing their hope that the Bill could be passed expeditiously. Some have criticized democratic Members for ignorance of the law, for the unreasonableness, and the pursuit of filibustering. But after hearing their speeches, I wonder how many of them have really studied the legal basis of the co-location arrangement, and how many of them have critically analysed the relevant provisions and looked into their impact on the future legal system in Hong Kong in their speeches. Instead, they could only keep saying that the NPCSC's Decision is a piece of legislation which must be consistent with the Basic Law and that the Basic Law is accommodating, paying no attention to the distortive effect of the Bill on the Basic Law.

Apart from the amendments proposed by me, the Civic Party has also pointed out that according to international law, a place or country which has acceded to a human rights bill or a human rights covenant cannot casually divest of it. As I have clearly pointed out during the Committee stage, the CCPR General Comment No. 26 published by the United Nation Human Rights Committee says international law does not permit any state which has acceded to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to remove provisions or withdraw from it, or to terminate it. The co-location arrangement, however, runs against the principle of this international law. According to international law, human rights of individuals belong to the people living in the state, which cannot be divested of by the state.

Mr Holden CHOW likens our doubt about the Bill to the passing of a judgment without trial. In his view, if we have doubt about the Constitution, we should leave it to the court to decide. However, President, I have to point out that as the expression "deliberation" implies, in the course of deliberation of bills by the Legislative Council, we have to undergo a process of studying, weighing, and discussing, with a view to reaching a consensus among Members. This has to be followed by another round of study and discussion as a stringent process is required for law enactment and policy formulation.

As Members, we have the responsibility to examine the basis and justifications behind any bills put forward by the Government. We will also need to speak in the Council to express our views to convince and debate with other Members. The deliberation on the constitutionality and legality of Government bills before their enactment and implementation is the gate-keeping task of Members. We have to guard against any negative impact the passed bills 12610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 will bring to our legal system and to the "one country, two systems" principle. Equally, we also have to properly safeguard the rights and interests of Hong Kong people, ensuring that their rights will not be infringed. This is the very crucial point which we have strived to achieve.

Deliberation of bills is the constitutional power of the Legislative Council. As Members, it is our responsibility to seriously examine the bills and the legal provisions, and to propose amendments to them. Yet, solicitation of votes for the passage of the Bill, paying no regard to the "one country, two systems", the unconstitutionality of the bill, and the most important element of the "one country, two systems" is the reality of today. The democratic camp of course fully understands the principle of rule of law underpinning the "one country, two systems". The key issue lies in the different legal systems between the two places. The safeguard of the principle of rule of law in Hong Kong, of Hong Kong's Basic Law as well as of the "one country, two systems" is the very task we have to clearly speak out and put into record before the passage of the Bill.

The President's setting of timelines for the second reading debate, third reading, and even the committee stage has really deprived many Members of their chances to speak. Yet, it is the constitutional right of Members to speak. We have time and again advised the President not to restrict the speaking right of Members by the setting of timelines, but the President just turned a deaf ear to us. This will indeed bring tremendous harm to the Legislative Council.

President, this is the last chance we can speak on the Bill. To the ordinary public, my speeches as well the speeches of other Civil Party Members and other democratic Members may sound a bit too technical, complicated, and incomprehensible. The Government has put up a posture that it has taken a long time to come up with the design of the proposal. Actually, snubbing procedures, distorting the Basic Law, and making the NPCSC's Decision count are the biggest problems of NPC, the Hong Kong Government, the President, as well as the pro-establishment Members, and the greatest damages done to the legal rights and protection in Hong Kong. The introduction of the Bill with absolutely no constitutional basis will put the "one country, two systems" principle into ruin. By doing so, in a certain part of Hong Kong, the differences between the two legal systems, the importance of the Hong Kong legal system, its protection for Hong Kong people, as well as Hong Kong courts' jurisdiction will completely be removed by this Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12611

Even if this Bill is to be passed, my colleagues and I will continue to uphold the "one country, two systems" principle, the Basic Law, as well as the rights, freedom and the rule of law enshrined in the Basic Law. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and rule of law. In the course of deliberation of the Bill, we have already put on full vigilance against the eroding of the freedom and the rule of law, and this is the very reason why we have to speak on the Bill and to serve as Members. I so submit.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, we have been working for two weeks, and we are now, at long last, going into the last stage of this 36-hour debate, the Third Reading of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). If the Bill is passed a moment later, it will give solid legality to the implementation of the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). Also, the Legislative Council will finish the last step of the "Three-step Process", and Hong Kong will also finish walking the last mile before its linkage with the national high-speed rail network. President, on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"), I rise to speak in support of the Bill.

President, time is limited, so I will just comment briefly on a few oft-repeated arguments heard in this Council.

First, about the argument of insufficient time for discussion. President, many opposition Members who spoke just now lashed out at your meeting arrangements this time around, claiming that you forbade them to speak, and did not allow insufficient time for discussing such a significant bill. President, such arguments are all biased, merely another excuse for filibustering. The reason is very simple. President, if the time for speaking had really mattered so much to the opposition camp, they would not have moved an adjournment motion, requested headcounts, or disrupted the order in the Council, especially after they had learnt of your decision to cap the hours for this debate at 36. President, the public can see clearly what has actually happening. All can see clearly that the opposition camp have kept filibustering and putting up different delays to stalling this Council's handling of the Bill.

President, we must not forget that the discussions on co-location clearance and the commissioning of XRL are not something that have begun just today. 12612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Mr WONG Ting-kwong should know best about this. Records show that as early as 7 May 2008, Mr WONG already proposed a motion on implementing co-location clearance. Subsequently, President, the Finance Committee convened four meetings lasting 16 hours, and eventually approved the funding for XRL on 6 January 2010. At that time, we already discussed how co-location clearance could be arranged. Six years after that, the Finance Committee spent another 20 hours on considering and approving the supplementary funding for XRL. As for the present Legislative Council, we spent 26 hours on discussing and passing a government motion with no legislative effect moved by the Chief Executive on 15 November last year, commonly called "Step Zero". Also, the Bills Committee chaired by Mrs IP, which comprised almost all Members, spent 64 hours on scrutinizing the Bill this year. There is also the time spent on the Resumption of Second Reading debate and the Committee stage these two weeks. I therefore reckon that our discussion on XRL actually lasted more than 160 hours in total. This is probably the longest discussion on one single infrastructure project in the history of this Council. So, it is simply not true to say that there was insufficient time.

President, we can well appreciate that your situation will always be difficult, whether you choose the strict enforcement of rules like this time, and whether you go for more latitude. Either way, you still need to cut the filibuster in the end, because the experience of the Finance Committee, the supplementary appropriation and the Bills Committee invariably shows that the crux of the problem is the incessant filibustering of certain Members who want to thwart the discussions on XRL and the co-location arrangement, preventing this Council from voting on them.

President, the second point I want to respond to is the issue of unconstitutionality. The arguments of the opposition camp show that they simply defy the constitutional status of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC"). Their arguments are downright outrageous, and they have even gone to great lengths to smear the decision of NPCSC. Some of them simply treat the advice of the Hong Kong Bar Association as supreme, as the ultimate authority, even using it as a basis of gainsaying the decision of NPCSC. President, this is in fact an attempt to give "two systems" unlimited priority over "one country", something definitely not good to the sound development of "one country, two systems".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12613

President, the matter is actually very simple. The XRL project is a big investment of our society. If XRL is to yield the greatest cost-benefits, rather than becoming a "slow-speed rail link" or even a "useless rail link", the issue of co-location clearance must be tackled. As West Kowloon is chosen as the site of the XRL station in Hong Kong, we must implement a co-location arrangement there. That is why the SAR Government and NPCSC have done everything possible to tackle the issue of co-location clearance, so as to let XRL unleash its greatest usefulness. This is the only intention. Some people have stopped at nothing to accuse the decision of NPCSC of violating cardinal principles, or even demonize it. But the rationale behind the decision is actually understandable.

At the very time when the Basic Law was drafted and promulgated, there was no such thing as co-location clearance. Co-location clearance is something new, something not covered in the Basic Law. Precisely for this reason, we must make sure that the Basic Law will not stand in the way of Hong Kong's development and stop Hong Kong from progressing. That is why NPCSC has made it very clear that Hong Kong can implement the co-location arrangement, as it is compatible with the original intent of the Basic Law. This is actually meant to do good to Hong Kong. But then, this good intention is taken for malice. There have been all sorts of conspiracy theories, one of which has it that Mainland public security officers will nab people all over Hong Kong following the implementation of the co-location arrangement. And, the arrangement is also described as a "cession-based co-location arrangement". But Hong Kong is part of China, so how can there possibly be any cession as such? If we are to build the XRL station in West Kowloon and implement co-location clearance there, we must provide a venue. But they describe this as cession. Also, some people even drag in the Causeway Bay Books. Most absurdly, a certain political party even staged a stapled-legs drama in an attempt to scare the public.

President, why do they spread such words to cause panic in society? President, what are they up to anyway? President, I think just a little thinking will tell us the answer. The co-location arrangement is something good as it will enable XRL to achieve its greatest effectiveness. And that is all.

President, finally, I wish to say a few words on the decision of NPCSC. Some people say that the decision is unprecedented, and even an illegal addition to the Basic Law. President, this is simply not true. Here, I must put this on record here in order to dispel any misunderstanding.

12614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

NPC and NPCSC have been making many decisions necessary for the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") and the implementation of "one country, two systems", with the aim of resolving practical problems in the light of the actual situation. Like the interpretations of the Basic Law by NPCSC, these decisions can inject huge staying power into the Basic Law and enable it to function smoothly in response to social development.

President, let us look at the most important of all these decisions. I am sure that the legal profession must be aware of this decision. Members like Mr Dennis KWOK must be aware of it, only that they do not want to mention it. Dr Priscilla LEUNG is the only one who talked about it in her speech. The Basic Law was actually promulgated based on a decision of NPCSC. So, if we challenge the legality of the NPCSC decision in this case, we may also need to question legality of the decision underlying the promulgation of the Basic Law.

The promulgation of the Basic Law is not the only thing based on a decision of NPCSC. Before the reunification, NPCSC gave an explanation of some questions concerning the implementation of the Nationality Law in HKSAR. NPCSC also made some decisions on handling the laws previously in force in Hong Kong. It also made a decision concerning the English text of the Basic Law.

Since the reunification, NPCSC has made six decisions about important legal issues in Hong Kong, four of which concern the constitutional development in Hong Kong, including the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues relating to the Methods for Selecting the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and for Forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the year 2012 and on Issues relating to Universal Suffrage, and the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by Universal Suffrage and on the Method for Forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the Year 2016. The other two decisions are about co-location clearance. In 2006, the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Authorizing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Exercise Jurisdiction over the Hong Kong Port Area at the Shenzhen Bay Port was released, and this time, the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12615

Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement was announced.

All these show that NPCSC decisions are nothing new, nor are they any illegal additions to the Basic Law. As explained by Director WANG Zhenmin, all these decisions are examples of how NPCSC makes its decisions to develop the Basic Law when Hong Kong society faces new circumstances and new problems. Also, like the decisions in the past, these decisions are important components of Hong Kong's legal system and essential to the smooth implementation of the Basic Law. People with legal training cannot possibly be unaware of this. The only thing is that they choose not to mention it or simply disrespect it. I hope Members can revisit these decisions as they can help us gain a full grasp of the laws of Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): To be a royalist Member is indeed very easy because recycled use of their speaking notes is possible, and after nearly one year, some viewpoints expressed when the Government's motion was debated last year are still used today. I am really no match for them.

In his speech delivered earlier, Mr Jeremy TAM pointed out that the former Financial Secretary John TSANG had sighed that the Legislative Council was once a place for ladies and gentlemen to hold debates, but it was disheartening for him to note that things are no longer the same now. As for me, such feelings of regret stem from a very superficial understanding, because even though we hold debates like those ladies and gentlemen did in the past, what good will it bring? The crux actually lies in whether the Legislative Council can become a legislature representing people's will. If we keep "eating human flesh" and pass a piece of legislation knowing that it is in violation of the Basic Law after debates are held among ladies and gentlemen in this Council, the civilization we have is of a hypocritical nature. We in the pro-democracy camp are not striving to become ladies and gentlemen, but to get back the democratic rights that Hong Kong people deserve. The aim of staging confrontation in the legislature is not to put up a show but to create tensions, in order to keep these royalists on pins and needles when they please their masters at the expense of the interests of Hong Kong people, and give members of the public an opportunity to vent their spleen.

