OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 29 ......LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 April 2020 5749 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 29 April 2020 The Council met at Eleven o'clock

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 April 2020

5749

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 29 April 2020

The Council met at Eleven 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.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 April 2020 5750

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, B.B.S., 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.


5751

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, B.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P. THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN


THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION


5753

THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, G.B.M., G.B.S., M.H., J.P. FINANCIAL SECRETARY THE HONOURABLE TERESA CHENG YEUK-WAH, G.B.S., S.C., J.P. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING PROF THE HONOURABLE SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH THE HONOURABLE EDWARD YAU TANG-WAH, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THE HONOURABLE KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION THE HONOURABLE PATRICK NIP TAK-KUEN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE THE HONOURABLE ALFRED SIT WING-HANG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY THE HONOURABLE ERICK TSANG KWOK-WAI, I.D.S.M. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS THE HONOURABLE CASPAR TSUI YING-WAI, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS


THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER HUI CHING-YU SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY MR SONNY AU CHI-KWONG, P.D.S.M., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY MR LIU CHUN-SAN, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


5755

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber) LAYING OF PAPERS ON THE TABLE OF THE COUNCIL The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure: Subsidiary Legislation/Other Instrument No.

Banking (Capital) (Amendment) Rules 2020 ............ Legal Notice 44 of 2020

Air Pollution Control (Vehicle Design Standards) (Emission) (Amendment) Regulation

2020 .............................................................

Legal Notice 45 of 2020

Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance (Amendment of Schedules 1 and 2) Notice

2020 ...............................................................


Prevention and Control of Disease (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2020 ................................


Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons

Arriving at Hong Kong (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2020 ................................


Prevention and Control of Disease (Disclosure of Information) (Amendment) Regulation

2020 .............................................................



Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at Hong Kong from Foreign Places (Amendment) Regulation 2020......................


Prevention and Control of Disease (Requirements and Directions) (Business and Premises) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulation 2020 .........


Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) (Amendment) Regulation

2020 ................................................................


Road Users' Code ....................................................... Government Notice

2056 of 2020 Other Paper

Report No. 74 of the Director of Audit on the results of value for money audits―April 2020

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Assistance for intermediaries for foreign domestic helpers 1. MS STARRY LEE (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that in view of the global spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the Philippine and Indonesian Governments have recently suspended, one after another, the vetting and approval of their nationals' applications for working abroad as workers. It is estimated that currently, over 10 000 foreign domestic helpers ("FDHs") who have been offered employment are unable to come to Hong Kong to report for duty. For the approximately 3 000 intermediaries in Hong Kong providing placement services for FDHs, not only do they suffer a heavy blow to their business due to the epidemic, but they also need to deal with considerable amount of extra work concerning epidemic prevention and quarantine for FDHs. The


5757

approximately 10 000 employees engaged by these intermediaries also face financial difficulties. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it will provide a cash subsidy or other assistance to the intermediaries to help them tide over their imminent difficulties; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) as the Government has announced that it will flexibly consider

applications from FDHs, whose contracts are terminated or due to expire on or before 31 July this year, for extending their limit of stay in Hong Kong as visitors to facilitate them to find new employers, but the persons-in-charge of some intermediaries have pointed out that providing free board and lodging for FDHs awaiting employment has further increased their financial burden, whether the authorities will offer support to such intermediaries and those FDHs awaiting employment; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether the Government will set up a dedicated department to assist

the intermediaries, FDHs and their employers in dealing with issues related to epidemic prevention and quarantine for FDHs; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, having consulted the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments, my consolidated response to the Member's question is set out below:

(1) and (2) The COVID-19 epidemic has brought unprecedented challenges to

various trades and industries in Hong Kong (including employment agencies ("EAs")). In response to the needs of the public and society, the Government launched a total of three rounds of measures since the beginning of this year to assist affected industries and the public. These include:


(a) the first round of the Anti-epidemic Fund approved by the Legislative Council on 21 February 2020;

(b) the relief package in the 2020-2021 Budget announced by the

Financial Secretary on 26 February 2020, including reducing profits tax; waiving rates for non-domestic properties; waiving registration fees for annual returns and business registration fees; providing a subsidy to eligible non-domestic household accounts to cover electricity charges; and introducing a concessionary low-interest loan under the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme, under which a 100% guarantee will be provided by the Government, etc.; and

(c) the second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund measures

approved by the Legislative Council on 18 April 2020, including setting up an Employment Support Scheme (the Scheme also covers eligible self-employed persons) to provide wage subsidies to eligible employers for retaining their employees; enhancing the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme, including raising the maximum loan amount, increasing Government guarantee commitment, extending the "principal moratorium", etc.; and automatically extending the deadline for payment of taxes by three months, etc.

EAs may benefit from the relevant measures among the many

initiatives in support of enterprises under the 2020-2021 Budget and the second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund. The Government will continue to monitor the development of the epidemic and keep a close watch on its effects on various trades and industries in Hong Kong.

To assist foreign domestic helpers ("FDHs") and employers to cope

with the special circumstances under the COVID-19 epidemic, the Government has implemented a number of facilitation measures, including: FDHs whose existing contracts are due to expire or are terminated on or before 31 July 2020 may apply to the Immigration Department ("ImmD") for extension of limit of stay as visitors in Hong Kong (for a maximum period of one month); and FDHs who have previously been approved to defer home leave upon the start of


5759

their new contract but need to further defer home leave may apply to ImmD for further extension of limit of stay for up to six months, subject to mutual agreement between FDHs and their employers. Besides, the prevailing flexible arrangement offered to FDHs and their employers remains unchanged in that if an FDH has reached an agreement with his/her existing employer to renew the contract, or has found a new employer after the expiry of his/her existing contract, FDH may start a renewed contract with the same employer or start a contract with a new employer once ImmD's approval for the appropriate visa and home leave deferral is obtained.

In addition, the Labour Department ("LD") has kept in close contact

with the relevant consulates-general in Hong Kong to keep abreast of their governments' anti-epidemic measures and the impact of these measures on sending domestic helpers to Hong Kong. It is noted that the Philippine Consulate-General has partially resumed processing of FDH employment contracts since 27 April 2020.

(3) LD has kept in close contact with the Department of Health during

the epidemic to assist in matters relating to FDHs, including handling enquiries on employment matters regarding the compulsory home quarantine arrangements, etc. LD has also, in coordination with the relevant departments, disseminated information to FDHs, employers and EAs on preventing the spread of COVID-19 in the community, including:

(a) undertaking a wide range of publicity to remind FDHs and

their employers to comply with the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (Cap. 599G) and appeal to them to discuss rest day arrangements (including encouraging FDHs to stay home for rest or take their rest day on weekdays instead of on the weekend); and

(b) issuing a press release on 18 and 19 March 2020 urging

employers and EAs (if applicable) to make arrangements for FDHs undergoing compulsory home quarantine. While FDHs are expected to stay at their employers' residence, should an employer wish to arrange FDH to stay out from


his/her residence for the purpose of compulsory home quarantine, the employer should make appropriate arrangement (with his/her EA, if applicable) beforehand. The employer must comply with his/her obligations under the Standard Employment Contract, including bearing the accommodation expenses and providing food allowance to FDH.

LD will continue to maintain close contact and cooperation with the

Department of Health and other relevant departments. Should FDHs and their employers have enquiries on employment matters, they may seek LD's assistance through its dedicated email account for FDH matters <[email protected]> and the online form on its dedicated FDH portal <www.fdh.labour.gov.hk>.

The Police's operations outside MTR Prince Edward Station 2. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Chinese): President, during the Police's operation at the MTR Prince Edward Station on 31 August last year, a number of members of the public were injured and there were even rumours that some persons died. Six months later, on the night of 29 February this year, some members of the public conducted memorial activities outside the ground-level B1 Exit of the Prince Edward Station and repeatedly placed fresh flowers, candles and other items ("mourning items") on the nearby railings, and the Police repeatedly removed such mourning items. In mid-March, a representative of the Police told the Traffic and Transport Committee of the Yau Tsim Mong District Council that on that night, the police officers had removed such items in accordance with the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction) Ordinance (Cap. 570). Besides, some members of the public complained that when they were conducting memorial activities outside the ground-level B1 Exit of the Prince Edward Station on 31 March, some police officers ordered five members of the public who did not know each other to stand close side by side, and then ticketed such persons for contravening the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (Cap. 599 sub. leg. G) (commonly known as "the order to prohibit group gatherings"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


5761

(1) whether the aforesaid location where the mourning items were placed is within the management area of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"); if so, whether it has assessed if the removal of such mourning items by police officers without any request for assistance received from MTRCL constituted an infringement on MTRCL's management authority;

(2) of the details of the aforesaid operations of the Police to remove the

mourning items, including (i) the number of such operations, (ii) the quantity of fresh flowers so removed, and (iii) how the flowers removed were disposed of;

(3) whether the police officers issued, under Cap. 570, fixed penalty

notices ("FPNs") to those persons who had placed the mourning items; if so, of the number of FPNs issued;

(4) of the number of FPNs issued by public officers under Cap. 570 in

each of the past three years and, among such FPNs, the number of those issued by police officers at locations under the management of MTRCL;

(5) given that it has been pointed out in the judgments of some court

cases that whether an item should be regarded as "litter" or "waste" depends on whether that item was genuine waste material at the time when the alleged offence was committed, and that some members of the public were conducting memorial activities when the Police removed the mourning items, whether the Government has reviewed if the police officers (i) had the power to remove the mourning items by treating them as litter or waste, and (ii) had unlawfully taken away the private properties of members of the public; and

(6) whether it has reviewed if the aforesaid law enforcement actions

taken by the police officers on 31 March contravened the legislative intent of the order to prohibit group gatherings; if it has reviewed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the follow-up actions; if the review outcome is in the negative, the justifications for that?


SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, according to section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232), it is the statutory duty of the Police to maintain public safety and public order. Therefore, if any illegal acts take place and undermine the public peace, the Police must take appropriate actions in a timely manner to restore public safety and public order. There were no cases involving death in Prince Edward MTR Station on 31 August 2019. Despite repeated clarifications by the Government, some people continue to spread false rumours deliberately and make use of them, appealing to protesters to conduct public order events allegedly in the name of "mourning" outside Prince Edward MTR Station with flowers, joss paper, candles and other items at the end of each month. Many of these events ended up as illegal acts of serious violence, including unlawful assemblies, illegal blockage of roads, paralysing the traffic, wounding and violent charging of police cordon lines, severely threatening public safety and public order. In the afternoon of 29 February, a large group of people, in response to appeals on the Internet, assembled again outside Prince Edward MTR Station and Mong Kok Police Station with flowers, candles and other items. Some of them subsequently blocked roads in the vicinity of Nathan Road and Prince Edward Road West, seriously paralysing the traffic. Some rioters even threw petrol bombs and burned barricades at multiple locations in Mong Kok, including Nathan Road, Mong Kok Road and Argyle Street, posing a serious threat to public safety. The Police had to take lawful measures to stop unlawful assemblies and prevent the public peace from being jeopardized, including dispersing people participating in unlawful assemblies, as well as removing articles believed to be likely to incite others to continue or resume unlawful assemblies and commit a breach of the peace. The Police were fulfilling their due responsibilities to restore public safety and order as soon as possible, with a view to preventing the situation at the scene from further deteriorating and people from being injured. Having consulted the relevant departments, our reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr IP Kin-yuen is as follows:

(1) When handling public order events, the Police will conduct a comprehensive risk assessment in order to formulate an overall strategy and measures including deployment of staff and equipment as well as contingency plans. The Police will, taking into account


5763

past experience in handling events of similar nature or scale as well as other risk factors, assess the crowd management measures and road traffic arrangements necessary during the event.

For the public order events allegedly conducted in the name of

"mourning" over the past months, the Mong Kok Police District has been maintaining close liaison with the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), monitoring the relevant situation and conducting risk assessments in order to implement appropriate measures to protect the safety of members of the public, passengers, MTRCL staff and the railway. During public order events, the Police's field commanders and other personnel will monitor and assess the situation at the scene continuously and adopt necessary response measures in light of the actual circumstances.

If illegal acts take place and undermine the public peace, regardless

of whether they take place in private premises or managed by private body, it is the responsibility of the Police to take appropriate actions to restore the public peace, with a view to ensuring public safety and public order.

(2) and (5) It is the Police's statutory duty to maintain public safety and public

order. Hence, if any illegal acts take place and severely undermine the public peace, police officers must take appropriate actions in a timely manner, with a view to preserving the public peace, preventing crime or protecting properties from criminal injury.

Section 50(6) of the Police Force Ordinance also stipulates that

where any person is apprehended by a police officer, it shall be lawful for such officer to search for and take possession of any newspaper, book or other document or any portion or extract therefrom and any other article or chattel which may be found on his person or in or about the place at which he has been apprehended and which the said officer may reasonably suspect to be of value (whether by itself or together with anything else) to the investigation of any offence that the person has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed.


As for other articles not related to the offence allegedly committed and abandoned in a public place, they will be handled by the departments concerned in accordance with the established procedures.

The Police do not maintain the statistics requested in the question. (3) and (4) According to the Fixed Penalty (Public Cleanliness and Obstruction)

Ordinance (Cap. 570), the departments being authorized to issue fixed penalty tickets ("FPTs") include the Housing Department ("HD"), the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD"), the Marine Department ("MD"), the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD"), the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD"), the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") and the Hong Kong Police ("HKPF"). In the past three years, the numbers of FPTs issued by authorized departments in accordance with Cap. 570 are tabulated as follows:

2017 2018 2019 HKPF 175 209 90 AFCD 59 169 95 EPD 177 246 173 FEHD 51 708 57 277 55 576 HD 330 506 722 LCSD 3 16 8 MD 16 16 17

The Police do not maintain the other breakdown statistics requested

in the question.

(6) The Secretary for Food and Health has, in accordance with the Prevention and Control of Disease (Prohibition on Group Gathering) Regulation (Cap. 599G), issued a direction to prohibit group gatherings with more than four persons in public places with effect from 29 March. The effective term of the direction has been extended to 7 May. In view of the severity of the COVID-19


5765

epidemic, members of the public should reduce social contact as far as possible to curb the spread of the virus. The Government's legislative intent in prohibiting group gatherings is to reduce the risk of spreading the virus.

In light of the COVID-19 epidemic, the Police will continue to

proactively facilitate various anti-epidemic efforts, including assisting with the enforcement of the requirements under Cap. 599G, with a view to minimizing the risk of the virus spreading in the community. If police officers find any group gatherings with more than four persons in a public place, they will, in light of the circumstances, verbally explain the regulations, issue an advice or warning, or dismiss the gathering. If the prevailing circumstances require immediate issuing of FPTs to persons participating in the group gathering so prohibited, law enforcement officers will do so in accordance with the law and procedures. Persons issued with FPTs may dispute liability for the offence in accordance with the mechanism stipulated under Cap. 599G.

Regulations made in respect of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 3. MS ALICE MAK (in Chinese): President, to curb the spread of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Hong Kong, the Government made the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap. 599C) and the Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at Hong Kong from Foreign Places Regulation (Cap. 599E) on 7 February and 18 March this year respectively. Such regulations provide that all persons (except for exempted persons) who have stayed on the Mainland (the scope of application of the former) and in all places outside China (the scope of application of the latter) for any period during the 14 days preceding arrival at Hong Kong, regardless of nationality and travel documents used, are subject to compulsory quarantine for 14 days. In addition, the Prevention and Control of Disease (Disclosure of Information) Regulation (Cap. 599D) made on 7 February this year empowers a health officer to require any person to furnish or disclose information relevant to the handling of a state of the public health emergency, such as travel history. Regarding the implementation of such regulations, will the Government inform this Council:


(1) of the respective to-date numbers of persons who were suspected and convicted of having contravened the aforesaid regulations, with a breakdown by type of offence; the follow-up actions taken by the relevant government departments in respect of those persons suspected of contravening the regulations;

(2) of the respective numbers of quarantine orders issued since the

aforesaid two compulsory quarantine regulations came into operation, as well as the respective numbers of persons who are currently subject to quarantine at home and at quarantine centres;

(3) given that the public is gravely concerned about the state of

compliance with the quarantine orders, whether the Government will consider raising the penalties for breaching quarantine orders and speeding up the prosecution work to enhance the deterrent effect; and

(4) given that some compulsory quarantine measures did not come into

force until several days after they were announced by the Government, resulting in a large number of persons advancing their trips and entering Hong Kong before the measures came into force so as to avoid being subject to compulsory quarantine, and some of whom were subsequently tested positive for the coronavirus, and such a situation has posed potential threats to the public health, whether the Government will review the relevant arrangements to plug the loopholes?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, according to the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap. 599C), starting from 8 February 2020, except for exempted persons, all persons having stayed in the Mainland for any period during the 14 days preceding arrival in Hong Kong will be subject to compulsory quarantine for 14 days, regardless of nationality and travel documents used. Since 25 March 2020, the compulsory 14-day quarantine arrangement has been extended to all persons arriving from or having stayed in Macao and Taiwan in the past 14 days prior to arrival in Hong Kong, in addition to those arriving from the Mainland. Furthermore, according to the Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at


5767

Hong Kong from Foreign Places Regulation (Cap. 599E), starting from 19 March 2020, except for exempted persons, all persons arriving at Hong Kong from places outside China will be subject to compulsory quarantine for 14 days. My consolidated reply to the various parts of the question raised by Ms Alice MAK is as follows: As at 27 April 2020, in accordance with Cap. 599C and Cap. 599E, the Department of Health ("DH") had respectively issued 98 344 quarantine orders to persons arriving at Hong Kong from the Mainland, Taiwan and Macao, and 65 381 quarantine orders to persons arriving at Hong Kong from overseas. In accordance with the requirements under section 8 of Cap. 599C and Cap. 599E, a person placed under quarantine in accordance with section 3 must not leave the place of quarantine if the relevant person has not been given permission by an authorized officer. The Government has implemented various measures to monitor whether persons placed under quarantine abide by the law, including conducting surprise checks, placing calls to the relevant persons, sharing of real-time location via communication software and using electronic wristbands/monitoring wristbands paired with mobile app, with a view to ensuring that the persons placed under quarantine are staying at their dwelling places. Implementing compulsory quarantine arrangement is a crucial element of the measures for the prevention and control of the epidemic. The relevant departments have strengthened monitoring and inspections. As at 27 April 2020, officers from disciplinary forces had conducted surprise visits on over 14 000 persons under quarantine. The call centre of DH had placed over 190 000 telephone calls to persons under quarantine to conduct surprise checks. Relevant departments had also distributed over 75 000 electronic wristbands/monitoring wristbands, shared real-time location via communication software with over 80 000 persons under compulsory quarantine, and made about 180 000 calls (including video calls) to ensure that persons under quarantine are staying at their dwelling places. During the monitoring process, if abnormal situations are observed or persons who have breached the quarantine order are found, relevant departments will suitably follow up. The Government adopts a "zero tolerance" policy towards those who violate the quarantine order, and they are subject to immediate prosecution without warning starting from 22 March 2020. Offenders are


subject to a maximum fine of $25,000 and imprisonment for six months. As at 27 April 2020, 4 individuals who violated quarantine orders were respectively sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 10 days to three months by magistrates' courts. Besides, a total of 56 individuals left their dwelling places before expiry of the quarantine orders without reasonable explanation and permission given by an authorized officer, and were stopped by staff of the Immigration Department at border control points. DH and Police will continue investigations on the cases concerned and gather more evidence for consideration by the Department of Justice for making prosecutions. When implementing compulsory quarantine measures, the Government needs to take into consideration that Hong Kong is an international transport hub with close ties with other countries and regions in various aspects. There are also tens of thousands of local students studying aboard. In view of the above, to avoid confusion, the Government considers that it would be more practical to provide a grace period for residents to get prepared after announcement of the compulsory quarantine arrangement. Public housing sewerage systems 4. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Chinese): President, earlier on, several tenants of Hong Mei House of Cheung Hong Estate and Heng Tai House of Fu Heng Estate were infected with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 one after another, and the causes for their infection might be related to the improper modification of the ventilating pipes of the foul water stacks in public housing units and design problems of the sewerage systems. As the authorities have so far not yet implemented any large-scale inspection and repair programme for the sewerage systems of the various public housing estates, some public housing tenants are worried about being infected with the disease and an outbreak of the epidemic in the community. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has finished the inspection of the sewerage systems of the two aforesaid estates; of the number of units in respect of which follow-up works are needed; as the authorities have pointed out that the height difference between the rooftop parapets of adjacent units in Heng Tai House may be conducive to the occurrence of air turbulence in the re-entrant of top floors, and such air turbulence may bring the virus in the rooftop ventilating pipes of the foul water stacks into the residential units, whether the authorities have conducted relevant improvement works;


5769

(2) whether the authorities will conduct inspections and repairs for the sewerage systems (including rooftop ventilating pipes) of all those public housing estates having the same block type (i.e. Trident blocks) as the aforesaid estates, and discuss with the owners' corporations of those Tenants Purchase Scheme ("TPS") estates with Trident blocks to expeditiously conduct the relevant inspections and repairs;

(3) whether the authorities will consider conducting inspections and

repairs expeditiously for the various components of the sewerage systems (including U-traps and ventilating pipes) in the common parts and within individual units of all public housing (including subsidized sale housing) estates/courts, so as to minimize public health risks; if so, of the details; if not, the measures in place to deal with the relevant health risks; and

(4) as some owners of TPS estates have pointed out that such estates are

poorly repaired and maintained over the years because of unclear management and repair responsibilities, whether the authorities will take up more repair responsibilities for TPS estates and expedite the relevant repair works, so that health risks will not arise as a result of poor repair and maintenance of such estates?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, in response to the hygiene risks arising from COVID-19, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") has established a mechanism to inspect the drainage system of the buildings of HA (including public rental housing ("PRH") estates). When HA receives notification from the Centre for Health Protection ("CHP") that there is a confirmed case in a PRH estate or Tenants Purchase Scheme ("TPS") estate, HA will inspect the drainage system of all PRH units (including PRH units in TPS estates) that use the same soil pipe and vent pipe with the unit with a confirmed case and arrange repairs to the drain/vent pipe during the inspection as appropriate. In terms of property management, all TPS estates are, same as other private properties in general, subject to the control of the Building Management Ordinance ("BMO") (Cap. 344), relevant land leases and Deeds of Mutual Covenant ("DMCs") regardless of the percentage of ownership shares held by HA. The day-to-day estate management matters are discussed and resolved at meetings of management committees or general meetings convened by Owners' Corporations ("OCs") pursuant to the provisions of BMO and DMCs. At


present, all TPS estates have already formed their OCs. OCs and their appointed property management companies are obliged to fulfil their responsibilities in repairing common areas and facilities in accordance with the terms of DMCs, so as to maintain the facilities in good condition and with proper repair. As the owner of the unsold PRH units in TPS estates, HA will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the fixtures and fittings in those units. My reply to the questions raised by Mr KWOK Wai-keung is as follows:

(1) Cheung Hong Estate is a PRH estate. HA has already followed the aforementioned mechanism and deployed staff proactively to inspect the 34 units that use the same soil pipe and vent pipe with the unit with confirmed case. Several tenants were found to have altered their water closet pans and/or vent pipes without prior approval. Inspection staff have already carried out repairs works to these drain/vent pipes at once during the inspection as appropriate.

Fu Heng Estate is a TPS estate. As per the request by CHP and

under the delegated authority from the Building Authority, the Independent Checking Unit ("ICU") that works directly under the Office of the Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing (Housing) has inspected 68 units that use the same soil pipe and vent pipe with the units with confirmed cases and their adjoining units at Heng Tai House, Fu Heng Estate (including 15 PRH units not yet sold by HA). Follow up actions on defective vent pipes are required for 51 units. ICU has issued statutory orders under the Buildings Ordinance ("BO") to the owner(s) of 44 units which have not completed the rectification, requiring them to arrange qualified contractors to inspect and rectify the defects to comply with the requirements of BO. So far, 25 units have completed the rectification. For the 15 unsold PRH units, the tenants of 7 units have altered their water closet pans and/or vent pipe without consent. HA has completed the rectification works of 6 units. Rectification works of the remaining units will be carried out within May 2020.

For the phenomenon of "wake effect" which might have occurred at

Heng Tai House, Fu Heng Estate, the Government has set up an inter-departmental expert group to follow up. The expert group is still studying and following up the test results of the environmental samples collected at Heng Tai House earlier and other relevant information and environmental factors in order to find out all


5771

possible ways of the spread of the virus, and to make relevant recommendations for improvement.

(2) and (3) There is no design problem of the drainage system (including the

vent pipes inside the toilets and at roof levels) in buildings of HA. These buildings were designed according to the Standard Block design adopted for public housing at the time of development, and met the construction standard, the relevant requirements, and the environmental, health and safety requirements at the time. However, hygiene risk may arise if the occupants alter the vent pipe in a toilet without obtaining prior approval from HA.

HA will proactively inspect the vent pipes at roof levels of PRH

buildings and PRH units that use the same soil pipe and vent pipe with the unit with a confirmed case. For other PRH units, if tenants are concerned about the current condition of their drainage pipework or the hygienic risk arising from their alterations, they may seek assistance from the estate management office who will arrange inspection and follow-up as appropriate.

With no difference from private properties, proper maintenance to

the drainage system is the owners' responsibilities for TPS estates. Regardless of the block design, an owner should not arbitrarily modify the drainage system or pipes of the building to deviate them from the original design and contravene BO. Upon receipt of a relevant report, ICU will conduct site inspection. If alteration of drains which does not comply with BO is found, ICU will request the owner(s) to rectify them according to the law.

(4) HA has provided a maintenance fund at a sum equivalent to $14,000

per residential unit for each TPS estate on a one-off basis to meet the expenses of post-sale maintenance works. It is the obligation of OCs/owners to maintain the common facilities in good condition and keep them in proper repair. If OCs/owners suspect that their common facilities are not in good condition, or may pose a hygiene risk, they should arrange qualified contractors to inspect and repair the facilities as soon as possible. In case there is a need to repair common facilities in individual estates, HA, when necessary, will


contribute the fund as required by law and in accordance with its management shares held to share the repair charges with other owners.

Functions of and support for District Councils 5. DR HELENA WONG (in Chinese): President, on 21 January this year, the Kowloon City District Council ("KCDC") decided to form a "Committee on Monitoring Law Enforcement of the Police". However, during the election of the Chairman and Vice Chairman for that Committee at the KCDC meeting on 25 February, the District Officer ("DO") of Kowloon City under the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") refused to provide any support for that Committee on the grounds that the Committee's terms of reference fall outside the functions of a District Council ("DC") as specified in the District Councils Ordinance (Cap. 547), and the DO left the venue together with the staff members of the DC secretariat. Regarding the functions of and support for DCs, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the functions of a DC provided under section 61 of Cap. 547 include advising the Government on the following: "matters affecting the well-being of the people in the District" and "the provision and use of public facilities and services within the District", whether it has assessed if "the law enforcement in various DC Districts by the Police and the related complaints" are outside the scopes of the two aforesaid issues; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the justifications for that; if the assessment outcome is in the negative, the legal justifications for HAD's refusal to provide support for the aforesaid Committee;

(2) as KCDC has, in accordance with the powers conferred on DCs

under section 71(1) of Cap. 547, appointed the aforesaid Committee in respect of which KCDC holds the view that the terms of reference of the Committee conform with the functions of DCs provided under section 61, while HAD holds the opposite view, whether the Government has any established mechanism and guidelines to deal with the situation in which a DC and HAD hold opposite views on the interpretation of Cap. 547;


5773

(3) of the circumstances under which HAD may refuse to provide support for DCs and their committees or attend the relevant meetings, and the specific criteria and guidelines adopted for making such decisions;

(4) whether, since the commencement of the current DC term, there

have been incidents, apart from the aforesaid incident, in which HAD refused to provide support for DCs or their committees; if so, of the (i) names of the DCs and committees involved, (ii) number of meetings concerned, (iii) types of support involved in the refusal, as well as (iv) reasons for not providing support; and

(5) whether a mechanism is currently put in place to impose

punishments on those DOs who refuse, without legal justifications, to provide support for DCs and their committees; if so, of the details?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, a consolidated reply to the various parts of the question is as follows: It is specified in section 61(1) of the District Councils Ordinance ("the Ordinance") (Cap. 547) that functions of a District Council ("DC") are to, inter (1) Functions of a District Council, as specified in section 61 of the District Councils

Ordinance, are:

(a) to advise the Government―

(i) on matters affecting the well-being of the people in the District; and (ii) on the provision and use of public facilities and services within the District;

and (iii) on the adequacy and priorities of Government programmes for the District;

and (iv) on the use of public funds allocated to the District for local public works and

community activities; and

(b) where funds are made available for the purpose, to undertake―

(i) environmental improvements within the District; (ii) the promotion of recreational and cultural activities within the District; and (iii) community activities within the District.


alia, advise the Government on district administration affairs and where funds are made available for the purpose, to promote community, recreational and cultural activities and environmental improvement projects within the district. For the purpose of carrying out its functions, a DC may appoint committees according to section 71 of the Ordinance. DCs and their committees and working groups have to conform to the relevant requirements under the Ordinance in terms of establishment, composition and functions as well as items for discussion. When handling DC affairs (including whether an item for discussion is compatible with the DC functions specified in section 61 of the Ordinance), District Offices will, as necessary, consult the relevant departments (including the Department of Justice). After taking into consideration advice from the relevant departments, if a proposed committee/working group or item for discussion is found not compatible with the functions specified in the Ordinance, the Government will follow up accordingly, such as writing to the DC Chairman concerned about the problem and request the Chairman to follow-up and re-examine the committee's terms of reference. If DC concerned still keeps the terms of reference or items for discussion which are not compatible with the Ordinance, the DC secretariat cannot provide secretariat service for these matters, and secretariat staff or other government officers will neither attend the relevant parts of the meeting nor join the discussion of the relevant papers. Regarding the Committee on Monitoring Law Enforcement of the Police under the Kowloon City District Council ("KCDC"), the Government is of the view that its name, terms of reference and proposed work are not compatible with the DC functions specified in section 61 of the Ordinance. Furthermore, an established mechanism has already been put in place to deal with those issues in the proposed terms of reference of the Committee. Given the reasons above, the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") has written to the Chairman of KCDC to suggest DC to re-examine the Committee's terms of reference, and pay attention to the fact that the statutory functions of a DC is to advise the Government on specific issues and that matters or items for a DC's discussion must be affairs of the respective district. As KCDC kept those areas in the terms of reference of the Committee that are not compatible with the Ordinance, DC secretariat could not provide support to the Committee, and secretariat staff and other government officers could not attend the relevant parts of the meeting. HAD does not keep the breakdown of information on cases of not providing support for DCs or their committees.


5775

Financial rescue plan for the Ocean Park Corporation 6. MR YIU SI-WING (in Chinese): President, the Ocean Park Corporation ("OPC") has recorded deficits of over $200 million for successive years since the financial year of 2015-2016. OPC is now unable to repay two commercial loans due in the last and current financial years totalling $2.3 billion, nor will it be able to repay two government loans for which repayment should commence in the next financial year. In January this year, the Government submitted to the Panel on Economic Development of this Council a funding proposal on the financial arrangements for OPC, which includes providing a one-off endowment of $10.64 billion, as well as deferring the commencement date of repayment and waiving the interest of the two government loans. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective projected amounts of (i) income, (ii) expenditure and (iii) deficit of OPC for the first half and the whole of the current financial year; for how long that OPC's current liquidity can sustain its operation;

(2) in view of the recent rapid deterioration of the global economic

situation, whether it has plans to increase the proposed amount of the aforesaid one-off endowment; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it has drawn up fallback options in the event that the

Government's funding proposal is not approved by the Finance Committee of this Council, so as to prevent OPC from closing down due to financial difficulties; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, in view of the COVID-19 outbreak and for the safety of the visitors and employees, the Ocean Park has been temporarily closed since 26 January 2020. Despite the drastic cost cutting measures taken by the Ocean Park Corporation ("OPC") in the past two months, given the high fixed costs, the financial situation of OPC has worsened as compared with the situation in January 2020 when the relevant item was discussed in the Legislative Council Panel on Economic Development. Hence, the need for Government's financial support is even more imminent.