12616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

However, very regrettably, while the priest climbs a post, the devil climbs ten, and as for the question concerning who is the devil, we are free to give our own interpretation as many people would regard me as the devil. As I have mentioned in my last speech, the "Three-step Process" has already turned into a "Four-step Process". Members are first stopped from speaking, and then removed from the Chamber. These are followed by the initiation of prosecution against them under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, and Mr Paul TSE has even proposed the imposition of fines and a one-year ban on entering the Chamber.

The people of Hong Kong can see with their own eyes that while the priest climbs a post, the devil climbs ten. They can also see with their own eyes that with regard to the drafting of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"), the Secretary for Justice has so far evaded deliberation work by Members at Council meetings. I have asked some colleagues of the pro-establishment camp about this just now, and they also consider this really outrageous, because she should come forward and face the people. She can argue the case with such legal points of view as the need to satisfy the proportionality test, or the assertion that Article 18 of the Basic Law is not engaged as far as the Bill is concerned. Why leave Secretary Frank CHAN here to shout aloud into his microphone exhaustively today?

For such a Secretary for Justice like her, what exactly was her intention when drafting the Bill? Similarly, what exactly was the intention of the Transport and Housing Bureau when it took forward the legislative exercise with the Department of Justice? In my opinion, they simply sought to impose as much restriction as possible on the Legislative Council's right to know, and make it basically very difficult for the Legislative Council to intervene. I can cite two examples to illustrate my point.

Under the existing proposal, a so-called Mainland Port Area will be established within the territory of Hong Kong, and the Government explained that the boundary of Hong Kong would remain unchanged. This Mainland Port Area to be established within the territory of Hong Kong is marked in orange on the plan annexed to the Bill, which only provides that an area coloured orange will be delineated at the West Kowloon Station. However, can anyone tell us what exactly is inside this area? Regrettably, it has nothing to do with Hong Kong people and the Legislative Council, and it seems that it does not concern the SAR Government either. We have pursued and pointed out that as public security LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12617 officers and officers of the Armed Police Force will be armed with firearms and perform duties in this orange area, what exactly will they do; how many of them will be stationed in the area; who among them will be allowed to come to Hong Kong; where will they store their weapons; and how will the case be handled if these officers break the rules in the Mainland Port Area? Nevertheless, the whole thing is like a black hole, and it seems that answers to the above questions have already been given as long as the area has been marked in orange.

As for the terms "reserved matter" and "non-reserved matter", no one will understand what they are, even with explanation given. As a matter of fact, they only refer to the fact that within that orange area in Hong Kong, public security officers, officers of the Armed Police Force and armed Mainland officers who are in charge of immigration affairs will be given the greatest power, and "non-reserved matter" has a supreme status that no one can intervene. However, the Bill is about a place within our territory, so should the SAR Government be held responsible to a certain extent? What does this mean? Does the Government regard the area declared as Mainland Port Area as splashed water unworthy of serious attention? This is the first point.

The second point has nothing to do with the orange area, but other areas in train stations of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). In response to the enactment of the Bill, several pieces of subsidiary legislation will have to be introduced for the purpose of law adaptation, and they include the Immigration (Places of Detention) (Amendment) Order 2018, Immigration Service (Designated Places) (Amendment) Order 2018, Cross-boundary Movement of Physical Currency and Bearer Negotiable Instruments Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1) (No. 2) Notice 2018, and so on. XRL will become the first railway line in Hong Kong for which ticketing by way of real name registration will be adopted, and this is something which Hong Kong citizens should pay real attention to, because selling train tickets by way of real name registration will bring certain earthshaking changes. It will have some very serious impacts on using railway as a mode of transport, conducting surveillance and collecting personal data …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you have digressed from the subject. Please come back to the question under debate, and state clearly whether you support the Bill as a whole.

12618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I certainly oppose the Bill, and I have already explained the reasons for taking this stance. The Government's totally ridiculous idea of asking us to support its proposal to establish a designated area marked in orange is the first reason for opposing the Bill. How should we develop the Hong Kong section of XRL further when the Government has established an orange area within the territory of Hong Kong? Obviously, we should also amend the Mass Transit Railway By-laws, so that the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") would not be given free rein to implement this unprecedented arrangement of selling train tickets by way of real name registration. The arrangement will definitely be linked up with the systems adopted in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area ("the Bay Area"), and such Mainland systems as the Social Credit System will be extended to Hong Kong sooner or later, thus opening up a door for carrying out surveillance on the whole of Hong Kong. By opening up a hole in the Basic Law, Hong Kong people will be tempted to move to the Bay Area. Fellow colleagues who went on a visit earlier to the Bay Area on the Mainland is really lucky, because they would get an electric shock in the Bay Area very easily if there was a thunderstorm like what we have lately.

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

The Administration has utterly no regard for the Legislative Council's right to know, and there is no sufficient information for this Council to deliberate and for members of the public to grasp the actual situation. The Government is so cunning that it has drafted the Bill in the simplest possible manner, so that individuals or concern groups can only argue that the proposal has violated the Basic Law and the decision of the National People's Congress. This is why Prof Priscilla LEUNG has been given much room for elaboration, and has managed to intimidate the public with her analysis of the Chinese constitutional system.

There are in fact many different levels of underlying meaning in the Bill concerning XRL, and there should be more thorough and in-depth participation from the Hong Kong Government and the Legislative Council. However, up till now, when the Bill is to be passed very soon, I still do not know what supplemental concession agreement has the Government signed with MTRCL, I have no idea what role will the China Railway Group Limited play in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12619 operation of XRL, and neither do I know the annual financial loss associated with the operation of XRL in the future.

Our deliberation has reached the current stage with a blink of an eye, and supporters of the pro-democracy camp of course understand very well that under present circumstances, we do not have as many votes as the royalist camp. Moreover, it is not possible for us to follow the practice of expressing our views freely like those ladies and gentlemen did in the past, or stage confrontation in the legislature like former Members WONG Yuk-man, "Long Hair" and "Hulk". The pro-democracy camp will have no chance to win this battle, but we hope that the people of Hong Kong would stay with us and keep three points in their mind.

Firstly, we should remember all those people who have previously suffered from and will be affected by this infrastructure project. Please remember Choi Yuen Tsuen villagers who faced eviction, farmers in Ngau Tam Mei who can no longer engage themselves in fish farming and agriculture due to the loss of water sources, and residents in various districts who are now subject to noise nuisance caused by XRL operations every day after the launching of the trial run for XRL.

Secondly, we should also bear in mind that although many people would feel that men are always restricted by the objective environment and the Chinese Communist Party is so puffed up with pride when there are so many "running dogs" supporting its authoritarian rule, and they all find these very exhausting and disappointing, there are still people willing to actively make fair comments to safeguard Hong Kong people's rights when things are disappointingly in a low ebb at present. We have the Hong Kong Bar Association, many professionals and the "Co-location" Concern Group among them, and many people have even been visiting different local communities since July last year to undertake the corresponding work activities. Though fully aware that the Government would provide no information, we have never given up and have tried to follow up with Frank CHAN and Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG on every occasion, urging them to answer questions and provide figures. There are still many people trying their best with unrelenting perseverance.

Finally, Hong Kong people should of course remember deeply what shameless people have done, remember Andrew LEUNG who has trampled on Members' right to speak in the Legislative Council, and remember a group of so-called Legislative Council Members who are totally incompetent, and who know nothing but to please their masters and read from a speaking note written last year. We should bear in mind that the SAR Government has never attached 12620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 importance to safeguarding Hong Kong people's rights, the principle of "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law, but has dedicated itself to working with the Beijing Government in racking their brain to identify every possible means to evade regulation by the Basic Law, which originally should have certain binding effects on them. We should keep what these people have done in our mind, and someday we shall seize back the power we deserve to decide how public money should be used, and decide the future of this city and even our country.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, after all the acts of President Andrew LEUNG to compress the debate and cut the number of amendments, we are, alas, proceeding to the Third Reading stage of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). This means that there are just a few hours left for the scrutiny of the Bill. Actually, there are still several meetings left after the meeting today. So, I honestly cannot see why the Government must still force through the Bill so hastily today. I also cannot see why Mr Andrew LEUNG must still reduce the 22 hours of debate time by half, trying by hook and by crook to stop Members from speaking in the Second Reading debate.

Deputy President, since all the 24 amendments proposed by the nine pro-democracy Members have been negatived, what I can still do is just to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. Why do I oppose the Third Reading of the Bill? The chief reason is of course the inconsistency of this Bill with the constitutional arrangements of Hong Kong. The constitutional set-up of Hong Kong is written clearly in the Basic Law. Article 18 provides, "National laws shall not be applied in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region except for those listed in Annex III to this Law." This is a very clear provision, specifying that national law, other than those included in Annex III, will not be applied in Hong Kong. However, we are now talking about setting up a Mainland Port Area under the co-location arrangement. This will create within Hong Kong an area where national laws are applied. Obviously, this is inconsistent with the Basic Law.

But the authorities concerned argue that we are talking about just one single locale in Hong Kong, so the arrangement should not perceived as a violation of the Basic Law. This argument, I believe, is completely unconvincing and totally against any sensible interpretation of this constitutional document. It is just like arguing that a person is still free although his heart is not, because the heart is just one single part of the body. I do not think anyone will accept this argument, and it is not workable in reality either. But not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12621 workable as this arrangement is, it is still written into the Bill before us. Worse still, we have to deal with it tonight. So, will it be passed in the end? I think all of us already have the answer.

Unconstitutionality is the chief reason for our opposition. But despite our disagreement, we pro-democracy Members of this Council still want to make sure that even if the Bill is really passed, things will not turn too bad. We hope that even if the co-location arrangement is eventually implemented, things will not turn too bad. For this reason, we have proposed a series of amendments.

In fact, all the time since the Bills Committee's scrutiny and the Committee stage just now, whenever any Members make any suggestions on improving the Bill to minimize the infringement of the co-location arrangement on Hong Kong people's rights, Secretary Frank CHAN and other government officials have invariably dismissed their ideas as not workable, saying that the cooperation arrangement for implementing co-location clearance already provides for every specific rule and detail. But I want the Secretary to realize that the people of Hong Kong have never had any chances to discuss or decide on the co-location arrangement and even the location of the XRL Station. Even those people who look forward to travelling on XRL may also have something to say about the technicalities of the present co-location arrangement. But they likewise cannot express their views and have any say on the technicalities of the cooperation agreement. I have, for example, repeatedly mentioned in this Chamber an internal survey which the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union conducted last year. This survey reveals that 40% of the respondents support the co-location arrangement, but at the same time, 65% think that the Government must conduct public consultation, otherwise their confidence in "one country, two systems" will be undermined. This shows that many members of the public are not satisfied with the present situation.

The Legislative Council can be described as the only and last possible place allowing some little room for public engagement. We, Members of this Council, are people's representatives. We do all we can to incorporate the opinions of the public into various amendments or to voice them in our speeches. But the SAR Government has adamantly resorted to the cooperation agreement, something devoid of any public engagement, as a means of overriding all the amendments representing public opinions. We are extremely disappointed at this.

12622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Deputy President, during our discussion, we once raised the issue of a sunset clause. This is the one thing about the Bill that I find disappointing, as I pointed out during the Committee stage. The co-location arrangement is to be based on leasing a site in Hong Kong to the Mainland for setting up a Mainland Port Area, so it is only natural to specify the leasing period, the date of lease expiry, or the lease renewal arrangements. Even if they say that the lease arrangement is to be a permanent one and any such clauses are thus not required, they should still give a clear explanatory note. This is a usual practice of land leasing. It cannot be dispensed with.