We consulted the Legislative Council Panel on Economic Development on 20 January 2020 regarding OPC's Strategic Repositioning Plan ("SRP"). We understand members' concerns on how OPC would make use of the funding and the effectiveness of SRP. We will submit the development proposal of the Ocean Park to the Legislative Council Finance Committee for consideration as soon as possible. Publication of books by staff members of the Department of Justice 7. MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that in September 2019, a Public Prosecutor under the Prosecutions Division of the Department of Justice ("DoJ") co-published with a barrister in private practice a law popularization book, which teaches young readers how to "keep away from legal traps and understand human right protection". Some members of the legal sector have queried whether some parts of the book are overgeneralized. For instance, the explanation in the book on whether a person, who has been found in possession of a fruit knife when stopped and searched by a police officer on the street, will be charged with the offence of "possession of offensive weapon in public place" is oversimplified. They have also queried whether that Public Prosecutor's expounding in the book on the rights of arrestees constitutes serious conflict of interests or roles with his duties in DoJ. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether staff members of DoJ are currently required to submit applications to their supervisors and obtain approval prior to publishing books pertaining to the law or containing their personal views on the law; if so, of the application procedure, the criteria for vetting and approval and the rank(s) of the approving officer(s), as well as whether an applicant is required to submit, for vetting, parts of the book intended to be published; if so, of the percentage of the content required to be submitted;

(2) of the current mechanism for dealing with the situation where the

content of a book published by a staff member of DoJ may have constituted a conflict of interests or roles with his work in DoJ;


5777

(3) of the number of books pertaining to the law published by staff members of DoJ in the past decade according to DoJ's records; among those books, the respective numbers of those (i) approved for publication and (ii) published without the necessary approval; whether DoJ has held responsible the relevant staff members in the latter case;

(4) whether staff members of DoJ who have, without the necessary

approval, published books that give rise to conflict of interests or roles with their work will be punished; if so, of the penalties and the number of such incidents in the past decade; and

(5) as the aforesaid Public Prosecutor had obtained approval from the

Director of Public Prosecutions before publishing the book, of the reasons why DoJ transferred the Public Prosecutor out of his current post subsequent to the publication of the aforesaid press report; whether DoJ has learnt a lesson from that incident and will devise a new mechanism under which similar cases will be subject to more stringent vetting and approval procedure; if so, of the details; if not, whether and how DoJ will follow up the matter?

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Chinese): President, according to the Civil Service Code issued by the Civil Service Bureau, civil servants are required to uphold the core value of commitment to integrity and ensure that no actual, perceived or potential conflict of interest shall arise between their official duties and private interests. According to the relevant civil service regulation, no civil servant may, without approval, publish in his own name, communicate to unauthorized persons, or make private copies of, documents or information obtained in his official capacity. A civil servant is required to obtain prior consent before taking up any paid outside work. The above principles are applicable to civil servants of different grades and ranks including prosecutors of the Department of Justice ("DoJ"). DoJ's prosecutors always abide by Article 63 of the Basic Law and shoulder the constitutional duty enshrined therein, and handle all prosecution work in a fair, impartial and highly transparent manner. When conducting prosecutions, DoJ's prosecutors are required to act professionally in strict accordance with the law and the Prosecution Code ("the Code").


The Code sets out the role and duties of prosecutors. DoJ's prosecutors have always discharged their prosecutorial responsibilities in accordance with the relevant principles and have at all times exercised the highest standards of integrity and care in maintaining proper administration of justice. As DoJ's prosecutors, they must ensure that their duties are discharged in a professional and impartial manner without being affected by their personal views expressed. In relation to legal matters, the Government's counsel shall remain independent and impartial, especially when there is a likelihood of handling relevant cases in future. In relation to Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan's specific questions, DoJ, after consulting the Civil Service Bureau, replies as follows:

(1) and (2) Same as other civil servants, DoJ's prosecutors must obtain prior

consent of his Head of Department (i.e. the Director of Public Prosecutions) before engaging on his own account in outside work (including publication) for remuneration of any sort, or accepting paid employment of any sort outside of his normal working hours.

When considering such applications, the Head of Department should

take into account a number of factors, including whether the outside work proposed may (or appears to) conflict with the officer's duties as a government servant, and whether the arrangement proposed might be a source of embarrassment to the Government. In approving the relevant applications, the Head of Department may impose conditions as he thinks fit, for example, the applicant's outside work would generally take place outside of normal working hours, and no Government's resources would be used.

(3) and (4) Generally speaking, where there is any act, conduct or behaviour of

an officer which contravenes the Civil Service Code or government regulations, his respective department will take appropriate follow-up actions in accordance with the established procedures. If there is evidence that a civil servant has misconducted himself upon investigation, the management will take appropriate disciplinary


5779

action, including imposing disciplinary punishment of verbal warning, written warning, reprimand, severe reprimand, reduction in rank, compulsory retirement and dismissal, etc. The above mechanism is applicable to all civil servants including DoJ's prosecutors.

Any officer who fails to comply with the regulations on outside

work, such as undertaking outside work without his Head of Department's written consent, will be subject to disciplinary action in accordance with the above mechanism.

The case referred to in the question is now under DoJ's investigation.

As for other cases, according to our record, DoJ in the past 10 years gave approvals to a total of 14 officers to undertake outside work related to legal publications. We are not aware of any non-compliance during the period.

(5) DoJ places much emphasis on the professional conduct of

prosecutors. In the event of non-compliance by DoJ's officer, DoJ will duly follow up without tolerance.

DoJ attaches great importance to the matters arising from a

prosecutor's publication which are being handled seriously in accordance with the established internal procedures.

To avoid possible public perception as a result of the relevant

prosecutor's publication that he may not be able to perform his official duties in an impartial manner, that officer would not handle cases involving public order events.

As usual, DoJ will handle each application for paid outside work

prudently under the existing mechanism taking into account actual experience, and impose appropriate conditions as may be necessary to the approvals so as to ensure that the relevant outside work would not and would not appear to be in conflict of interest or role with the applicant's duties.


Virtual banks 8. MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") granted a total of eight virtual bank licences between March and May last year. Up to the middle of April this year, one virtual bank has officially launched services, three others are conducting pilot trials through the Fintech Supervisory Sandbox, and the remaining four are doing preparatory work. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the progress of service launch by virtual banks has met the expectations of HKMA; if not, whether HKMA has looked into the specific reasons for that; whether HKMA knows if the four virtual banks that have not yet launched services or commenced pilot trials at present have adjusted their schedules for launching services;

(2) as there are still quite a number of institutions that have expressed

an interest in applying for a virtual bank licence, whether HKMA will grant more licences shortly; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether HKMA will review in a timely manner the cybersecurity

fortification initiatives implemented by the virtual banks that have launched services, and gather the feedback of customers on virtual banking services; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, our reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) To promote fintech development and innovation as well as financial inclusion in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") granted banking licences to eight virtual banks in the first half of 2019. As at 24 April 2020, one virtual bank has officially commenced operation, providing the public with innovative financial services such as remote account onboarding and online lending. Three virtual banks are piloting operation in the HKMA's Fintech Supervisory Sandbox, with services provided to a confined group of customers. The pilot trials enable the banks to


5781

collect customer feedback for refining their products and services, and help them get better prepared for the official launch of services at a later stage. The remaining virtual banks are also pressing ahead at full steam with the necessary preparatory work, with a view to providing services to the public as soon as practicable. Noting that the outbreak of the COVID-19 has inevitably affected the virtual banks' preparation for launch of services, HKMA considers the progress made by virtual banks towards business commencement on a whole satisfactory.

(2) Following the granting of the eight virtual bank licences, many

institutions have approached HKMA enquiring about or expressing an interest in applying for a licence to operate a virtual bank. HKMA will monitor the operation of the existing virtual banks after they commence business, and assess user response to their services, the level of market acceptance and the impact on the banking system. The assessment results will be taken into account in considering the way forward, including whether to grant additional licences to virtual bank operators.

(3) HKMA requires virtual banks to complete a series of preparatory

work before commencing business, including developing IT systems and establishing robust risk management measures. On technology risk management, virtual banks are required to conduct comprehensive independent assessments of their technology risks, including an assessment of their cybersecurity risk under the Cyber Resilience Assessment Framework, before business commencement. Virtual banks should also establish procedures for regular reviews of their technology risk controls to ensure that these controls remain appropriate notwithstanding continued development in technology. HKMA will conduct regular reviews on the effectiveness of virtual banks' technology risk management and cybersecurity controls following their commencement of operation. HKMA will also collect customer feedback on their services through ongoing communications with the virtual banks in operation.


Anti-epidemic Fund relief measures 9. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, in February and April this year, the Government injected $30 billion and $137.5 billion respectively into the Anti-epidemic Fund ("the Fund") for launching two rounds of relief measures. However, not all the trades and practitioners (e.g. most of the self-employed persons who have not made any Mandatory Provident Fund contributions and the unemployed) hit by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic and the Government's anti-epidemic measures can benefit from these two rounds of relief measures. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of companies that (i) closed down and (ii) entered into the winding-up process, in each month since January this year and, among such companies, the respective numbers of those which had previously applied for subsidies under the Fund (with a tabulated breakdown by trade);

(2) of the latest progress of the implementation of the first-round relief

measures, including the (a) respective numbers of applications received and approved, and (b) total amount of subsidy so granted, in respect of each of the subsidy schemes targeting at (i) the retail sector, (ii) food licence holders, (iii) licensed guesthouses and (iv) travel agents; the latest progress of the implementation of the second-round relief measures;

(3) whether it will consider relaxing the eligibility criteria for the

various subsidies and allowances under the two rounds of relief measures, so that more trades and their practitioners may benefit; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) whether it knows (i) the trades in which companies are unable to

benefit from the relief measures of either round (apart from the wage subsidies under the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS")) and the number of such companies, as well as (ii) the trades in which the self-employed persons are unable to benefit from the one-off lump-sum subsidy under ESS and the number of such persons; whether it has plans to directly provide such companies and self-employed persons with a cash subsidy;


5783

(5) given that quite a number of the recently unemployed persons cannot benefit from the measure of relaxing the eligibility criteria of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme under the second-round relief measures, whether the Government will consider (i) setting up an unemployment financial assistance scheme, or (ii) providing, by drawing reference from ESS, such persons with a monthly subsidy of $9,000 per person for a six-month period; and

(6) as quite a number of comments have pointed out that, after the

implementation of the two rounds of relief measures, quite a number of trades and members of the public hit by the epidemic still have not obtained any targeted assistance from the Government, whether the Government will launch a new round of relief measures; if not, of the reasons for that?

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Chinese): President, in light of the development of the coronavirus disease-2019 ("COVID-19"), the Government has been taking vigilant anti-epidemic measures to contain the public health risk. Having regard to the impact of these measures on the livelihood of individuals and business operation, the Government secured the approval of the Legislative Council Finance Committee ("FC") on 21 February 2020 for a commitment of $30 billion to set up the Anti-epidemic Fund ("AEF"). The purposes of AEF are to enhance Hong Kong's overall capability in combating the pandemic, and to provide assistance or relief to enterprises and members of the public hard hit by the present pandemic or affected by anti-epidemic measures. Taking into account the development of the pandemic and the overall situation, the Chief Executive announced on 8 April 2020 a comprehensive package of measures involving over $130 billion in funding to support eligible individuals and businesses. The Government secured FC's approval on 18 April 2020 for the relevant funding application, including a $120.5 billion injection to AEF to implement second-round relief measures. The Government's reply to different parts of the Member's questions is as follows:

(1) According to the Official Receiver's Office, the monthly figures of winding-up petition since January 2020 are as follows:


Period Number of winding-up petitions January 42 February* 0 March 35

Note: * Due to the special work arrangement of the Court, no petition was

presented in February 2020.

The Official Receiver's Office does not maintain statistics on the number of winding-up petitions by sector. In addition, the Government does not have the number of companies that closed down from January to March this year, nor does the Government collect information on businesses' operation situation after they applied for subsidy/grant under the first-round AEF.

(2) As of 26 April 2020, AEF has paid(1) over $13 billion. Many

businesses and members of the public are receiving subsidies. The number of applications, approved applications and approved subsidy amount up to 26 April 2020 for the Retail Sector Subsidy Scheme, Food Licence Holder Subsidy Scheme, Licensed Guesthouse Subsidy Scheme and Travel Agents Subsidy Scheme are as follows:

Measure Number of

application/ registration

Approved applications

Amount of subsidy

approved ($ million)

Retail Sector Subsidy Scheme#

92 971 21 160 1,693

Food Licence Holder Subsidy Scheme

28 762 27 057 3,561

Licensed Guesthouse Subsidy Scheme#

1 805 1 781 123

Travel Agents Subsidy Scheme#

1 720 1 719 138

Note: # Application/registration period has ended for these schemes.

(1) Refers to payment made to implementing bureaux/departments or agencies entrusted to

implement the schemes under AEF.


5785

As for the implementation of the second-round AEF, since obtaining the approval from FC on 18 April 2020, the details of some of the measures have already been announced. Some measures are open for application. They include the Travel Agents and Practitioners Support Scheme, Hotel Sector Support Scheme, Subsidy Scheme for the Refuse Transfer Station Account Holders, Club-house Subsidy Scheme, Cinemas Subsidy Scheme, support to the construction sector, subsidies to the non-profit-making organizations under several revitalization schemes as well as various relief grants to the education sector, etc. In addition, the low-interest loan with 100% Government guarantee under the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme was rolled out on 20 April 2020. The HKMC Insurance Limited has received 287 applications in just one week's time, involving over $700 million in loan amount. 248 applications (about $600 million in loan amount) have been approved. Other measures will be launched as soon as possible with a view to providing timely relief to the affected sectors and individuals.

(3) The Government has set up the Anti-epidemic Fund Steering

Committee ("Steering Committee") chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration. The Steering Committee monitors the implementation of the measures and the use of funding, as well as to consider proposals to suitably expand the scope of measures under AEF as proposed by bureaux/departments from time to time, with a view to benefiting more businesses and employees. For example, the scope of the "Anti-epidemic Support Scheme for Property Management Sector" will be expanded to cover industrial and commercial buildings. Coverage of the "Support construction sector in anti-epidemic efforts" measure will also be extended to eligible construction workers who are engaged in small-scale works outside construction sites as well as small and medium enterprise consultants which are company members of professional institutions and associations.

(4) With a wide coverage, the second-round measures of AEF aims to

preserve employment and assist the self-employed irrespective of the sectors to which they belong, provide extra relief to those sectors hard hit by the pandemic and pave the way for post-pandemic economic recovery. The measures include the $81 billion


Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") as well as sector-specific initiatives totalling $21 billion. ESS provides wage subsidy to eligible employers through the Mandatory Provident Fund system such that job retention can be achieved and redundancy can be avoided within the shortest time frame. Under ESS, around 215 000 self-employed persons who have made contributions to the Mandatory Provident Fund from 1 January 2019 to 31 March 2020 will also be granted a one-off lump sum subsidy of $7,500.

Apart from second-round relief measures under AEF, the

Government will also roll out a host of other measures, which include providing further rental concessions for government properties and fee waivers, enhancing the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme, supporting the MTR Corporation Limited to provide a fare discount, relaxing the threshold under the Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme, granting interest-free deferral of loan repayments for students, and allowing deferrals of tax payments. These measures, together with those introduced by the Airport Authority Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Insurance Authority, will support businesses and members of the public at large. Together with the first round of relief measures under AEF costing $30 billion and the relief measures in the 2020-2021 Budget costing $120 billion, the Government have committed a total of $287.5 billion to tackle an unprecedented challenge caused by the pandemic and to support enterprises and safeguard jobs. The amount committed represents about 10% of Hong Kong's GDP.

(5) There are currently no mechanisms/systems in place to disburse

unemployment assistance fund promptly in Hong Kong. These mechanisms/systems include: (1) a pay-as-you-go income tax system; (2) a contributory social insurance system; or (3) a central provident fund system. As it takes time to establish such a mechanism/system, the imminent needs cannot be relieved expeditiously. As an expedient measure, the Government will launch a time-limited unemployment support scheme (for a period of six months) through the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance system. The asset limits for able-bodied applicants will be temporarily increased by 100% and the value of an owner-occupied residential property of able-bodied households will be disregarded


5787

according to the established arrangement with a view to providing immediate financial assistance for those unemployed who are most in need. In addition, employees are qualified for severance payment or long service payment if they satisfy the conditions stipulated in the Employment Ordinance. Meanwhile, under the "Love Upgrading Special Scheme" of the Employees Retraining Board, the existing maximum amount of monthly allowance per eligible trainee (who are unemployed or underemployed) is $4,000 during the training period. The amount will be increased to $5,800 with effect from 25 May subject to the completion of the legislative amendment exercise.

(6) In formulating specific plans under the two rounds of AEF and the

Budget initiatives, the Government has strived to balance the interests of various sectors and the general public as far as possible. We hope that these measures can help address the imminent needs of enterprises and people in need. The Government will continue to closely monitor the pandemic and social situation, and consider further support measures as necessary.

Taking forward the legislative process for bills 10. MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, from October last year to mid-April this year, the House Committee ("HC") of this Council convened 15 meetings but its chairman and deputy chairman for the new legislative session have yet to be elected, rendering HC being unable to deal with the Legislative Council ("LegCo") business as normal. There are comments that with as many as 14 bills and more than 80 items of subsidiary legislation not being scrutinized and followed up, a substantial amount of legislative work involving the economy, people's livelihood and social development cannot proceed, and the normal operation of Hong Kong society has been seriously impeded as a result. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that in January this year, this Council passed a motion moved by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare of referring the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2019 to the Panel on Manpower instead of HC, whether the Government has, by drawing reference from such practice, examined how the legislative process for bills


can continue to proceed under the circumstances that HC remains unable to deal with LegCo business as normal; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) regarding those bills the scrutiny of which has been completed by the

bills committees and the resumption of the Second Reading debate on which is pending, of the Government's specific measures to facilitate the completion of the legislative process for such bills within the current LegCo term; and

(3) whether it has assessed the impacts on the overall operation of

society to be brought about by the eventuality of the aforesaid 14 bills lapsing because the legislative process for them cannot be completed at the end of the current LegCo term; if so, set out the contents of the bills, the affected groups/sectors and the relevant impacts by name of the bill?

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Chinese): President, the House Committee ("HC") is an important part of the Legislative Council machinery, serving the purpose of preparing for meetings of the Council and considering matters relating to the business of the Council. One important function of HC is to scrutinize bills introduced into the Council and subsidiary legislation tabled at Council meetings or presented to the Council for approval. HC may also form Bills Committees to scrutinize bills, or appoint subcommittees to study some of the subsidiary legislation in greater detail. HC would then monitor the progress of the Bills Committees and subcommittees concerned. However, since October last year up to and including last Friday (24 April), while HC has already convened 16 meetings for over 30 hours, it has yet to elect its chairman and deputy chairman for the current session. This has brought HC to a complete standstill and rendered HC unable to function normally. In consultation with the Judiciary and the bureaux concerned, our consolidated reply to the three-part question is as follows. Under normal circumstances, according to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), when the public officer in charge of a bill has spoken on a motion that the bill be now read the second time, the debate shall be adjourned and the bill shall be referred to HC. HC may consider whether to form a Bills Committee to scrutinize the bill or cause it to be considered in such other manner as HC thinks fit.


5789

After taking into consideration all relevant factors, the President of the Legislative Council, on 9 January 2020, gave consent for the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to move a motion under RoP 54(4) that the Second Reading debate of the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2019 be adjourned and the Bill be referred to the Panel on Manpower instead of HC. The motion was subsequently passed at the Council meeting on 16 January. The arrangement of referring the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2019 to the Panel on Manpower is not an established practice, but it allowed the legislative work to proceed in accordance with the said provisions of RoP. As mentioned in the reply of the President of the Legislative Council on 15 January 2020 to a letter from 22 Members, after the Bill has been discussed by the Panel on Manpower, if the Secretary for Labour and Welfare seeks to resume the Second Reading debate of the Bill in the future, the President of the Legislative Council would, as always, deal with the matter in accordance with the relevant provisions of RoP. As at 28 April 2020, the Legislative Council is processing 26 bills introduced by the Government, including 11 bills which have gone through the First Reading and for which Bills Committees have been formed in the past two sessions, and another 15 bills which were introduced in the current legislative session. Among the 15 bills introduced into the Council by the Government in the current session, apart from the Appropriation Bill 2020 and the above mentioned Employment (Amendment) Bill 2019, which has been referred to the Panel on Manpower for handling, the legislative process of the remaining 13 bills has come to a halt after the First Reading. The reason is that since these 13 bills have been referred to HC in accordance with RoP 54(4), we cannot follow the procedure in handling the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2019 by referring them to the designated Panels. As HC is at a standstill, it cannot decide whether Bills Committees should be formed to scrutinize the bills. Most of these bills are closely related to the economy and people's livelihood. These include the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions) Bill 2020 which aims at reducing salaries tax, tax under personal assessment and profits tax for year of assessment 2019-2020; the Rating (Amendment) Bill 2019 which aims to introduce Special Rates on vacant first-hand private residential units with a view to encouraging developers to expedite the supply of completed first-hand private residential units in the market; the Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) Bill 2019 which aims to introduce a clear and dedicated regulatory framework on the research and


therapeutic use of Advanced Therapy Products in order to safeguard public health and facilitate their development; and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes (Amendment) Bill 2019 which aims to give explicit power to the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority ("MPFA") to set up a wholly owned subsidiary to take forward the eMPF Platform so as to create room for fee reduction in the long run which can benefit about 4.3 million scheme members. As regards the remaining 11 bills which have gone through the First Reading and for which Bills Committees have been formed in the preceding two sessions, the Bills Committees have completed scrutiny of seven of them and the resumption of the Second Reading debate on those bills in the Council is pending. These seven bills include the Hotel and Guesthouse Accommodation (Amendment) Bill 2018, the Fire Safety (Industrial Buildings) Bill, the National Anthem Bill, the Trade Marks (Amendment) Bill 2019, the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, the Occupational Retirement Schemes (Amendment) Bill 2019 and the Discrimination Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2018. All the bills which cannot complete the scrutiny process and be passed before the end of the current term of the Legislative Council will lapse. If the impasse of HC continues, all efforts of the Government, the Legislative Council and various stakeholders made in formulating these policies will be wasted, with serious implications on the economy, social development and people's livelihood. The failure of HC to deal with the above 13 bills and the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2019 will impact on different sectors of society to varying degrees. The details are set out in Annex. The Government strongly urges for the early election of HC's chairman and deputy chairman so that HC can resume its normal operation and decide whether Bills Committees will be formed to scrutinize the bills in accordance with the established procedures. The Government will continue to fully cooperate with the Legislative Council in the consideration of the bills. We also hope that Members will make efficient use of the meeting time to complete the scrutiny of the huge backlog of bills to enable their early passage before the end of the current term of the Legislative Council.


5791

Annex

Bill (Policy

Bureau/office concerned)

Objectives of the Bills

Groups/ sectors

involved

Impacts to the society and relevant sectors if the Bill cannot be passed within the current term of the

Legislative Council 1. Copyright

(Amendment) Bill 2019 (Commerce and Economic Development Bureau)

To enhance the copyright exceptions relating to persons with print disability in the Copyright Ordinance to bring them into line with the standards under the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled.

Persons with print disability and non-profit- making organizations providing services for these persons

If the Bill is not passed, the copyright exceptions relating to persons with print disability in the Copyright Ordinance cannot be extended to persons with perceptual or reading disability (including dyslexia). Moreover, non-profit-making organizations providing services to persons with print disability will not be able to enjoy copyright exceptions for cross-border exchange of accessible copies of copyright works with their counterparts outside Hong Kong.

2. Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Profits Tax Concessions for Insurance- related Businesses) Bill 2019 (Financial Services and the Treasury

To provide 50% profits tax relief (i.e. the tax rate will be 8.25%) for all general reinsurance business of direct insurers, selected general insurance business of direct insurers and selected insurance

Insurance industry

Hong Kong's insurance industry is an integral part of our financial services industry. Hong Kong is also one of the major insurance hubs in the world. In the light of international competition, other insurance hubs have introduced different measures including tax incentives to enhance


Bill (Policy



Groups/ sectors

involved


Legislative Council Bureau) brokerage business

to promote the development of marine insurance, underwriting of specialty risks and high value-added maritime services.

their own competitiveness. The proposed profits tax relief in the Bill will make the tax arrangements of Hong Kong generally competitive vis-à-vis other insurance hubs in the region. If the Bill cannot be passed, the business environment of the local insurance industry cannot be enhanced, and the industry's ability to seize new opportunities, including those arising from the Belt and Road Initiative, would be hindered.

3. Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions) Bill 2020 (Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau)

To implement the tax concession proposal in 2020-2021 Budget to reduce salaries tax, tax under personal assessment and profits tax by 100%, subject to a ceiling of $20,000 per case for year of assessment 2019-2020.

Taxpayers If the Bill is not passed, 1.95 million taxpayers of salaries tax and tax under personal assessment, and 141 000 tax-paying corporations and unincorporated businesses could not enjoy timely tax concessions. The tax assessment and collection work of the Inland Revenue Department would also be adversely affected.


5793

Bill (Policy



Groups/ sectors

involved


Legislative Council 4. Mandatory

Provident Fund Schemes (Amendment) Bill 2019 (Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau)

To give MPFA explicit power to set up a wholly owned subsidiary as the legal entity to build, own and operate the eMPF Platform for more efficient administration of Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") schemes; and enable MPFA to charge MPF approved trustees the statutory Annual Registration Fee ("ARF") at a level of 0.03% of the net asset value of an MPF scheme.

MPF industry, MPFA, and around 4.3 million of MPF scheme members

The eMPF Platform is one of the important reforms since the implementation of the MPF System in 2000. Through standardization, streamlining and automation of MPF scheme administration processes, it enhances operational efficiency, creates room for reduction of MPF management fees and a predominantly paperless MPF experience. The Government's current target is to have the eMPF Platform ready by 2022 at the earliest and the on-boarding by all trustees by phases in the subsequent two to three years. In this connection, the Government needs to allow sufficient time for the eMPF Platform Company to perform various preparatory work for the implementation of the eMPF Platform. Impasse or delay in the passage of the Bill will


Bill (Policy



Groups/ sectors

involved


Legislative Council inevitably bring about negative impact on the above mentioned timetable. On the other hand, if MPFA is not able to charge MPF approved trustees the statutory ARF as soon as possible in accordance with the mechanism and level as prescribed in the law to generate a stable stream of income, it has to rely only on the unstable investment return from the one-off Capital Grant of $5 billion approved by the Legislative Council in 1998, which will render it difficult to maintain MPFA's annual operating expenditure and long-term financial sustainability, and also affect the capacity of MPFA in fulfilling its statutory obligations.

5. Supplementary Appropriation (2018-2019) Bill (Financial

To seek approval for supplementary appropriation of $36,753,650,048.95 from the general

Not applicable

In accordance with section 9 of the Public Finance Ordinance ("PFO"),(1) the Government needs to


5795

Bill (Policy



Groups/ sectors

involved


Legislative Council Services and the Treasury Bureau)

revenue for the services of the Government in the 2018-2019 financial year.

introduce a Supplementary Appropriation Bill into the Legislative Council as soon as practicable. The purpose is to reconcile the differences between the sums originally appropriated for each head of expenditure under the General Revenue Account and the actual expenditure if these sums are exceeded.

6. Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 (Food and Health Bureau)

To empower the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation to exercise discretion within a confined scope to consider the applications for registration of local fishing vessels which did not possess a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012.

Fisheries If the Bill is not passed, the affected fishermen will need to wait for a longer time to apply for the registration of their local fishing vessels, which would run counter to the expectation of the affected fishermen and also pose additional difficulties for them to provide the required proof in supporting their applications when the legislation is eventually passed in the future.

7. Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) Bill 2019

To provide a clear and dedicated regulatory framework for the

biomedical sector, medical sector and

If the Bill is not passed, we would not be able to provide a clear and dedicated regulatory


Bill (Policy



Groups/ sectors

involved


Legislative Council (Food and Health Bureau)

research and therapeutic use of Advanced Therapy Products ("ATPs") in order to safeguard public health and facilitate their development.

patients framework for ATPs to safeguard public health. The research and therapeutic use of ATPs would also be hindered.

8. Employment (Amendment) Bill 2019 (Labour and Welfare Bureau)

To amend the Employment Ordinance to extend the statutory maternity leave ("ML") by four weeks; and to propose two technical amendments including shortening the period of pregnancy mentioned in the definition of miscarriage and allowing a certificate of attendance to be accepted as proof in respect of entitlement to sickness allowance for a day on which a female employee

Pregnant employees

The Government proposes that the ML pay for the additional four weeks' statutory ML be wholly funded by the Government (though a cap would be set) by way of reimbursement to employers through an administrative scheme. The Labour Department will develop a new Disbursement Information System ("DIS") for implementing the new Reimbursement of Maternity Leave Pay Scheme ("RMLPS"). Subject to the passage of the Bill and approval of the required resources (including an additional directorate officer and funding for DIS) within the current Legislative Council session, the


5797

Bill (Policy



Groups/ sectors

involved


Legislative Council attends a medical examination in relation to her pregnancy.

Government aims to implement RMLPS by end 2021. If the Bill and proposal for the required resources could not be passed, the preparatory work of the Government will be affected and the implementation of RMLPS will be delayed subject to the progress of the new Legislative Council session.

9. Freight Containers (Safety) (Amendment) Bill 2019 (Transport and Housing Bureau)

To amend the Freight Containers (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 506) and its two Schedules to implement the latest requirements of the International Convention for Safe Containers, as promulgated by the International Maritime Organization, governing the safety of handling, stacking and transporting of freight containers.

Container ships trade industry

Failing to pass the Bill will result in incompliance of local legislation with the latest requirements on the International Convention for Safe Containers.


Bill (Policy



Groups/ sectors

involved


Legislative Council 10. Inland

Revenue (Amendment) (Ship Leasing Tax Concessions) Bill 2020 (Transport and Housing Bureau)

To amend the Inland Revenue Ordinance to give profits tax concessions to qualifying ship lessors and qualifying ship leasing managers, so as to enhance Hong Kong's position as a ship leasing centre in the Asia-Pacific region and an international maritime centre.

The maritime and ship finance industries in Hong Kong

If the Bill is not passed, the relevant sectors will be unable to benefit from the tax concessions. Also, Hong Kong cannot raise its competitiveness through tax measures in attracting more ship leasing companies to set up business in Hong Kong and enhance its position as an international maritime and financial centre when facing the keen competition from other port cities in the region.

11. Rating (Amendment) Bill 2019 (Transport and Housing Bureau)

To introduce Special Rates on vacant first-hand private residential units with a view to encouraging developers to expedite the supply of completed first-hand private residential units in the market.

The real estate sector

If the Bill is not passed, the Government will not be able to introduce Special Rates on vacant first-hand private residential units, and hence cannot encourage developers to expedite the supply of completed first-hand private residential units in the market.