In his reply at the Committee stage, the Secretary says that he does not think XRL will ever cease operation. He also thinks that even if any unexpected incidents happen, they can still be dealt with under the mechanism of the cooperation agreement. In such cases, he says, the governments of the two places can actually sign a separate instrument and report to the Central Authorities. An amendment bill can then be submitted to the Legislative Council. Deputy President, this is a very reactive way of doing things, and it is precisely a problem caused by the absence of any sunset clause or explanatory note.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, you are repeating the points you already made during the Committee stage. Please focus on whether you support the Third Reading of the Bill. Members should not repeat the arguments that were already discussed thoroughly during the Committee stage or other debate sessions.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have been giving the reasons for my objection to this Bill all the time. Deputy President, the mechanism of the cooperation agreement which the Secretary refers to actually involves three steps: negotiation between the governments of the two places, reporting to the Central Authorities, and amending the local legislation. These steps, I believe, cannot be completed in a day or two, and certainly not in a week or two for that matter. In case a prolonged cessation of XRL services is expected owing to some incidents, the continued presence of the Mainland Port Area in the West Kowloon Station and Mainland law enforcement officers will lose their legitimacy. This is an issue arising from the Bill, so I am actually discussing a problem caused by the Bill as a whole. In such cases, the SAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12623

Government is duty-bound to address the legitimacy crisis. The Bill states, "[The] Ordinance comes into operation on a day to be appointed by the Secretary for Transport and Housing by notice published in the Gazette". This provides for quite a simple and convenient administrative procedure to deal with the commencement date of the legislation. But then, there is no mechanism for handling the opposite case, the case where the legislation ceases to be effective.

Deputy President, there is another controversial issue, and I have already mentioned it just now. I mean the greatest problem with the whole Bill is its unconstitutionality. For reasons of its unconstitutionality, an Executive Council Member once suggested that it must not be treated as a precedent case. Mr Jeremy TAM's amendment is exactly about this point, as it seeks to add "This Ordinance as a one-off arrangement" to the Bill (I of course believe that he actually questions the very legality of the Bill, though).

Let us return to the amendments. Our main question is whether the passage of the Bill will lead to any similar arrangements in the future. If yes, will this plunge the Basic Law and our constitutional arrangements into a crisis?

Deputy President, at the Committee stage, the Secretary replied, and I quote, "The SAR Government emphasizes that it has no plan at the moment to apply the co-location arrangement to cross-boundary transport infrastructure other than the West Kowloon Station and Shenzhen Bay Port" (end of quote). Yet, those of us who witnessed XRL funding saga eight years ago can still recall what Ms Eva CHENG, then Secretary for Transport and Housing, told the Legislative Council, and I quote, "Without the co-location arrangement, there can still be a high-speed rail because we are seeking some transitional or interim proposals … as for Guangdong Province, every station has control point facilities to handle that." And she also stated, "Even if the co-location arrangement is not available at the commissioning of the XRL, there are other midway solutions, such as 'on-board clearance', 'separate-location clearance' and so on." Various government officials have also talked about these arrangements all this time.

Now, after eight years and two government changeovers, "co-location clearance" has simply become the only option, and even the control point once included in the design of Futian Station has been cancelled. Already, the Government has once failed to keep its words on customs and quarantine clearance arrangements. Therefore, even though the present Secretary for Transport and Housing emphatically promised for the SAR Government in the 12624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Committee stage that co-location clearance would be confined to the West Kowloon Station and the Shenzhen Bay Port, we still do not have any confidence. And, here, I am not even talking about the looseness of his statement. He said, and I quote, "[It] has no plan at the moment". It has no plan at the moment. But how about the future? His reply does not completely rule out the re-adoption of this practice in the future. This worries us a great deal.

Just now when we dealt with the amendments, I very much hope that this very mild amendment of Mr Jeremy TAM could be passed. Sadly, it was not accepted. That being the case, we have no alternative but to vote against the Bill.

Deputy President, the sure-fire passage of the Bill is not the only sorrow felt by us in this meeting. All the meeting arrangements are the other thing which we find even more intolerable. Over these two weeks, we have seen how President Andrew LEUNG stopped Members from speaking again and again. This aside, he also broke the promises he made. I think all these have greatly undermined the rules and conventions of the Council, as well as our dignity. Deputy President, I very much hope that you or the President will do these no more. We all know that regardless of what Mr Andrew LEUNG does, the Bill will be passed. So, why is it necessary to do those awful things?

I so submit.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on behalf of six Members, I would first of all like to express our support for the Third Reading of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill").

As evidenced by the deliberation and debate process of the Bill, in order to oppose the co-location arrangement proposed for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), the opposition camp has not only questioned the Government with a negative and distrustful attitude but also intimidated the public and created panic by setting out repeatedly some scenarios which are not likely to occur. However, the general masses have discerning eyes, and according to the findings of a number of opinion surveys, the majority of respondents expressed support for the co-location arrangement, because efficient traffic flow and customs clearance efficiency have already become global trends. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12625

Opposition Members have actually gone against such trends when they tried in every way to oppose and smear the co-location arrangement for XRL at all costs, and it is only natural that such an unrealistic approach cannot enlist the support of the majority of Hong Kong people.

Deputy President, when we are still engaging in heated debates on the co-location arrangement for XRL in Hong Kong, our neighbouring cities Macao and Zhuhai have already adopted a "joint boundary control system" at the Zhuhai and Macao Port Area of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB"), so as to bring the greatest convenience to travellers. The system is a new mode of clearance whereby the clearance procedures of the two places can be completed in one go by setting up a joint office for immigration and customs clearances, and abolishing walkways between boundary control areas of both places. Travellers holding a valid travel document will only be required to queue up once at an automated clearance counter or a counter for manual clearance, and then pass through two gates located within a short distance to complete the entry and exit procedures. This will greatly shorten travellers' waiting time for clearance, and provide the greatest convenience to travellers.

Under the initiatives of "One Belt One Road" and the development of the Guangzhou-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area ("the Bay Area"), Hong Kong should try its best to tie in with the major development trend. Hence, under the premise of safeguarding the principle of "one country, two systems", the Government has the responsibility to follow the major trend and formulate a practical and efficient mode of clearance for the convenience of travelers. Implementing the co-location arrangement at the West Kowloon Station of the Hong Kong Section of XRL is one of these pragmatic and convenient measures, and it is in line with legal provisions of Hong Kong. The co-location arrangement is not something new, and an area within the Mainland territory at the Shenzhen Bay Port has already been leased to Hong Kong as a port area, where the laws of Hong Kong apply. The arrangement has been operating smoothly for more than 10 years since 2007, and the problem of enforcing laws across the boundary has never arisen. Similarly, on the basis of equality and mutual benefit, why is it not possible for Hong Kong to lease part of the area at the West Kowloon Station of the Hong Kong Section of XRL to the Mainland for the establishment of a Mainland Port Area?

Deputy President, many Hong Kong people are now working and living on the Mainland, and they often travel to different Mainland places during holidays. 12626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

On the other hand, Hong Kong is a key transport hub in the Asia-Pacific Region, and a lot of overseas and Mainland visitors are transiting via Hong Kong by air, land or sea to other Mainland and overseas cities in their business or travel trips. The visitor arrivals last year were nearly 60 million, while there is an average of nearly 80 million Hong Kong visitor arrivals to the Mainland every year for sightseeing, visiting friends and relatives or business. With the commissioning of the Hong Kong Section of XRL, the local transport network will be connected to the XRL network on the Mainland, and Hong Kong will be included in the living circle of the Bay Area. There will be an increasing demand for clearance services between the two places, while Hong Kong people and overseas visitors will be looking forward to the provision of more efficient and convenient services. Since it is really very exhausting to wait in long queues, the Administration should endeavour to shorten the time needed for completing the clearance procedures.

In order to bring greater convenience to Hong Kong people and overseas visitors, the Hong Kong Government has introduced a lot of measures in recent years to improve clearance efficiency. For example, visitors entering Hong Kong via SkyPier may now check in their baggage before boarding the ferry, and may hence complete their check-in procedures directly at the port of embarkation. A similar mode of clearance can also be implemented in the future when HZMB is linked with the Intermodal Transfer Terminal newly built at the Hong Kong International Airport. Liantang Boundary Control Point will be the first boundary control point in Hong Kong to provide direct access for passengers and vehicles, where users can reach the passenger terminal building directly by private cars, and then cross the border on foot through the connecting pedestrian walkway. Besides, for the convenience of travelers, the Immigration Department has been actively promoting the mutual use of e-Channel services between Hong Kong and other overseas countries, and holders of a HKSAR electronic passport can now enrol for the automated immigration clearance service in South Korea, Germany and Singapore …

(Mr Dennis KWOK stood up)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YIU, please hold on. Mr Dennis KWOK, what point of order do you wish to raise?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12627

MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think what Mr YIU said has already digressed from the subject, and you should ask him to stop speaking. You considered Mr IP Kin-yuen digressing from the subject just now when he was speaking on some problems with the Bill, but Mr YIU is now talking about the arrangements made for travellers and with other overseas countries.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, you have already raised your point of order, please sit down. Mr YIU, please speak as briefly as possible.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am now talking about the reasons why we support the Third Reading of the Bill, because some Members have expressed their opposition views just now. I am just explaining why we support the Bill, and you may rest assured that I will finish my speech very soon.

It can thus be seen that be it the co-location arrangement for XRL or a convenient mode of clearance, we should lend it our support and the Government should take forward its implementation as long as it is people-oriented, rational, reasonable and legitimate. According to some opposition Members, the co-location arrangement should be implemented on a one-off basis and should not be taken as a precedent, and this is an argument they hold, is it right? This is a short-sighted view, and we should look a little bit farther to keep exploring actively other innovative and efficient modes of clearance, because only through this can Hong Kong maintain its important status as a transport hub in the region. I am sure if the Government can uphold the "people-oriented" principle, and take forward proposals in this respect with the ultimate aim of bringing convenience to the people, more efficient modes of clearance will be adopted in Hong Kong in the future, while the co-location arrangement will only be one of them. I hope opposition Members will no longer demonize the arrangement, and neither should they continue to create panic.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, having spent quite a long while listening to the speeches delivered by pro-establishment/royalist Members, I found that they only kept defending the 12628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") without proceeding to discuss the question under debate.

According to those Members, we oppose the co-location arrangement. However, we have made it clear that we are not against the adoption of the co-location arrangement per se but the decision to implement the currently proposed co-location arrangement within Hong Kong at the West Kowloon station. We consider it perfectly fine if the co-location arrangement is implemented either in Futian or Shenzhen as the same arrangement launched in Shenzhen Bay Port has been in smooth operation for years. Actually, we disapprove of the currently proposed co-location because it contravenes the Basic Law. Why did they not raise this point then? The Basic Law does not prohibit the application of laws of Hong Kong on the Mainland, but it stipulates that Mainland laws. They did not even dare to debate with us the fact as simple and straight as this but only keep accusing us of opposing for opposing's sake. Oh, will they just stop making such boring remarks, please?

What we disapprove of is that the Bill contravenes the Basic Law. Article 18 of the Basic Law provides that national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong. Thus, we question how come the co-location arrangement can contravene the Basic Law, but they just failed to provide a sound justification, making only the remark that the Basic Law was promulgated by the National People's Congress ("NPC"). However, will they say that the Basic Law can be ignored because the NPC's decision (i.e. the "Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Approving the Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement") is higher than the Basic Law in authority? Dare they say so, actually? In short, they only vague remarked that given the NPC's supreme constitutional status, every decision made by the NPC is the highest in authority.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

As a matter of fact, pro-establishment Members are blindly supporting the co-location arrangement for they allow the national mechanism to contravene the national laws. Dare they expressly state the fact? Should the NPC not also LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12629 abide by the Basic Law formulated by the State? Just as in the case of the laws enacted by the Legislative Council, should Members not abide by such laws? Is it possible that we can still proceed to execute the Council's decision like that we have supreme authority over everything even when the decision evidently contravenes the laws? Of course not, but that is exactly what they are now supporting. If they wish to argue with us, they should speak logically on a legal basis with reasons. But again, they dare not do so.