12. Road Traffic Legislation (Parking Spaces) (Amendment)

To provide a legal basis for the operation of the new generation on-street parking

Motorists The new generation on-street parking meters will accept multiple electronic payment means, including remote


5799

Bill (Policy



Groups/ sectors

involved


Legislative Council Bill 2019 (Transport and Housing Bureau)

meters with additional features.

payment through a mobile application, for payment of the parking meter fees for motorists' convenience. The new parking meters will also be equipped with sensors to detect whether individual on-street metered parking spaces are occupied. Real-time information will be provided to assist motorists in finding vacant on-street metered parking spaces. As some of the functions of the new parking meters can only be rolled out after the passage of the Amendment Bill by the Legislative Council, motorists would not be able to benefit from the convenience brought about by the new parking meters if the Bill is not passed.

13. Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2019 (Department of Justice)

To propose miscellaneous amendments to various Ordinances, including a set of amendments

Those proposed amendments to the High Court Ordinance

The early passage of the Bill would help keep our statute book updated and improved in an efficient manner. Specifically, the proposed amendments


Bill (Policy



Groups/ sectors

involved


Legislative Council proposed by the Judiciary which seeks to amend the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4) to streamline certain court procedures to facilitate the more efficient handling of some cases, so that all cases can be handled as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable.

mainly involve the Judiciary and court users

to the High Court Ordinance seek to enhance the Judiciary's overall efficiency in handling cases, thereby facilitating access to justice by the parties and putting judicial resources to the best use. If the Bill is not passed, this may affect the Judiciary's overall efficiency in handling cases.

14. Court Proceedings (Electronic Technology) Bill (The Judiciary/CSO)

The Court Proceedings (Electronic Technology) Bill aims to make the necessary legislative amendments to implement the Judiciary's Information Technology Strategy Plan ("ITSP"). Under ITSP, an integrated court case management system ("iCMS") is

All court users including the legal sector

As part of its long-term strategy, the Judiciary is actively pursuing the greater use of IT to support and facilitate the conduct of court business. The demand for the use of IT has, in particular, increased in the recent months in the light of the public health situation. If the Bill which provides the legislative backing for e-filing and transaction (including e-payment) for court proceedings is not passed, the obstacles and uncertainties in the


5801

Bill (Policy



Groups/ sectors

involved


Legislative Council being implemented to streamline and standardize electronic court processes across different levels of courts as appropriate. This will in the long run improve the efficiency of litigation in Hong Kong and reduce paper use.

prevailing law cannot be removed, thus affecting the full implementation of iCMS. This will hinder the use of IT in the handling of court business in the longer run.

Note: (1) Section 9 of PFO provides that: "If at the close of account for any financial year it is

found that expenditure charged to any head is in excess of the sum appropriated for that head by an Appropriation Ordinance, the excess shall be included in a Supplementary Appropriation Bill which shall be introduced into the Legislative Council as soon as practicable after the close of the financial year to which the excess expenditure relates."

The work of the Joint Office 11. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, the Joint Office ("JO"), set up by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Buildings Department, is dedicated to handling reports on water seepage in buildings. In August 2013, JO applied infrared thermography and microwave tomography ("new testing technologies") on a pilot basis for identifying the sources of water seepage. Since June 2018, JO has officially applied the new testing technologies to suitable cases in three districts, and it extended the application of the new testing technologies to five other districts in September 2019. Regarding the work of JO, will the Government inform this Council:


(1) of the number of water seepage reports handled by JO in the 2019-2020 financial year; among them, the respective numbers of cases in which (i) the sources of water seepage were successfully identified, (ii) investigation was underway, and (iii) the sources of water seepage had not been identified but investigation was terminated; the longest and shortest handling time for concluded cases;

(2) of the respective relevant figures of the three districts of Kwun Tong,

Wong Tai Sin and Wan Chai in respect of the items mentioned in (1);

(3) among the water seepage reports handled by JO in the 2019-2020 financial year, of the respective numbers and percentages of cases in which the new testing technologies and conventional testing methods were applied for identifying the sources of water seepage; how such figures compare with those in the preceding three financial years;

(4) of the success rate of the new testing technologies in identifying the

sources of water seepage;

(5) whether the success rates in identifying the sources of water seepage in the aforesaid eight districts are generally higher than those in other districts; if so, whether the Government will expeditiously apply the new testing technologies to all cases in various districts across the territory (especially districts such as Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin where old buildings abound with a large number of water seepage cases); if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and

(6) given that as compared with the new testing technologies,

conventional testing methods are more time consuming and less effective in identifying the sources of water seepage, whether members of the public may, when they seek assistance from JO, request JO to apply the new testing technologies for identifying the sources of water seepage, so as to shorten the time required for handling the cases?


5803

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, proper management, maintenance and repair of buildings, including resolving water seepage problems in buildings, are the responsibilities of building owners and occupiers. To thoroughly solve water seepage problems requires the cooperation of the building owners and occupiers concerned. In general, if water seepage occurs in private buildings, the owners should first arrange their own investigation into the cause and, as appropriate, coordinate with other owners and occupiers concerned for repair works. Nevertheless, the Government recognized that owners do encounter difficulties in dealing with water seepage problems. In view of this, the Government has set up the Joint Office ("JO") under the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and the Buildings Department ("BD"). Through inter-departmental coordination, the statutory power given under the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132), the expertise of the relevant departments, as well as the cooperation of the building owners and occupiers concerned, JO attempts to identify the source of water seepage through systematic testing methods so that the concerned owners would carry out the repair works to mitigate the health nuisance caused by seepage. Generally speaking, JO's investigation of water seepage cases is carried out in three stages. JO staff are responsible for the investigation at Stage I (confirmation of water seepage condition) and Stage II (initial investigation includes colour water test of drainage pipes or reversible pressure test for water supply pipes). If the source of seepage could not be identified during Stage II investigation, Stage III investigation (professional investigation) would be pursued. At Stage III, JO will engage outsourced consultants to assist in carrying out detailed investigation including moisture monitoring at seepage locations, ponding test for floor slabs, water spray test on walls as well as reversible pressure test for water supply pipes to identify the source of water seepage. For more complicated cases and also suitable cases in pilot districts, new testing technologies including infrared thermography ("IT") and microwave tomography ("MT") will be used. If the source of seepage can be identified in any stage of investigation, JO will issue "nuisance notice" in accordance with the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance to the responsible party demanding abatement of the nuisance within a specified period. In consultation with the Food and Health Bureau, FEHD and BD, the Development Bureau provides a consolidated reply to the six parts of the question as follows:


(1) and (2)

Statistics on handling of water seepage reports by JO in 2019 with breakdown for Kwun Tong, Wong Tai Sin and Wan Chai districts are tabulated below:

Cases All districts

Kwun Tong

Wong Tai Sin

Wan Chai

(1) Reports received 34 169 3 077 1 501 1 402 (2) Reports handled(1) 28 096 1 710 876 1 734 (3) Cases screened out amongst

(2)(2) 13 867 880 221 836

(4) Cases with investigation concluded amongst (2)

14 229 830 655 898

(a) Cases with source of water seepage identified

5 663 302 331 247

(b) Cases with source of water seepage not identified and investigation terminated

2 891 249 65 36

(c) Cases with water seepage ceased during investigation

5 675 279 259 615

(5) Reports undergoing investigation(1)

11 655 1 185 978 155

Notes: (1) The relevant number of reports does not necessarily correspond to the

number of reports received in the same year. (2) These include unjustified cases not meeting the 35% moisture content

criterion and withdrawn cases, etc. where no investigation was conducted by JO.

The time spent on investigating a water seepage cases varies due to a

number of factors, including the nature and complexity of the case and whether cooperation from relevant owners or occupiers are obtained as JO staff have to enter the premises concerned for


5805

carrying out non-destructive tests to identify the source of seepage. With the cooperation of the concerned owners/occupiers, generally speaking, JO could normally complete the investigation and inform the informant of the outcome within 90 working days. If the investigation could not be completed within 90 working days, JO will notify in writing the informant of the investigation progress. JO does not compile statistics on the time for investigating water seepage cases.

(3) to (6)

As mentioned above, JO staff use conventional testing methods for

carrying out Stage II initial investigation of the source of seepage, such as colour water test for drainage pipes and reversible pressure test for water supply pipes. In cases where the source of seepage cannot be identified by Stage II initial investigation, JO staff will carry out Stage III professional investigation with the assistance of outsourced consultants. Stage III professional investigation includes conventional testing methods, such as ponding test for floor slabs, water spray test on walls, reversible pressure test for water supply pipes, etc. For more complicated cases and suitable cases in pilot districts, new testing methods, such as IT and MT, will be used.

Since the second half of June 2018, JO has fully applied new testing

methods at Stage III professional investigation in three pilot districts (i.e. Kowloon City, Wan Chai and Central and Western), where applicable. With experience gained and data obtained through pilot application of the new testing methods, JO has since September 2019 extended the new testing methods to another five pilot districts (i.e. Sham Shui Po, Kwai Tsing, Tuen Mun, Tai Po and North District). JO is refining the technical guidelines and procedures relating to the use of the new testing methods and is planning to gradually extending such technologies to other districts.

Statistics on water seepage reports concluded and cases involving the

use of new testing methods in the past three years are tabulated below:


Cases 2017 2018 2019 (a) Concluded cases 15 873 13 650 14 229 (b) Among the cases in (a) above, cases

required professional investigation 11 190 9 716 10 078

(c) Among the cases in (b) above, concluded cases involving the use of new testing methods

27 92 620

As at 31 December 2019, the success rate(3)of cases using the new

testing methods is some 80%, which is higher than the success rate of around 60% for cases using the conventional methods. The aforesaid success rates compare the effectiveness of the two types of testing methods irrespective of district. While IT and MT could be effective in investigating seepage through concrete slabs, they could not be effectively applied under some circumstances such as cases involving ceilings with concrete spalling, ceilings with tile finishes and blockage by pipes/building services. Where IT and MT could not be effectively applied, JO has to resort to conventional testing methods.

(3) Cases with source of water seepage identified Success Rate =

Cases with source of water seepage identified

+ Cases with source of water seepage cannot be identified and investigation completed (excluding cases where investigation has not been completed due to, e.g. seepage ceases to exist during investigation)

Domestic violence 12. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Chinese): President, in recent months, my office has received a number of cases of assistance being sought which were related to domestic violence. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of cases of assistance being sought and reports which were related to domestic violence, received by the Government in each month since January 2015, with a breakdown by District Council ("DC") district;


5807

(2) of the respective numbers of cases in which the batterers of domestic violence were prosecuted and convicted in each of the past five years, with a breakdown by DC district; and

(3) of the immediate measures put in place to prevent the problem of

domestic violence from worsening during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Security Bureau, my reply to Member's question is as follows:

(1) The breakdowns of domestic violence cases (including spouse/ cohabitant battering cases and child protection cases) received by respective districts of the Family and Child Protective Services Units ("FCPSUs") of the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") between 2015-2016 and 2019-2020 are set out at Annex 1. SWD does not have breakdowns of domestic violence cases and reports by District Council ("DC") districts. The breakdowns of domestic violence cases handled by the Police by police districts between 2015 and March 2020 are set out at Annex 2. The Police does not have breakdowns of domestic violence cases and reports by DC districts.

(2) The breakdowns of prosecution, conviction and sentence of

"Domestic Violence (Crime)" cases between 2015 and 2019 are set out at Annex 3. The Government does not have breakdowns of such cases by DC districts.

(3) The Refuge Centres for Women, Family Crisis Support Centre and

Multi-purpose Crisis Intervention and Support Centre operated by SWD-subvented non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") provide 24-hour temporary accommodation and support services for individuals and families (including victims of domestic violence). At the same time, the Victim Support Programme for Victims of Family Violence provides urgent support services to victims of


domestic violence. The public may also report or refer cases in crisis through SWD's 24-hour hotline service (2343 2255). Social workers will provide immediate counselling, support and advice as well as arranging appropriate follow-up service for individuals/families in need. In case of domestic violence or children suspected of being harmed/maltreated, social workers will provide immediate outreaching and follow-up service. Furthermore, the Integrated Family Service Centres/Integrated Service Centres operated by SWD or NGOs, as well as FCPSUs and Clinical Psychological Services of SWD provide urgent and essential services. These include, for instance, proactive contact by social workers of service units with service users by telephone to ensure that their welfare needs are properly addressed. In addition, SWD will strengthen messages of positive thinking and harmony at home through media channels such as television, radio and the Internet, and step up publicity and public education efforts through different means with a view to encouraging people in need to seek help.

When handling domestic conflict reports, the Police will refer cases

in need to SWD for follow-up actions once consent is sought from the parties concerned. SWD may arrange persons in need for admission to refuge centres or request immediate intervention by outreaching social workers, etc. For persons who refuse to accept referral services, Police will provide a "Family Support Service Information Card", which was produced jointly by the Police and SWD, to facilitate the persons concerned to contact service agencies for assistance. To address the needs of ethnic minorities, Police have translated the "Family Support Service Information Card" into 16 languages and uploaded them to the website of the Police Force. If a case is assessed as high risk, Police will take the initiative to refer the case to SWD for follow-up actions.

The services mentioned above, including 24-hour/emergency

services, have maintained normal operation during the epidemic.


5809

Annex 1

Breakdowns of domestic violence cases received by FCPSUs of SWD between 2015-2016 and 2019-2020

Financial year

District by FCPSU 2015- 2016

2016- 2017

2017- 2018

2018- 2019

2019- 2020

Central Western, Southern and Islands 111 92 128 133 121 Eastern/Wan Chai 138 178 131 163 129 Kowloon City/Yau Tsim Mong 193 211 219 200 162 Kwun Tong 227 236 242 267 227 Sham Shui Po 84 110 93 107 79 Sha Tin 268 262 254 193 203 Tuen Mun 241 214 195 181 183 Tai Po/North 194 295 245 321 278 Tsuen Wan/Kwai Tsing 423 380 338 379 310 Wong Tai Sin/Sai Kung 299 304 309 393 323 Yuen Long 432 417 414 389 341 Total 2 610 2 699 2 568 2 726 2 356

Annex 2

Breakdowns of "Domestic violence" cases handled by the Police between 2015 and March 2020

Year/ month

Number of domestic violence (crime) cases (by Police District)(1) Hong Kong Island

Region Kowloon East

Region(2) Kowloon West

Region New Territories North Region

New Territories South Region

Marine Region Total

East

ern

Wan

Cha

i

Cen

tral

Wes

tern

Won

g Ta

i Sin

Kw

un T

ong

Tseu

ng K

wan

O

Sau

Mau

Pin

g

Mon

g Ko

k

Sham

Shu

i Po

Yau

Tsim

Kow

loon

City

Tai P

o

Tuen

Mun

Yuen

Lon

g

Bord

er

Tsue

n W

an

Kw

ai T

sing

Sha

Tin

Lant

au

Airp

ort

2020 January-March

7 10 3 6 21 4 7 5 10 16 10 13 22 14 15 2 4 17 17 4 0 3 210

2019 65 46 20 70 76 39 48 54 47 89 44 61 92 91 71 13 26 66 69 20 4 4 1 115 2018 73 36 29 56 76 56 59 74 107 137 60 74 110 72 122 9 38 86 110 19 1 9 1 413 2017 67 40 17 56 85 68 31 90 79 123 61 88 104 72 131 13 43 99 106 18 1 2 1 394 2016 79 47 27 53 97 137 - 80 85 135 51 89 117 79 152 20 49 93 94 21 0 4 1 509 2015 71 47 19 60 106 136 - 78 71 119 69 98 115 65 151 17 46 76 91 24 3 2 1 464


Year/ month

Number of domestic violence (miscellaneous) cases (by Police District)(3) Hong Kong Island

Region Kowloon East

Region(2) Kowloon West

Region New Territories North Region

New Territories South Region

Marine Region Total

East

ern

Wan

Cha

i

Cen

tral

Wes

tern

Won

g Ta

i Sin

Kw

un T

ong

Tseu

ng K

wan

O

Sau

Mau

Pin

g

Mon

g Ko

k

Sham

Shu

i Po

Yau

Tsim

Kow

loon

City

Tai P

o

Tuen

Mun

Yuen

Lon

g

Bord

er

Tsue

n W

an

Kw

ai T

sing

Sha

Tin

Lant

au

Airp

ort

2020 January-March

6 1 1 2 7 1 1 3 6 12 8 14 24 3 6 2 5 8 9 0 0 2 121

2019 15 14 3 11 18 7 18 26 35 38 36 25 53 29 69 8 13 26 34 13 0 0 491 2018 19 12 15 4 22 6 16 21 34 36 18 40 48 18 43 4 15 13 22 3 0 5 414 2017 12 13 8 16 19 21 5 25 36 46 30 45 29 21 47 9 14 18 32 0 0 3 449 2016 16 9 15 23 26 25 - 27 52 40 27 49 27 27 47 11 17 18 35 3 0 1 495 2015 27 10 7 10 35 30 - 25 57 53 42 43 46 27 49 5 22 21 20 16 2 1 548 Notes: (1) Domestic violence (crime) cases include more serious cases such as murder, wounding, rape, indecent assault, criminal

intimidation and possession of offensive weapon. (2) The Tseung Kwan O Division ("TKODIV"), originally formed under the Kwun Tong District ("KTDIST"), was

officially upgraded to the Tseung Kwan O District ("TKODIST") on 11 July 2017. As crime figures are compiled on a monthly basis, the crime figures for 2017 of KTDIST include those of TKODIV for the period from January to July 2017, and the crime figures for 2017 of TKODIST cover only the figures for the period from August to December 2017.

(3) Domestic violence (miscellaneous) cases include common assault and a breach of the peace.

Annex 3

Breakdowns of the prosecution, conviction and sentence(1) of "Domestic Violence (Crime)" cases between 2015 and 2019

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Total number of cases 1 464 1 509 1 394 1 413 1 115 Total number of prosecutions 467 446 376 421 321 Total number of convictions 192 186 162 138 98 Immediate imprisonment 44 36 55 44 36 Probation order 28 24 27 21 19 Community service 17 18 11 17 6 Suspended jail sentence 68 70 46 27 18 Bound over/Conditional discharge 0 1 1 1 0 Others(2) 35 37 22 28 19 Notes: (1) As the year of prosecution and the year of conviction of the case concerned may be

different, the figures above should not be compared directly. (2) "Others" includes detention in a training centre, detention centre, drug addiction

treatment centre, hospital order and fine, etc.


5811

Fuel prices 13. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, although international oil prices plummeted over the past two months, there has not been any significant drop in local retail prices of auto-fuels ("local pump prices"). In view of the business difficulties of the transport trades, the Government has earlier announced the provision of support to the transport trades under the Anti-epidemic Fund, including: offering a $1 discount per litre of liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") (i.e. approximately a one-third discount) for 12 months for LPG taxis and public light buses ("PLBs"), and reimbursing one-third of the actual fuel cost for 12 months for petrol taxis and diesel PLBs. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as some members of the transport trades have pointed out that local pump prices are often "quick to rise and slow to drop", which has undermined the interests of motorists, of the Government's counter-measures;

(2) whether it knows if the Competition Commission will commence an

investigation again on issues concerning local pump prices;

(3) as some professional drivers have relayed that since the reduction in local pump prices is much smaller than the drop in international oil prices over the same period, the subsidies on fuel expenses provided by the Government may ultimately be nibbled up by the oil companies, whether the Government had considered ways to prevent such a situation from occurring when it formulated the relevant measures; and

(4) given that international oil prices are currently on the low side,

whether the Government will suggest that the oil companies increase their local oil reserves so as to hedge against part of the future rise in oil prices?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the consolidated replies of the Environment Bureau, Commerce and Economic Development Bureau and Transport and Housing Bureau to the above four questions are as follows:


(1) Hong Kong being a free market economy, the retail prices of auto-fuels are determined by oil companies having regard to commercial principles and their operating costs. As Hong Kong has no oil refinery, all auto-fuels sold locally are imported refined oil products instead of crude oil. Crude oil and refined oil (such as unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel) are different products. Therefore, changes in international crude oil price are not necessarily the same as changes in the prices of unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel. In analysing the adjustments of local auto-fuel prices, it is more appropriate to make reference to the trend movements of Means of Platts Singapore ("MOPS") and the import prices that oil companies pay. According to our observation, the trend movements of local retail prices of auto-fuels and those of MOPS are generally in line over the past year, although the timing and magnitude of the changes may not be exactly the same, due to the following factors:

(a) MOPS prices fluctuate day by day, but oil companies do not

adjust their auto-fuel prices daily;

(b) Local retail price of unleaded petrol includes tax and other operating costs of the oil companies, changes to the latter will also affect petrol prices; and

(c) Oil companies generally offer various kinds of discounts and

concessions to their customers. According to our understanding, the walk-in discount and the membership card discount offered by some oil companies have increased from $0.9 per litre in 2018 to a maximum of $3.0 per litre at present, and the number of days on which the special discount is offered has also increased from one day a week to two to four days a week. Since customers can obtain various discounts and offers in different ways, the actual price after discount is lower than the retail price, and is also not a uniform price, suggesting that price competition exists in the market.

In view of the public's concerns about auto-fuel prices, the

Competition Commission ("Commission") had studied the local auto-fuel market. The study looked into petrol prices and costs


5813

from 2012 to 2015. The report was released in May 2017. The report pointed out that, the two features of which oil prices are higher in Hong Kong than anywhere else and that they are always the same across companies cannot be taken as hard evidence of anti-competitive conduct on their own. The study also indicates that there is no evidence that retailers are increasing their retail margins by passing-through increases in import costs more quickly than reductions, i.e. engaging in "rockets and feathers" pricing. Rather, the analysis undertaken by the Commission has shown that the timing of price changes in response to movements in input cost is broadly symmetric for both petrol and diesel.

Nonetheless, the Government appreciates the impact of auto-fuel

prices on the public, and hence has been monitoring the changes in local retail prices of auto-fuels and comparing them with the trend movements of international oil prices (benchmarked against the Singapore free-on-board prices, i.e. MOPS, for unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel). We have also been in close contact with the oil companies, urging them to reduce prices promptly when international oil prices drop, in order to lessen the burden on the public. In fact, since January 2020, the oil companies have already lowered their prices 11 times, by a cumulative $1.5 per litre. We also observed that, with the significant fluctuations in international oil prices, they have made adjustments eight times since March 2020, which are more frequent than before.

(2) The Commission would investigate a case if it has reasonable cause

to suspect that a contravention of a competition rule under the Competition Ordinance ("Ordinance") has taken place, is taking place or is about to take place. However, for effective investigation and to protect the interests of all parties involved, the Commission would generally not comment on the matters that it is investigating. It is also worth noting that, while the First Conduct Rule of the Ordinance prohibits cartel conducts (including price-fixing) that harm competition in Hong Kong, the Ordinance does not regulate the price levels set by businesses in the market.

(3) Most of the public light buses and taxis that can benefit from the fuel

subsidy under the Anti-epidemic Fund (i.e. more than 3 500 liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") public light buses and more than


18 000 taxis) use LPG as fuel. Currently, the market share of the 12 dedicated LPG filling stations in Hong Kong is about 65%. The price of LPG at all these dedicated stations is regulated by the operation contracts, and the price ceiling is adjusted monthly according to a specified pricing formula. As the pricing formula factors in the international LPG price of the previous month, it is not possible for the dedicated stations to raise their gas price inappropriately to take advantage of the support measure. As regards the non-dedicated stations, the Government will keep a close watch over their adjustment of gas prices, to ensure that the relevant support measure can effectively assist the drivers and operators of taxis and minibuses.

As for diesel light buses and petrol taxis, there are only some 800

and some 100 of them respectively (the latter are mostly LPG/petrol bi-fuel taxis). These numbers are negligible out of the total number of diesel and petrol vehicles in Hong Kong. We consider that oil companies would have no incentive to inappropriately adjust the retail prices of diesel and petrol, even with the support measure in place.

(4) Since 1982, the various oil companies in Hong Kong and the Hong

Kong and China Gas Company Limited have been maintaining strategic reserves of gas oil and naphtha in Hong Kong in accordance with a voluntary code of practice, at a level equivalent to 30 days' retained imports of gas oil and naphtha in the previous year. This arrangement serves to safeguard the sufficient supply of oil products in Hong Kong. As to how or when to procure oil products, that is the commercial decision of the oil companies, and the Government should not intervene.

Protection for employees contracting Coronavirus Disease 2019 14. DR PIERRE CHAN (in Chinese): President, since the outbreak of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") epidemic in Hong Kong in January this year, some labour groups have been urging the Government to amend the law to include COVID-19 as one of the occupational diseases specified in the Second Schedule to the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282), so as to ensure


5815

that employees will be compensated for incapacity or death resulting from COVID-19. The Government indicated on 10 February that it had commenced a study on the proposal to amend the law, but that the law could be amended only when definite medical and epidemiological conclusion on the virus was available and, in such process, it was necessary to discuss the details with the various stakeholders. The Government also pointed out that if an employee contracted COVID-19 arising out of and in the course of his/her employment, he/she should inform the employer immediately so that the employer could notify the Labour Department ("LD"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the work progress, since 10 February of this year, of its study on the aforesaid legislative exercise, including:

(i) the stakeholders it has met and those it has scheduled to meet,

and set out in a table the names of such stakeholders, the meeting dates, the views collected, as well as the reasons for not having scheduled meetings with stakeholders (if applicable);

(ii) whether it has drawn up a preliminary list of relevant trades

which it intends to include in the Second Schedule to Cap. 282; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(iii) the legislative timetable;

(2) of the progress and the latest outcome of the medical and

epidemiological studies conducted on COVID-19; and

(3) of the number of cases received by LD so far in which the employers took the initiative to notify LD that their employees had contracted COVID-19 arising out of and in the course of their employment; how LD ensures that all employers will take the initiative to notify LD of such type of cases?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, according to the definition of the International Labour Organization ("ILO"), occupational disease refers to a disease which has a causal relationship with


specific exposure in the working environment or work activity, and the incidence rate of the disease among the exposed workers is significantly higher than that in the rest of the population, so that the occupational origin of the disease in an exposed worker can be reasonably presumed. In considering whether a particular disease should be prescribed as a statutory occupational disease, the Labour Department ("LD") makes reference to ILO criteria and adopts an evidence-based approach to assess objectively whether a definite causal relationship exists between a disease and a certain type of work, and whether the disease occurs among the exposed workers at a significantly higher rate than in the general population. This includes perusing relevant medical evidence and epidemiological information in order to make necessary assessment and recommendation. My reply to the questions raised by Dr Pierre CHAN is as follows:

(1) and (2)

In prescribing a new occupational disease, LD has to clearly specify in the legislation what industries and processes in which the employees are engaged have definite risks posed by the disease and list out such prescribed industries or processes. Moreover, employees who have contracted the disease must have been employed in these industries or processes within a specified period. Employers have to compensate employees infected with an occupational disease during work in accordance with the law.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") has been spreading

quickly over the world. The World Health Organization ("WHO") officially declared COVID-19 a pandemic on 11 March 2020. Based on the WHO Situation Report on 20 April 2020, there was a total of 2 314 621 confirmed cases globally, with 72 846 cases newly confirmed on the preceding day. The population worldwide is generally at risk of the infection. For an infectious disease that can transmit widely in the community, exposure to its infectious agent may not only occur in particular workplaces but generally in the community as well. In Hong Kong, as at 21 April 2020, a total of 1 029 cases have been confirmed. The infection of a vast majority of these cases was community-acquired.


5817

As the outbreak situation of COVID-19 is still evolving and keeps changing in Hong Kong and globally, the primary task of LD is to keep a close watch on relevant medical and epidemiological data, especially the number of cases originated from work and their industry distribution, as well as the extent and risk of community infection, in order to make appropriate recommendations.

(3) According to the Employees' Compensation Ordinance ("ECO"), an

employer must notify the Commissioner for Labour of any accident or prescribed occupational disease within a notice period. Although COVID-19 is currently not a compensable occupational disease prescribed under ECO, section 36 of ECO stipulates that an employee contracting a disease not prescribed as an occupational disease may still claim compensation from the employer under ECO if it is an injury or death by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and the employer is in general liable to pay compensation under ECO.

As at 17 April 2020, LD received a total of 21 cases with employees

suspected to have contracted COVID-19 as reported by the employers under ECO.

LD has been proactively following up with employees' compensation

claims with employees suspected to have contracted COVID-19 in employment based on the published information of the Centre for Health Protection. LD also passes a bilingual note on employees' right and protection under ECO, as well as contact means of LD, to all confirmed COVID-19 patients through hospitals. If an employee contracts or suspects having contracted COVID-19 by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, the employee should inform the employer as soon as possible so that the employer can report the injury to LD. If the employee has doubt as to whether the employer has reported the injury to LD, the employee should approach the Employees' Compensation Division of LD for assistance direct.


Promoting research and development activities 15. MR JIMMY NG (in Chinese): President, the Chief Executive stated in the 2017 Policy Address that the Government had set a goal to double the gross domestic expenditure on research and development ("R&D") ("GERD") to about $45 billion a year, i.e. to increase the ratio of such expenditure to the Gross Domestic Product ("R&D expenditure ratio") from 0.73% to 1.5%, by the end of the current Government's term of office. According to the Report on Hong Kong Innovation Activities Statistics 2018 ("the Report"), the GERD in 2018 was $24,497 million, and the R&D expenditure ratio was 0.86%, which was still quite a distance from the goal of 1.5% set by the Government. Quite a number of members of the industry have pointed out that to achieve the goal, the Government needs to expeditiously introduce new measures to encourage more enterprises to conduct R&D activities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether, in order to achieve the aforesaid goal of R&D expenditure ratio, the Government will (i) introduce new measures to encourage more enterprises to conduct R&D activities, and (ii) set specific indicators in respect of the field of R&D activities, the source of funds (i.e. from the Government, business sector, and parties outside Hong Kong and other local parties) and the number of R&D personnel; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether it will examine the setting of a more aggressive long-term

goal on the R&D expenditure ratio; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) as the Report pointed out that while small and medium enterprises

("SMEs") accounted for 94.1% of the enterprises which had conducted R&D activities in 2018, their expenditure on in-house R&D activities accounted for less than 50% of the relevant total expenditure incurred by all enterprises, whether the Government will introduce more measures to subsidize SMEs for conducting R&D activities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) as the Report showed that while enterprises' expenditure on R&D

activities contracted out to parties outside Hong Kong was $3,395 million (accounting for 75% of the total expenditure on


5819

contracted-out R&D) in 2018, such expenditure was not eligible for the enhanced tax deduction for "qualifying R&D activities" provided by the Government since 1 April 2018, whether the Government will study the inclusion of such expenditure in the scope of application of the tax deduction measures; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, research and development ("R&D") is the foundation of innovation and technology ("I&T"). The current term Government has been committed to increasing resources for R&D, and have set a goal to increase the Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D ("GERD") as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product to 1.5%. To achieve this goal, a number of new initiatives have been introduced to support R&D work by universities and public research institutes, encourage R&D investment by the private sector, provide R&D infrastructure to the industry, as well as proactively attract and retain talent for R&D work. According to the Hong Kong Innovation Activities Statistics 2018 released recently by the Census and Statistics Department, GERD of Hong Kong in 2018 amounted to $24,497 million, representing an increase of 10% when compared to the corresponding figure of 2017. The overall number of R&D personnel has also continued to increase steadily. The reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) to (3) The Government hopes to increase the overall R&D expenditure in

Hong Kong, and to gradually reverse the ratio of public sector versus private sector expenditure on R&D from government-led to public-private participation, which is more sustainable. To this end, we have launched various new initiatives in respects of R&D investment, talent and infrastructure to attract enterprises to invest more in R&D activities.