While delivering her speech just now, the Deputy President has made three points in criticizing us on behalf of the largest political party of the pro-establishment camp, i.e. the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"). First, she accused us of having been stalling all along when we said we did not have sufficient speaking time. Besides, she submitted that Mr WONG Ting-kwong of DAB had already moved a motion on expeditiously implementing co-location of immigration and customs facilities in 2008 which was passed. Well, had the Government ever submitted to the Legislative Council any bill on co-location arrangement in 2008 (i.e. 10 years ago)? We pointed out as early as 10 years ago that implementing the co-location arrangement in Hong Kong would be impossible as it contravened the Basic Law. They said it was fine back then as the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("the high speed rail") would bring us benefits anyway and we should wait and see how it turned out. Yet, today Ms Starry LEE told us that it is us who seek to render the high speed rail useless. At that time, they said that the high speed rail was meant to bring about certain benefits even if the co-location arrangement could not be implemented, but now they told us it would be rendered useless without implementing the co-location arrangement. They considered it necessary to take forward expeditiously the co-location arrangement back then while we pointed out the fact that the arrangement contravened the Basic Law and thus urged the Government to submit to this Council a viable option that complies with the Basic Law for deliberation. Yet, we do not think the current Bill will work.

The high speed rail project drags on for as long as 10 years and was finally scheduled to be commissioned in the third quarter of 2008. Nevertheless, the Bill was not submitted to this Council until January. Do you think this was meant to allow us sufficient time for discussion? At the Government's request, the Council has to complete scrutiny of the Bill in less than 3 months and pass the Bill in less than 36 hours' time. Do you think we really have sufficient time for deliberation? The Government had done nothing over the past decade and then 12630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 it only gave us dozens of hours to debate the current Bill, which must be passed afterwards. It even told us that Members have been allowed sufficient time for deliberation. What nonsense! They dare not proceed to genuine discussion when we told them the Bill was unconstitutional, but only keep saying that the NPC is the highest organ of state power. Well, things will be a lot simpler if this is the case and there is no need to look into any legal issue then.

The pro-establishment Members often talk about defending the rule of law in Hong Kong while the Central Government keeps mentioning the notion of ruling the country according to law, but obviously, it is the HKSAR Government and the Central Government themselves that have broken the law first. A civilized Hong Kong is founded on the rule of law and all that we need is rules made open and transparent to us instead of the pro-establishment camp's theory of taking what the ruler says as rules to abide by and not necessary to follow the proper procedures as advocated by the pro-establishment camp. The Basic Law stipulates that any amendments to the Basic Law can only be introduced by the NPC in accordance with the established procedures. If they find it too tiresome to do so, they may seek interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the NPC to the effect that the current co-location arrangement is deemed lawful because they can really do so under the existing mechanism. Nevertheless, the Government had better tell the whole world as well as its citizens now that they will save this step and accept whatever decision made by the one in command. It does not matter. Yet, the reason for our opposing the Bill today is rather simple: While we consider the "Co-operation Arrangement between the Mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on the Establishment of the Port at the West Kowloon Station of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link for Implementing Co-location Arrangement" ("the Co-operation Arrangement") and the "Three-step Process" are actually in lack of any legal basis, but what was told by the NPC has become one then, regardless that the NPC's decision apparently contravenes the laws enacted by the nation itself. In other words, contravention of the Basic Law may also be acceptable once the NPC has made a decision.

What is more, not only does the Mainland violate the laws, Hong Kong is also made to act in breach of our laws. We all know it is nothing new that the Mainland does not comply with the laws and understand so well how human rights advocates and dissidents are suppressed under the Mainland's so-called "rule of law". However, we do not wish that these kind of things will spread to Hong Kong nor do we expect to see our most fundamental rule of law being LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12631 destroyed right after conducting "Step 1" (i.e. the preparation of the Bill). We oppose the co-location arrangement for the sake of defending "one country, two systems"; we oppose the co-location arrangement because we opine that the implementation of the co-location arrangement would amount to "co-location arrangement by ceding the territory of Hong Kong to the Mainland".

Why do we call it "co-location arrangement by ceding the territory of Hong Kong to the Mainland"? It is because according to international experience, even when a co-location arrangement model is adopted, neither of the places concerned will forego its jurisdiction or criminal jurisdiction over the port area. For example, the Eurostar train terminus lies between Britain and France, where there is a distinct border separating the two jurisdictions. The current situation in Hong Kong is, however, all in a mess and a monster is meant be created as a result. This monster is located in the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") of West Kowloon Station which is regarded as an area lying within the Mainland for the purposes of the application of the laws of the Mainland where its jurisdiction belongs to the Mainland and law enforcement will be carried out by Mainland officers. Nevertheless, there are six reserved matters that we should take note of.

I have no idea how the six reserved matters (including employment, insurance, and basic electrical and mechanical safety, etc.) will be carried out. As Secretary Frank CHAN is familiar with electrical and mechanical matters, I would like to ask him a question: In case an electrical and mechanical officer/technician is in conflict with a Mainlander inside the MPA of the West Kowloon station, where the electrical and mechanical officer/technician said that he is discharging his duties. Yet, the Mainland law enforcement officer still put him under arrest purely because the Mainlander is his relative. In this case, who will help him fight for justice. And where should the case be tried? There will not be any definite answers.

Furthermore, since the MPA cannot be regarded as an area which is not a part of Hong Kong territory, we still have to discharge all our obligations under all international agreements/treaties in the MPA of which Hong Kong is a signatory. In other words, it becomes an area under a three-tiered judicial system. Any incident that takes place in the area will have to be reported to multiple judicial bodies, including international law courts, the United Nations and local law courts. The MPA is mainly governed by the laws of the Mainland except for the six reserved matters. And so the situation will be rather complicated and confusing. What can we do to eliminate this monster actually?

12632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

What is even more stunning is, a moving border will appear under the co-location arrangement, which is totally unprecedented in the world. This border will move over to the West Kowloon Station as the train enters Hong Kong, where the train compartments considered to be part of the Mainland territory will soon become Hong Kong territory at the very moment when the train leaves the West Kowloon Station for Shek Kong. I think they are so incredible indeed in creating such a peculiar situation with the presence of an area under a three-tiered judicial system plus a moving border and a split-second switch of jurisdiction over the train compartments. Any Mainlander who intends to enter Hong Kong illegally needs only to hide inside the train compartment and by the moment the train leaves for Shek Kong, he has already entered Hong Kong. It is that simple in fact. And smuggling of goods can be done in the same way. Goods can be smuggled into Hong Kong from the Mainland by train and need not undergo any clearance procedures.

In addition, we have to deal with the issue of public health. It is normal for both sides to, such as during the SARS period, implement respective preventive measures against infectious diseases at an ordinary port area, Back then, while we worried that SARS virus would be transmitted into Hong Kong from the Mainland, the Mainland authorities also had the same worry that virus might be transmitted into the Mainland from Hong Kong. However, if we are under the currently proposed co-location arrangement, given the different approaches adopted by Hong Kong and Mainland authorities in the release of information, we may still know whether any passengers on board the train entering Hong Kong are infected with SARS due to public access to information in Hong Kong even if reporting of any SARS news in the Guangdong and Shenzhen areas is prohibited. That means we can still attempt to stop the infected passenger, if any, from entering Hong Kong. Yet, President, I do not know if we can do so. Please make clear this point to us. If the infected people are allowed to have direct entry into the core district of Hong Kong, how are we supposed to keep public health and the transmission of infectious diseases under control? Actually, there is nothing we can do. But things will be different for an ordinary port area where both sides can proceed directly to intercept the infected patients right at the border. This can never done under the co-location arrangement, however.

It is precisely because of this that we had spent a long while discussing all related issues. We proposed in our amendments that only immigration, customs and quarantine procedures and not any other process should be conducted if the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12633 co-location arrangement has to be implemented, but they simply rejected our proposal and insisted surrendering to the Mainland in full the jurisdiction concerned. The monster is thus created. Worse still, transparency of information has been absent. Stalling for a whole decade, the Government has yet to give an account of any progress made. But then, it submitted the Bill to this Council all of a sudden and each member of the pro-establishment camp, ranging from the President to all pro-establishment Members of this Council responded automatically by taking his or her position, all acted as expected, just like Mrs Regina IP who became the Chairman of the Bills Committee on Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill. They tried all their might to secure passage of the Bill by means of distorting the Rules of Procedure as far as they could, abusing power, and not allowing us to speak or raise questions. On the other hand, the Government did not disclose any information, including withholding from us the information about the amount of loss and the estimated number of passengers. We have no idea if Hong Kong people will have to shoulder the financial burden in case the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") record any loss in this respect in future. Also, we know nothing about the contents of the cooperation agreement currently made between the Government and the MTRCL. The Government only said that we will be informed in due course.

We, as responsible Legislative Council Members, should definitely not let the Bill be passed by this Council apart from opposing it totally, given its illegal and unconstitutional nature.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of Third Reading. My speech mainly aims to refute the opposition camp's viewpoints and nonsense. Before I do so, I must also point out that the co-location arrangement must be implemented as a means to maximize the benefits of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"). This is a "set meal", the most popular "set meal" every day.

Previous public opinion surveys have all along indicated that over half of the people support the relevant arrangement. So, it is absolutely reasonable to endorse the motion. Without the co-location arrangement, XRL will turn into "scrap metal". And at the same time, this may even affect and jeopardize Hong Kong's efforts to expand and maintain its regional roles while also hindering its future participation in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area. The 12634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 resultant loss will be immeasurable. Actually, "on-board clearance" is not feasible, and conducting clearance procedures at Futian Station is likewise a vicious proposal. I say so because apparently, it aims to enable XRL to commission service, but it is actually intended to strangle XRL to death.

President, many opposition Members talked about legal grounds and the Basic Law as their basis just now. I must emphasize that Article 1 of the Basic Law already stipulates, "The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China." Talks about cession definitely contravene Article 1 of the Basic Law. Have they withdrawn their remarks? Talks about cession definitely involve "Hong Kong independence" thoughts. But they have blatantly contravened the Basic Law all the same. Apparently, they claim that it is necessary to uphold the Basic Law. But in reality, they are the very first to undermine the Basic Law and use the Basic Law as the shield. Why do I say so? If they think the greatest controversy lies in legal arrangements and the relevant Basic Law provisions, they actually need not put forth 24 amendments and proposals to advance or postpone the commissioning of XRL. The relevant amendments are all unnecessary. Mr Gary FAN is the frankest with us. He kept talking about the anti-XRL atmosphere and sentiments in the past, in the hope of inciting those involved to step forward and join them. In gist, they merely want to sustain such anti-XRL sentiments, and all their hard work is only intended to hinder the commissioning of XRL. Actually, they are groundless.

President, I must also raise the issue of time control. Just now, the opposition camp argued that they were given insufficient or even no time to speak. But as everybody could see on television, they kept requesting a headcount. All along, this has been their filibustering tactic, and they have resorted to filibustering as a means of wasting our time. Then, they will claim that they are not given sufficient time to speak. This honestly cannot stand to reason. Ms Tanya CHAN was the first Member who requested to put forth an adjournment motion in her speech when the Second Reading debate was resumed, and the time for debate was therefore reduced. At the same time, most opposition Members already stated their grounds during the adjournment motion debate, and each Member was given 15 minutes to speak. Why did the 20 Members or so fail to state all their grounds all the same despite having 15 minutes to speak? They would not have repeated their arguments over and over again except for the reason that they had not divided their duties among themselves and merely wanted to waste our time.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12635

President, here is my last point. As far as I remember, WONG Kwok-hing, a Member of the previous-term legislature, was also infuriated when handling the supplementary appropriation request concerning XRL because he was discontented to see that the opposition camp continued to use the anti-XRL sentiments to hinder the passage of the relevant motion. As I remember, he said at the time, "The opposition camp should not take XRL in the future because you people oppose it from the very beginning." President, my view differs slightly from that of former Member WONG Kwok-hing. I think the opposition camp will "oppose it no matter what today and try to grab the front seats tomorrow". Actually, it is very possible that they will take XRL in the future. Here, I sincerely ask Hong Kong people to recognize them and remember to say "Hello" to them on board XRL trains. What Mr Charles Peter MOK said sounds better. This morning, he did not say that he would not take XRL. He merely said that he would not wear a smile when taking XRL. This means that he may take XRL, only that he will pull a long face when doing so. I hope that by that time, people can walk up to him, comfort him, and ask him, "The journey time is much shorter. Why do you pull a long face at the same?"