For R&D investment, we have provided a two-tiered enhanced tax

deduction for qualifying R&D expenditures incurred by enterprises since 1 April 2018. The deduction is 300% for the first $2 million


of the aggregate amount of payment made to "Designated Local Research Institutions" for "qualifying R&D activities" and qualifying R&D expenditures incurred by enterprises, and 200% for the remaining amount. There is no cap on the amount of the relevant enhanced tax deduction which applies to all enterprises. This initiative provides incentive to encourage more enterprises to conduct R&D work in Hong Kong.

Among the tax returns received for the 2018-2019 assessment year,

the Inland Revenue Department received 110 claims for tax deduction relating to R&D expenditures, involving an expenditure for tax deduction of over $1.8 billion. Although the concerned Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill was only passed in October 2018, and therefore may not have an immediate effect on the year of assessment, the total expenditure of tax deduction for the year of assessment 2018-2019 has already been higher than that in 2017-2018. Since enterprises' enhancing R&D investment would mostly require detailed planning and even business adjustments, it usually takes longer time for effects to be seen. Various factors, including last year's social incidents, the COVID-19 epidemic, the global economic downturn, etc., may also affect companies' resource investments in commencing R&D work. We expect that it may take longer to show the actual effect of the enhanced tax deduction.

The various schemes under the Innovation and Technology Fund

("ITF") finance projects that can contribute to I&T upgrading and industry development in Hong Kong, encourage private enterprises (including small and medium enterprises ("SMEs")) to invest in R&D and applied technology, and commercialize outstanding local R&D achievements. From 2016 to 2019, ITF had funded around 8 500 projects with a total funding commitment of about $7.73 billion. Compared to the previous 4-year period (2012 to 2015), the number of projects funded and total funding commitment have increased by 2 and 1.4 times respectively. Also, the funding commitment for R&D projects has increased by 70%. Generally speaking, a significant share (over 80%) of the ITF funding is used to fund enterprise-led projects. Specifically, the Enterprise Support Scheme provides dollar-for-dollar matching funding of up to $10 million for each approved project for private companies to carry


5821

out R&D work. As at end February 2020, 134 applications involving 116 private companies have been supported, with private companies contributing about $507 million and ITF contributing about $433 million. We provide 40% cash rebate to designated applied R&D projects of eligible enterprises through the R&D Cash Rebate Scheme. As at end February 2020, 1 390 companies have been granted cash rebates of about $602 million. Moreover, the Partnership Research Programme was launched in January 2019 to consolidate the previous University-Industry Collaboration Programme and the collaborative stream of the Innovation and Technology Support Programme to fund collaborative R&D projects jointly conducted by private companies with local R&D Centres, universities and other designated public research institutes. As at end February 2020, 35 projects have been funded involving funding of about $61.5 million.

In respect of R&D talent, the Government subsidizes eligible

enterprises/organizations in recruiting research personnel to engage in R&D work through the Researcher Programme ("RP") and Postdoctoral Hub ("PH"). Currently, the maximum monthly allowances for researchers holding bachelor's and master's degrees are $18,000 and $21,000 respectively, and that for each postdoctoral talent is $32,000. As at end February 2020, RP has approved nearly 4 800 applications with total funding of about $1.28 billion, and PH has approved nearly 920 applications with total funding of about $530 million. Starting from 9 March 2020, the funding scope of the two programmes has been expanded from enterprises/organizations undertaking ITF-funded R&D projects, incubatees and I&T tenants of the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation ("HKSTPC") and the Cyberport as well as start-ups selected for investment under the Innovation and Technology Venture Fund to all technology companies conducting R&D activities in Hong Kong.

In addition, the Government launched in mid-2018 the Technology

Talent Admission Scheme to provide a fast-track arrangement to admit technology talent to conduct R&D work in Hong Kong. As at end March 2020, the Innovation and Technology Commission has allotted 334 quotas and the Immigration Department has approved


110 employment visa/entry permit applications in accordance with the relevant quotas. To support Hong Kong's technological development, we have, starting from late January 2020, extended the applicable technology areas of the scheme from 7 (i.e. biotechnology, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, robotics, data analytics, financial technologies and material science) to 13 (the 6 new areas are 5G communications, Internet-of-Things, integrated circuit design, microelectronics, digital entertainment and green technology), and broadened the scheme's coverage to all companies undertaking R&D activities in these 13 areas in Hong Kong. The enhancements will allow more companies to benefit from the certainty and streamlined procedures offered by the scheme, thus expediting the admission of technology talent from different parts of the world to undertake R&D work in Hong Kong.

The Government will also launch the STEM Internship Scheme

within this year to subsidize undergraduates and postgraduates of STEM-related programmes in local universities to undertake short-term internships. We welcome participation by private enterprises to provide short-term R&D internship positions to students.

In respect of R&D infrastructure, through the Hong Kong Science

Park ("Science Park") and the Cyberport, the Government provides incubation and support services to technology-based companies and start-ups. In recent years, the Government has supported various development projects of HKSTPC and the Cyberport with a view to providing more scientific research and laboratory space for the I&T sector, including local enterprises. These development items include the Science Park Expansion Programme Stage I, the development of R&D-related facilities by HKSTPC with an allocation of $3 billion, the expansion of Cyberport with $5.5 billion earmarked, and Phase 2 of the Science Park Expansion Programme with $3 billion reserved. The Government is also actively developing the 87-hectare Lok Ma Chau Loop area into the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park as a key base for cooperation in scientific research.


5823

Apart from the above measures that are directly related to private enterprises undertaking R&D work, the current Government also aims to create a vibrant I&T ecosystem by introducing different measures, for example establishing the InnoHK research clusters, co-investing with venture capital funds in local I&T start-ups through the Innovation and Technology Venture Fund, injecting funding into the Research Endowment Fund to substantially increase research funding for post-secondary institutions, etc. We believe that the increasingly sophisticated local I&T ecosystem will be highly conducive to encouraging companies to conduct more R&D activities in Hong Kong.

The Government expects the effect of these measures to be realized

gradually, contributing to a further increase in GERD. We will keep a close watch on the relevant situation, and introduce suitable measures as and when appropriate for encouraging R&D investment by private enterprises (including SMEs), or consider whether to set other indicators or longer-term goals as needed.

(4) The objectives of providing enterprises with enhanced tax deduction

for qualifying R&D expenditures are to attract enterprises to invest more in R&D projects in Hong Kong, promote local R&D work, and groom local R&D talent. To this end, enterprises are eligible for up to 300% enhanced tax deduction for payment made to "Designated Local Research Institutions". For payment on R&D activities outsourced to research institutions outside Hong Kong, enterprises can still qualify for 100% tax deduction.

Permitting enterprises to claim enhanced tax deduction for R&D

activities outsourced to non-local research institutions goes against the policy to promote local R&D activities. The SAR Government is also not empowered to verify the R&D competency of institutions outside Hong Kong, and whether the claimed R&D work and expenditure are true.


The impacts on freedom of the press in Hong Kong and on "one country, two systems" of the Mainland Government expelling journalists of US media 16. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, on 18 March this year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement, demanding that "journalists of US citizenship working with the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post whose press credentials are due to expire before the end of 2020 notify the Department of Information of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within four calendar days starting from today and hand back their press cards within ten calendar days. They will not be allowed to continue working as journalists in the People's Republic of China, including its Hong Kong and Macao Special Administrative Regions". The aforesaid measure imposed by a department of the Central People's Government involves the immigration policy of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") as well as the freedom of the press and freedom of speech enjoyed by Hong Kong residents under Article 27 of the Basic Law. Some comments have pointed out that the measure has undermined the freedom of the press and freedom of speech in SAR and damaged SAR's image as a free and open international city. In recent years, the SAR Government also rejected new or renewal applications for employment visa from foreign journalists. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of foreign journalists who were (i) refused entry as visitors, (ii) denied entry as their new or renewal applications for employment visa had been rejected, and (iii) refused entry under other circumstances, by the Immigration Department in the past three years, and set out, by their names, the organizations for which they worked and the reasons for their being refused entry;

(2) given that under Article 27 of the Basic Law, Hong Kong residents

shall enjoy rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press, whether it has assessed if the measure imposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has contravened the provision of that Article; if it has assessed, of the outcome;

(3) of the measures in place to ensure that (i) the freedom of the press

enjoyed by Hong Kong residents will not be undermined by the aforesaid measure imposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and (ii) foreign journalists can continue to carry out their news covering


5825

work in Hong Kong without interference from the Chinese Government, so as to avoid Hong Kong's status as an international financial centre being affected because of the loss of freedom of the press and free flow of information; and

(4) as Article 22 of the Basic Law stipulates that no department of the

Central People's Government may interfere in the affairs which SAR administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law, and immigration control is the affair which the SAR Government administers on its own in accordance with Article 154 of the Basic Law, whether it has assessed if the measure imposed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has contravened the provisions of such Articles; if it has assessed, of the outcome?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Security Bureau, our reply to Mr Charles Peter MOK's question is as follows:

(1) There were over tens of millions visitor arrivals in Hong Kong every year and the number of visitors refused entry only represented an extremely small proportion among them. This speaks itself our welcoming and facilitative policy for visitors coming to Hong Kong. In the past three years, there were on average about 60 million visitor arrivals in Hong Kong every year, while the annual number of visitor arrivals refused entry was 53 600 on average, which accounts for less than 0.1%.

The numbers of visitors refused entry in the past three years by

reason for refusal are tabulated as follows:

Reason for refusal

Year

Doubtful purpose of

visitNote

Improperly documented/

without a valid visa or

an endorsement

Forged travel

document Total

2017 43 613 5 338 82 49 033


Reason for refusal

Year

Doubtful purpose of

visitNote

Improperly documented/

without a valid visa or

an endorsement

Forged travel

document Total

2018 46 023 8 075 97 54 195 2019 50 168 7 297 118 57 583

Note: Examples of visitors refused entry on the ground of having a doubtful purpose

of visit include suspected parallel traders, Mainland pregnant women who have not made a booking for delivery, persons suspected of coming to Hong Kong for illegal employment, persons suspected to overstay after coming to Hong Kong, etc.

Applicants who possess special skills, knowledge or experience of

value to and not readily available in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") may apply to come to work in HKSAR under the General Employment Policy ("GEP") (which is not applicable to Chinese residents of the Mainland) or the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals ("ASMTP") (which is applicable to Chinese residents of the Mainland). Both GEP and ASMTP are non-sector specific.

In processing each application, the Immigration Department

("ImmD") will examine whether the applicant meets the specific eligibility criteria under the relevant admission scheme and normal immigration requirements, and take into account the individual circumstances of each application, so as to ensure that only applicants who meet the relevant immigration policies will be admitted into Hong Kong for employment. At the end of March 2020, there were about 98 650 non-local persons admitted under the above immigration scheme/policy to work in different sectors in Hong Kong.

In the past three years, the numbers of applications for visa/entry

permit and extension of stay refused under GEP and ASMTP are tabulated as follows:


5827

Immigration scheme/ policy

Year

GEP ASMTP

2017 1 123 373 2018 929 251 2019 1 159 365

ImmD does not maintain the breakdown statistics on refused

applications by industry/sector. (2) and (3) The statement entitled "China Takes Countermeasures Against

Restrictive Measures on Chinese Media Agencies in the United States" issued by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 18 March 2020 indicated that the countermeasures were to reciprocate the United States Government's unwarranted restrictions on the Chinese media agencies and personnel in the United States. It stated that China's fundamental state policy of opening-up will not change. Foreign media organizations and journalists who cover stories in accordance with laws and regulations are always welcome in China, and will get continued facilitation and assistance. The HKSAR Government is firmly committed to protecting and respecting the freedom of the press, which is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Basic Law. The media reports freely in Hong Kong and performs its role as a watchdog over public affairs. The HKSAR Government does not exercise any censorship in traditional media or over the Internet. Some 80 foreign media organizations have offices in Hong Kong and run their business freely as usual here, as in the case of local media.

(4) The countermeasures announced by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

on 18 March were to reciprocate the United States Government's unwarranted restrictions on the Chinese media agencies and personnel in the United States. In taking these countermeasures against the United States, the Central Government is exercising its diplomatic authority in accordance with the "one country, two


systems" principle and the Basic Law. HKSAR has been implementing "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and a high degree of autonomy in strict accordance with the Basic Law, fully reflecting the implementation of the "one country, two systems" principle. Under Article 154(2) of the Basic Law, the HKSAR Government applies immigration controls on entry into, stay in and departure from Hong Kong by persons from foreign states and regions.

Compulsory quarantine at home 17. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, to tackle the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, persons arriving in Hong Kong on all flights are currently required to provide their deep throat saliva samples to the authorities for conducting tests for coronavirus, and then undergo a 14-day compulsory quarantine at a designated place (home or other accommodation) pursuant to the requirements of the quarantine orders. Some members of the public have pointed out that while such persons are forbidden to go out during home quarantine, those living with them are not subject to this restriction, giving rise to the possibility of the virus spreading to the community through the latter. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether the four members of the expert advisory panel ("panel") commissioned by the Chief Executive unanimously agreed to the arrangement that persons living with those under home quarantine are not required to subject to compulsory quarantine; if so, of the panel's justifications, and whether the panel had pointed out the inadequacies of this arrangement; if so, of the details and the remedial measures; and

(2) given that as at 24 March this year, the Department of Health issued

a total of 408 warning letters to persons who had violated the quarantine orders, whether the Government will consider stepping up law enforcement efforts to enhance the deterrent effect; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons and the alternative options for that?


5829

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, with the Government putting in place and continuing to implement a series of stringent prevention and control measures, as well as the dedication of health care staff and frontline workers and cooperation of members of the public, there are preliminary signs that the coronavirus disease-2019 ("COVID-19") outbreak situation in Hong Kong is stabilizing. That said, in view that the situation of the outbreak is still dire around the globe, the Government will continue to put in efforts to prevent the virus from being imported from outside Hong Kong and imported cases from spreading locally. The Government continues to adopt the "containment" strategy, including strengthening virus surveillance for travellers arriving at Hong Kong, mandating all inbound travellers (except for a small number of exempted persons) to be subject to compulsory quarantine, as well as enhancing monitoring and enforcement for people placed under compulsory quarantine. Also, using a science-based approach and built on advice from the expert advisory panel, we plan and coordinate efforts on prevention and control of the epidemic and formulate suitable strategies and response measures. My reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr Kenneth LEUNG is as follows:

(1) The Government reports various prevention and control measures to the expert advisory panel regularly and seek their opinions, including on the compulsory quarantine requirement for Hong Kong residents arriving at Hong Kong who have been to any overseas countries or areas in the past 14 days. The expert advisory panel agreed with the arrangement that asymptomatic inbound travellers should be subject to compulsory quarantine at designated places (home or other accommodation). It considered that people living with these persons under quarantine should be required to follow a series of prevention measures, such as maintaining good personal hygiene, wearing a surgical mask, checking body temperature and maintaining social distance with the persons under quarantine, but did not bring up the requirement for the people living with these persons under quarantine to undergo compulsory quarantine.

(2) According to the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons

Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap. 599C), starting from 8 February 2020, except for exempted persons, all persons having stayed in the Mainland for any period during the 14 days preceding


arrival in Hong Kong will be subject to compulsory quarantine for 14 days, regardless of nationality and travel documents used. Since 25 March 2020, the compulsory 14-day quarantine arrangement has been extended to all persons arriving from or having stayed in Macao and Taiwan in the past 14 days prior to arrival in Hong Kong, in addition to those arriving from the Mainland. Furthermore, according to the Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at Hong Kong from Foreign Places Regulation (Cap. 599E), starting from 19 March 2020, except for exempted persons, all persons arriving at Hong Kong from places outside China will be subject to compulsory quarantine for 14 days.

In accordance with the requirements under section 8 of Cap. 599C

and Cap. 599E, a person placed under quarantine in accordance with section 3 must not leave the place of quarantine if the relevant person has not been given permission by an authorized officer. The Government has implemented various measures to monitor whether persons placed under quarantine abide by the law, including conducting surprise checks, placing calls to the relevant persons, sharing of real-time location via communication software and using electronic wristbands/monitoring wristbands paired with mobile app, with a view to ensuring that the persons placed under quarantine are staying at their dwelling places.

Implementing compulsory quarantine arrangement is a crucial

element of the measures for the prevention and control of the epidemic. The relevant departments have strengthened monitoring and inspections. As at 27 April 2020, officers from disciplinary forces had conducted surprise visits on over 14 000 persons under quarantine. The call centre of the Department of Health ("DH") had placed over 190 000 telephone calls to persons under quarantine to conduct surprise checks. Relevant departments had also distributed over 75 000 electronic wristbands/monitoring wristbands, shared real-time location via communication software with over 80 000 persons under compulsory quarantine, and made about 180 000 calls (including video calls) to ensure that persons under quarantine are staying at their dwelling places.


5831

During the monitoring process, if abnormal situations are observed or persons who have breached the quarantine order are found, relevant departments will suitably follow up. The Government adopts a "zero tolerance" policy towards those who violate the quarantine order, and they are subject to immediate prosecution without warning starting from 22 March 2020. Offenders are subject to a maximum fine of $25,000 and imprisonment for six months. As at 27 April 2020, four individuals who violated quarantine orders were respectively sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 10 days to 3 months by magistrates' courts. Besides, a total of 56 individuals left their dwelling places before expiry of the quarantine orders without reasonable explanation and permission given by an authorized officer, and were stopped by staff of the Immigration Department at border control points. DH and Police will continue investigations on the cases concerned and gather more evidence for consideration by the Department of Justice for making prosecutions.

Relief measures implemented by the Government 18. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Chinese): President, as Hong Kong's economy has been hard hit by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 epidemic, the business of quite a number of enterprises has plummeted, and many employees have been asked to take no pay leave or a pay cut, or have even been dismissed. Although the Government has implemented two rounds of relief measures through the Anti-epidemic Fund, quite a number of trades and employees still have not benefited from them, and are left feeling anxious and helpless. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the business of thousands of education centres (including playgroups, music schools and dance schools) has plummeted or even dropped to zero amid the epidemic, and the income of their instructors has reduced substantially, but since these education centres have not been (as they are not required to be) registered under the Education Ordinance (Cap. 279), they are not eligible for the one-off grant of $40,000 offered to each tutorial school in the second round of relief measures, whether the Government will relax the eligibility criteria for the grant to cover such education centres, in order to help them and the instructors concerned ride out the hard times;


(2) as the 50% wage subsidy to be provided under the Employment Support Scheme in the second round of relief measures by the Government for an employer will be calculated on the basis of the actual wages paid to his employees for any one month from January to March this year to be nominated by the employer, but some employees have relayed that their wages during the said period were reduced substantially due to the epidemic, whether the Government will consider using the employees' average monthly wages for the past 12 months instead as the basis for calculation;

(3) as some people currently receiving the Working Family Allowance

("WFA") have relayed that they were forced to take no pay leave in the past few months due to the epidemic and, as a result, their monthly working hours have failed to meet the requirements for receiving WFA, whether the Government will consider relaxing the working hour requirements for WFA in the coming 12 months; and

(4) given that the second round of relief measures include the provision

of a monthly subsidy of $6,000 per person for red minibus drivers for a period of six months, but green minibus ("GMB") drivers are not provided with this subsidy, whether the Government will consider treating them equally by providing GMB drivers with a subsidy of the same amount?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, having consulted the relevant Policy Bureaux and departments, my consolidated response to the Member's question is set out below:

(1) In view of the development of COVID-19 pandemic, the Education Bureau has announced class suspension of all schools in Hong Kong to ensure students' health and well-being based on public health considerations. It is hoped that reducing social contacts could lower the risk of infection as far as possible. Due to class suspension, private schools offering non-formal curriculum registered under the Education Ordinance (generally referred as "tutorial schools") could not provide or could only provide limited services, thus had no or drastic drop in income. The Government will provide a one-off relief grant of $40,000 to these registered


5833

tutorial schools under the Anti-epidemic Fund. If these tutorial schools have met the criteria under the Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") of the Anti-epidemic Fund, they may apply for the financial assistance to retain their staff. Centres or establishments which are not registered under the Education Ordinance may also receive the financial assistance through ESS if eligible. In addition, if instructors of these centres are concurrently engaged by primary/secondary schools or non-governmental organizations' welfare service units subvented by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") as interest class instructors, or registered coaches under National Sports Associations/Sports Organizations(1) and have performed sports instructor duties in the last year, they may choose to apply for the subsidy provided to instructors by either the Education Bureau, SWD or Leisure and Cultural Services Department.

(2) The wage subsidies provided by the Government are calculated on

the basis of 50% of wages in the "specified month". Employers may choose any one month from January to March 2020 as the "specified month" depending on the circumstances of their businesses. The number of staff (including those who were on duty, on no-pay leave or half-pay leave at that time) and the relevant wages during that month will be taken as the basis for the calculation of the subsidies.

Considering that the first case of novel coronavirus in Hong Kong

was confirmed on 23 January and some companies issued year-end double payments in that month (i.e. Chinese Lunar New Year), with the current proposal (i.e. employers may choose January during which, the numbers and wages of employees were higher than those in subsequent months as the basis for calculating the amount of subsidies), the total amount of wage subsidies will enable employers to retain existing employees, and enable employers to provide at least half of the wages to employees who have been put on no-pay leave. Employers may even deploy the wage subsidies to rehire new staff to meet their operational needs. Nonetheless, we will

(1) Refers to sports organizations that are receiving subvention (project base) from the

Leisure and Cultural Services Department's Sports Subvention Scheme.


continue to consult relevant stakeholders regarding the details of the scheme, with a view to best achieving the objective of assisting employers to retain employees who will otherwise be made redundant.

(3) The Working Family Allowance ("WFA") Scheme mainly supports

lower-income working households, and is designed to reward hard work. Therefore, apart from using household income as the eligibility criteria for the amount of allowance, we have put in place two higher working hour levels (i.e. 168 and 192 hours per month) on top of the basic working hour requirement of 144 hours per month to provide higher allowances to the households concerned. Besides, the Government has implemented a host of improvement measures, which include relaxing the eligibility criteria of the WFA Scheme, allowing household members to aggregate their working hours, increasing all rates of subsides, etc.

The Chief Executive announced on 14 February 2020 that the

Anti-epidemic Fund would provide a special allowance to eligible WFA and Student Financial Assistance ("SFA") households, regardless of whether they are unemployed or underemployed, so as to support low-income households to weather the deteriorating economic and employment conditions due to the COVID-19 epidemic. Broadly speaking, each WFA household will receive a special allowance equivalent to a two-month allowance, whereas SFA households will also receive a similar amount of allowance. The disbursement of the special allowance will commence by end June 2020 in batches, and is expected to benefit about 200 000 households.

(4) Green minibus ("GMB") drivers are employees of the GMB

operators. Similar to drivers of franchised buses or employees of local ferries, they have an employment relationship with the relevant operators. GMB drivers are therefore covered under ESS. However, red minibus ("RMB") drivers are normally rentee-drivers, and have no employment relationship with the vehicle owners. They are thus not covered by ESS. As such, the Government proposed a sector-specific scheme to provide each eligible active RMB driver with a monthly subsidy of $6,000 for a period of six


5835

months from 1 April to 30 September 2020. We will continue to closely monitor the financial situation and operation of the GMB trade, with a view to providing appropriate support for the trade to tide over this difficult period.

Handling data access requests by the Police 19. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, under section 18 of the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486), any individual is entitled to make a data access request to a data user (e.g. a government department), i.e. to be informed whether the data user holds the personal data of which the individual is the data subject, and (if the data user holds such data) be provided with a copy of such data. Under sections 19 and 28 of the Ordinance, a data user must comply with such a request within a specified period, and may charge, for complying with the request, a fee that is not excessive. Regarding the Police's handling of data access requests made by members of the public, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of (i) the respective numbers of requests received and approved by the Police for providing copies of their video footages, and (ii) the highest, lowest, average and total amounts of fees charged by the Police to the applicants, in each of the past three years; how the Police determine the amount of fees to be charged; if the Police do not possess the above information, whether they will compile such statistics immediately; and

(2) of the procedure under which the Police provide copies of their

video footages to data subjects; whether such procedure involves the step of using software to blur or redact the personal data (such as the facial images) of persons other than the applicants who are captured in the footages, and whether fees are charged for this step; if so, of the details; if such step is not involved, how the Police ensure that they will not, in providing copies of their video footages, disclose the personal data of other persons without such persons' consent?


SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) ("PDPO") is applicable to public and private organizations as well as government departments. All organizations/departments are required to comply with PDPO and its relevant Data Protection Principles when collecting and using personal data, including the requirements about the purpose of data collection, data security and data use. Section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance (Cap. 232) stipulates that the statutory duties of the police force include taking lawful measures for preserving public peace, preventing and detecting crimes and offences, as well as preventing injuries to life and property, etc. Personal data collected by the Police in the course of case investigation will only be used for the purposes of crime detection and prevention. The Police have clear and strict guidelines and procedures for handling video clips captured by body-worn video cameras and digital camcorders. Video clips with investigative or evidential value will be classified as evidence and be retained until the relevant investigation or judicial procedures are completed. Video clips carrying no investigative or evidential value, or constituting no other legitimate purpose, will be deleted after 31 days from the date of recording. A consolidated reply to various parts of Dr KWOK Ka-ki's question is as follows: The Police will handle data access requests ("DAR") in accordance with PDPO. Section 18 of PDPO enables an individual to be informed by a data user whether the data user holds personal data of which the individual is the data subject and if so, be supplied with a copy of such data. Normally, except where a DAR falls within the circumstances in which the request can be refused under section 20 of PDPO, or that the data user has relied on the exemption provisions in Part 8 of PDPO to refuse DAR, the data user will usually supply a copy of the requested data to the requestor within 40 calendar days after receiving the request. If the Police decide to comply with a DAR, they will supply a copy of the personal data to the data subject as far as practicable. PDPO enables a data user to impose a fee for complying with a DAR which should not be considered "excessive". A data user is allowed to charge the requestor only for the costs which are directly related to and necessary for complying with a DAR, and the fee imposed will depend on the scope and complexity of the request concerned.


5837

Besides, if the data requested by a data subject comprises data of a third party, the Police will remove personal data of a third party in the requested copy unless they are satisfied that the third party has consented to the disclosure. According to the Guidance Note of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong, a data user may charge the costs for technical assistance in duplicating and editing a tape to remove images of other individuals. The Police do not maintain the other statistics requested in the question. Expenditure of the Hong Kong Police Force 20. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Chinese): President, the Commissioner of Police ("CP") is the controlling officer for Head 122 of Government expenditure. Regarding the expenditure of the Hong Kong Police Force in the 2019-2020 financial year, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of applications made by the authorities to the Finance Committee ("FC") of this Council for making changes to the approved estimates of expenditure under Head 122 for that year, and set out in a table the (i) subhead(s) involved, (ii) nature of the change(s) (e.g. creation of new subhead(s), supplementary provision in approved or new subhead(s), variation(s) in the establishment(s) of post(s), or increase(s) in the limit to the commitments which might be entered into for non-recurrent expenditure), (iii) purpose(s) of the additional funding (if applicable) and (iv) amount(s) of the additional funding (if applicable);

(2) of the number of occasions on which the Financial Secretary made,

in accordance with the power delegated to him by FC under section 8(3) of the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2), changes to the approved estimates of expenditure under Head 122 for that year, and set out in a table the (i) subhead(s) involved, (ii) nature of the change(s), (iii) purpose(s) of the additional funding (if applicable) and (iv) amount(s) of the additional funding (if applicable);

(3) of the amount(s) of expenditure that CP was authorized to incur

under the subheads of the heads controlled by other controlling officers by way of allocation warrants signed by such officers under


section 14(4) of Cap. 2 in that year, and set out in a table the (i) government department(s) and head(s) involved, (ii) subhead(s) involved, (iii) purpose(s) of the allocation(s) and (iv) amount(s) of the allocation(s), in respect of such allocation warrants;

(4) whether CP incurred any urgent expenditure under section 15 of

Cap. 2 in that year; if so, set out in a table the (i) date(s), (ii) subhead(s), (iii) purpose(s) and (iv) amount(s) in respect of such expenditure; and

(5) whether CP received any funding through other channels in that

year; if so, of the details? SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, my reply to various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) In the 2019-2020 financial year, the Hong Kong Police Force

("HKPF") did not make any application to the Finance Committee ("FC") of the Legislative Council for making changes to the approved estimates of expenditure under Head 122 (Hong Kong Police Force).

(2) According to section 8(3) of the Public Finance Ordinance ("PFO"),

FC may delegate to the Financial Secretary the power to approve changes subject to such conditions, exceptions and limitations as are specified in the delegation. Section 8(4) of PFO also states that the Financial Secretary, where a delegation by FC under subsection (3) so provides, and subject to such conditions, exceptions and limitations as are specified in the delegation, may further delegate his power to approve changes to any public officer.

Under the above delegation, the more commonly exercised delegated

authority includes:

(a) supplementary provisions for salaries and allowances in accordance with approved scales and rates in respect of personal emoluments and subventions;


5839

(b) supplementary provisions up to $10 million for each subhead without approved commitment (i.e. Operating Account recurrent subheads and Capital Account block vote subheads);

(c) supplementary provisions for subheads with approved

commitments provided that the unexpended balances of the approved commitments are not exceeded;

(d) creation of new commitments up to $10 million each; (e) for commitments approved under delegated authority,

increases in commitment which do not cause the approved commitment to exceed $10 million; and

(f) for commitments approved by FC, increases in commitment

up to $10 million. According to section 8(8)(a) of PFO, the Financial Secretary shall at

the end of each quarter of the financial year or as soon as practicable thereafter report to FC changes made to the approved estimates of expenditure in that quarter upon approval by him or by any public officer pursuant to a delegation under section 8(3) or (4).

Information on the changes made to the approved estimates of

expenditure under Head 122 (Hong Kong Police Force) with the power delegated by FC under section 8 of PFO in the 2019-2020 financial year is given in Annex.

(3) Under section 14 of PFO, a controlling officer may, in respect of any

subhead for which he/she is the controlling officer, authorize by an allocation warrant any other controlling officer to incur expenditure for the former's subhead. The purpose of the expenditure involved in the allocation warrant must be within the ambit of the payment subhead. Besides, the amount involved in the allocation warrant will not be transferred from the relevant subhead of the controlling officer issuing the allocation warrant to the subhead of the controlling officer to whom the allocation warrant is issued. Therefore, the allocation warrant will not cause changes to the


approved estimates of expenditure of the relevant subheads. The power of issuing allocation warrant comes from PFO instead of the FC's delegation.

It is a common arrangement for government departments to use

allocation warrants to incur expenditures for each other. HKPF is regularly authorized to incur expenditures for other departments by allocation warrants. Common examples include compensation for work-related injuries of HKPF employees incurred under the subhead of the Treasury, disbursements for studies programmes of HKPF incurred under the subhead of the Civil Service Bureau, costs for installing administrative computer systems and employing consultants to conduct feasibility study and system development incurred under the subhead of the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, etc.

In the 2019-2020 financial year, HKPF used a total of $337 million

authorized by other departments via allocation warrants under section 14 of PFO. Other than the above items, in response to the public order events in recent months, some departments needed to strengthen premise and facility security, and issued allocation warrants to HKPF, incurring expenditure from their own subheads, for measures such as procuring large water-filled barriers and other equipment so as to enhance the security of government premises and public facilities, as well as maintain their daily operations and ensure that public services remain unaffected. Among these, the amount of allocation warrants involved on measures for strengthening the security of the Central Government Offices is $161 million.