I hope the President can assist and guide us in the expeditious passage of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill.

Thank you, President.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, let me talk about the filibustering first. In 2009, the SAR Government and the Central Government put on a show in the Legislative Council. The Government at the time wanted to extend the high-speed rail to the heart of Hong Kong and tabled a funding proposal to us in 2010. We specifically asked at that time whether we needed to implement the co-location arrangement for the high-speed rail, and Eva CHENG said the high-speed rail could go without the arrangement. The Government took the time from 2010 to early 2018 to submit the Bill. Exactly who is filibustering?

In 2014, the Government gave us a load of reasons, from cost overruns, flooding to difficult geographical conditions. In the previous Legislative Council, the cost overruns aside, the Government should at least tell us the customs, immigration and quarantine arrangements and the progress on considering the co-location arrangement. Prof Anthony CHEUNG told us nothing; and Rimsky YUEN had a memory loss and told us nothing as well. The Government has procrastinated until now, in 2018. How could it accuse us 12636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 of filibustering? The Government only submitted the Bill in the first quarter of 2018. It knew that it had to force the Bill through this Council. Exactly who had been filibustering? Who behaved badly? How could it blame us of filibustering?

Second, I heard a Member cite the words of John TSANG, saying that this Council used to be a place for gentlemen and ladies to debate. I almost spurted the liquid I drank at that time. Now you will only find thugs here. All are thugs, pompous thugs. The Government is made up of thugs. The Chairman of the Bills Committee is a thug. Public Officers are thugs. Forget about the gentlemen and ladies. A political party member who threw a "pineapple" has now become a new star, and a member of the Executive Council. People who threw a "pineapple" can be awarded a Grand Bauhinia Medal. Those bootlickers and "shoe-shiners" can become Executive Council members and Directors of Bureaux. How good is that! They certainly hope that the Express Rail Link ("XRL") can be commissioned sooner, so that they can take the ride and enjoy the wealth and rank in the Mainland and betray Hong Kong people …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please come back to the subject of the debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I am going to. You belong to the group of gentlemen and ladies as well. Today, we can only see acts of the thugs, and the acts of the Government are an eyesore. Carrie LAM was overwhelmed with official authority yesterday. She did not bother to answer Members' questions, not only questions raised by the Democratic Party, but also a question on property prices by a pro-establishment Member. She would opt for the co-location arrangement as long as she can get the job done, or as long as it is favoured by "Grandpa". This is an example of a good official. What is wrong with that? Wake up, Hong Kong people.

Nothing is more important than political missions. Some people ask how the co-location arrangement is related to political missions. Have we ever thought about the reason why DENG Xiaoping rolled out the Basic Law and advocated 50 years of an unchanged way of life? We may still remember how panic Hong Kong people felt after the 1989 pro-democracy movement and how people emigrated to other countries in the run-up to 1997. At that time, DENG Xiaoping brought the Basic Law onto the table and made it clear that the way of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12637 life in Hong Kong would be preserved and remain unchanged. And then at the time of JIANG Zemin, what did he say? He said river water would not interfere with well water. He set out a clear policy, and that is, the practices adopted in the Mainland could not, and should not, be adopted in Hong Kong. This is a major reason why Hong Kong remains viable today, why people still come here to invest and why the stock market and property market still thrive. If national security legislation or a local law on Article 23 is enacted in Hong Kong, senior Mainland officials will immediately withdraw their money here, won't they?

They tell us the co-location arrangement is adopted in Canada and the United States, and the United Kingdom and France as well. Do they know the word "shame"? All the countries they cite are Western democratic countries. How much I hope that the target we discuss today is a Western democratic country. Does China have democracy? Is it on par with us in this regard? The senior officials are clever. They do not even let their children stay in Hong Kong. They move all their money to the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. The co-location arrangement is implemented in these places. Wake up! I know their children are in those places.

So, they can save their bullshit in front of us. What do they say? They say the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") is supreme. It is written in the Constitution of the State that the people are the greatest; workers come before the farmers and soldiers. However, let us look at the workers in the Mainland. They have not rights. They do not have the freedom to strike and to assembly. They do not have freedom of speech. The Communist Party can press the people for money. Stop lying here!

If the NPCSC is elected by all people in China through "one person, one vote", it can, like what they say, adopt the co-location arrangement like what the United Kingdom, the United States and France have been doing. Regrettably, this is not the case. Regrettably, having seen the bitter experiences of LI Wangyang, LIU Xiaobo, WANG Quanzhang and LIU Xia, and China's political regime in an utter shambles, Hong Kong people are worried. So, is it true that young people are, as they claim, looking forward to the XRL? Let me tell you. Young people in Hong Kong today are devastated. Young people who still have hopes and would still speak out have been put to jail, or disqualified of being a Member of this Council …

12638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, this is my second reminder to you. Please come back to the subject of the debate.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am. These matters make me hold back my support to the co-location arrangement. Many people say that the NPCSC is the supreme organ and its interpretation of the Basic Law is supreme. I thus need to respond to pro-establishment Members. Hong Kong people become more disappointed and hopeless with each interpretation made by the NPCSC. The interpretation of 2004 took away the chance to conduct the dual elections in 2007 and 2008 by universal suffrage; instead, the elections had to go through a "five-step mechanism". Our likelihood of having universal suffrage hinges on the endorsement of the NPCSC or the Mainland. And the answer is that we are unlikely to have universal suffrage.

In 2018, that is 10 years later, there is still no sign of having universal suffrage, not to mention any discussion about it. This is how the Interpretations of the NPCSC work. The Interpretation of 2016 disqualified the Legislative Council Members before the court actually made the ruling. Now you get it. This is how the whole plan works. Look, after the few Members were disqualified, the Government can have its proposals passed smoothly in this Council. If the Government still has a smallest sense of shame, it would not have brought up this subject and should have found a hole to hide itself.

Some people say the Greater Bay Area is something good. Actually, it serves only as a means to implement the co-location arrangement. There is a clear purpose behind their hard promotion of the Greater Bay Area, the XRL and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. They want to muddle up the concept of "one country, two systems", the boundary of Hong Kong and the identity of Hong Kong people. Their ultimate aim is to implement "one country, one system", a devastating approach not just to Hong Kong, but also to the Mainland. Even DENG Xiaoping was aware of the need to leave some leeway when he proclaimed the Basic Law, so as to instil in the people the idea that China would become a more open, more responsible and democratic society in the following 50 years, so that the two societies could be better connected 50 years later.

But the situation now is even worse than the situation then. When DENG Xiaoping pressed ahead with the reform and opening up of China, many people in China, and also in Hong Kong, had a common belief. They believed that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12639 country was changing for the better. More people chose to study abroad and were prepared to contribute to society when they came back. They believed the economy would do better. In the end, corruption in China today is many times worse than the time of DENG Xiaoping. In the past, officers of the People's Liberation Army did not dare to stock up boxfuls of money, and the wealth of corrupt officials would not reach hundred millions dollars. Now, corrupt officials store their money in the United States. If DENG Xiaoping was still alive now, he would have come out and give the present political regime a serious dress down …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you have strayed far from the subject. Please come back to the subject of the debate, or I will order you to stop speaking.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): You want to kick me out again? I know. You want to kick everybody out. That would make your life much easier.

I was talking about the Basic Law. Who would abide by the Basic Law here? Article 18 of the Basic Law provides that national laws shall not be applied in Hong Kong. This is the fundamental principle that we say the co-location arrangement violates the Constitution. All the public officers, like Frank CHAN whom the Government sent here today, have been saying a lot of things, but does he know anything about the rule of law? Where is Teresa CHENG? She should be here to answer our questions, explain why the arrangement will not undermine the Constitution, and explain how the arrangement can be implemented without violating the Constitution. She refuses to confront the issue and I do not know where she has gone. Instead, Frank CHAN who is inarticulate and only reads from his script is sent here to tell us everything is done. Would he please use his brain.

All the officials from the Department of Justice who attended the meetings of the Bills Committee did not answer our questions. They only said that everything was ready. They stressed the need to comply with the principle of proportionality in one meeting, and then said in another meeting that the principle was inapplicable. They said whatever they wanted to. Public officers are good at "double talk". How despicable! They asked us to take the matter to the court if we find the co-location arrangement not a feasible solution. They 12640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 expected long ago that people would challenge the arrangement at courts. How could they say something like this? Senior officials in the Department of Justice at the time of LEUNG Chun-ying used to accuse people of abusing the courts; but now these officials contrarily urge us to file a judicial review if we are not happy with the arrangement.

The Bill is full of loopholes. Instead of plugging the loopholes at the Bills Committee, the Government chose to force the Bill through the Bills Committee and this Council. The Government does everything by force and then accuses others of challenging it. The Government has degenerated to such an extent that it does not even make proper explanation. Is there something wrong with the Government? If the Government is determined to handle Article 18 of the Basic Law with such an attitude, or justify the way it explains the Basic Law, how could the Bill not be passed? All along from 2009 the Government has been lying. Hong Kong people, wake up!

Panyu or Shenzhen will become the transit station for most rail routes. Passengers going to Guangzhou will have to spend time on switching trains at the transit station and the fare costs over $200. Anyone opting for this route would be an idiot. But this does not matter because Hong Kong people are not the one to decide anyway. Another point is even more interesting. The Government says that people who will not opt for the XRL can disregard the Bill. But the Legislative Council is governed by some ordinances; and all places are governed by some laws. It would be disastrous if one thinks that people who do not take the XRL can disregard this Bill.

Does it mean that people who go nowhere can ignore 90% of the ordinances in Hong Kong? Can people who do not come to the Legislative Council disregard the ordinances concerning the Legislative Council? Can people who do not go to police stations disregard the related ordinances? How could the Government distort the logics to such an extent? If a person does not use the Mainland Port Area of XRL where the co-location arrangement will be implement, can he disregard that part of the ordinance? Can he be exempted from that part of the ordinance and do whatever he wants? Then, does it mean that people who do not purchase a flat can ignore the Stamp Duty Ordinance? Can people who do not rent a flat ignore rent-related ordinances? If people can freely ignore the ordinances, will there be any rule of law? What kind of rule of law is this? This is a reckless change of the goal, and a mindless proposal of unlawful concepts.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12641

Some defenders of the Government are Members of the legal sectors and some are even professors of law. This Council is full of shoe-shining and bootlicking Members. Who will speak for Hong Kong people here? We do not care about the $90-odd billion. We know we cannot get the money back. We even expect something like the "derailment" incident will take place. We saw those examples in the Mainland and we know something like that may happen. We can let the Government take all the money with its tricks and spend all the funding on a "slow-speed rail", but we have to defend one point, and that is we cannot let the Government undermine the Basic Law and "one country, two systems". This is the most important thing. This is something even more expansive than the XRL. But today, we saw them being damaged in the Legislative Council. The loss is more dear than the XRL and more expensive than the so-call economic loss in the future. But what can we say in front of these puppets?

I so submit and oppose the Bill.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, the reason why Hong Kong people oppose the co-location arrangement is simple. It is because the legal system of communist China is unacceptable to Hong Kong society.

The general public think that communist China is ripped of a legal system. They have even asserted that they are capricious, and this has aroused confusion among people. Certainly, this comment is based not only on our memory of the remote past since 1989. The incident involving the Causeway Bay Books three years ago has likewise aroused public queries about whether Mainland China has any laws in force. This actually means that the Chinese Communist Party has set up courts and enacted laws, only that most people think that the court or judiciary under the Chinese Communist Party merely serves as a political tool for political purposes. To put it more accurately, they are a tool serving the People's Congress at various levels. That is to say, the Mainland's legal system is simply not vested with any power to exercise checks and balances on the Government. This is one reason why we expressly oppose the setting up of the Mainland Port Area ("MPA") in Hong Kong for the co-location arrangement and also the surrender of Hong Kong's jurisdiction to the Mainland like handing over our kidney to them.