(4) No urgent expenditure was incurred by the Commissioner of Police

under section 15 of PFO in the 2019-2020 financial year. (5) Apart from the channels mentioned above, like other government

departments, HKPF can also seek funding from the Legislative Council from the Capital Works Reserve Fund ("CWRF") according to the established mechanism. There are altogether 11 heads of expenditure under CWRF, covering Land Acquisition (Head 701), Public Works Programme (Heads 702 to 707, 709 and 711), Capital Subventions and Major Systems and Equipment (Head 708) and Computerization (Head 710).


5841

Annex

Head 122 (Hong Kong Police Force) Changes made to the Approved Estimates of Expenditure with the power delegated by FC under section 8 of PFO

Financial year Subhead Purpose Amount ($ million) 2019-2020 614 To meet the increase in expense

for improvements to in-service Marine Police craft, the supplementary provision of which was offset by savings under subhead 000

1.000

103 To meet the increase in rewards and special services expense to meet operational needs, the supplementary provision of which was offset by savings under subhead 000

3.820

000 To meet the actual expenditure on overtime allowance

2,251.061Note

000 Additional expenses arising from the 2019-2020 civil service pay adjustment

842.553

N/A Variation in establishment: 348 N/A Total 3,098.434

Note: In the 2019-2020 financial year, the actual expenditure on disciplined services overtime allowance for HKPF is around $2,520 million, of which about $2,350 million is related to the public order events since June 2019. Overtime should normally be compensated by time off in lieu. Where this is impracticable within one month of the date on which the overtime is worked, an overtime allowance may be paid to eligible officers. Generally, the approval and payment of overtime allowance take about two months to process. Therefore, the overtime allowance arising from overtime work by police officers from June 2019 to January 2020 were paid by batches between August 2019 and March 2020.


GOVERNMENT BILL Second Reading of Government Bill Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council now continues the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2019. As Members had already spoken at the last meeting, I will now call upon the Secretaries concerned to speak and then the Financial Secretary to reply. APPROPRIATION BILL 2020 Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 26 February 2020 SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, concerning this year's Budget, I first wish to thank Honourable Members for expressing their invaluable views on the livelihood issues under the purview of the Food and Health Bureau and the work undertaken by the Government in response to the epidemic. Coronavirus disease-2019 ("COVID-19") has been spreading very rapidly around the globe, with the cumulative number of cases exceeding 3 million and the situation being highly changeable over a short period of time. This has significantly impacted the health of the public, people's livelihood, the economy, as well as the entire society. During the past month or so, in view of the global and local epidemic development, the focus of our prevention and control work is: first, to prevent the virus from being imported from outside of Hong Kong; and second, to prevent imported cases from spreading in the community, so as to safeguard the health of the public and protect our health system. We have focused on and stepped up the effort in taking forward enhanced measures in respect of quarantine and testing, and social distancing, with the aim of


5843

containing COVID-19 continuously with the strategy of "early identification, early isolation and early treatment of the infected". With the dedication of health care staff and frontline workers and cooperation of members of the public, the increase of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Hong Kong has slowed down in recent days. Over the last two weeks, the number of new cases remained in single digits, and there was zero increase in new cases for five days. Amongst the new cases, over 90% are imported cases or the relevant person has travel history during the virus incubation period or is a close contact of an imported case or case with travel history. This indicates that various immigration control, social distancing and enhanced surveillance and quarantine measures are gradually delivering results. Given that the global epidemic situation remains severe and unstable, I announced a number of measures yesterday (i.e. 28 April) with a view to continuing our safeguards against any sudden turn in the epidemic situation in Hong Kong, which include:

(a) extending the validity of the Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong Regulation (Cap. 599C) for one month to 7 June ;

(b) broadening the exemption of person or category of persons from

compulsory quarantine arrangement to include cross-boundary students and related personnel and service providers, and persons whose travelling is necessary for purposes relating to manufacturing operations, business activities or the provision of professional services in the interest of Hong Kong's economic development; and

(c) extending the validity of the Prevention and Control of Disease

(Disclosure of Information) Regulation (Cap. 599D) to 31 August. We will review the relevant measures from time to time in order to make timely adjustments in response to the development of the epidemic.

Now, I will give a consolidated response to Members' comments on the Budget.


Firstly, as regards health care, in 2016, the Government proposed the first 10-year Hospital Development Plan and earmarked $200 billion for its implementation. Various projects are under way and it is expected that the whole project will provide a total of over 6 000 additional beds and more than 90 operating theatres. During this financial year, we have submitted proposals for four works projects under the 10-year Hospital Development Plan to the Public Works Subcommittee in the hope of gaining Members' support. The Hospital Authority ("HA") will also actively take forward the planning of the second 10-year Hospital Development Plan. It is expected that the provision of over 9 000 additional hospital beds and other new hospital facilities will adequately meet the projected service demand up to 2036. HA will also consider the need to set up additional isolation beds based on the experience of handling this epidemic outbreak while drawing up its 10-year Hospital Development Plan. In order to alleviate the demand for isolation beds at public hospitals, HA has set up triage and test centres at the Accident and Emergency Departments ("AEDs") of its public hospitals by phase since March, and has retrofitted one to two general wards in each cluster into standard negative pressure wards to provide around 400 additional standard negative pressure beds for patients who are recovering and have relatively mild symptoms. HA will continue to closely monitor the situation and consider different plans for isolation facilities with a view to activating them as soon as possible when the need arises. To enhance the capability of public hospitals in responding to the epidemic situation, the Government has allocated $4.7 billion from the first round of the Anti-epidemic Fund ("the Fund") as additional resources for HA to use for, among others, the personnel-related expenditure for frontline staff, procuring additional personal protective equipment, enhancing support for laboratory testing, procuring drug and medical equipment, as well as strengthening hospital support services. HA has also introduced Special Emergency Response Allowance as a token of recognition for the frontline staff engaging in high risk duties during the Emergency Response Level. Given the need to adjust its services under the epidemic situation, HA has stepped up the efforts to divert patients from public hospitals to private hospitals for treatment. Also, the service capacity of some Public-Private Partnership Programmes has been increased and the scope of these programmes has been


5845

expanded to cover services such as radiology investigation, haemodialysis, and colonoscopy. HA has also proactively liaised with private hospitals to launch new collaborative projects, including neonatal jaundice treatment, caesarean section and radiotherapy for cancer patients. Moreover, in order to give discharged COVID-19 patients one more rehabilitation option, and to allow Chinese medicine practitioners to play a more active role in treating the epidemic, HA has launched the Special Chinese Medicine Out-patient Programme in the Chinese Medicine Clinic cum Training and Research Centre to provide free Chinese medicine outpatient rehabilitation service to discharged persons who have received COVID-19 treatment, with the full support and facilitation of the Food and Health Bureau and in consultation with experts. Concerning health care manpower, with a serious shortage of health care staff, the Government has adopted various multi-pronged approaches to deal with the relevant problem, including increasing the number of health care training places, providing funding for enhancing and expanding the capacity for health care training in universities, and supporting HA's manpower policy. The Government will also continue to actively promote and publicize the registration arrangements concerning non-locally trained health care professionals overseas while vigorously carrying out recruitment programmes to attract qualified non-locally trained health care professionals to come to Hong Kong to practise. The Government will continue to increase progressively the recurrent funding for HA, having regard to population growth rates and demographic changes. In 2020-2021, the Government will allocate a recurrent funding of $75 billion, which represents an increase of 35% over the funding in 2017-2018, for HA to increase its manpower, introduce new measures and strengthen its existing services. The funding will also be used to implement the following major staff retention initiatives, including:

(a) enhancing the Special Retired and Rehire Scheme to encourage experienced doctors to continue their service on contract terms in HA after retirement until the age of 65;


(b) creating opportunities for around 200 Associate Consultants to be promoted to Consultants within the next five years; and

(c) providing additional allowance for registered nurses who have

attained specialty qualifications. Promotion of primary health care is another important initiative. The Government will make optimal use of the funding to continue with the endeavour to promote primary health care services at district level and, basing on the principle of district-based service, public-private partnership and medical-social collaboration, expedite the launch of District Health Centre ("DHC") service and the relevant "DHC Express" Scheme in all 18 districts across Hong Kong, in a bid to enhance the public's capability in self‑management of health and provide community support for the chronically ill. At present, the Government provides eligible elderly persons aged 65 or above with elderly health care vouchers of $2,000 each year to subsidize their use of private primary health care services that suit their health care needs. Given a persistently ageing population, the expenditure for health care vouchers is expected to be on a continuous rise. With the sustainability of public finance in mind, the Government has no plan to increase the voucher amount or to lower the eligible age. As regards the impact brought by the epidemic to the economy, the Government has previously launched two rounds of measures under the Fund on top of the relief measures in the Budget, which involve a total cost of $287.5 billion, to support enterprises, safeguard jobs and relieve people's burden. For the catering sector, the Government has established the Food Licence Holders Subsidy Scheme under the first round of the Fund to provide financial support to eligible food business licence holders. As at yesterday (i.e. 28 April) the scheme has benefited over 27 000 licence holders, and the total amount of subsidy is around $3.56 billion. Considering the impact of social distancing measures on catering outlets, the Government has subsequently launched the Catering Business (Social Distancing) Subsidy Scheme which involves the provision of a subsidy ranging


5847

from $250,000 to $2.2 million to eligible catering outlets, an additional subsidy of $50,000 for eligible catering outlets that are required to close their premises completely, and a subsidy of $50,000 for tenants of cooked food/light refreshment stalls at public markets, so as to help the sector to tide over this difficult time. Eligible catering outlets can file their applications starting from early May, and the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department will disburse the subsidies to them as soon as possible. In addition to the subsidies under the Fund, the Government has also made an announcement earlier that the fees for new issue or renewal of licence or provisional licence for food business will be waived from October 2019 to September 2020. The Government will continue to maintain close liaison with the sector and listen to their concerns. As for the agriculture and fisheries industries, the Government has provided a subsidy of $80,000 or $200,000 to live marine fish wholesale traders and owners of fishing vessels and fish collector vessels with Mainland deckhands under the first round of the Fund. As at yesterday (i.e. 28 April) the subsidy has benefited over 1 000 live marine fish wholesale traders and vessel owners, and the total amount of subsidy is around $160 million. Under the second round of the Fund, a subsidy of $10,000 will be provided to local primary producers, and arrangements for deferring the repayment and waiving the interest incurred for one year will be available for borrowers of loans under the Fisheries Development Loan Fund. Eligible persons can file their applications from now on. The Government will continue to promote the sustainable development of fisheries and agricultural industries, for example, by supporting them through two sustainable development funds. Regarding the Agricultural Park which is of concern to Members, if funding approval is granted by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, we will expeditiously commence the first phase of the construction works. Moreover, for the combat of illegal fishing, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") will continue to mount joint operations with the Police and Mainland authorities. To enhance the effectiveness of the enforcement action, AFCD also plans to apply technology in its enforcement work, such as using real time satellite information, to help identify fishing vessels.


Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the Government has been closely monitoring the development of the epidemic situation and adopting bold and appropriate measures to cope with it in a comprehensive manner. We understand that various social distancing and quarantine measures may bring inconvenience to members of the public and affect the operation of some industries. I wish to thank members of the public for their cooperation and restraint over the past period of time which has helped prevent the epidemic from spreading in the community. Finally, I have to extend my special thanks to health care personnel, teams of civil servants of various departments, colleagues of the Department of Health, the Auxiliary Medical Service, the Civil Aid Service, and teams of volunteers for their concerted efforts in the battle against the epidemic. We hope that Hong Kong can make a fresh start when the epidemic is over. Thank you. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, some Members have moved to reduce the estimated expenditure for the Police Force in the current financial year. I sternly oppose these amendment motions which are extremely irresponsible. These hostile stances taken against the Police Force are believed to have originated in June last year when the Police had to deal with a large number of serious incidents of violence arising from public processions and demonstrations. Since June last year, there have been more than 1 400 public events in Hong Kong, many of which have turned into serious incidents of unlawful violence. Here, I would like to remind Members of the serious violence committed by the rioters. Their acts of blocking roads and vandalizing shops, banks, MTR stations, street facilities, traffic lights, government buildings, police stations, etc. were widespread in various districts throughout the territory. Hundreds of thousands of bricks dug out from pavements are sufficient for paving 48 basketball courts, while 52 000 m of road railings torn down are equivalent to 125 times of the height of the Two International Finance Centre. The violent acts of the rioters included hurling a large number of bricks and corrosive fluid bombs, and shooting steel pellets and arrows. The rioters even tied up people holding different views from theirs, who were falsely imprisoned and battered, and these unlawful acts of violence took place both at the airport and on the streets. Some members of the public were beaten and sustained head injuries with bleeding;


5849

someone was being set ablaze alive; and an old man had been killed after being hit with a brick hurled at him. In addition, the rioters have used a large amount of petrol bombs. According to the Police's estimation, at least 5 000 petrol bombs were used by the rioters during various incidents of violence and at least 10 000 petrol bombs were seized during police operations. The Chinese University of Hong Kong is the single site with most petrol bombs seized, where more than 3 900 petrol bombs were found upon searching. If a petrol bomb is to be hurled every 10 seconds, it will take 11 whole hours to have all the 3 900 petrol bombs hurled. In the face of serious offences, the Police has a statutory duty to take measures to safeguard social peace and personal safety while maintaining public order and public safety. The police would not have to use any force if members of the public expressed their views in a peaceful, lawful and orderly manner. Force had to be used by the Police to deal with the unbridled and escalating violence of the rioters. Live ammunition was involved in the cases occurred. The Police seized five real guns and a large number of bullets, among which was a rifle. The same type of rifle was used to shoot the concert crowds in Las Vegas, killing more than 50 people. More seriously, there were already 10-odd bomb-related cases in Hong Kong, which can be a sign of homegrown terrorism in the bud. Among the bombs seized by the Police were TATP (i.e. a kind of powerful explosives) and a homemade bomb weighing about 10 kg. These bombs have astonishing explosive force. TATP, the most powerful kind of explosives other than military explosives, is often used by foreign terrorists. Bombs may kill anyone no matter who you are, cause physical disabilities and blow up buildings. At the time of the explosion, no one in the vicinity will be spared. Those so injured or killed could be any citizen, or any one of you present here, or your loved ones, and this is something the public should be wary of. Bomb cases concern everyone and I would like to remind the public that this issue should not be taken lightly. Violence should be condemned and we must say "no" to it altogether. We should not let local terrorism grow in any case. In addition, fake news, rumors and lies are flooding the Internet and even a foreign media firm has been tricked because it used doctored clips from the Internet. In consequence, it had to apologize for the false report. The incident


originated from a doctored footage on the Internet which showed that petrol bombs were being hurled from the Police cordon lines, but in fact, those bombs were hurled towards the Police by the rioters. The media firm later admitted the mistake and apologized to the Police. Another example is the "31 August" incident, in which no one ever died but those seeking to "burn together" with others made up stories of fictional deaths and held the so-called memorial services to enhance falsehood. They simply fabricated the stories out of nothing. Besides, there were also different persons who have made serious allegations against the Police but remained anonymous or only made such allegations on air, but they were reluctant to let the Police take statements from them or provide information to the Police. The behaviours of these people remind me of a recent case in which the defendant was found guilty by a court in a case of making false report to the Police. The person in question claimed to have been taken away and fired staples to his own body. He even held a press conference in this connection to make the public believe him. Eventually, he was convicted and given a prison sentence by the court for making a false report to the Police. Therefore, the public should be vigilant about the authenticity of the so-called complaints made unilaterally against the Police in the media but that the complainants refused to provide information to the Police. President, since June last year, about 40% of those arrested by the Police are students, and the number of people under the age of 18 is close to 1 400, where the youngest being only 11 years old, who was arrested for possession of an offensive weapon. More than 460 students were charged, among which the three youngest being 12 years old, who were respectively charged with criminal damage, unlawful assembly and placing things, etc., on a railway with intent to endanger passengers. Of those arrested who have undergone legal proceedings, eight persons under the age of 18 have been convicted, where the youngest being only 13 years old, who was sentenced to a probation order. As for the convicted persons of other ages, the maximum sentence awarded being 14 months' imprisonment for possession of petrol bombs. The sense of lawlessness has pervaded society. Some people keep preaching that a person can do whatever it takes as long as he feels he is right, and it is irrelevant whether he has committed any offence, including criminal damage, abuse of lynching, hurling bricks at people, hurling petrol bombs, committing arson, using guns and bombs.


5851

Some Members supported the rioters and even called them "brothers". Their so-called "brothers" include those who are apparently advocates of "Hong Kong independence" and have chanted slogans to promote "Hong Kong independence". I would like to seek clear answers from these Members whether they choose to sever ties with those advocates of "Hong Kong independence". President, those who seek to "burn together" with others are trying to justify, glorify and support violence, but it is a pity that the young people siding with them turned out to be the ones to face legal sanctions and imprisonment. Their future will be completely ruined, whereas those promoting or organizing the riots behind the scene will gain personal political benefits and even pecuniary benefits perhaps. A female defendant of a case of possession of petrol bomb has expressed regret after committing the offence. Having pleaded guilty in court, she told the judge that while she was on remand, she came to realize that people should be reasonable in dealing with dissenting views and that violence was no solution at all. Before June last year, Hong Kong was one of the safest cities in the world when the substantial amount of demonstrations and incidents of violence had not taken place yet. The crime rate was low in this city and the citizens were law-abiding then. They had due respect for one another and used to live and work happily, but things have changed a lot after a large number of public processions and demonstrations turned into serious incidents of violence. Police resources have also become rather insufficient as most of them were deployed to cope with the incidents of violence following the large number of public processions and demonstrations. Over the previous 40 years or so, Hong Kong's crime figures had been continuously on the decline year on year, but the downward trend has changed into an upward one. The overall crime figure of 2019 was up 9.2% from 2018, and that of the first quarter of this year is up nearly 30%. Although being under personal threats and pressure on various fronts, the Police Force remains committed to fulfilling the duty of maintaining law and order. I thank them for their devotion and efforts. Their efforts can be seen plainly in the following examples … (Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to raise a point of order)


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security, please continue with your speech. (Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated his wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I hope you can listen carefully to Secretary for Security's speech because he has digressed further and further from the subject. It is, possibly, a digression. If what he said today is not considered a digression, we can later say whatever we wish and should not be considered a digression. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Security is responding to what Members said at the resumption of the Second Reading debate. So far, I do not find that his speech has digressed from the subject. Secretary for Security, please continue with your speech. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Thank you, President. I did have expected him to respond like that as he was caught on the raw by my words.


5853

President, although being under personal threats and pressure on various fronts, the Police Force remains committed to fulfilling the duty of maintaining law and order. I thank them for their devotion and efforts. Their efforts can be seen plainly in the following examples. Take for instance the robberies, 57 robbery cases were detected by the Police over the three months between December last year and February this year. In December, the Police successfully cracked down two syndicates which targeted at robbing jewellery companies which had involved in at least three robbery cases, resulting in a total loss of nearly $10 million with 12 people arrested. Some stolen properties were recovered. In the same month, three more cases were detected, in which businessmen were robbed of huge cash with losses amounting to $11 million. Eight people were arrested in the end. In February this year, the Police further cracked down a syndicate involved in manipulating youngsters to commit robberies and arrested a total of 15 people, including the masterminds. The syndicate had involved in at least 10 robberies. Regarding burglaries, 91 burglary cases were detected by the Police over the three months between December last year and February this year. Subsequently, another burglary syndicate was busted in March, which was suspected to have burgled 13 restaurants and grocery stores. As to narcotics, the Police cracked a case of trafficking of marijuana this month, which being the most significant case in history, and 580 kg of marijuana with a market value of $100 million was seized. Moreover, in response to the recent face masks scams, the Police launched a territory-wide operation this month, where a total of 32 people were arrested in the 146 scams concerned. More than 400 victims were involved and the fraudulent payments amounted to $3 million. Please consider this: should the Police not have sufficient manpower and resources, the number of crimes will only increase, while law and order may break down. Those law-breakers will be most happy if the Police do not have sufficient manpower and resources. Who will be there to catch the robbers, burglars, people who have committed indecent assaults and rapes, swindlers and drug dealers then? Seeking to reduce the Police Force's manpower and resources is tantamount to "seeking to burn together with others" and will weaken the law and order in Hong Kong, thus victimizing every person who wishes to live and work happily.


President, while delivering their speeches, many Members lamented over the hard time that Hong Kong is now having as the coronavirus epidemic is raging. They do hope that all quarters of society can unite together so that Hong Kong as well as its economy will recover expeditiously once the epidemic is over. I very much agree that Hong Kong must recover and revive more quickly, but it calls for a safe, stable and well-ordered environment for this to happen. We should allow the Police Force to have sufficient manpower and resources in order to maintain sound public order in society. Hence, it is necessary that the Council is held accountable for the law and order in society and supports the estimated expenditure for the Police Force. Thank you, President. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I am responding to the speeches made by various Members of the Legislative Council in regard to the areas of labour and welfare at the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2020 ("the Bill"). Although many speeches of the Members bear no direct relation to the Bill, we consider that the measures taken since August 2019 to "support enterprises, safeguard jobs and relieve people's burden", the 2020-2021 Budget ("the Budget") and the first and second rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund measures follow the same vein, so I will give an integrated response here. Welfare First of all, the estimated recurrent expenditure on social welfare for 2020-2021 is as high as $93.94 billion and the total government expenditure on welfare will exceed the $100 billion mark, amounting to $115 billion. The recurrent expenditure has increased by 14.2% compared with last year's revised estimate, accounting for about 19.3% of the estimated overall recurrent government expenditure. As far as the current-term Government is concerned, the estimated recurrent expenditure on social welfare for 2020-2021 has increased by 43.8% compared with the actual expenditure in 2017-2018. As part of it, the expenditure on elderly services has increased by more than 60% over the same period. Some Members are concerned about the long waiting time for elderly and rehabilitation services, especially in residential care homes. Although we have taken a multi-pronged approach and contested every inch of ground over the past two-odd years, it takes time to build these facilities for elderly and rehabilitation services and their completion will be in the next government term, or even the


5855

term after next, so the Government has also proposed that the Legislative Council should allocate $20 billion to purchase premises for the provision of social welfare services, so as to provide community support services as soon as possible. One year on, this item is still waiting to be placed on the agenda of the Finance Committee ("FC"). If Members really wish to shorten the waiting time for our services, I urge them to work together to expedite FC's funding approval process. Labour In the face of the economic downturn and the rising unemployment rate, we have adopted a battle-on-four-fronts strategy: 1) job creation; 2) job retention; 3) employment support; 4) unemployment support. On the job creation front, we will create around 30 000 time-limited jobs in both the public and private sectors in the coming two years. In addition, the Government will recruit more than 10 000 civil servants and about 5 000 young people as short-term interns. As for job retention, the predominant Employment Support Scheme ("ESS") aims at helping enterprises retain employees or even re-engage employees, as well as pay wages to employees on unpaid leave. For example, if an employer who is receiving subsidies under ESS ("wage subsidies") already had employees on unpaid leave in March this year, he or she has to pay wages to these employees in June, even though their leave will become paid leave. ESS covers a total of 290 000 employers who have been making Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") contributions for employees or have set up Occupational Retirement Schemes Ordinance schemes, together with their more than 1.9 million employees, and about 215 000 self-employed persons. In addition, considering that the catering and construction industries employ a large number of temporary employees, and that taxi/red minibus drivers are mostly self-employed, the relevant Policy Bureaux have introduced sector-specific schemes to help them retain jobs and guarantee income. These several wage subsidy schemes will benefit about 2.6 million employees. In their speeches last week, Members were particularly concerned about two categories of people: 1) employed persons aged 65 or above, 2) freelance workers. To encourage employers to retain employees aged 65 or above, we will continue to explore ways to have employees aged 65 or above covered by ESS. The three Anti-epidemic Fund schemes for the catering business, construction industry and taxi/red minibus drivers also cover 30 000 to 40 000 employees aged


65 or above. Of course, there are also about 20 000 outsourced contract staff for government services, as well as more than 3 000 employees aged 65 or above in the health care and welfare systems, who are not much affected by the epidemic. We are still working on ways to plug gaps. For example, we will also consider how to have elderly drivers of green minibuses covered by the Anti-epidemic Fund. Perhaps we are unable to cover the entire working population aged 65 or above, but I believe that, with our efforts, we should be able to cover the vast majority of workers, particularly those aged 65 or above at the grass-roots level. There is some difficulty regarding how to help freelance workers without MPF accounts, especially how to determine their past income and the decrease in income in recent months. Some Members have suggested that their tax bills can serve as a reference. Of course, to date we have not yet filed tax returns for income in 2019-2020, but have only the tax return records for 2018-2019. About half of the working population in Hong Kong does not need to file tax returns for their income earned in 2018-2019, and freelance workers who do are even fewer. There are more than 200 000 self-employed persons in the MPF System. Under ESS, as we are unable to determine the past and present incomes of these people, we will continue to explore ways to grant them a one-off allowance of $7,500. Similarly, the relevant Policy Bureaux will, under their sector-specific assistance schemes, introduce initiatives for self-employed persons who provide various sports and arts training and interest classes in schools, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department or social welfare organizations, and the self-employed persons can receive a one-off allowance of $7,500 from either of the initiatives. The three initiatives will cover about 52 200 people, with possible duplications. A freelance worker can receive $7,500 from ESS and either of the other three initiatives at the same time. Regarding employment support, the Budget indicates that the Labour Department will strengthen employment support in two ways, one being encouraging employers to hire the elderly, young people and persons with disabilities. In the second half of 2020, we will raise the on-the-job training allowance payable to employers under the Employment Programme for the Elderly and Middle-aged as well as the Youth Employment and Training Programme from a monthly maximum of $4,000 to $5,000 for a period of 6 to 12 months. At the same time, the relevant on-the-job training allowance under the Work Orientation and Placement Scheme will also be raised from a monthly maximum of $7,000 to $8,000 for the first three months, and from $5,000 to $6,000 for the subsequent six months.


5857

As for the second way, the Labour Department will provide, on a pilot basis, each eligible job seeker who has participated in the aforesaid employment schemes with a retention allowance of $3,000 after they stay in the job for three months, and $1,000 per month during the on-the-job training period, with a view to stabilizing employment. In the matter of unemployment support, our unemployment support system consists of three integral parts. The first is Severance Payment/Long Service Payment, with which eligible persons are entitled to an amount calculated at the rate of two thirds of a month's wages for each year of service. The second is that those who are unemployed or wish to re-enter the job market can participate in placement-tied training courses provided by the Employees Retraining Board. The maximum training allowance is currently $4,000 per month, and will be $5,800 after 25 May. The last part is the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") for the unemployed. According to the FC paper endorsed on 18 April, we will implement an unemployment support scheme under the CSSA framework by relaxing the asset limits of able-bodied applicants by 100%, so that more unemployed people with financial needs can receive appropriate assistance. For households with four able-bodied recipients, the asset limit will be raised to $176,000. The amount available depends on the family composition, with an average of about $16,000 per month. Both figures are not high, but they can provide the necessary support for families facing financial difficulties due to unemployment. At this difficult time, it is our duty to destigmatize CSSA so that those in need can receive due assistance. Members have raised the issue of income inequality as well. As mentioned in the early part of my speech, we need to consider the rounds of relief measures that began in August last year, the two rounds of the Anti-epidemic Fund and the Budget as a whole:

(a) The Policy Address delivered in October 2019 invited the Community Care Fund ("CCF") to launch two rounds of "one‑off living subsidy for low‑income households not living in public rental housing and not receiving CSSA" (commonly known as "subsidy to the N have-nots"). CCF will begin to accept the first round of applications by phases in July this year, and the second round of applications will be phased in from January 2021. For example, an eligible family of four can receive a subsidy of $14,500 in each round;


(b) One of the initiatives under the Anti-epidemic Fund endorsed by FC on 21 February 2020 is the special allowance for eligible Working Family Allowance ("WFA") and Student Financial Assistance households. For example, if a four-member WFA household eligible for the special allowance has two children, the maximum amount of the one-off allowance is $6,400. Our target is to start disbursing the special allowance in batches by the end of June without requiring separate applications;

(c) As part of the four rounds of relief measures announced in 2019, a

student grant of $2,500 will be provided for each secondary day-school, primary school and kindergarten student. The Anti-epidemic Fund has raised this amount to $3,500 per person and started the disbursement routine. The aforesaid family, for example, can receive $7,000;

(d) The Budget offers the following cash allowances to the grass roots.

These cash allowances, which will be disbursed about one month after the passage of the Budget by the Legislative Council, include:

- CSSA recipients: an extra one-month allowance. For a

single-parent family with one adult and two school children, the total standard amount is currently $6,985 per month;

- Old Age Living Allowance: an extra one-month allowance,

which is currently $2,675 for the normal allowance and $3,585 for the higher allowance;

- Disability Allowance: an extra one-month allowance, which is

currently $1,770 for the normal allowance and $3,540 for the higher allowance;

- Old Age Allowance ("fruit grant"): currently $1,385 per

month; and - Individual-based Work Incentive Transport Subsidy: an extra

one-month allowance varying from $300 to $600. All these initiatives serve to reduce poverty and narrow the wealth gap. With these remarks, I hope that Members will support the Bill.


5859

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I have to thank all Members for their opinions raised during the debate on the Appropriation Bill 2020 ("the Bill"). Members may understand that over the past two years, Hong Kong has been hard hit successively by three major blows, namely the trade war between China and the United States, the series of incidents of social violence and clashes as well as the epidemic of COVID-19. The Hong Kong economy has already entered into a recession. Today, Hong Kong is facing two battles at the same time, one is the anti-epidemic battle and the other is the battle against the economic downturn. We must win the first battle in order to win the second battle. Therefore, the Government and the entire community have to stand united to fight against the epidemic so that our economy can be revitalized. In order to save the economy, we must attain the targets of "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs, stimulating the economy and relieving people's burden" as proposed in the Budget by the Financial Secretary. I will first discuss the international economic and trading environment as well as the challenges facing Hong Kong. Hong Kong is now facing not only its local economic recession, but also a sharp reversal in global economic landscape. According to the latest projection of the International Monetary Fund ("IMF"), the global economic growth this year will fall to -3% from the originally projected +3%, with the extent of recession depending on the impact of the epidemic on individual economies, while the pace of recovery will also depend on how effectively they can deal with the epidemic. The above mentioned IMF projects more obvious economic contraction in developed regions or some advanced regions. For example, the United States and the Eurozone are projected to experience more significant economic contraction this year by -5.9% and -7.5% respectively. Comparatively speaking, the economic drop in developing regions, especially the Asian region, is projected to be smaller, and certain individual regions even expect to have slight positive growth this year. Next year (i.e. 2021), the economy of the Asian region as a whole will rebound slightly better than other regions. The above projection is somewhat shedding light on the road to recovery of the Hong Kong economy. In the ranking of Hong Kong's principal trading partners, the Mainland China and ASEAN have long overtaken the United States and Europe to rank first and second, accounting for more than 60%, i.e. about two third of Hong Kong's total external trade. Also with the principle positions secured by Japan, Korea and the Asian markets, Hong Kong is believed to be able


to leverage the growth of the above regions with a projection of faster recovery to break away from the economic predicament together with them. In recent years, the Government has been working hard with the business sector to make good use of the development strategies concerning Belt and Road as well as the Greater Bay Area given to us by the country. And also through the closer economic partnership established by means of the Free Trade Agreements and the Investment Agreements signed with ASEAN and other regions, we are proactively laying down a sound foundation for economic resilience after the epidemic. However, as an international financial, trading and shipping centre, Hong Kong must keep on facing the whole world, breaking all barriers and solidifying its own fundamental economic edges. Therefore, the various economic measures in the Budget seek to not only provide assistance to the industries affected by the epidemic, but also pave the way for our economic recovery. In this Budget debate, we could hear that not a few political parties and Members recognize and support this approach and direction. In order to attain the above targets, through the few dozens of measures in the Budget and the two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund, the Government is providing in-depth and broad support. It hopes to extend a helping hand to the hard hit industries, and also to provide assistance to different industries and enterprises of various scales, so that we can tide over this difficulty together. In this connection, I particularly wish to respond to some aspirations and views concerning our assistance to enterprises, so that people can better understand that the measures rolled out by the Government are exactly meeting and responding to the worries and concerns of various sectors. (a) Assistance to enterprises in tiding over the liquidity problem and the severe

winter In the debate, a number of Members have mentioned that when an enterprise is facing a severe business environment, the key to maintaining its capacity and avoiding business closure is in its liquidity. As clearly stated by the Financial Secretary in the Budget announced in February, he has long taken on board a lot of opinions from the industry and thus introduced the Special 100% Loan Guarantee to assist those enterprises in difficulty. Under this scheme, the maximum amount of loan is the total amount of wages and rents for six months of the enterprise, or $2 million at most, the maximum repayment period is three years, the interest rate will be set at a relatively low level, i.e. the prime rate minus 2.5%, and the guarantee fee will be waived.


5861

Subsequently, after considering the abrupt downturn in the economy and the views of Members and enterprises, in the second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund, the Government introduces the enhanced version of the Special 100% Loan Guarantee, under which the loan guarantee commitment from the Government will be increased to $50 billion, the maximum loan amount per enterprise will be increased to $4 million, and the principal moratorium arrangement will be extended to the first 12 months. Some Members are concerned whether the banks will be too strict when vetting and approving the above applications, and whether the procedures will be too complicated and time consuming. As a matter of fact, one of the salient features in the design of the scheme is that the loan will be funded by the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation while the banks will act as the executing units. This can minimize the risks for the banks and greatly expedite their vetting and approval procedures. Since the scheme was launched last week (on 20 April), within one week, we have already received 287 applications, involving a total loan amount of over $700 million. Among them, 248 applications, involving the loan amount of nearly $600 million, have already been vetted and approved. Besides, the Government enhances and improves the existing 80% Guarantee Product and 90% Guarantee Product. Under the 80% Guarantee Product, the maximum loan amount per enterprise will be increased to $18 million, while under the 90% Guarantee Product, the maximum loan amount per enterprise will be increased to $8 million. Under both Guarantee Products, enterprises will be allowed to enjoy interest subsidy for the loans, subject to a cap of 3%, for one-year period. We hope that the loan interest rate can be lowered to be close to or on par with the interest rate of the Special 100% Guarantee Product. For the above three Guarantee Products, the Government has set aside a total of $123 billion as its financial commitment, which can facilitate the liquidity of enterprises of various scales in a timely and effective manner. (b) Making good use of the existing business support to enterprises and hoping

that enterprises can immediately enhance their branding, upgrading and marketing once the epidemic is eased

In recent years, several funds under the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau have been quite popular to the industry, including the Dedicated Fund on Branding, Upgrading and Domestics Sales ("the BUD Fund")


and the SME Export Marketing Fund ("EMF"), which can assist small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") in enhancing their competitiveness and exploring markets outside Hong Kong. Apart from our many rounds of injection into the funds, after taking on board the opinions from Members and the industry recently, we launched again some enhanced measures in April, including the abolition of the funding ceiling for individual geographical zone under the BUD Fund. In other words, an enterprise can use the funding capped at $4 million flexibly in any target markets covered by the geographical scope under the Fund. Besides, the BUD Fund and the EMF can now offer subsidies to enterprises in the participation of certain recognized virtual exhibitions, so that during this period of time, they can promote their products online before the market reopens. Besides, some Members have reflected the wish that the vetting and approval procedures for the applications can be expedited and streamlined. We will continue our work in this aspect, and hope that the balance of over $3 billion in the two funds can further support various enterprises in improving their operation and market expansion work. (c) Early establishment of the greatest and most convenient marketing platform

for the reopening of the market In terms of the Convention and Exhibition Industry Subsidy Scheme, merchandise trade and trade in services of Hong Kong with external parties are now the backbone of our external trade, and it is extremely important that the market can reopen early once the epidemic is gone. In the Budget, the Government undertakes to provide an additional funding of $150 million to the Hong Kong Trade Development Council ("HKTDC") in 2020-2021, with the total subvention amounting to $614.2 million. HKTDC will step up assistance to the Hong Kong enterprises in diversifying their businesses and creating business opportunities for SMEs. This includes setting up Hong Kong pavilions in mega exhibitions held in the major cities of Europe and the Mainland, promoting Hong Kong products through the online-to-offline mode of market expansion, organizing a number of delegations after the epidemic has eased, and stepping up solicitation of companies from various places to participate in the exhibitions in Hong Kong and organize buyers' missions to Hong Kong for sourcing purpose. Moreover, under the Anti-epidemic Fund, we set aside an additional funding of $1,020 million to launch the Convention and Exhibition Industry Subsidy Scheme, in the hope that after the epidemic is gone, we can subsidize more enterprises, which can enjoy unlimited times of subsidies, to participate in the


5863

exhibitions and major conventions of HKTDC, and can subsidize other organizers to organize exhibitions and international conventions in the Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre and the AsiaWorld-Expo, with a view to revitalizing the superior status of Hong Kong as an international exhibition and convention hub. (d) Assistance to the hard-hit industries, especially tourism industry Over the past two months, the Government has rolled out a number of targeted measures to assist individual industries especially affected by the epidemic, and I will illustrate with the example of tourism industry. The Government has been liaising closely with the Hong Kong Tourism Board ("HKTB"), the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong and the industry, and has rolled out a number of measures to relieve the operation difficulties and pressure of the industry. This year, through two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund, the Government has introduced a number of schemes to assist the tourism industry. In regard to the Travel Agents Subsidy Scheme and the Licensed Guesthouses Subsidy Scheme established under the first round of the Fund, the Government has already finished dealing with the registration work, and nearly all the eligible travel agents and guesthouses have received their subsidies which involve the total amount of over $260 million. As regards the Travel Agents and Practitioners Support Scheme and the Hotel Sector Support Scheme established under the second round of Anti-epidemic Fund, applications from 210 travel agents together with 890 staff members, about 490 freelance practitioners working as tourist guides or tour escorts, as well as about 150 hotels were received around one week (as at 4 April) after they were launched. The response is positive and enthusiastic. I would like to particularly point out that although outbound and inbound travels have plummeted and almost come to a standstill under the impact of the epidemic, with the timely relief measures introduced by the Government after discussion together with the industry, many tourist agents and practitioners still keep to their posts and work with dedication to tide over this difficulty. The Government has also provided an additional funding of $791 million to HKTB so that after the epidemic, HKTB can enhance its large-scale tourism propaganda in places all over the world, with a view to restoring the desire of travellers to come to Hong Kong and revitalizing tourism industry.


On the way to recovery, the restructuring work of whether to explore business opportunities, re-expand the market and attract business travellers is not necessary to start only after the epidemic is completely gone. The above work can also immediately commence through the funding in the Budget. (e) Seeking a way out in the predicament, restructuring by making use of new

technologies, developing new economic models I will illustrate with the example of subsidizing the application of 5G technology. Many Members have pointed out that the epidemic may bring long-term changes to the future economic models, and one special feature is that more people will choose to use various kinds of online services and new and high technologies. In the example of 5G technology introduced this year as scheduled, we have set aside $60 million under the Anti-epidemic Fund to launch a subsidy scheme for the application of 5G technology with a view to encouraging early deployment of 5G technology by various sectors to improve their operation through the application of this technology in their respective sectors. Together with our funding commitment of $500 million to the Distance Business Programme introduced by the Innovation and Technology Bureau, I hope that the sectors can fully make use of the subvention to turn crises into opportunities, and get out of the predicament together with the application of technologies. President and Honourable Members, regarding the various measures mentioned above, the Government has been working hand in hand with different industries, under the current difficult situation, from conceiving the ideas, striking out the details to launching the programmes. We have discussed together and gone through many rounds of review before they could be rolled out with our joint efforts. The Government will continue to proactively maintain close communication with the sectors and various stakeholders. Whenever there is any measure which can improve the business environment and enhance support to the sectors, the Government will embrace different views and do our utmost to modify it in the hope that we can withstand the epidemic and tide over the adversity together with enterprises, so that the Hong Kong economy can set off again on the way to recovery. With these remarks, President, I hope that Members can pass the Bill. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon the Financial Secretary to reply.


5865

FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Cantonese): President, Honourable Members, after the Budget was announced in end of February, the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) epidemic has been spreading ferociously and later becomes a global pandemic. The global and local economy was adversely impacted and a deep recession has surfaced. Almost all economic sectors were hit hard and unemployment rate ascended rapidly. In order to prevent the downward spiral of the economy and the job market, the Government launched the second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund in mid-April and the measure was promptly endorsed by the Legislative Council. Last week Members expressed their precious views on the 2020-2021 Budget. I wish to thank Members for their views. Just now four of my fellow colleagues have made certain salient points in response to views on several important policy areas. Please allow me to summarize my responses on Members' views in the following paragraphs. First, I wish to elaborate on the latest global and Hong Kong's economic situations. As far as Hong Kong's economy and global economy are concerned, the COVID-19 global pandemic is unprecedented, as the impact is substantial and serious. Many countries have implemented large-scale lockdown and social distancing measures one after another in order to keep the pandemic under control. It has caused tremendous impact on the supply and demand in global economy, as well as severe shock on the international financial market. According to recent figures, global economy has seen critical contraction since March, thus it seems that a deep recession in the first half year is inevitable. In mid-April, the International Monetary Fund projected that the global economy would contract sharply by 3%, which would be the worse since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and a much worse contraction than during the 2008-2009 financial crisis. The projection was based on the presumption that the pandemic faded in the second half of 2020 and containment measures could be gradually unwound. There remains considerable uncertainty about the forecast since the development of the epidemic is difficult to predict. In order to lift confidence, to support businesses and to stabilize the economy, many countries have put in place aggressive financial policies, and meanwhile some adopted strong stimulus to ease monetary policies.


Among major economies, it can be said that Mainland China is bearing the brunt. Its first quarter economy has seen a 6.8% year-on-year contraction. Nevertheless, the epidemic in the Mainland is basically under control in recent months, business and manufacturing activities have resumed little by little, and the restrictions on mobility are lifted progressively. The direction of disease prevention has shifted to the prevention of imported cases. Mainland authorities have also implemented a number of financial measures, including the expansion of the scale of special bonds issued by local governments, raising its budget deficit ratio and the issuance of special sovereign bonds and so on. Besides, China will inject liquidity significantly into the market, with a view to ensuring a turnaround of the economic dynamics. The economy of the United States has been deteriorating rapidly. As of March, a record highest year-on-year decline of retail sales and industrial productions in the past decade was registered. Sentiment indicators also worsened in recent months. Since mid-March, 26 million people have filed for new jobless claims, which indicated that the unemployment rate will see a sharp increase. The Congressional Budget Office of the United States projected on last Friday that the gross domestic product ("GDP") was expected to have a 12% quarter-on-quarter contraction in the second quarter. Since March, the United States has announced a spending of over US$4 trillion for relief measures and supports for businesses, which has far exceeded 10% of its GDP. The Federal Reserve has cut the interest rate to nearly 0%, initiated an unlimited quantitative easing program as well as other wide-ranging measures with a view to stabilizing the economy and the financial markets. In Europe, the economy has rapidly deteriorated since March and all sentiment indicators encountered a drastic drop. The combined purchasing managers' index (PMI) plummeted in April to a record low, which projects a significant contraction of the economy after the second quarter. The European Union and the United Kingdom, and their central banks, have announced a series of large-scale financial and liquidity measures to support businesses and their people. In Japan, in view of the impact of the epidemic on the economy, the Japanese Government has also put in place financial measures equivalent to 9% of its GDP. Its central bank has also announced the significant boosting of assets purchase. The epidemic has also seriously impacted the economic


5867

performance in the first quarter of other Asian economies. The first quarter growth of economies in the region has been greatly undermined, in which Singapore even has registered a negative year-on-year growth. Every Government is focusing on the short-term goal of how business and market activities can be resumed in a stable and orderly manner. Nevertheless, before the arrival of an effective vaccine, the risk of the outbreak of the epidemic still lingers on and we should not ignore its impact on the economy. Other than the epidemic, the global economy is facing other uncertainties, including the economic and political tension between China and the United States. Even though the United Kingdom is in the transitional period of the Brexit, it is quite difficult to say if both sides can reach a deal on time. We should also stay vigilant of the geopolitical situation of the Middle East and North-East Asia, as well as the risk of the fluctuation of the global financial markets. Locally, the outbreak of COVID-19 has caused severe interruptions to Hong Kong's economy. I think everyone can have a deep feeling of the impact. The troika of local economy, namely foreign trade, consumption and investment, have been put on halt abruptly. As to foreign trade, that is, export of goods, Hong Kong suffers a year-on-year decline of 9.7% in the first quarter. As to individual consumption, we saw a drastic 96% year-on year decline in the number of visitors in February, and the number went down further in March. Due to the voluntary stay-home initiatives of the general public, coupling with the anti-epidemic measures, Hong Kong's retail sales have seen a 34% year-on-year drop in the first two months. Comparing to a weak domestic demand, the investment performance is even poorer. The labour market keeps on deteriorating. Employees in various trades have to face the impact of voluntary unpaid leaves, pay cuts as well as layoffs. The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in the first quarter has soared by 0.5% to 4.2%, a record high in nine years; in which the total unemployment rate of the retail trades, accommodation and food services sectors rises sharply to 6.8%, which is the record high since the 2008-2009 global financial crises.


With regards to inflations, the inflation rate of the first quarter is 2.9%, a little lower than the 3% of the fourth quarter last year. The external pricing pressure has slightly subsided and the domestic cost pressure has been alleviated, thus the short-term inflation should be maintained at a rather mild level. Local business sentiment is rather gloomy, as all indicators in March are pointing at a number much lower than the watershed line of 50. According to the latest survey published by the Census and Statistics Department, the proportion of respondents from big businesses expecting their business situation to be worse in the second quarter is 37 percentage points higher than that expecting it to be better. It is the worst performance since 2009 and recruitment sentiment of all trades is weak. The advance estimates on GDP for the first quarter will be announced in next week. All indicators suggest that the extent of the plunge of Hong Kong's economy in the first quarter is perhaps even worse than the global financial tsunami in 2008 or the Asian Financial Crisis in 1999. The situation is worrying. According to my forecast in this year's budget, GDP growth was forecast to range from -1.5% to 0.5% in real terms. Taking the recent development into consideration, the impact of the epidemic on Hong Kong's economy is severer as it may last longer than expected. It is inevitable that the Hong Kong's economic performance in this year will be worse than our projection. It is estimated that under economic contraction, we will register a negative growth between 4% and 7%. President, Hong Kong is at the abyss of suffering. In the face of such a colossal challenge, the Government has already implemented measures of great intensity to prevent the downward spiral of the economy, with a view to achieving the goals of "safeguarding jobs, supporting enterprises, stabilizing the economy and relieving people's burden". Two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund measures launched by the Government as well as the relief measures proposed in this year's budget involved about $290 billion, which is equivalent to 10% of our GDP. The size is comparable to measures introduced by other advanced economies. In addition to the four rounds of relief measures introduced from August to December last year, it is estimated that these measures could provide a 5-percentage point buffer for our GDP. We hope these measures can help us to maintain Hong Kong's economic


5869

vitality, alleviate the pressure on enterprises, assist the people to tide over the difficult time, and enable Hong Kong to regain economic momentum after the epidemic is put under control. President, I have made "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs, stimulating the economy, and relieving people's burden" a focal point in this year's budget. The overall spending on the introduction of all counter-cyclical measures is over $120 billion and it is estimated that we will have a historic scale of deficit of about $140 billion. With regards to enterprises, in order to help the cash flow problem of enterprises under the severe impact of the epidemic, I have introduced in the budget a concessionary low-interest loan under the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme, under which 100% guarantee will be provided by the Government. The second round of Anti-epidemic Fund will further expand its scale, and to streamline 80% and 90% guarantee products under the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme. It is believed that it can help to prevent the rapture of the capital chain. Moreover, in order to ease the pressure on business operations, I have also proposed the following measures in the budget, namely, reducing profits tax, waiving rates and business registration fees. I also propose to continue the implementation of the following measures, namely providing a subsidy to electricity charges, waiving water and sewage charges, as well as reducing rental for tenants of government properties and land. With regards to the livelihoods of the people, I proposed following measures in the budget, namely reducing taxes and waiving rates in respect of residential properties for four quarters, providing an extra allowance to eligible social security recipients which is equal to one month of the standard rate Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") payments, paying one month's rent for lower income tenants living in public rental units and paying the examination fees for school candidates, with a view to easing the financial burden of the public. Furthermore, in response to the special economic circumstances, I proposed to disburse $10,000 to each Hong Kong permanent resident aged 18 or above, with a view to encouraging and boosting local consumption as well as relieving people's financial burden. The proposal is widely welcomed by all sectors and the Government is carrying out the preparation work. We hope we


can work out a simple, convenient and safe process so that the cash can be disbursed to all Hong Kong residents as soon as practicable. Since the processing time on electronic registration is shorter than the processing of paper forms, the general public will be able to collect the cash pay-out faster via online platforms provided by banks. For that reason, I encourage citizens who have not yet opened their e-banking accounts to open theirs as soon as possible. Our objective is that the registration can be commenced by the end of June and the cash pay-out can be disbursed from July onwards. I believe most of the eligible applicants can collect the cash pay-out by the end of August. President, Honourable Members, in response to Members proposals, we have conducted in-depth studies with the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") on waiving the cash pay-out registration formalities of CSSA recipients and Social Security Allowance ("SSA") Schemes recipients and to disburse them the cash pay-out directly. Nevertheless, SWD and the Labour and Welfare Bureau are of the views that since priorities should be accorded to a number of welfare protection initiatives announced by the Government earlier, including relaxing the asset limit of able-bodied adult CSSA recipients by doubling the existing limit; handing out one extra month of CSSA payment to CSSA recipients as well as raising the ceiling of the rent allowances; thus they are unable to manage the system alteration work of the $10,000 cash pay-out and other relevant work. Earlier, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has also explained that in the special Finance Committee meeting which scrutinized the Budget. For that reason, I hope Members understand that eligible CSSA and SSA recipients are just like ordinary residents, they may register for the cash pay-out via e-banking system or paper forms. Besides the above mentioned measures, I have also proposed a host of measures with a view to developing a diversified economy, strengthening the health care system and building a liveable city. All of these measures aim at building a good foundation for the future economic development of Hong Kong and making Hong Kong a liveable and caring city. President, Honourable Members, since the Government of the current term has assumed office, we have introduced a number of measures for economic development and improvement of the livelihood of the people. As to the recurrent expenditure of the Government, the 2020-2021 estimates have a 10% year-on-year increase when compared with the revised estimate of last year, that is, $44.2 billion. Of the entire estimates, education, social welfare and health


5871

care expenditures accounted for 60% of the total estimate, that is, over $280 billion. The cumulative increase of the recurrent expenditures in these three areas over the recent five years has reached 50%. For example, the growth of the recurrent expenditure in education is anticipated to be 7.8%, which is higher than the 5.9% of last year. It accounts for 20.5% of total government expenditures, thus it can be deemed the highest in all policy areas. However, some Members argued in their speeches during the budget debate that they saw retrogression in the expenditure on education, which was not tallied with the facts, and they also showed no regard for the 24% increase, amounting to $19.4 billion, in the recurrent expenditure on education since the Government of the current term has assumed office three years ago. When I published the Budget in February, I forecasted a deficit of $37.8 billion for 2019-2020. The Government will announce the 2018-2019 provisional financial results this afternoon. The 2019-2020 consolidated deficit is about $20 billion less than the revised budget, mainly due to a far below expectation number of cases which seek to hold over the payment of provisional profits tax and pay the profits tax by phases, therefore we have collected a little more than $20 billion of profits tax revenues if we compare that with the revised budget. A lot of Members have shown concerns about the Government's long-term financial condition. As a matter of fact, due to the economic downturn, both tax revenues and revenues from land sales of this year will be affected. On top of that, owing to the two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund measures and the Budget's relief measures, the deficit for 2020-2021 will significantly increase to about $280 billion or even more. Nevertheless, I have to emphasize that these are one-off measures under very special circumstances. Even though Hong Kong's fiscal reserves have fallen from $1.1 trillion to around $800 billion to $900 billion, they are still equivalent to 14 to 15 months of government expenditure. President, Honourable Members, the fiscal reserves are not in existence for the sake of saving up more money; they serve the purpose of stabilizing Hong Kong's economy and people's livelihood. We may say that we gradually save up money in the booming years. Therefore it is the time to let them perform their function. In a time of unprecedented adversity, they allow us to introduce massive counter-cyclical measures with a view to alleviating the impact on the job market


and people's livelihood during economic downturn. I truly believe that during this difficult time, it is an appropriate and responsible way for us to make good use of the reserves to stabilize the economy, to safeguard jobs and protect people's livelihood. In so doing, the principle of "spending when necessary" is manifested and it is also in line with people's expectation of the Government. President, Honourable Members, COVID-19 is still a global pandemic and the world's economy is facing severe uncertainties. Many wage earners are in the abyss of suffering due to the uncertain prospect. When will Hong Kong's economy step out of the shadow of the crisis largely depends on Hong Kong's own stability, the effect on anti-epidemic endeavours made in different parts of the world as well as the pace of economic recovery. If the violent clashes, roads and airport blockages and vandalizing of railway and shops, as well as the attack on people holding dissenting views that took place in the second half of last year re-emerge, it will be inevitable for us to see the winding up of more shops; foreign merchants will have no confidence to do business in Hong Kong; more people will lose their jobs and the livelihood of more families will be affected. In case of that, it would be futile for the Government to introduce more supporting measures. Our society is not flawless. There are many areas needed to be improved. But it is still a free, pluralistic and inclusive society that we should cherish. We need to face and tackle the deep-seated conflicts reflected from last year's social unrest and we need time and patience to achieve that. As the current economic downturn is actually affecting millions of wage earners and their families, the burden of livelihood is very heavy. I hereby urge Members to set aside differences and to create space for ironing out disagreements. I believe that as long as Hong Kong people are united as one to fight the epidemic, and as long as we can brace ourselves for self-empowerment, we will see sunshine after the rain. President, Honourable Members, I implore Members to pass the Appropriation Bill 2020 as soon as possible, so that the $10,000 cash pay-out initiative can be implemented as early as possible, and other relief measures in the Budget can also be introduced as soon as possible, with a view to stabilizing the economy and protecting the livelihood of the people. President, I so submit.


5873

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Appropriation Bill 2020 be read the Second time. 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 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, Ms 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, Mr Tony TSE and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the motion.


Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the motion. THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote. THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 63 Members present, 41 were in favour of the motion and 21 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed. CLERK (in Cantonese): Appropriation Bill 2020. Council became committee of the whole Council. Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now becomes committee of the whole Council to consider the Appropriation Bill 2020. In accordance with Rule 68 of the Rules of Procedure, the committee will first consider the Schedule, and then the clauses. Members have already been informed that, the allocation of time for the consideration of the Bill is by and large comparable with that of last year. The committee of the whole Council will be divided into three sessions to deal with the relevant proceedings of the Bill and the details are set out in Appendix 1 to the Script. In the first session, the committee will first debate on heads with no amendment. After the debate has come to a close, the committee will thereupon put to vote the motion that the sums for such heads standing part of the Schedule.


5875

The committee will immediately proceed to the second session, in which a joint debate on all the amendments and relevant heads will be conducted. Each amendment will then be put to vote one by one and the motions that the relevant heads standing part of the Schedule will be dealt with. After that, the committee will proceed with the third session to debate the motion that clauses 1 and 2 stand part of the Bill. Members may explain in this session whether or not they support the Bill. After the debate has come to a close, the relevant motions will be put to vote one by one until the Third Reading has concluded. This Council will conclude all the proceedings of the Bill by 14 May. I hereby urge Members to make good use of their time to consider the Bill. APPROPRIATION BILL 2020 CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): We now proceed to the first session. I now propose the question to you and that is: That the sums for the following heads stand part of the Schedule. CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 23 to 28, 30, 31, 33, 37, 39, 42, 44, 48, 55, 59, 62, 70, 78, 80, 94, 100, 106, 114, 116, 118, 120, 121, 136, 140, 155, 160, 162, 166, 168, 169, 170, 173, 174, 184, 190 and 194. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): In this session, the committee will first proceed to a joint debate on the sums for the 42 heads with no amendment read out by the Clerk just now standing part of the Schedule, and then vote on the sums for those heads standing part of the Schedule. Members have already been informed that this session will take approximately seven hours. The debate now commences.


MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Chairman, regarding press freedom, it is widely known that Hong Kong is full of self-censorship. However, the Government can do very little in this regard as it should only provide an environment totally conducive to press freedom. Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") is a government department. Technically speaking, this government department must obey the Government. However, RTHK is also a public broadcaster, which should be free from political intervention―especially intervention from the Government, as well as commercial intervention. That is to say, it should be free from commercial pressure and political intervention. However, one can see waves of oppression from the Government or official institutions, and that is quite regrettable. According to the World Press Freedom Index 2020 published by Reporters Without Borders ("RWB"), Hong Kong's press freedom ranking drops 7 places to 80th place; while China ranks 4th from the bottom. The RWB survey still separates Hong Kong from China, but why? It is because we have "one country, two systems" in place. Nevertheless, RWB concludes that China wants badly to reshape the order of the world as well as that of the global news media. That is, China wants to go on an international offensive by beefing up its propaganda, educational or even brain-washing efforts. Hong Kong can hardly remain unscathed under this circumstance. It also explains why RTHK is facing a constant barrage of oppression, which in effect has intimidated the staff of RTHK into self-censorship in order to be consistent with the entire state policy. You may argue that the funding allocated to RTHK is not small, totalling $1 billion. As a matter of fact, the amount of $1 billion has remained for many years. Each year RTHK will receive an allocation of around $1 billion, will the funding be increased this year? I dare not say that there is no upward adjustment, as there is an addition of $3 million. What a moving scene it must have been, with such a meagre amount. The latest Cantonese expression I have learned is "tangerines on an altar". What does it mean? The funding allocated to RTHK is drying up gradually. Like tangerines offered on an altar, the funding for RTHK will dry up slowly. No matter how hard it works, and regardless of how many programmes it has produced … Be it the reports on "21 July" incident or "31 August" incident, RTHK has all along been one of the most outstanding news media organizations. The more outstanding it is, the more oppression it will face. We are now discussing the Budget, so we cannot demand that more funding should be allocated to RTHK because of its outstanding performance. The only thing we can do is to cut its funding but


5877

nobody is going to do that. Thank God. However, the only thing we can do is to warn the Government that press freedom is the last line of defence in a free society. Why have you been attempting to dry up its resources? Just now I have heard the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development's speech. He is the most formidable person as he is the first one to shout out loud and clear that Mr LEUNG Ka-wing should be held responsible because one of RTHK's interviews has breached the One-China Principle―should RTHK need your advice as to how a news programme should be conducted and produced? What they do not understand is the fact that genuine press freedom has two major functions: First, to inform―to tell people the fact; Second, to entertain―news actually contains the element of entertainment. But they just do not understand. The title of the programme Headliner contains the term news headline, can it be said that it has nothing to do with news? It is really a silly and stupid remark. After rounds and rounds of oppression, in February and March, the police even wrote to RTHK and accused Headliner of smearing the police and doing something wrong. Do you know what kind of programme the Headliner is? It is a programme which came into being before 1997, and it adopted a caricature-styled for current affairs discussion via telecast. In April, the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development that I mentioned earlier criticized RTHK in a ferocious and even intimidating manner. Certainly, everybody notes that an unknown or unnamed person brought the case to the court with the help of a lawyer from a certain political party who claimed that he or she would sue Mr LEUNG Ka-wing for committing the offence of misconduct in public office (MIPO) on behalf of the public. How ridiculous this argument and this level of intelligence are … I am not going to deviate any further from the topic. Nonetheless, Hong Kong people should have a very clear impression last summer that journalists in Hong Kong, including the editors and reporters of RTHK―in particular frontline reporters were working hard in July and August last year. Members should be able to vividly recall that during July and August last year, RTHK reporter Nabela QOSER raised the toughest questions; in October last year, a cameraman of RTHK was pepper-sprayed after his mask was pulled off, the entire saga was caught on camera. Why there are no consequences for these cases? You may argue that I should not comment on individual cases. No, just now I heard that the Secretary for Security has


intentionally mentioned a number of cases. He even elaborated and commended the efforts and endeavours made by the Police Force. In that case, if he was permitted to cite individual cases, I think we should be permitted to do the same. I was shocked in December last year when I heard RTHK news report that "members of the public fought back by throwing water bottles and other objects" in a protest which took place at Edinburgh Place. At that time, the Commissioner of Police wrote to RTHK and pointed out that the use of the term "fought back" was inappropriate. Since when do they have the right to teach us how news reports should be written? They have reached such an extent. At that time, I knew that something bad was on the horizon, but it was beyond my imagination that they would adopt such a heavy-handed approach to oppress RTHK. It is really deplorable, and it becomes the laughing stock of the world. This piece of news has spread to overseas countries and everyone should know what's going on here. It is because RTHK is no ordinary radio station. Not every Hong Kong news media institution can catch global attention. RTHK is Hong Kong's public broadcaster. But it can only be called a public broadcaster if its operation is genuinely independent from the Government. Nonetheless, they are far too reluctant to allow the structure of RTHK to be independent from the Government. Moreover, what does it mean by breaching the One-China Principle? The Secretary made a big fuss out of it, but he failed to give an explanation. The name of the programme was The Pulse, yet which line in the script has breached the One-China Principle? He could not explain that. But we legislators who have some experience know that even if we keep on asking him, he would say, "I have nothing to add". He would say he has nothing to add as he will keep on running around in circles. What I worry most now is that they try to intimidate RTHK by the use of public money. Actually, should a distance between the funding and the way RTHK handles its affairs be kept? It is difficult. First, RTHK cannot open new posts as the funding is being dried up. For existing staff, if someone is considered being politically incorrect, he would be told that "the door is over there". That is, he will be asked to leave or resign voluntarily, or they will make his/her life as difficult as possible so that the staff has to resign of his/her own accord. They resort to all kinds of intimidations and it is visible for all to see. Now they directly use the tactic of "capturing the ringleader first" by naming Mr LEUNG Ka-wing, the Director of Broadcasting. If he feels the intimidation,


5879

his fellow colleagues will feel intimidated. How deplorable and stereotypical for them to adopt such incorrigible brats' tactics? But they all comes from the entire Government. I also wish to mention the Home Affairs Bureau. The total allocation of the Funding Scheme for Youth Exchange in the Mainland and the Funding Scheme for Youth Internship in the Mainland is $112 million, while the number of secondary and primary school students participating in the two schemes has reached nearly 110 000. It is estimated that $115 million is needed. All of these schemes require hundreds of millions of dollars. Under the "one country, two systems" framework, the exchange programmes are considered normal, natural and reasonable. But the problem lies in the funding being allocated. I have read some investigative reports and found that the titles of those exchange programmes were terrible, such as Yangtze River exchange group or alike. If they are purely the funding of internship, I consider that understandable, because the internship should involve time, places, people and what should be done. But if it is purely an exchange programme by bumming around and having fun, while no report is produced afterwards, then it is purely a matter of ideological doctrine. That is, whether or not they involved some kind of "brainwashing" process and what they had done in the Mainland? As the funding in this respect is as much as $100 million. I would also like to question the number of secondary and primary school students participating in the exchange schemes. Since primary school students may enrol, should we also allow kindergarten students to participate in these schemes? Because some people have suggested that the teaching materials of kindergartens, primary and secondary schools should be scrutinized by the Legislative Council, so these schemes should cover kindergartens. But if the students are too young to travel by themselves, then we should also invite their parents to accompany them. I have serious doubt about these expenditures, particularly their criteria for approval. Why should these schemes eventually receive funds up to tens of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars, tens of millions of dollars, and ultimately $100 million? What actually are these organizations? It seems to me that they are all good friends. They are close confidants and cronies―maybe I clip my microphone the wrong side up, but it is okay, let me go on―what I question most is the approval criteria for these youth exchange schemes. Will the Home Affairs Bureau please give a detailed account later on. Honestly speaking, if the Demosisto or Joshua WONG wants to organize a group mainly for conducting exchange programmes with the Mainland―just in case they do―will they stand a chance of being approved?