12642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Certainly, perhaps some pro-establishment Members will disagree with me and argue that all this is based on my one-sided understanding. Let me spend some time on explaining the legal system of Mainland China. Courts in China are divided into four levels: the Supreme People's Court, the Higher People's Court, the Intermediate People's Court and the Basic People's Court. Certainly, special military courts will be set up sometimes, but this is not very common. There are four levels of People's Courts on the Mainland. But courts under the Chinese Communist Party adhere to one fundamental principle, the principle that "lower courts are subordinate to higher courts". What does this mean? It means that the final verdict on a case handed down by a judge at a certain level of court is not based on precedents, facts, submissions and trial. Rather, the various proceedings are bound by the final decision of a higher court.

Members may ask, "Doesn't this show that they have procedures and a system in place?" All is not that simple. The reason is that judges are partial in the trial process. This is so not only because they implement an appointment system. And generally, Mainland courts will form an Adjudication Committee before court hearings, and around 10 or 20 cases can be handled at each such hearing. An Adjudication Committee will decide on the conviction or otherwise of the defendant in a case before the verdict is delivered. This process is devoid of the element of "benefit of doubt" as laymen understand it; neither is it based on the premise that "everybody is equal before the law". This is a fundamental difference. The whole process is likewise ripped of the basic proceedings I mentioned just now, such as conducting trial, making submissions and delivering the verdict. Rather, it is based on the decision made before the commencement of court hearings. This is totally different from our system.

But a complication is that this process often sees the participation of two special types of people: First, ministers from political departments or relevant personnel; and second, people from the Party branch. It is inconceivable to us to see the Party branch in courts. If the co-location arrangement is endorsed, Hong Kong people will have to face all such weird things within Hong Kong's territory should any MPA-related lawsuit arise.

Regarding our opposition and queries, some may argue that I have merely given a brief account of China's legal system. But actually, we often hear some sayings. What is the principle adopted by their courts as the central guiding ideology for their People's Courts? Three "top priorities": First, "the cause of the Party as the top priority"; second, "the interests of the people as the top priority"; and third, "the Constitution and laws as the top priority". After LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12643 hearing this, Members already know that they are contradictory to one another. But in Mainland China as we know it today, these three "top priorities"―the Party, the people and the Constitution―are actually not of supreme importance. Rather, "XI Jingping is supreme". How can people possibly stop worrying? I must briefly explain why this is a worry to people. Members can come to imagine this. Suppose the surname of a person's father is JIANG. Will he be worried? He must be worried because he does not consider the Party to be supreme. Therefore, why do we from the Hong Kong side oppose the setting up of MPA? The reason is that in gist, the legal system of communist China is unacceptable to Hong Kong society.

Members may say that my speech is based on my one-sided understanding of the matter. Certainly, in the process of reform and opening up, we were honestly deluded by Mainland China at one point, or else I would not have been so naïve to enrol on a doctoral programme in sociology at the Law School of Peking University when I was young back in those days. I am a graduate of its Law School. Why was I so naïve then? There was a case in 1990, and it was the first case which shook the judicial sector in the history of China's constitutional development. People thought that Mainland China would develop towards judicialization. That case is the QI Yuling case. In that case, a village girl with very good academic results …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please return to the topic of this debate.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, I already returned to this debate long ago. I have not digressed from the debate topic all along.

This case points out … Actually, a case took place in Mainland China, and it stopped us from further questioning the situation of China, unlike the present proposal of setting up MPA under the co-location arrangement, which has instead aroused our queries. What is this case all about? The facts of the case are simple. President, please listen to me as you are so bored.

QI Yuling was a village girl from Shandong. Due to her outstanding academic results, she was given the opportunity to study …

12644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, you have digressed from the topic. Please return to the topic of this debate.

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Forget it then! I will stop telling the story. Let me point out the conclusion.

This was the first case in China's history where a rich woman was fined $100,000 for committing identity fraud whereby she got a job at the People's Bank of China. However, because that rich woman was about to get married, the village girl found out that their names were the same when she received her wedding invitation card. And after looking at some old photographs, the village girl then discovered that the rich woman had been admitted to university as her imposter. This is the first case about the judicial development of China's Constitution in its history. But what has happened after this case? Since then, political documents or courts in China have been barred from citing this case and holding related discussions because the case is very similar to statute law in common law. This explains why I must reiterate that China's court proceedings or laws must not be applied to Hong Kong society.

Let me turn back to talk about a viewpoint that the President wants to hear most. Just now, many Members stressed that the co-location arrangement was ripped of any constitutional basis, saying that it would jeopardize and take away the jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts, in particular. One salient feature of the legal system of Mainland China is the absence of the power of judicial review. This means that the court has no power to challenge the Government. But this power is precisely the most important part of Hong Kong's rule of law.

At this point of my speech, I wish to add a fact. Just now, many pan-democratic Members (especially those from the Civic Party) kept stressing that the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") ran counter to the proportionality test in the laws of Hong Kong. This is a legal terminology, which refers to a principle or concept. But politically, this principle is underpinned by a simple point, the point that a government is subject to constitutional restraints. In English, this is called "the idea of existence of a limited government". The emphasis is on the word "limited". That is to say, a limited government should be restrained by its constitution. The court's power of judicial review is the most important power to restrain a government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12645

Why is this related to the proportionality test? Before the 1980s, when Hong Kong was still under colonial rule, the Government was certainly not monitored by the court. But Britain signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") in 1976 and became a signatory to this international covenant which was adopted by the United Nations. It recognized that the government of a country should be sanctioned if it oppressed its people. But this international covenant was not directly applicable to the local judicial system, and it could be enforced only after it was enacted into local legislation. Therefore, during the period between 1976 and 1991, Hong Kong formally enacted the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance ("the Bill of Rights Ordinance") to recognize speech freedom and equal right of political participation for Hong Kong people and also confer greater power on the court. Since then, Hong Kong's courts have been vested with the power to handle judicial reviews based on the proportionality test. This is the whole background.

I hope that everybody (especially Hong Kong people) can understand that the proportionality test is not a legal terminology as such. In 1991, Hong Kong's Court of Appeal cited the Canadian case R. v Oakes and pointed out that the proportionality test comprised two parts: First, to examine whether the Government's measures and policies are unconstitutional as the preliminary; and second, to examine the justifiability of a law, with the burden of proof on the Government. In our entire discussion, the Government has so far failed to explain why the co-location arrangement is constitutional. And actually, the co-location arrangement has been in breach of the Bill of Rights Ordinance all along. If I institute a lawsuit against the Government on this―sadly though, I do not have money―I will win for sure.

Regrettably, what is stated under clause 8(1)(b) will become inapplicable after the passage of the Bill. In that case, people will be ripped of the right to initiate judicial reviews. By this, I mean that the Bill, if passed today, will contravene the Bill of Rights Ordinance enacted in 1991―let me put aside the issue of unconstitutionality for the time being. President, will this point alone perplex you? In the CHONG Fung-yuen case in 1999, the court must seek the interpretation of the Basic Law by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress because the two ordinances involved conflicted with each other. The Bill conflicts with the Bill of Rights Ordinance. But why do the authorities think that there is no such need? He has pointed out that there is no such need. But why? He knows nothing.

12646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

I hope Members can understand the repercussions of denying the enforcement of the relevant international covenant in MPA. I must tell Hong Kong people that a place in Hong Kong will be deprived of speech freedom and legal protection, and our lives and properties will therefore be exposed to fear. The case is the same as the incident involving the Causeway Bay Books. So, what are we supposed to do? This is the problem we are facing at present. Certainly, we can only accept it at this moment. But Members can consider a scenario very carefully. When the people of a place can be deprived of their rights … Actually, the universal suffrage we have been striving for is derived from ICCPR. ICCPR and the Bill of Rights Ordinance probably include the right of universal suffrage. This was laid down before 1997. But the Government can deny us of this right today. During the short span of some 25 or 26 years since 1991, Hong Kong has nonetheless degenerated into such a deplorable state. Who should be held responsible for this? Certainly, Hong Kong people should be held responsible because we are lack of vision and too stupid.

Here comes my final conclusion. Our objection to the Bill may be explained by issues such as geographical boundary, unclear administrative responsibility or the absence of a constitutional basis in law. But I wish to tell Members unequivocally and frankly that as long as the Government can do one thing, we may conditionally accept this ridiculous, ambiguous and weird Bill: The Government should base on Article 22 of the Basic Law. According to Article 22 of the Basic Law, "No department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law." The setting up of MPA is in breach of the Basic Law, in breach of Article 22 of the Basic Law. I believe the Government's enactment of an ordinance called "Anti-interference Law" in short can better put people's mind at ease.

I resolutely oppose the Third Reading of the Bill. I so submit.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, Dr CHENG Chung-tai has just given us quite a good lecture on law, and if I were still young, it would have aroused my interest to enrol in some law programmes. Although I do not have the wild wishes that this would bring me a doctoral degree, the fact that I am an undergraduate in law can already help to enrich my legal knowledge.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12647

In this speech that I am going to deliver in the Third Reading debate of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"), I will maintain my stance of opposing the Bill. This is not due to the fact that I did not have a chance to speak during the Second Reading debate, but owing to several reasons that I have mentioned during Committee stage. Mr Charles Peter MOK has just said jokingly that he might travel on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") in the future, and people also opined that pan-democratic Members would, as I have described, compete to be the first to travel on XRL, so why not have the Bill passed?

In my opinion, according to the legal viewpoints elaborated by Dr CHENG Chung-tai just now, anyone who uses the Mainland Port Area in Hong Kong when travelling on XRL in the future should first be prepared for a loss of personal freedom, because Mainland laws shall be applicable in the Mainland Port Area. However, oddly enough, passengers are in fact physically in Hong Kong, and this can reflect an interesting point about the Bill, that is, the Mainland Port Area is actually a concession area as described by Dr CHENG Chung-tai. Although it involves no cession of territory, a concession area will be established, thus making it impossible to make the laws of Hong Kong applicable in the area.

With regard to this concession area, President, I do not mean to make repetition, but as I have mentioned when I was speaking on the amendments, I have done some researches on the issue of concession area, and understand that it does involve certain confusions. For example, the French Concession in Shanghai back then and the Kuomintang Government each had its own laws, thus giving rise to a lot of problems. However, this is not the key point of the debate today. The key point today is: Given that the Bill will render the Mainland Port Area a concession area, in which Mainland laws instead of the laws of Hong Kong shall be applicable, the problem of "one Hong Kong, two systems" as I mentioned previously will occur.

President, problems have indeed arisen. The Bill is still at its deliberation stage, and we all understand that it will be put to vote and passed later at 10 pm, but it will give rise to some problems that the Government would completely not dare to answer directly. For example, is the Bill unconstitutional? Has it violated the law? What legal basis does it have? These are some questions that the Hong Kong Bar Association, senior counsels and even the Department of Justice cannot answer directly. The Hong Kong Bar Association and some senior members of the legal sector have even pointed out that the problems concerning the legal basis of the Bill can have an impact on Articles 18, 20 and 12648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

22 of the Basic Law. I am not going to go into the detail again because some other colleagues might have already provided the relevant information during the Second Reading debate, and there were also fellow colleagues speaking on similar arguments just now. Yet, even so, I reckon that the Bill will be passed 45 minutes or one hour later.

As a matter of fact, the Bill will be passed although a major contradiction exists in its legal basis. I have been serving the Legislative Council for more than 10 years, and have witnessed the passage of some so-called "draconian" laws, but such laws are considered draconian because by imposing the relevant regulation, they have failed to uphold social justice or safeguard public interests in a civil society. However, the draconian law to be passed this time is different in that upon passage, it will create impact on the essence of law, and apart from a weak legal basis, it is unconstitutional and is in violation of the Basic Law.

Mr Dennis KWOK and other Members have pointed out that the decision of the National People's Congress might not necessarily be made with a sound legal basis, and I dare not comment on the matter lightly since I am not a member of the legal sector. However, judging from usual logic, the Bill we are going to endorse today does not only have a weak legal basis but also a lot of contradictions that have not yet been clarified. I am not referring to its specific provisions, because it has already been provided very clearly that an area would be leased to the Mainland authorities for the establishment of a Mainland Port Area. Yet, it has not been made clear in the Bill that with regard to Mainland law enforcement officers performing duties and Hong Kong people who are physically in the Mainland Port Area, what legal rights and responsibilities will they respectively have. As for the six types of reserved matters provided in the Bill, how exactly will they be handled? What will be done when an incident actually occurs? Everything is so vague because the legal basis of the Bill is very weak, and would it be a little bit strange for us to pass a bill like this today?

Being aware of such problems, some of our colleagues have proposed different amendments to the Bill with an actually very obvious intention, but colleagues of the pro-establishment camp criticized these amendments for "demonizing" the matter. However, I think the original intention of proposing such amendments is to choose the lesser of two evils. Since there is no way to prevent passage of the Bill, we might as well propose some amendments to the Bill to contain the problem of unconstitutionality with its legal basis and some of its specific provisions. For example, Members have tried to tackle the issue by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12649 proposing amendments concerning the commencement date of the Bill or the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, so as to strengthen the protection of Hong Kong people's rights, but all of these amendments have been negatived. Under such circumstances, it would indeed be impossible for us to support the Third Reading of the Bill at this stage, when there are contradictions in its legal basis and ambiguities in its legal principles, and when Members have tried to propose amendments to the Bill but to no avail. It is a matter of legal principles, but with regard to this argument, I will not repeat my point, and will try not to digress from the subject and continue with my elaboration.

One of the reasons why I think we cannot support or we must oppose the Third Reading of the Bill is that both the Basic Law and the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council have provided clearly that after a bill is introduced into the Legislative Council, it should be subject to very stringent procedures of deliberation before it can be enacted to impose regulation within the territory of Hong Kong. However, the situation is rather special for the current case, and with regard to the role of the President, if my memory serves me right, his powers come from Article 72 of the Basic Law and he has the highest authority in this Council. Under Rule 1B of the Rules of Procedure, we all agree that the President of the Legislative Council ranks first among all Members and is an important figure.

However, Rules 51 to 56 of the Rules of Procedure have also provided for the entire legislative process of a bill from its presentation, First Reading to Third Reading. Particularly, Rule 54(3) has clearly stipulated how a bill should be handled during Second Reading, such as allowing sufficient time for Members to speak on a motion that the bill be read the Second time, so that they can debate on the general merits and principles of the bill, but it seems to me that this was not the case during our deliberation of the Bill. Rule 57 has provided for the rules governing the processing of amendments to a bill by a committee of the whole Council, and owing to various reasons, the President has exercised his powers to process amendments proposed to the Bill. Reference has been made to the Basic Law and it appears to me that Article 72(6) thereof might form the basis of the decision made by the President in this regard, but under such circumstances, does the President really have the power to compress our time for debating on the Bill, or draw a line or cut off the filibuster as we call it? This is a query I have to raise on the possible distortion of the legislative process and the compression of debate time.

12650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Frankly speaking, it is a nice surprise to me that I can luckily have a chance to speak at this Third Reading stage, because I was a bit late when pressing the "Request to speak" button, and there were more than 20 Members before me in the queue, making it highly likely that I would again be denied a chance to speak. However, President, one point I wish to raise is that during the entire legislative process in this Council, although you as the President do have the highest authority under Rule 1B of the Rules of Procedure and Article 72 of the Basic Law, you have compressed, restricted and distorted the whole process provided in the Rules of Procedure for the First Reading, Second Reading, Committee stage and the final stage of Third Reading of the Bill. Under such circumstances, coupled with the fact that the Bill itself is a draconian law, how can it be possible for us to support the Third Reading of the Bill at this stage and have it passed?

It is argued that we can endorse the Bill for the time being, because as in previous cases, anyone who object to its passage can always apply for judicial review against its enactment. However, with regard to the issue of having checks and balances as elaborated by Dr CHENG Chung-tai just now, I think the intention behind is to impose restrictions on the Government's powers as the English word "limit" suggests, but upon passage of the Bill, I do not think it can achieve such a constitutional function that it should has. Since the Bill has an unclear and weak legal basis, has given rise to many disputes and may be unconstitutional, what will happen if it is really endorsed?

Someone also opined that the enactment of the Bill would help to ensure the operation of XRL, and the Bill is thus very important, but as I have clearly explained in my speech delivered during the Committee stage, what we are going to discuss today is not the operation of XRL or its pros and cons. There were Members suggesting that upon passage of the Bill, the Government would strive to introduce more fare concessions for passengers, provide train services to more destinations, and so on, but all these are operational matters of XRL. The intention of XRL is very clear, and its major concept and principle is to connect Hong Kong with the Mainland, so that Hong Kong will be linked up with various parts of the country via different transport systems on the Mainland.

However, President, the Bill has nothing to do with the operation of XRL, because it is stipulated in the Bill that an area within Hong Kong will be designated as a concession area, where a lot of legal principles and constitutional checks and balances under the legal system of Hong Kong shall not be applicable. As for the entire legislative process, let us not talk about the difficulties faced by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12651

Mrs IP in her capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee, but judging solely from the Second Reading and Third Reading procedures we have gone through in this Council, we can see that they are plagued with problems as the President has exercised his powers to limit and distort the whole process and compress our debate time. I have to apologize because I am repeating myself here, but under such circumstances, how can I be satisfied that proper procedures have already been followed in reaching the relevant decision?

The only justification that the Government can put forward is that after the meeting today, we have completed the "Three-step process", but I would like to ask the Government: Is the legislative process of this proper procedure that we have gone through a complete one? Can we achieve the objectives of ensuring that the legislation enacted is not unconstitutional, and minimizing the long-term impact brought to Hong Kong by such controversies on legal matters? I hope the Government can consider such issues seriously and provide answers to my questions. For the above reasons, President, I consider it not possible for me to support the Third Reading of the Bill. Thank you, President.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, I have written a lot in my original speech to criticize, in the first place, how imperious you are when presiding over the meetings, and how you have deprived Members of their right to speak. But is it very meaningful to criticize you now? President, I have been a legislator for over 20 years and I can tell you that at this moment, I am speaking with a very heavy heart. I hope that God can guard my mind so that I can spell out my viewpoints. Because the damage to "one country, two systems", Hong Kong or the country caused by other cases in the past, such as the falling through of the constitutional reform or the legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law, cannot be compared with the damage caused by the passage of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill") now under our discussion. President, I only hope that I can spell out the following arguments, or with pure sentiments, I remain hopeful that the Almighty God can change history, or the highest leaders can, after careful consideration, rectify the situation with their decisions and remedial measures in the future.

President, during the Second Reading of the Bill, I did not have a chance to speak. I am not going to criticize you any further, although I have written a lot in my original speech to criticize you. Since the Bill is without any amendments in the Second Reading and Third Reading, I believe I can express my reasons of 12652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 opposition, supposed to be raised during the Second Reading, as the reasons for opposing the Third Reading of the Bill.

President, the viewpoint that I have not mentioned earlier is whether the National People's Congress ("NPC") is more superior to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") or vice versa. Of course, I dare not claim myself to be an expert, but I basically know the laws of China, have read the opinions of some Mainland experts, and have lately sought some advice in greatest depth from Mainland experts. I learn that the Basic Law was drawn up by NPC, and this decision made by NPCSC, according to the Government of the Special Administrative Region ("SAR"), is not an interpretation of the law.

NPC can interpret a law, because according to the Mainland laws, NPC can interpret the laws made by it, including the Basic Law. But I believe the Government must have consulted the Mainland experts or the highest authorities in the Mainland before making an announcement that the decision made by NPCSC on the co-location agreement and arrangement is not an interpretation of the law, and that NPCSC can only interpret but not amend the law. It is stipulated in the Basic Law formulated by NPC that Mainland laws are not applicable to Hong Kong. Will the decision on the co-location agreement and arrangement agreed by NPCSC contravene the provisions that Mainland laws are not applicable to Hong Kong under the Basic Law formulated by NPC? This is the question of whether NPC is more superior to NPCSC or vice versa.

President, this is not an issue that Hong Kong should deal with. But Hong Kong has to deal with it because we are now in our legislation work, and we in a way are confirming that NPCSC's decision is above NPC's law. But as insignificant as we are, even if we have made any mistakes, we will only affect Hong Kong. However, if the Central Government is allowed, under the national regime, to instruct SAR to formulate this law and also allows the Hong Kong Legislative Council to legislate on it, this will give rise to a more significant constitutional question, i.e. certain individuals in the Central Government, whom I do not know, are bold enough to instruct the Hong Kong Government to the effect that NPCSC's decision shall override the law made by NPC.

This will also give rise to another issue. The new leader in power of the country says that we need to have a major direction, and that is governing the country according to law. If some people are not governing the country according to law and have made a wrong decision such that we may endorse the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12653

Bill in later, I only hope that the highest leader can consider whether this is governing the country according to law. If the highest leader, after careful consideration, finds out anything improper about this, I also hope that he has the courage, the breath of mind, aspirations and determination to deal with this issue of Hong Kong under the national strategy of governing the country according to law, notwithstanding how many years have been spent on this issue and how many mistakes have been made in the past.

President, based on the above analysis, if this Bill is passed by the Legislative Council tonight, four problems will arise: First, this Bill is still passed even though its passage is known or is suspected to be contravening the Basic Law. Second, despite the insignificance of the Legislative Council in the national regime, the passage of this Bill represents our recognition that NPCSC's decision is above the Basic Law endorsed by NPC, the highest organ of state power. Third, as part of the structure of the SAR Government, the Legislative Council has acted in a certain way which undermines the confidence of the international community, including the people of Taiwan, in "one country, two systems". And fourth, if the Legislative Council tries to turn NPCSC's decision into a part of the laws of Hong Kong, or has led to this objective consequence at the end, it has even made a move of proactively introducing a new practice for the Basic Law, such that an organ outside Hong Kong, in addition to NPC, can legislate for Hong Kong through a certain way.

President, from a macroscopic point of view, the implementation of "one country, two systems" is not only for the sake of Hong Kong, but also for making the whole world believe that China is marching towards civilization and that we are making progress and are progressing. Of course, back at that time, Mr DENG Xiaoping hoped that through the implementation of "one country, two systems" under the Basic Law, Taiwan compatriots could set their minds at ease and consider the issue of peaceful reunification. President, therefore, I think if we pass the Bill in such way tonight to the effect that Mainland laws are applicable to a certain area in Hong Kong in violation to the Basic Law, the implementation of the arrangement under the Bill will lead to the following 10 adverse consequences.

After I have made the explanation, I could lie in my grave without regret. First, this is in violation of the Basic Law formulated by NPC as well as the concept and initial idea of "one country, two systems". Second, this will jeopardize the rule of law, the implementation and enforcement of common law 12654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 in Hong Kong, and will tarnish the image of the rule of law in Hong Kong. Third, further to the above two points, it will affect and damage the status of Hong Kong as the financial centre of the world. Fourth, based on the above three points, it will further affect the status of Hong Kong as the arbitration centre of the world. Fifth, this will affect the implementation, foundation and fulfilment of the Belt and Road Initiative, undermine the China dream and national strategy mentioned by the highest leader of China, and affect the overall development and setup. Sixth, it will also undermine the principle of "one country, two systems" as the only policy and fundamental basis for peaceful reunification of Taiwan, thus losing support from Taiwan people while strengthening separatism among them. Seventh, the international community will further query the implementation of "one country, two systems" and will sympathize more with Taiwan walking towards separatism and independence. Eighth, the international community will have a basis to sympathize with some Hong Kong people and support their views on the issue of "Hong Kong independence", thus further triggering the "Hong Kong independence" crisis. Ninth, the international community will have doubts on whether China will confirm and conform to some international conventions, and its confidence in China's national strategy in governing the country will be shaken. And tenth, recently due to international developments, there are delicate relations with the United States. If the principle of "one country, two systems" is being queried so that the overall image of the country is undermined, the country will be put in a rather unfavourable position under contemporary international developments, especially in the interactions with the United States.

President, I know that in this Chamber of the Legislative Council, not many Members might understand what I just said. It is fine if they do not agree with me, as what is most important is they have tried to understand my arguments. If those in power in China understand my arguments, I have already fulfilled my obligation as a legislator in Hong Kong who cares about the development of our country.