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 2:00 pm. 12:54 pm Meeting suspended. 2:00 pm Committee then resumed. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please speak. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, we are having a joint debate in this session on the sums for the 42 heads with no amendment standing part of the Schedule. I would like to focus my discussion more on the sum for "Head 44―Environmental Protection Department" because this is closely related to my work in this Council over the past seven or eight years. Certain bright spots among the proposals put forward in the Budget in respect of the work of the Environment Bureau are worth discussing. First of all, with regard to the air pollution problem, the initiatives to promote green transport will cover such transport modes as vehicles and ships, which are major sources of air pollution in Hong Kong and in this connection, I am talking about the levels of respirable suspended particulates (PM 10) and fine suspended particulates (PM 2.5) or the concentrations of air pollutants like sulfur dioxide and nitrides. These are completely different from carbon dioxide emission intensity in respect of global climate change. Vehicles and ships are key emission sources of the above mentioned air pollutants, and bringing cleaner air (especially improving roadside air quality in Hong Kong) will definitely be highly conducive to protecting and improving public health. I welcome the proposal in the Budget this year to set aside a sum of about $9.5 billion to promote the popularization of electric vehicles, with $80 million and $350 million of which earmarked respectively for launching a pilot scheme for electric public light buses and another trial scheme on the switch to electric ferries.


5881

The Government has launched pilot schemes at different times in the past five or six years for electric taxis and electric buses. As we may recall, due to the geographical environment of Hong Kong (Hong Kong Island in particular) or the local climate, the Government's plans to promote the use of electric buses have been unsuccessful. Certainly, it is better to have tried than not at all. With hindsight, the biggest problems with the pilot schemes previously launched for electric buses mainly lied in battery recharging and duration, and these are issues which need to be resolved. Moreover, Hong Kong people have also got used to riding on air-conditioned buses, and this has added to the complexity of the issue, thus undermining greatly the technical feasibility of promoting the use of even single-deck electric buses in Hong Kong. I have enquired through different channels that although the use of electric buses was faced with such major problems, how about the use of electric public light buses? The Government replied that it had approached certain local manufacturers for the possibility of designing and using on a trial basis of electric public light buses that might be suitable for Hong Kong. However, in my opinion, although it may be feasible to introduce electric public light buses that can be fully recharged in 10 to 20 minutes with an efficient charging system, their introduction still remains a difficult task. Apart from identifying local manufacturers in Hong Kong, I hope the Government will also try to look to overseas for more choices, because according to some manufacturers who have approached me, alternative options do available in the United Kingdom, for example, where larger and 20-seat passenger vehicles similar to electric public light buses can be found. I really hope that in the next few years, there will be electric public light buses and electric buses running on the roads of Hong Kong, even though I believe that a full introduction of double-deck electric buses is nothing but a mere distant dream. Hydrogen is another source of energy that we can consider, and I wonder if anyone has ever thought of exploring the feasibility of using hydrogen to replace electricity as bus fuel. As we all know, by adopting hydrogen as a fuel source, only hot water will perhaps be emitted, and the environmental impact will definitely be minimized to almost zero. The Budget also proposed to set aside $2 billion for subsidizing the installation of charging-enabling infrastructure for electric vehicles in car parks of private residential buildings. Sufficient charging facilities have already been


provided in the car park of the Legislative Council Complex, and fellow Members are also encouraged to use such facilities, but procedurally speaking, it is not at all easy to install charging facilities in car parks of private housing estates. As we can see in these recent few years, there are companies in the market which provide private housing estates with one-stop services in conducting surveying work, feasibility study and installation work for the provision of charging facilities for electric vehicles. Currently, the number of electric private cars in Hong Kong accounts for only 2.1% of the total number of private cars, and the proportion is extremely low. As electric private car owners represent only an extreme minority, it is imaginable that this would give them a lot of difficulties in lobbying for the support of owners' corporations of private housing estates for the installation of charging-enabling infrastructure for electric vehicles. Some members of the public have also kept conveying their views to the Government and to me or my colleagues that the Government should tackle the matter genuinely from the perspective of users, and examine how it could assist electric private car owners in lobbying for the support of their owners' corporations or property management companies for the installation of charging facilities, medium-speed chargers at least. It is of course my keenest hope that the Government will work out as soon as possible a timetable under the general guidelines set out in the blueprint for addressing climate change, and advise us by the end of this year or the beginning of next year the exact time frame for banning the sale of fuel-driven private cars in Hong Kong, as a similar timetable has already been drawn up in many countries like Denmark or Sweden for phasing out such vehicles. Although I do not expect the implementation of the relevant arrangements within two or three years as there are actually not too many suitable electric private car models available in the market in Hong Kong, a timetable should at least be devised in this respect to give us a clear picture of the Government's plan, and tell us whether the work will be done in the next 5 years, 10 years or 15 years. As another initiative focusing on environmental protection, the Budget proposed to implement a scheme to recycle waste paper. According to the Government, a sum of not less than $300 million will be set aside each year for the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") to engage a number of service contractors through open tender procedures to collect waste paper across the


5883

territory for screening. It is envisaged that this will help stabilize the quantity, quality and price of local waste paper, and safeguard 5 000 job opportunities in the recycling sector too. Considering the amount of $300 million to be injected each year and the efforts to be stepped up in implementing the scheme, I have no objection to the idea. However, as revealed from various reports published previously by the Director of Audit on similar subsidy schemes, it is not difficult to note that when tenders were invited for such schemes, the design of tender documents or the marking schemes adopted for tender assessment had often made it possible for service contractors offering the lowest tender prices to win the tenders although the services they provided were not of the best quality, thus affecting the implementation, quality or effectiveness of the schemes. I would like to pose the following question to the Secretary in charge of the matter: With regard to the scheme for spending $300 million each year on the recycling of waste paper, what targets and technical requirements will exactly be adopted for the tender exercises concerned? Will bid prices be adopted as the sole criterion for assessing and awarding tenders? If this will not be the case, what will be the respective weights given to tender bid prices and technical levels of tenderers? Should company reputation be included as one of the assessment criteria? On the other hand, it seems that the Budget has overlooked another environment problem of an even more serious nature: the plastic waste problem. This problem involves two levels, and the first one is the current policy on the imposition of plastic shopping bag levy. However, on another level, it is surprising that the Government has not yet drawn up a timetable for taking forward two important tasks. Firstly, when will a total ban be imposed on the use of bags made of plastic materials? In fact, the use of plastic bags made of non-degradable materials has already been prohibited in many countries. Secondly, with regard to microplastics, should legislation be enacted to prohibit the sale of products containing microbeads, especially cosmetics and skin care products? This is because residues of such skin care or beauty products will enter the human food chain if they are discharged into the sea and consumed by such marine lives as fishes. This will bring very serious impact to the marine ecology and worse still,


such microbeads will eventually be transferred to the human body directly when marine fishes become food for human beings, who are at the top of the food chain. However, we have been discussing this problem for some several years, but the Secretary for the Environment has only kept responding that a study would be conducted on the issue, and how long will we have to wait for the results of this study? Should a more concrete legislative timetable be drawn up in this respect? I of course understand that when the Government wishes to impose regulation on certain products, be they plastic bags or microplastics, resources will have to be deployed and in this connection, resources are required not only in the enactment and enforcement of the relevant legislation but also in carrying out adequate promotion and publicity. Why should I spend so much time talking about environmental protection? It is because among so many social issues we are now facing, environmental problems will most affect the next generation or the survival of mankind as we have indeed been indulging in the practice of over-consumption of resources for quite a long time. When it comes to our economy, it is of course important to sustain a sound economy. It is equally important to pay due regard to other social welfare initiatives and policies. Yet, environmental protection is a global issue that calls for the concerted efforts of all countries, and Hong Kong cannot stay out of the matter. Waste disposal is another subject concerning environmental protection. The Government has proposed to increase the estimates this year by 32% for EPD to take forward initiatives in relation to waste disposal, and I have also submitted written questions to the Government earlier to enquire about the progress in reducing plastic waste. With regard to the measure mentioned earlier to impose a total ban on the use of plastic bags or products containing microbeads, it should be noted that after the introduction of the plastic bag levy, although a decrease was recorded in the numbers of plastic bags disposed of at landfills in the first two years, the figures rose up again afterwards as reflected in the relevant charts. Why is this so? Is it due to inadequate law enforcement actions or the problems with the policy per se? Given the experience gained from the introduction of the plastic bag levy, I cannot help but wonder if there will certainly be a direct correlation between the implementation of waste charging and the quantity of waste disposal at landfills, even though the relevant legislation will be introduced.


5885

Hong Kong is a very unique city, and the cultural background or living habits here are very much different from those in other places like Taipei and Seoul, where similar measures have been successfully implemented. Perhaps we are really so well off that we do not care paying a few dollars more, but in the end, the quantity of waste disposal will remain high while the relevant measures will cause much nuisance to the public. Chairman, I so submit. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I will first speak on "Head 160―Radio Television Hong Kong". Before proceeding to the Committee stage, Members should focus their speeches on the amendments to various heads, and I heard the vehement demand of pro-establishment Members for cutting the estimated expenditure for Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"). What they mean to say is that while the democratic camp wants to cut the estimated expenditure for the Hong Kong Police Force, they may likewise propose to slash the estimated expenditure for RTHK. They have even demanded a reduction in the estimated expenditure for the emoluments of Director LEUNG Ka-wing. Actually, I really look forward to the speeches of these Members later on. Initially, I even expected to see their proposal of amendments on cutting RTHK's estimated expenditure for Members' discussion here, and also what the Government would do if an amendment on cutting RTHK's estimated expenditure was passed in the end as pro-establishment and royalists Members were in the majority. This Council has never passed any amendment on revising the appropriation in any head. Rumours have even been circulating that if any such amendment is passed, then the Government may not put the relevant sums to vote and must withdraw the Appropriation Bill 2020 ("the Bill"). I honestly want to be an eye witness of all this. But royalist Members might be well aware that if they proposed an amendment, they would be caught in the dilemma of whether to support it or not―if the amendment is passed with their support, the whole Bill will be dragged into trouble. So in the end, they did not propose any amendment on cutting the estimated expenditure for RTHK. Actually, I do not think that the estimated expenditure for RTHK should be cut; not only so, I even think that its estimated expenditure should be significantly increased, so that it can receive more resources for producing programmes of a higher quality, fulfil its media role as a watchdog and monitor the Government


more effectively. These days, authentic news―truly unbiased news that can reflect the truth―is really valuable. At present, there are many free news providers on the Internet, and free television broadcasters also produce various news programmes. Such programmes are like a big feast to the eye. We always urge people to subscribe to authentic news that is reported with the conscience. Just now, when I got past a television set, I noticed an afternoon news report programme aired by that "major broadcaster". It reported that the "Wuhan pneumonia" now plaguing the United States already emerged in the United States well before its outbreak in Wuhan. It is honestly even worse than "content farms". As long as someone says something casually, they will report it casually without any regard for its authenticity and the fact that it has been disproved. As long as someone says something, they will hasten to report it. When ordinary people get past a television set and hear the news, some may regard it as truthful and spread it around because even that "major broadcaster" has likewise reported that the present pneumonia already broke out in the United States long ago. I cite this example because I wish to tell Members that the dominance of a single broadcaster in the media industry as we talked about in the past will actually pose much danger. During all this time, RTHK can actually fulfil its roles as a public broadcaster and report the truth at the forefront in strict compliance with its professionalism, especially in its news production. They are really dauntless. They are not under any financial and market pressure. Even though their boss―the Government―sees them as an eyesore in many respects, they have remained dauntless and kept moving forward courageously. All along, I have spoken words of fairness for RTHK on many occasions. The Government has rebutted me, saying that it has already increased funding and manpower for RTHK. Well, I must say this is a fact. But the point is that RTHK's roles and people's expectation of it today have been much different when compared to five years ago. In the past, RTHK was merely a radio station that aired radio programmes, and only the programmes produced by its Television Unit would be broadcast on free television channels. But now, they have their own channels, and they will produce their own programmes and operate their channels. Members can come to think about this. What is the minimum quantity of resources and manpower for operating one channel? Members can ask Hong Kong Cable Television Limited or Now TV, and they will realize that the resources given to RTHK now are totally out of proportion to its needs.


5887

At the special meeting of the Finance Committee for scrutinizing the estimated expenditures this year, I deliberately asked a question for RTHK. It asked about the number of overtime hours incurred by its reporters throughout the period from June last year to February this year, and also the number of staff members who were injured in the course of reporting. I hoped this could enable all RTHK staff to realize that many Hong Kong people supported and cared about them. The period from the anti-legislative amendment campaign in June last year (or the "anti-extradition to China" movement) to the time just before the outbreak of the epidemic―I will leave my discussion on the number of overtime hours incurred by the Police until the scrutiny of a reduction in the appropriation for the Hong Kong Police Force―saw a substantial increase in the reporting work of RTHK journalists, and they even did not have time for sleep. Their number of overtime hours stood at 5 492. According to Director LEUNG Ka-wing, RTHK compensates overtime worked by time-off in lieu rather than money. Honestly, how can its staff take time off even if they are provided with it? In the end, it will only go down the drain. I say so because their daily workload is immense. Suppose a colleague needs to take time off as he has worked overtime before. Who is there to take up his work? Therefore, it is argued that news practitioners cannot be so calculating. I must say "Thank you" to the RTHK staff. As for the number of injuries, 20 frontline workers were injured, and most of them sustained injuries due to the attacks perpetrated by police officers or pro-government individuals (meaning "blue ribbon" rioters). They had to work overtime for prolonged periods, and a lot of their equipment was also damaged. Worse still, they even had to face unreasonable intimidation and insults from the Police, and they were stigmatized as "bad journalists". Even worse, they were jostled from time to time and attacked in the course of reporting. That day, a journalist from RTHK's English channel was beaten up by "Fujian gangsters" in North Point―I was also nearby―and he made a report to the Police afterwards. That journalist received a reply letter from the Police last month, and it stated that they would curtail their investigation because they were unable to track down the assailants. The journalist said that this was a foregone conclusion and would not affect his frontline work. For this reason, I must express my sincere admiration for their professionalism. Some time ago, we criticized the SAR Government, saying that it wanted to "dry up" RTHK. Speaking of the appropriation request for constructing a New Broadcasting House for RTHK, the Government withdrew it as the


pro-establishment camp refused to render support. As a result, RTHK was not given any funding. Since the Government all along refused to present an appropriation request to this Council afterwards, we kept pursuing the matter. The Government replied that another proposal had been drawn up whereby RTHK and other departments were to share a building, and that it was making continued efforts to identify such a building. Director LEUNG Ka-wing said that this matter should have reached the final stage, and that if a suitable building was successfully identified, and if they could coordinate with the several (one or two) departments involved, the relevant work would commence forthwith. At the special meeting of the Finance Committee that day, I told Director LEUNG, "I do not intend to discuss the issue of a New Broadcasting House today. Do you think you can live long enough to witness the completion of a New Broadcasting House? Who will be the user of that New Broadcasting House upon its completion? Will RTHK turn into a radio broadcaster for the Central Authorities in Hong Kong?" As a matter of fact, among the various government departments in Hong Kong, RTHK is the department with the highest support rating and credibility. The SAR Government should treasure it and think about ways to enhance its programme quality and services. In order to mend the rift and unite the community as they have asserted, a credible radio broadcaster can honestly do a lot. They should not suppress RTHK through various forces and think that this can fulfil the Government's intention. RTHK's performance in the past year commanded worldwide recognition. In the New York Festivals, RTHK was awarded the "Finalist Certificate" for its various programmes. One of the programmes is Hong Kong Connect: 721 Yuen Long Nightmare. RTHK obtained some precious closed-circuit television footages revealing how the Police remained aloof during the few times when they drove a police patrol car past a number of assembled white-shirt gangsters with rods and poles in their hands, very much to the bewilderment of the community. This is the reason why this programme has won public applause. The support received by RTHK over all these months has outdone the complaints against it, and the audience ratings of its programmes have likewise soared. When it comes to audience ratings, certain pro-establishment Members have criticized RTHK, saying that the audience ratings of its programmes have remained low. Frankly speaking, the existing audience rating mechanism is indeed a bit out of date. Besides, as we said at the meeting of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting last time, there are problems with RTHK's signal transmission. Let me talk about myself as an example. I often fail to receive RTHK's signals. Even if I once successfully received its signals,


5889

they were disrupted soon afterwards. The Government must deal with the problem concerned, and RTHK must likewise work harder. I say so because despite my wish to support RTHK's programmes, I am unable to do so due to the failure to receive its signals. Since people are unable to receive RTHK's signals, its audience ratings are naturally not that good. But even so, as Members can see for themselves, the share and click-through rates of RTHK's programmes on YouTube and Facebook have even exceeded those of TVB (Television Broadcasts Limited). Therefore, the authorities should formulate a different set of indicators for the value-for-money audit on RTHK, so as to examine whether it can achieve cost-effectiveness with the funding allocated to it. Let me turn back to talk about Hong Kong Connect: 721 Yuen Long Nightmare. This particular episode unveils the truth between the Police and pro-police rioters, so the Hong Kong Government and the pro-establishment camp certainly think that RTHK is disloyal to the Government. This explains why the Police now keep picking on RTHK, and a lawsuit has even been brought against Director LEUNG Ka-wing. But Members can come to think about this. If the Government "dries up" or suppresses RTHK, with the result that RTHK turns into a subservient television broadcaster or a television broadcaster of the Central Authorities in Hong Kong, will this do more good than harm to the community? Or, will this intensify social dissention instead? If the Government strips RTHK of its functions, strips this credible radio broadcaster of its functions, then the public can only receive news on current affairs through other online media. As a result, many more people may believe fake news. To say the very least, people's trust in RTHK's news reporting is very high, so the Hong Kong Government should recognize its ability to unveil the truth and must not cut its resources. On the contrary, it should increase its estimated expenditure, so that it can produce more investigative reports and monitor the operation of various government departments. The authorities should also identify the inadequacies of various government departments based on its reporting. Only all this can enable RTHK to perform the role of driving the Government to improve and in turn restore public confidence in the SAR Government. In the past, those who worked for commercial media organizations like us were envious of RTHK. Or, we would think that RTHK's productions were extravagant because they could spend a whole year following a person in order to produce a one-hour feature episode. In this regard, commercial television broadcasters are honestly unable to follow suit. But this is precisely where the value of RTHK's very existence in Hong Kong lies and also the reason why no


radio broadcaster should operate under commercial principles. I say so because not everything should be judged on the basis of cost-effectiveness. When it comes to the appreciation index, RTHK's programmes have honestly outdone those produced by many commercial television broadcasters all along. Another reason why I think that RTHK's estimated expenditure should be increased rather than cut is that despite limited resources, RTHK has been able to procure many quality programmes. We should not only provide RTHK with resources for procuring more quality programmes but also enable it to produce quality programmes and sell them overseas. Despite a limited budget, RTHK is able to procure good programmes sometimes. Two programmes aired by RTHK in this financial year, namely 10 Years with Hayao Miyazaki and Race Across the World―similar programs are not that common in Hong Kong―have recorded a satisfactory audience rating and also aroused talks among people. Members can come to think about this. If we further increase RTHK's resources, they will be able to procure more quality programmes from overseas. But I also wish to discuss this the other way round. If the estimated expenditure for RTHK is increased, I believe RTHK can produce some quality programmes and even sell them overseas. The two programmes procured by RTHK from overseas as I mentioned just now were actually produced by their local public television broadcasters. In the case of 10 Years with Hayao Miyazaki, for example, it was produced by a public television broadcaster in Japan called NHK (Nippon Hōsō Kyōkai) in which a dedicated crew followed Hayao MIYAZAKI over a span of 10 years and captured his personal life on camera. Race Across the World was produced by a British public broadcaster called BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) in which filming crews followed various teams of contestants as they travelled from London to Singapore by land and sea. One common feature of the two programmes is their serious production and huge manpower input and production costs, but the point is that they have overseas sales value. In my view, if RTHK can sell its Hong Kong Connect: 721 Yuen Long Nightmare overseas, it can show the truth in Hong Kong and arouse greater concern from the international community apart from earning some money as subsidies. I hope that in the days ahead, the Government can stop suppressing RTHK on various pretexts, and RTHK staff can stand united and persevere in this most difficult and darkest time no matter what. As far as we can see, many people are very supportive of RTHK. We hope that despite its limited resources, RTHK can still produce more quality programmes that can reflect the truth without any fear for pressure.


5891

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this debate session, I am going to discuss "Head 121―Independent Police Complaints Council". I notice that the Under Secretary is here, and so my speech can be heard by the public officer concerned. What role is the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC") playing in Hong Kong? The expenditure of IPCC for this year is as high as over $97 million. In the past, many people used to think that IPCC was a dedicated supervisory institution and platform for safeguarding equity and justice. However, since June last year, we have noticed that IPCC seems to be unable to monitor the various violent behaviours of the Police. From June last year to date, almost every day and every night, as the public have observed, police officers could be utterly oblivious to law and discipline. Some police officers, without wearing any warrant cards but holding various kinds of weapons, recklessly assaulted members of the public. And some police officers, without giving any warning, wantonly fired rubber bullets, bean bag rounds and tear gas rounds. Hong Kong people find these most detestable and outrageous. Last year, we asked why the figure of substantiated cases among the complaints handled by IPCC was so low. Secretary John LEE was really shameless. How did he respond then? He said that the low figure of substantiated cases was attributed to the high quality of the Police Force. We all learn about the current police complaints system. It is a two-tiered system. When a person lodges a complaint to IPCC, owing to the power conferred by the law, IPCC can only refer the case to the Complaints Against Police Office ("CAPO") of the Hong Kong Police Force, so that the Police will investigate their own members. Under the system of the Police investigating their own members, basically many cases in relation to abuse of power, inappropriate use of violence, use of inappropriate language and even law-breaking behaviours of police officers will be dropped off the record in the course of processing by CAPO. Otherwise, why would so many people give zero mark to the Police? About 50% of Hong Kong people, including many members of the community who are not very concerned about current affairs, also reckon that the Police deserve zero mark in their performance. It is definitely a shameful situation which is most distressful to Hong Kong people. Who says that the Hong Kong Police Force is the best police force in Asia? This cannot be possible.


It is also not true that IPCC is not doing anything. In September last year, Dr Anthony NEOH, the incumbent Chairman … we witnessed the very serious incidents that happened between June and September last year in the history of Hong Kong, including the "21 July" incident which involved some white-clad people in Yuen Long, the "31 August" incident at Prince Edward MTR Station where some police officers attacked passengers indiscriminately, at which Hong Kong people are extremely aggrieved. We find that the Police, being oblivious to law and discipline, have already become a disciplinary force beyond control. Therefore, IPCC invited some international experts to Hong Kong. In a speech, Carrie LAM also expressed delight with the fact that some international experts would come to Hong Kong. I reckon that its Chairman, Dr Anthony NEOH, has duly done something. When the law is so weak, what has he done? He met with a few experts, including Sir Denis O'CONNOR, Chairman of the International Expert Panel ("IEP"), who formerly was the Chief Inspector of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary in the United Kingdom. The other few experts also came from the police monitoring organizations highly recognized in the world. They included the former Chief Commissioner of the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission in New South Wales of Australia, the former President of the Canadian Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, an Affiliated Lecturer of the Institute of Criminology at the University of Cambridge and also some intellectuals from New Zealand, Australia and other places. IEP was set up on 4 September, and the few experts were entrusted with an important task of looking into and compiling a report on the incidents happened since June last year as a whole and the issue of violence associated with police. As we are aware, it is very unfortunate that the contents of the preliminary report compiled by IEP are totally different from the information made public by IPCC. According to a piece of information disclosed, IEP was of the view that with the current terms of reference of IPCC, it was basically impossible for IPCC to effectively look into all the social problems emerged since June last year till the departure of the experts from IEP. Owing to the limited power of IPCC, IPCC neither has an independent investigation power nor the power of summoning independently police officers or those officers involved in cases of breach of discipline. Hence, IEP opined that IPCC was unable to look into the controversy arising from the incidents last year.


5893

Besides, all members withdrew from IEP on 11 December last year. This told the whole world that they had to leave this trash system of Hong Kong. This is contemptible indeed. The withdrawal of these experts has told people in the whole globe how "good" the police complaints system in Hong Kong is. The experts, when being recruited in Hong Kong, thought that they could really help improve the system. But in fact, the Government would only listen to the advice agreeable to it. If it was not pleased with the advice, the experts were not allowed to say anything further. They are experts who are cognisant of some police complaints systems being adopted in other countries and jurisdictions which have genuine investigation power and are more effective and independent than that in Hong Kong. What kind of system is being put in placed in Hong Kong? Nowadays, police officers are also very smart. During the night after a police officer has beaten up a person, he will say to the person that if he feels aggrieved at being assaulted, he can lodge a complaint. All police officers are aware that the complaints mechanism is useless, and thus they are not afraid of being complained. At present, both the subordinates and superiors share the same mentality. Yesterday, two journalists tried to gather information in the vicinity of the residence of Mr Rupert DOVER, who was recently promoted to Assistant Commissioner of Police, in Sai Kung in the New Territories, because his squatter settlement is suspected to be an illegal structure. And the journalists would also like to look into matters like his right of living in a squatter settlement. However, the journalists concerned were eventually arrested and taken to Tseung Kwan O Police Station. What the heck is going on in the world? In the course of looking into the suspected inappropriate behaviour of a senior police officer, they were arrested by the Police. In other words, police officers in Hong Kong are "licensed hooligans" who may be even worse than triads, because while the triads cannot act wildly in defiance of the law, police officers in Hong Kong can do whatever they like. If they do not like you, they can arrest you at will. I thus find this situation highly undesirable. Although many members in IPCC are from the pro-establishment camp, I think some of them are resolute to make things better. Nevertheless, the current two-tier structure is basically ineffective. It can neither help the general public nor do justice to the unarmed citizens who were beaten black and blue by police officers. If people resort to public prosecution, will they lodge complaints to the Police about some citizens being assaulted by the police officers? This will only be a waste of energy. The police officers will not admit that they have assaulted


the citizens. If the public ask the Police to investigate into the incidents, the Police will certainly not conduct any investigation. The ineffectiveness of the entire Government has a direct impact on the overall governance of Hong Kong. After Mrs Carrie LAM has come out and said that she only had these 30 000 police officers to help maintain her governance, or simply her reign, what we see every day is how these police officers abuse their power, how they use violence and how they deliberately break the law, whereas IPCC is unable to exercise certain functions and powers. Despite our expenditure of over $90 million of public money and the many staff in IPCC, this Bill does not help much in this aspect. If funding can be increased to expand the terms of reference of IPCC, this will be more desirable. Hence, IPCC is basically a toothless tiger. However, the Government and police officers are delighted to see this situation, because they are practically not subject to any supervision despite the nominal presence of IPCC. In reality, they do not need to care about IPCC. IEP has told us that this system is rotten and is a failure. It can neither safeguard a fair and equitable investigation nor prevent the general public from being affected by the law-breaking behaviours of police officers. Chairman, the second point that I would like to discuss is "Head 160―Radio Television Hong Kong". According to an opinion poll on the media organizations most trusted by Hong Kong people, the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") ranked second after another commercial television broadcaster. Some pro-establishment Members with rather low capability say that the audience ratings of the RTHK programmes have been very low. In fact, they may not know that apart from watching the so-called "CCTVB"―namely the dominating television broadcaster of TVB (Television Broadcasts Limited)―many Hong Kong citizens have already given up watching television, but will choose to watch some programmes through other platforms available to them, such as the Internet. Quite a number of programmes of RTHK are internationally recognized. In the 2020 New York Festivals TV & Film Awards, 721 Yuen Long Nightmare was awarded the Finalist for News: Program, Best Investigative Report. This programme refers to the cooperation between the Police and a group of white-clad triads from Yuen Long in the incident. A police commander witnessed the situation but pretended that he had not seen anything, and he also said that he was not wearing a watch. For some unknown reasons, some police


5895

officers left Yuen Long MTR Station immediately after they had arrived. It is fortunate that RTHK or some media journalists were filming every second of the situation, and eventually, this programme was awarded the Finalist for News: Program, Best Investigative Report. Through these programmes, RTHK has fought for some dignity for Hong Kong people, telling the whole world that in Hong Kong, there is still a group of journalists in RTHK who, under various kinds of suppression, are sparing no effort in upholding freedom of the press, freedom of news gathering and reporting. Besides, Patrick HO's List produced by RTHK was awarded the Finalist for Documentary (International Affairs). This programme is about the trial of Mr Patrick HO and expounds how he has striven for the Belt and Road interests for the major country through a multinational corruption network across Africa, Central America, Middle East, Eastern Europe, the United States, Hong Kong and Shanghai. It is fortunate that we still have RTHK which can tell Hong Kong people the rarely known truth of those incidents. The staff of RTHK, ranging from editors, journalists to the Director of Broadcasting, are all subject to oppression. During the special meeting of the Finance Committee held a few days ago, the first sentence spoken by Mr Edward YAU, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, that we heard after Mr LEUNG Ka-wing had left was: RTHK was not unregulated but was subject to supervision by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau constitutionally, and it had to work for the recognition of citizenship identity by the public and for the enhancement of the public's understanding of "one country, two systems". RTHK is being monitored by the viewers. But for our high-ranking officials, including Mr Edward YAU, Mr John LEE and Mrs Carrie LAM, how are they being supervised? Even though the popularity ratings of the high-ranking officials are frequently setting record lows, with the popularity rating of Mrs Carrie LAM only standing at 9%, they can still remain in their high positions and shamelessly think that they are good officials. One of the RTHK staff subject to oppression is a female journalist in the English programme of The Pulse. She asked Mr Bruce AYLWARD, Senior Advisor to the World Health Organization ("WHO"), about the qualification of Taiwan in joining WHO. She did not mention other views but only raised this question. Subsequently, RTHK was criticized for not observing the One-China Principle. My friends, this journalist was only asking a question. In fact, Mr AYLWARD could have answered, "There is no problem. We uphold the


One-China Principle and the Taiwan issue is not negotiable." This journalist has only asked a question and the reply was given by the WHO official. And now even the raising of questions by journalists is not allowed. Is it really Hong Kong? We definitely cannot allow any suppression of press freedom and RTHK. I so submit. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, first, I would like to briefly respond to the appeal made by the Financial Secretary at the resumption of the Second Reading debate just now. He appealed to Council Members for a speedy passage of the Budget. Actually, he does not need to do so. He just needs to take a look at the meeting arrangement and he should know that President has already set a limit on the debating time. The Budget will be put to vote on 14 May anyway. Perhaps the Financial Secretary wants all Members to refrain from speaking, so that the Budget can pass its Third Reading and be endorsed today. Perhaps only this arrangement can meet his expectation. But regrettably, this is the Hong Kong Legislative Council, not the National People's Congress. Besides, the Secretary for Security said just now that some Members sought political and even financial interests in the "anti-extradition to China" movement. I hope the Secretary can expeditiously produce specific evidence in this respect. He should not follow the example of the then Chief Executive and his Bureau Directors of the SAR Government regarding the Occupy Central movement. All that they did was to put the blame on foreign forces, saying that they meddled with our affairs. They even said they had evidence in this respect. But they did not produce any of it over the past years. They have been making empty accusations. They completely shirked the responsibility for their political and administrative failure and they have no real proof to support their accusations. Chairman, in this session, on behalf of the Civic Party, I will talk about "Head 160―Radio Television Hong Kong". Several colleagues have already commended the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") earlier, including Dr KWOK Ka-ki, my fellow party member. I wish to clearly put on record that RTHK has worked hard and provided valuable service in its capacity as a public service broadcaster. And as a representative of Hong Kong, RTHK has won many titles of honour for us as well.