President, if my Lord takes me back to heaven tonight, I will leave with a contented smile, as I have already fulfilled my responsibility by clearly explaining the adverse impact of implementing the co-location arrangement under "one country, two systems".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12655

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, I represent the New People's Party to speak in support of the Third Reading of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill").

As a Member who has served the Legislative Council for 10 years, I have witnessed the grand project of the construction of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL") and the proposed implementation of the co-location arrangement. In particular, the legislative work has finally reached its last mile. Of course, we still have to deal with and pass some subsidiary legislation while some works are still in progress. As long as the Secretary responsible for the rail project does not goof up and derail the plan, I expect that I can take XRL to the Mainland in September.

The Bill is undoubtedly highly controversial. Some Members have recalled what happened eight years ago about the XRL project. I remember clearly that in January 2010 when former Secretary Eva CHENG came to the Legislative Council Finance Committee to seek funding approval for the project, some people besieged the old Legislative Council Building and we almost ran out of food. Many young people knelt down and supplicated outside Legislative Council in opposition of the demolition of a village to make way for the XRL project. Mr CHU Hoi-dick might well be one of them. They strived to protect the village and the elderly people living there. There were also arguments over the compensation. Nevertheless, with the efforts of the Central Authority and the SAR Government over the past 10 years to surmount all obstacles, we now reach the end of the road on the project.

In their speeches, some Members have given the "one country, two systems" very negative description. I am very upset by their negative accounts of the co-location arrangement, despising it as an unconstitutional and unlawful measure which will affect the "one country, two systems". I find their speeches full of bias and prejudices, carrying noxious hostility and hatred.

This only reflects the short-sightedness and the narrow vision of these Members. For example, Mr CHU Hoi-dick has said the use of real names for buying railway tickets would unprecedentedly compromise the privacy of passengers. But does he ever know we are now in the digital era? Our information will be collected whenever we visit websites, whether they are Amazon, Facebook, or Google. We will leave digital trail and the data will be accessible by others when we do mobile shopping. When the whole world is 12656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 developing financial technology, e-payment, Peer-to-Peer lending, and so forth, the worries expressed by Mr CHU Hoi-dick only makes him look ignorant. We ought to know that the future is a world of technology and integration. XRL precisely represents the future technology which serves to ride Hong Kong to a bigger world to facilitate our integration with the nation. Hence, it would be narrow-minded and short-sighted for Members to oppose the Bill.

When it comes to economic benefits, I do not think we should focus on the railway's ability to recover the $90 billion. We should rather look into the long-term economic benefits XRL will bring to us than the internal rate of return. It is quite unlikely for economists to come up with an accurate figure in terms of the economic benefits of XRL. In fact, Mr YIU Si-wing is far from alone. I really learn that people from various trades, including those working for the Hong Kong Disneyland or in the cruise terminal, expect the express rail link to open up other control points to enhance Hong Kong's internal and external connectivity and boost the city's popularity.

Someone say Hong Kong is not the central pivot of the national XRL. I certainty agree that the city will not possibly take up this role. While people who have visited the West Kowloon Station ("WKS") are amazed by its grand scale, it is still dwarf by the splendid airport-like XRL stations at Shenzhen North and Guangzhou South. Yet, the implementation of co-location arrangement in Hong Kong will help reinforce Hong Kong's position as the transport hub. If Futian would implement the co-location arrangement in place of Hong Kong, overseas Chinese in the Southeast Asia heading to Zhengzhou and Hangzhou would have skipped Hong Kong and flied to Shenzhen direct to undergo the co-location clearance at Futian. The number of visitors to Hong Kong would thus be reduced. Hence, it is unwise for us to be so short-sighted and make ourselves into believing that the $90 billion investment is a sheer waste of money. We have to be forward-looking. I believe that it will take one year for XRL to help connect Hong Kong with the Mainland, making our economy and lives more convenient. The express rail is set to offer us unlimited development potential. Secretary, please be mindful and not to goof up and derail the plan.

On the constitutionality of the co-location arrangement, President, I am not a legal professional and thus I should not be in a position to comment if the arrangement is unconstitutional, particularly whether or not it contravenes Article 18 of the Basic Law. However, as Chairman of the relevant Bills LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12657

Committee, I have heard many allegations of the unconstitutionality of the co-location arrangement on the one hand and the repeated explanation from the Government on the other during the around 45 hours of meeting and the 18-hour hearing of the Bills Committee in recent three months. Besides, I also repeated the Government's explanation once again last week as I reported the deliberation of the Bills Committee to the Council. So, let me give a brief recap of the explanation of the Government.

The Government has indeed given detailed explanation of the arrangement on many occasions. Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG and Solicitor General Wesley WONG have both explained that the implementation of Mainland laws inside WKS has nothing to do with the application of laws locally by way of promulgation as stipulated in Article 18 of the Basic Law, as in the cases of the Nationality Law, Law on the National Flag, and Law on the National Emblem. These laws are national laws which are applicable and legally binding to each and every Hong Kong people. The laws to be applied inside WKS are with specific purpose of implementing the co-location policy. Such laws are applicable only to specific persons which are users of WKS, and are thus not the laws stipulated under Article 18 of the Basic Law.

Of course, Members can say that not being a lawyer, I am not in a position to make such a comment. It is true that I am just repeating what Government lawyers have said. Indeed, many legal experts here have explained the rationale over and over again. In Latin expression, this is ad nauseam, meaning that they have been doing something repeatedly until puking up. The problem is Members who do not agree with the Bill simply turn a deaf ear to the explanation. In the course of deliberation in the Bill committee, I have already given opposition Members sufficient time to vent their dissatisfaction. In the hearing to receive public views on the Bill, I remember that opposition Members have asked the views of Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar Association Mr Philip DYKES one after another, giving him plenty of opportunities to voice his opposition to the Bill. The Government lawyers then responded to his views one by one. Hence, it is not the case that the Government has not responded to the concerns of unconstitutionality of the Bill and its contravention of the Basic Law. Only opposition Members find the explanation not acceptable. President, this is the very fundamental difference that can neither be resolved by the Bill Committee chaired by me nor through the debate tonight.

12658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

It is certainly not my intention to encourage people to casually seek judicial review. Yet, this legal problem may well be dealt with by the court if there is ultimately judicial review against it. Our opposition Members know that there are now people gathering outside the legislature to support them. But what they have spoken before the television camera is essentially misleading. They turn what they themselves believe into the absolute truth and pursue scaremongering, describing Mainland public officers as utterly unapproachable. If they are so unkind, why there are hundreds of thousands of people coming to the Mainland every day for work, leisure, or business. I find their speeches very unfair to the co-location arrangement and seriously misleading.

I so submit to set the record straight. Thank you, President.

MR ABRAHAM SHEK: President, I would like to make a declaration although it has nothing to do with the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). I am an independent non-executive director of the MTR Corporation Limited.

President, before I start my speech today, I would like to acknowledge your tolerance and patience in putting up with the disorderly behaviour during the past two days. History will be kind to you.

President, I have listened intensely to what my Honourable colleagues from the opposition side have said in this heated debate. In their speeches, particularly, Mr Alvin YEUNG and Mr James TO have reminded me of the speeches that were delivered in the old Chamber before 1 July 1997. The fears that they talked about have yet to materialize. And today, the opposition parties talk about the same fear in the next 30 to 50 years that will also not materialize. In their speeches, and in my view, it all boils down to a difference in the reading of the good intentions of the Chinese authorities on the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR").

Let me remind them and ourselves of how HKSAR has come about in the first place. The great leader, DENG Xiaoping, engineered the "one country, two systems" to entrust Hong Kong people with a high degree of autonomy to administer HKSAR. This innovative guiding framework is now enshrined in the Basic Law that everybody talks about, and it is the Basic Law that we have all sworn to protect and follow. What is the Basic Law? The Basic Law sets LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12659 aside an entire chapter to safeguard our fundamental rights. It allows, as what Mr Dennis KWOK was talking earlier, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as well as international labour conventions to remain in force―to remain in force―in Hong Kong. It says that our rights and freedom should not be restricted unless as prescribed by law. These provisions in the mini-constitution are further fortified by a piece of local legislation in the form of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, which was wrongly interpreted by some of my colleagues just now. The Chinese authorities have bent over backwards to set our heart at ease. This unification mechanism has worked, and there is no reason then for the Mainland to undermine our way of life. China does not just talk the talk; it also walks the walk. There is no reason then and now for it to eat into our rights and freedom on the pretext of the Bill.

People in Hong Kong, China and the world at large are living in an era of unprecedented changes at an unprecedented rate. We can ill afford to be complacent in the face of challenges and opportunities, particularly, for our young people. We in Hong Kong, in particular, have a lot of soul-searching to do. As our Motherland matures into a social, economic and political power of worldwide recognition, Beijing has come up with visionary development strategies such as the "One Belt One Road" and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area where some of our opposition Members visited. The rest of the world is eager to jump on these bandwagons of prosperity and stability. Hong Kong does not have the luxury to sit on our hands and start to accuse our Motherland of insincerity.

The Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link is a tangible step for us to literally "get on board", and the co-location of boundary control is a prerequisite. At no time is the Bill rammed down our throats. It is not as unconstitutional as being said. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress has given its stamp of approval only after the HKSAR Government reached a voluntary agreement with its counterpart in Guangdong. It is now up to this assembly, as the third step, to enact the proposed arrangement into the local law. This "Three-step Process" is due process in action and is thoroughly legal.

Over the past two decades, the Central People's Government has worked with HKSAR with trust and respect. Mind you, trust and respect is a two-way street. We must not reciprocate those good intentions on the part of the Motherland with undue skepticism and contempt. Compared with 1997, as 12660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 many of our opposition colleagues have feared, I can say with hand on heart that we are in a much better position to place even greater confidence in our sovereign power. The fact remains that whilst the majority of us are convinced that the Bill is the way forward, we want this Bill and we need this Bill. And I urge the opposition side to do away with their fear for there is nothing to fear except fear itself. So, they should try to work out something because Hong Kong is our home. We need to have mutual faith and trust with our Motherland.

With these remarks, I support the motion, and I speak on behalf of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong.

Thank you, President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any public officer wish to speak? Secretary for Transport and Housing, please speak in reply.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank Members for allowing me to speak in a calm atmosphere.

I trust it is clear to all Members the hard fact that the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and the co-location arrangement will bring advantages and long-term contributions to Hong Kong. There is no need for me to repeat here.

President, in concluding the Third Reading debate, I wish to share with Members two major feelings. First, it is not the privilege of a handful of people to uphold the Basic Law and the principle of "one country, two systems". The SAR Government and the Central Authority are no less resolute, committed, and determined than people opposing the motion to have respect for the Constitution, for the direction of the "one country, two systems", for the Basic Law, and for the rule of law. Second, to those against the motion, the fundamental causes for their worries and uneasiness are the differences in belief and the lack of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12661 confidence. While it is hard to change one's belief, I call for mutual encouragement to build up the confidence. I earnestly hope that Members will seek to understand and experience personally the co-location arrangement with sincerity and an open mind. I am convinced that time will prove everything.

Finally, President, I implore Members present to vote according to their conscience and support the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill.

President, I so submit.

(A number of Members tapped hard on the bench)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill be read the Third time and do pass. 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 CHAN Hak-kan rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

(A number of Members stood up and repeatedly shouted slogans aloud: "Cession of land and self-castration"; "Depriving LegCo of its powers"; "Opposition to cession-based co-location arrangement")

12662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr Gary FAN voted against the motion.

Dr Pierre CHAN abstained.

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

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 62 Members present, 40 were in favour of the motion, 20 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

(A number of Members repeatedly shouted slogans aloud: "Cession of land and self-castration"; "Depriving LegCo of its powers"; "Opposition to cession-based co-location arrangement")

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12663

CLERK (in Cantonese): Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the meeting until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 20 June 2018.

Adjourned accordingly at 10:09 pm.

12664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

Annex I

NOT PROCEEDED WITH

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12665

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

12666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12667

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

12668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12669

12670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

NEGATIVED

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12671

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

12672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12673

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

12674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

NEGATIVED

NEGATIVED

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018 12675

NEGATIVED

12676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 June 2018

NEGATIVED