5897

In his replies to Members' questions earlier, the Director of Broadcasting said that the top five RTHK programmes viewed on its YouTube channel were Hong Kong Connection, Headliner, This Week, City Forum and This Morning. The highest audience rating point of Headliner, a popular programme viewed by Hongkongers on RTHK TV 31, was 1.1. This is a very high rating point to a public television station, and this has yet to include the click-through rate of the programme at RTHK's YouTube channel. Our colleagues have pointed out earlier the big difference between click-through rate and audience rating as explained by the Director of Broadcasting in person at the special meeting of the Finance Committee a few days ago. I believe it is not difficult for people living in the 21st century, which is an era of extensive use of smart phones, to understand this. RTHK is a public service broadcaster and it has established, since its debut, a principle of editorial and reporting neutrality. Its editorial and reporting work should not be interfered by any political stances. Besides, comparatively speaking, RTHK does not need to have commercial consideration, nor does it need to rely on revenue generated from commercials to maintain its operation. There is thus no need for it to have any product placement in its programmes. As we can see, most of the popular programmes produced by RTHK are unlike those entertainment or consumer programmes produced by private broadcasters. RTHK's programmes are in the form of public news. This facilitates the promotion and discussion of public policies in Hong Kong. Actually, it is excellent value for money for Hong Kong taxpayers to support the continued operation of RTHK. Just imagine that without RTHK, which radio stations, television broadcasters or media can provide the same broadcasting capacity that can defy commercial pressure and continue to produce high quality civic programmes? Besides, we should not forget that RTHK is more than a programme producer. It also serves as a platform for people to produce their programmes and let these programmes be broadcasted to the general public. This is something unmatched by any other private broadcasters. Precisely because RTHK has no financial concerns, it can allow for a large variety of programmes and allow Hongkongers to show their productions produced with their own creativities. This is in fact something priceless.


But regrettably, Chairman, RTHK, which is a broadcaster of Hong Kong people, has been subject to unprecedented political pressure in recent years. Actually, this has been the case since some two decades ago, but the situation has become worse in 2020. The so-called patriotic groups, the royalists in this Council, the genuine "mutual destruction" seekers and the SAR Government who is really capable of achieving "mutual destruction" are now blatantly suppressing RTHK. They have made up hypocritical excuses and tried to distort the neutrality principle of RTHK in editing and reporting. The genuine "mutual destruction" seekers think that freedom of speech, of the press and freedom to engage in creation, as enshrined in the Basic Law, are worthless. Actually, only people with the means and power can truly destroy a system and achieve "mutual destruction". Hence, they absolutely qualify to be called the group of genuine "mutual destruction" seekers. Let me cite an example. At the meeting of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting, some "mutual destruction" seeking and royalist Members said that some RTHK programmes frequently contained hostile remarks against the Police and China. But do they know which broadcaster produces the programme Police Magazine which builds up the positive image of the Hong Kong Police Force? Is the programme produced by the Police Force? Or does it come from nowhere? Certainly not! The programme is produced by RTHK. These genuine "mutual destruction" seekers and royalist Members never understand what editorial and reporting neutrality means. As a colleague pointed out just now, the episode of Hong Kong Connection on white-clad people assaulting people on 21 July has won an international prize. This certainly is something we should be happy about. But in fact, RTHK also produces the programme Police Magazine. This shows that RTHK allows different opinions and voices to be heard on its platform. The total transmission hours of the two programmes are similar. Hence, anyone who suspects that RTHK is biased should use their brain to think it through. If they refuse to think, they should at least count the transmission hours and they will know that the accusation against RTHK for being biased is unfounded. Speaking of political pressure, I have to talk about the New Broadcasting House project of RTHK. The Public Works Subcommittee of this Council voted down the funding application for the project in 2014, which was in the previous term of the Legislative Council. The amount of funding applied for was $6 billion at that time. Members of the Subcommittee were of the view that the construction cost of the New Broadcasting House was too high. In November


5899

2017, the Government lowered the priority of the New Broadcasting House project from Category B to Category C. But what did we see in the past two years? We did not see any specific information provided or any actual effort made by the Government to help this public service institution for Hong Kong people. Actually, some Members and I have been following the progress of the New Broadcasting House project since the start of the current term of the Legislative Council. But all that we can find are excuses like "pending restarting the project", "no such a plan" etc. being repeated by the Government like a tape record. When the Government works in such a slow beat, and when the plan to have a joint-user building with the Government Laboratory is nipped in the bud, the sincerity of the SAR Government in helping RTHK to build its New Broadcasting House is questionable. The Government's argument is that it needs to find a "partner" for RTHK, in order that RTHK can "co-live" with another government department in the same building. When the project is changed from the past version of constructing an individual building to the present version of sharing the building with another government department, it is actually a disrespectful decision to this important public service institution. And what is more infuriating is that there is yet to be definite date of the project. While there is not a definite date for its facility enhancement, RTHK has been increasing the transmission hours of its television channels. Considering up to this Budget, the three television channels of RTHK have set the target of 24-hour broadcasting. Chairman, to put it plainly, RTHK will do more work and employ more people but its working space will not be expanded. They will not even have sufficient television production studios. The cleverest housewife cannot cook without rice. The Government has been stalling the New Broadcasting House project. Does the Government have the sincerity to do it? When the Government was asked to construct the New Broadcasting House, it said the project was too expensive. However, when we were asked to pour in money for the overtime subsidies of the Police, which was like a bottomless pit, Members were more than eager to support it. Having seen such a difference in attitude, people cannot help but believe that this is one of the attempts to suppress RTHK and dry up its resources.


Chairman, a responsible broadcaster should strive to maintain the quality and ethical standard of its programmes. But the harsh reality facing Hong Kong today is that the SAR Government is forcing the repugnant and disgusting concept of patriotism on Hong Kong people. What we have seen and heard is that police officers used batons, riot guns, water cannon vehicles and tear gas rounds against Hongkongers, trying to force them to surrender. But now, even the institution that monitors broadcasting has to surrender and be hijacked. The Government and pro-establishment supporters encourage people to lodge complaints against RTHK on trivial matters. Upon receipt of the complaints, the Communications Authority will actively and expeditiously take follow-up actions. Mr Edward YAU, Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, says that the compliments for RTHK cannot offset the complaints against it. In the year 2019-2020, as at 29 February 2020, RTHK has received 12 757 complaints against it and 70 847 compliments for it, with the latter being almost more than sixfold of the former. Regrettably, however, Mr Edward YAU says the compliments cannot offset the complaints and thus RTHK will continue to be persecuted. How incredible! A movable football goal is indeed a Chinese characteristic. Using Secretary YAU's logic, the great compliments for Carrie LAM's Government from the genuine "mutual destruction" seekers, the royalists and Beijing, which are the minority, cannot offset the multitude complaints from the Hong Kong public against her Government. Am I right? This is the same logic. It should be consistent. Hence, it was announced last week that the Secretaries, whom Hongkongers severely detest and who score very poor ratings, were allowed to remain, but those whose performance was less poor, but still poor, were asked to leave. One of them even received this "big gift" on his birthday. Is this the mentality, approach and logic of the SAR Government and the genuine "mutual destruction" seekers at 2020? Using this logic, can Financial Secretary Paul CHAN offset the anger accumulated among Hongkongers since last June with his $10,000 cash handouts? Certainly not! Chairman, an RTHK staff told me that you can log onto the websites of all departments of the Hong Kong SAR Government when you are in the Mainland except one, and that is RTHK's website. RTHK is the thorn in the side of the SAR Government and Beijing because it is the symbol of free speech, freedom of the press and freedom to create for Hong Kong. Some Party members of proper


5901

origin and red family background may regard RTHK as a poison left behind by the British colonial era. They hate to be unable to turn RTHK from the "BBC in the East" to the "Hong Kong channel of China Central Television" ("CCTV"). They think that RTHK Radio 1 should be renamed as "Hong Kong People's Radio Station". But these people are not courageous enough to admit that the reports made in the Hong Kong Connection episodes enable Hong Kong people to better grasp the current state of affairs in China in comparison with those shown in the major CCTV programmes. The former represents true quality. As a matter of fact, if RTHK, which is a public service broadcaster that holds fast to media ethics and refuses to be affected or even intimidated by political pressure, ceases to exist, fake news will then be spread everywhere. If so, who will be the victim? Actually, not only Hong Kong people, but also the Government will not benefit from it. Hence, a function of RTHK is to produce high quality programmes. The credibility it has built up over the years has won the trust of Hong Kong people. The news reports by RTHK are reliable to them. No matter RTHK reports a piece of good news or bad, we know that it is closest to the facts; the news report is dependable and reliable. But with much regret, the genuine "mutual destruction" seekers, the SAR Government and the royalists want to remove this treasure of Hong Kong people that has been established over the years. This mentality is totally unacceptable. Last but not least, I wish to use a statement made by the late former producer of Hong Kong Connection, Ms SIU King-lo, who said to the director of the programme. It roughly means that if you do not even dare to fight strongly with your superior for what is right, how you are going to do the same with senior officials and bigwigs. I wish to share her words with all RTHK staff members as mutual encouragement, and I hope that they can hang in there. Also, I hope the SAR Government will keep in mind what Mr CHU Pui-hing, the former Director of Broadcasting, said that the SAR Government is only the superior of RTHK; and the true boss of RTHK is the taxpayers and Hongkongers. I so submit.


MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is the first time in decades that I talk about issues concerning Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") here in this Chamber. I think the speech made by Mr Alvin YEUNG just now is really something well-said, and it has already covered many arguments which I need not repeat. Hence, I just want to say something about the viewership and audienceship ratings of RTHK programmes. We can simply make reference to the number of views of RTHK programmes on the Internet to find out how popular and well-received they are among Hong Kong people or the Cantonese-speaking audience. For example, as reflected from the number of views of RTHK programmes on YouTube, they are not only popular but can also be described as having a terribly large audience base. Let us not talk about other programmes and focus only on the television programme Headliner, and I note that the number of views of its following episodes can be as high as 800 000 to 900 000: the Headliner―30th Anniversary Special uploaded one year ago has 896 000 views; the Showcase event of Headliner in Hung Hom―Original Edition of Two Hours was also uploaded one year ago, and it has 859 000 views; the Headliner: Episode 4 uploaded one month ago has 942 000 views; the Headliner: Episode 5―Pandemic uploaded one month ago has 893 000 views; the Headliner: Episode 2―The Commander in Chief is Appealing for Redress uploaded two months ago has 883 000 views; while the Headliner: Episode 3―With Love uploaded two months ago has 926 000 views. Chairman, I can go on listing out such number of views and exhaust my speaking time of 15 minutes, because there are many more other programmes which have 800 000, 700 000, 600 000, 500 000 or 400 000 views, and they are simply too many to enumerate. These have already reached the standards of world-class programmes because there is a population of several millions people in Hong Kong, and they have also attracted viewers among Cantonese-speaking audience overseas. Although it is relatively difficult for people in the Mainland to view such programmes, some Hong Kong people and Cantonese-speaking Chinese in overseas places are indeed their viewers, and such levels of views and the amount of influence exerted are really something, given that those who clicked and watched were doing this on a voluntary basis. Chairman, I can tell all of you that if the Hong Kong Government is a government under a democratic system, its leader should be very humble in the face of such programmes which have been widely echoed among Hong Kong citizens and which have attained such levels of views, because they have let the


5903

views of Hong Kong people be heard. Frankly speaking, if the cabinet of the Government was an elected one, would the Chief Executive or the many Bureau Directors be acting in defiance of public opinions and try to kill off RTHK when these programmes are so widely echoed and supported by Hong Kong people? Would it be tantamount to a declaration of war with the people when they try to use this as an excuse for "drying up" RTHK? Not all RTHK programmes are produced with a satirical sense of humour, but the reasons are in fact very simple for satirical works to attain such levels of views. The Government should certainly use these programmes as a mirror to explore what is behind such thinking in society, as well as the reasons for the programme hosts to adopt such a perspective in presenting their comments. As a government which is humble and always strives for improvements, it should cherish RTHK and ponder deeply why its programmes can point out our exact social problems with merely a song and a few lines of lyrics. They are different from the lengthy speeches we give here in this Chamber, but every word used is a gem, which is to the point and speaks the heart of the people as well as point out the exact problems. The Government must try to clearly find out what it can do to improve itself, for this is what a broad-minded and progressive government should do. This is applicable not only in Hong Kong, and from a certain perspective, although the Mainland has adopted the socialistic system with certain characteristics and is in a relatively dictatorial and totalitarian state, the Central Government would also pay attention to online comments and grasp people's opinions. Suppression may be needed sometimes, but it must heed public opinions, especially when there are overwhelming views among the people, and the incident concerning LI Wenliang is an example. Therefore, as Hong Kong is a relatively free and open city, it is indeed hopelessly foolish on the part of the Government to try suppressing and "drying up" RTHK. Chairman, it was DENG Xiaoping who proposed back then to implement "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, so that "horse racing and dancing will go on". As a matter of fact, from a certain perspective, I think RTHK or the programme Headliner, which has been sharply criticized recently, is the symbol of certain values enshrined in the system under which "horse racing and dancing will go on" in Hong Kong. If the Government wants to kill off the Headliner, the values of Hong Kong will also be cleared away, because the inherent qualities of Hong Kong are to voice the views of the people and embrace freedom and openness. This is the characteristics of a capitalist society, and this is also the


reason why Hong Kong has ranked first as the freest economy in the lists published by some think tanks for quite a number of consecutive years. This has been made possible by the fact that Hong Kong is a free and open city. People can only feel a chill down their spines if this programme and the views it represents cannot be tolerated here, and what will international investors think of Hong Kong? Making investment is a very simple thing, and the touch of one button will involve billions of dollars. Therefore, efficient and free flow of information is a must, and all views must be made available to the public, be they criticisms against the Government or supporting views. RTHK programmes are not only well received in Hong Kong but have also won a number of international awards, and they have established international credibility and reputation. Any suggestion to kill off, "dry up" and "castrate" RTHK will be tantamount to giving up the value of maintaining freedom and openness in Hong Kong. We will definitely die with regret if it is the SAR Government which takes action to abolish "one country, two systems". What else can Hong Kong do if the Central Government or the leader of our country decides to handle the matter toughly by deploying the Chinese People's Liberation Army to do away with the principle of "one country, two systems"? This is understandable to me, but buddy, senior officials and the Chief Executive of the SAR Government are people who grew up in Hong Kong over the past few decades. They are graduates of universities in Hong Kong, they started their career as Administrative Officers in the Government, received training from their British supervisors, and know very well that the values pursued by Hong Kong must be in line with those of the world. This is the same background shared by all Bureau Directors present here, and I really do not know how Secretary Edward YAU can face the people of Hong Kong if he is so evil-minded as to do such things. I do not think he will have the courage to lift his head in front of his university classmates and friends. Chairman, one RTHK programme is now in the eye of the storm, but RTHK or this programme does represent certain values upheld by the people of Hong Kong. I understand that such values may not be acceptable in the Mainland, but "one country, two systems" is a principle laid down by forefather DENG Xiaoping to ensure that "horse racing and dancing will go on" here in Hong Kong. This is also a promise made to the whole world, and I have already refrained from touching on such issues as "river water intruding into well water" and interfering with the affairs of the Mainland. Hong Kong people do speak in


5905

this way, teasing each others like what we do in this legislature, but this will not make us become strangers outside this Chamber. Yet, the Government is so narrow-minded. We all understand that there is nothing we can do to resist if this is really a stern order from Beijing, just like the suppression of the June Fourth Movement. However, should something be done by senior government officials or people who wish to help to make representation to the Central Government? Finally, I wish to make one very interesting point. I have found that for people coming from the Mainland, the longer they live in Hong Kong, the better they can understand the values upheld here. This is especially so for their second generation. Since they were born and grew up in Hong Kong, they can understand well the values upheld in Hong Kong, as well as the reasons why their family came to settle down in Hong Kong at the outset. Mainlanders cannot quite understand because obviously, more than 1 million people have moved to Hong Kong from the Mainland since 1980s, and many of them grew up and were brainwashed in the Mainland. Yet, after settling in Hong Kong for more than 10 years, more than half of them would vote for democrats in election. These votes are cast by secret ballot without coercion, and some lobbying efforts and communications are involved during the process, but more than half of the new arrivals would vote for democrats in election. This is simply because these are matters concerning the core values of Hong Kong, the soft power of this city and issues of ideology. The longer they live here, especially those who came to settle down in Hong Kong in the earlier days, the more they can understand that Hong Kong is indeed freer and more open. People who moved to Hong Kong over the past few years may not have such feelings, because the Government is now getting more and more high-handed. Chairman, I would like to point out lastly that while RTHK has the popular support of the people, this has led the unpopular Government to conceive the idea of killing off, "castrating" and "drying up" RTHK. This act will only make itself the enemy of the people and run contrary to our basic values. To put it more colloquially, this Government is depraved enough. MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will first speak on Vote Number 30 in the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2020. The estimated expenditure of the Correctional Services Department ("CSD") for 2020-2021 is $4.5 billion. Concerning how CSD should utilize this funding, we may make comments and suggestions from many aspects. For example, we may discuss


the problem of ageing facilities, the issue of excessively low wages for inmates, and even the very high turnover rate of CSD staff caused by their much lower remuneration in comparison with that of the Police officers. But today, I wish to take this opportunity to talk about the complaint-handling mechanism of CSD and express my discontent about it. With abundant funding every year and the many suggestions from Members and the general public, why has CSD still failed to formulate a complaint-handling mechanism which is more desirable, more decent, and more operable? This shows all Hong Kong people that the complaint-handling mechanism of CSD is just the same as the Independent Police Complaints Council responsible for handling complaints about the Police's abuse of power and arbitrary arrests. It actually exists in name only without performing its function, and the complainants are like talking to a brick wall with their complaints unanswered. Over the past three years, I have followed up on the complaints made by a number of inmates and discharged inmates about the unreasonable treatment by CSD staff. What they referred to as unreasonable treatment include planting evidence against them and framing them up. Covering up lies with lies, CSD staff made trumped-up charges against them and subject them to disciplinary actions or even excessive force. Chairman, I believe everyone knows I was once an inmate myself. Wearing this pair of "personal shoes" for prisoner―a pair of shoes with my prisoner's registration number clearly written―during imprisonment, I experienced for myself what this complaint-handling mechanism is like. Department Secretaries and Bureau Directors, you probably have no idea that it actually takes inmates great perseverance and courage, as well as painstaking efforts to get a complaint form of the Office of The Ombudsman which seems to be available at fingertips. Today, the complaint-related incident at Tai Lam Correctional Institution was widely reported by major media. Let us just take it as an example. In March, CSD made a fuss to issue two press releases, claiming that all the inmates at Tai Lam Correctional Institution had engaged in illicit activities and the department thus took actions to combat the activities and even deployed the fully-armed Regional Response Team to suppress the inmates' activities. The inmates were labelled as if they were terrorists, while the incident was classified as a planned collective activity against the institution's management personnel. But the true version was revealed when an inmate who was involved in the incident sought help from Legislative Council Members immediately after his release from prison. What happened was that a Correctional Services Officer had abused his power and stirred up trouble by


5907

hurling verbal insults at inmates, thus leading a number of them to try to complain to the Office of The Ombudsman. But CSD kept stopping them from doing so and made things difficult for them. The inmates who intended to complain were accused of inciting trouble and provoking confrontation. Some of them were even placed in solitary confinement and had their detention period prolonged as a result. I wonder if CSD has learnt from the Police Force, or the Police Force has learnt from CSD. Or perhaps both of them have learnt from the Secretary. Whenever there are people refusing to be submissive, CSD can arbitrarily tyrannize and suppress them without scruple. In the present case, the inmates were not seeking to hold a protest or assembly in the prison, still less organizing a collective refusal to eat, work or leave the dormitory. They merely intended to express their request in the mildest way, and their request was to obtain a complaint form. It was as simple as that. However, CSD used the highest level of force to suppress them, and subsequently fabricated some charges against the inmates who intended to lodge a complaint, and made up stories to convince the public that what happened just served those inmates right. So, is there any difference between this and the modus operandi previously adopted the Police? How is this different from what we call police brutality? I really cannot tell the difference. As a matter of fact, CSD and the Police Force are all the same, presenting the same old argument over and over again. This is precisely what the expression "sound like a broken record" describes. Over the past three years, when I, other Legislative Council Members or the media expressed views on how to improve the prison policy, CSD would respond that it had nothing to add, and stated that if inmates were aggrieved at the treatment they received while doing time, they could lodge their complaints through different channels, including the institutions' management personnel, CSD directorate officers visiting the institutions, or the Complaints Investigation Unit ("CIU") of CSD Headquarters. They may also complain to Legislative Council Members, The Ombudsman, the Equal Opportunities Commission, or other government bureaux/departments. Besides, they may choose to seek assistance from and make complaints to the visiting Justices of the Peace who make sudden inspections to the institutions. It just keeps repeating this very point all the time. Very often, Legislative Council Members will raise written questions to various departments and Bureaux. As I noticed, Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong has written an article on his blog about this. I do not know why he became so


curious about the average amount of public money spent on replying a Member's question and had so much leisure to do the calculation. He stated that the reply to a Member's question would be drafted by different officers of the relevant department, and when it reached him for final vetting, around $4,500 of the public money has been spent. He then went on to imply sarcastically that it is a waste of public money, time and life for Members to frequently raise so many questions. I am not going to pick an argument with Secretary Dr LAW about why he chose to calculate the cost of each question, instead of properly replying to questions properly raised by Members. All I wish to point out is … Do Members really have too much free time that they raise questions about everything? Members voice the problems and raise questions just because they see members of the public not being treated fairly and justly. During these few years, Members have kept asking how CSD would improve its complaint-handling mechanism and always got the same old answer from it. Why then has he refrained from asking how much public money has been spent on CSD's same old reply, but blamed Members for spending $4,500 of the public money on each question? The problem does not lie with the questioners but the government officials who act like "human recorders". Being a Secretary who receives a monthly salary of some $300,000, he has not done his job properly, and yet he still has the nerve to blame Members for asking questions. Now, let us talk about the channels of complaints again. Some people say that given the difficulties in making complaints in prison, it is perhaps advisable to take an easier way out by sending Legislative Council Members sealed letters. During my official visits to prisons in the past six months, I have interviewed 131 inmates. In fact, there is a price that inmates have to pay every time when they receive official visits and meet Legislative Council Members. They will be asked all sorts of questions by officers of the security unit before and afterwards. If inmates make complaints to the Justices of the Peace, they will also face consequences, that is what they call "paying for it". Then, what about complaining to CIU of CSD? Once you know how many of the CIU-investigated complaints have been substantiated each year, you will understand it is a waste of time and effort to file complaints with CIU of CSD. Not only is it equivalent to letting CSD investigate its own staff, but also equivalent to letting it harbour its own staff. Anyway, whichever channel the inmates use, their complaints will be detected by CSD officers, and they may even have to "pay for it". At present, none of the channels of complaint can evade the surveillance of CSD, and inmates may even be subjected to retaliation afterwards. There is simply no channel of complaint which can afford absolute protection to the complaining inmates. Therefore, a number of pro-democracy


5909

Members and I have constantly demanded that the existing complaint-handling mechanism should be improved and an independent commission should be expeditiously set up to monitor CSD. We have also urged CSD to allow organizations with human rights and legal background to pay regular visits to prisons. In addition, Chairman, I would like to speak on head 170, that is the expenditure for the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"), and in particular, I wish to express some views on two programmes, namely Social Security and Services for The Elderly. The estimated expenditure of SWD in 2020-2021 is nearly $94.5 billion, which sounds like a huge amount in terms of the budget for one department. But, if we have a careful look at the various estimated expenditures of SWD, we will notice that $64.3 billion is allocated to Programme (2) Social Security, i.e. the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme, "fruit grant", and the Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA"). It is worth noting that most recipients of CSSA and the Social Security Allowance Scheme are elderly persons. With an ageing population, the expenditure on this aspect will only keep rising. In these recent years … A few years ago, while having a discussion about retirement protection in Hong Kong, we touched upon the topic of financing arrangements for the social security system. The Government has all along emphasized that the existing social security system of Hong Kong is solely funded by the Government's tax revenue in the absence of any contribution arrangements. This is the argument that the Government used to justify the shortcomings and limitations of the Hong Kong social security system, and to make members of the public resigned to the fact that the CSSA amount is below the general standards of living. Some years ago when we discussed the issue of retirement protection, we actually talked about financing arrangements also. But the then Chief Secretary for Administration―that is the incumbent Chief Executive Mrs Carrie LAM―dismissed the "Demo-grant" proposal made by Prof Nelson CHOW, and instead, introduced the Higher OALA which provides an increased amount of living allowance for the elderly but requires applicants to be assessed for their eligibility. Meanwhile, the discussion about financing arrangements just discontinued. When the public call for the strengthening of social security, the Government just maintains that the social security system, being funded only by tax revenue, will cause structural fiscal deficit in the long


run, without further discussing the financing arrangements for social security. The Government continues to cut taxes, "dish out candies", and squander public money and tax revenue every year, while still adopting the residual model under which the needy―the elderly, the infirm and the disabled―are given the lowest priority. To put it bluntly, the Government has no intention to improve the social security system of Hong Kong at all. Social security system is actually a system aiming at assisting the public to cope with new financial needs and risks, and an expression of the commitments taken on by society as a shared system. The establishment of social security system implies that people's living should not be simply at the mercy of the market or other people. Instead, income security should be achieved through collective power, so that we can withstand, curb and dissipate the vagaries of economic and social change, and be enabled to meet needs now and plan for the future. This is the case for retirement protection, unemployment protection, as well as special disability protection. But the existing social security system of Hong Kong is just unable to put the notion of shared obligations and benefits into practice. Since no unemployment protection or well-developed retirement protection is afforded under the social security system of Hong Kong, the shortcomings of the entire system have been fully exposed by this epidemic. In general, the unemployed persons can only apply for CSSA and will be checked for every single detail of their families by SWD. Also, as CSSA Scheme is a household-based programme, applicants are required to include their family members who are still in employment in their applications. Unlike the unemployment insurance of other countries, the amount of Hong Kong's CSSA for the unemployed does not make allowance of the issue of income replacement ratio. Things like inability to pay high rent, the need to move to another place and sell assets, and sudden change in family circumstances are all beyond the scope of consideration of CSSA Scheme. The objective of CSSA Scheme is very clear. It is to help people to cope with the basic needs of living. Sudden change in family circumstances has nothing to do with it. Elderly persons who work for their living until they are 70 to 80 years old want to remain self-reliant, rather than living off CSSA payment and the Government. You may say that it represents active twilight years, but from another perspective, elderly persons living in poverty actually have no choice at


5911

all. This is distressing for our society. At the outbreak of the epidemic, elderly persons are among those who lost their jobs. While the Anti-epidemic Fund hands out cash to employees with Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") accounts, elderly persons aged above 60 are left completely out of the picture because they have no MPF account. The Government encourages the unemployed to apply for CSSA, and tells us not to label CSSA recipients. Well, the very reason for those elderly persons to keep working is that they are reluctant to apply for CSSA, and now, they are encouraged to apply for it. What kind of protection is this? The governments of other countries have put in place a well-developed social security system which can offer assistance and support to the unemployed when their societies are exposed to risks and economic volatility; provide comprehensive protection for the employed upon their retirement; render immediate support to those who have been out of work or been forced to take unpaid leave at the epidemic outbreak. How about Hong Kong? With Hong Kong's ill-developed social security system and the Government's emphasis on speed instead of precision, those in need of assistance can get nothing, whereas those whose businesses improve due to the epidemic can receive subsidies. I really want to ask: What has Hong Kong learnt from this epidemic? What has the Government learnt? What has Hong Kong's social security system learnt? Chairman, the epidemic has brought to Hong Kong both threats and opportunities. I very much hope that the Hong Kong Government can take this opportunity to set things right and rectify the various social problems deriving from the overheating and unbalanced development of the economy. Chairman, now, it is the time when everything from politics, economy, to people's livelihood is going through a reshuffle. We really hope that the Hong Kong Government will not only be able to think outside the box, but also be able to think outside the mask in face of the epidemic. It should stop obsessing about the availability of masks, and think about how to adjust the pace of life of the entire society, how to rebuild the relationships in Hong Kong society, and how to make everyone proud to say that they are Hong Kong people. (The buzzer sounded) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU, please stop speaking.


MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, we are now speaking on the heads to which no amendments were proposed at the committee of the whole Council for the consideration of the Appropriation Bill 2020, including "Head 170―Social Welfare Department", "Head 160―Radio Television Hong Kong", and "Head 121―Independent Police Complaints Council". In my opinion, we can debate in three directions, namely equality, justice and righteousness. First of all, what is equality? This year's social welfare subsidies are adjusted by 3.6% on an annual basis, and how much has the Old Age Allowance ("OAA") increased? $50. How much has the Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA") increased? $95. How much has the Higher OALA increased? $130―only a hundred dollars or so. What about Disability Allowance ("DA")? It is increased by $65. Guess how much has the transport subsidy for persons with disability increased? $10, it is increased by $10 only. The Government had better not introduce any increase if the rate of increase was that low! How on earth does the Government regard the poor? As far as this Budget of more than $600 billion is concerned, how much money will be allocated for the estimated expenditure on DA, OAA, OALA, etc.? In stark contrast, the Government is going to set aside more than $100 million for refunding rates to major property owners and wealthy cliques. According to the Financial Services and Treasury Bureau's paper issued in March 2019, the Government has refunded more than $60 million to one person―refund of rates amounting to more than $60 million in total for one single person, one company and 13 000 units? In addition, the top 10 ratepayers will be given more than $170 million of refund of rates in total. Well, is the Government not tilting towards the rich and powerful by doing so? Is it not an act to make the rich even richer? Has the Government no shame at all? How can it propose an increase of only $50 for OAA? This morning, Chairman, we were discussing the $10 billion cost overrun of the Shatin to Central Link, of which an amount of $600 million was used for building the Police Officers' Club―a sum of more than $50,000 of public money was spent on the purchase of a television set―is it not money? Is it not taxpayers' hard-earned money? The money in the public treasury is the fruits of Hong Kong people's hard work, but it has been misused by Carrie LAM Administration which favoured the rich and the powerful as well as the consortia. It is a pity that the poor grass-roots people suffering from both poverty and illnesses have no money to pay for medical treatment. One single dose of target therapy drug may cost $10,000 or so, can they afford it? What if they cannot


5913

afford? Well, they can only wait until they die! This is the reality behind the Drug Formulary. Yet, do the senior officials understand the truth? Of course, they need not be afraid given the generous remuneration packages they are entitled to―pocketing a monthly salary of over $300,000, do they still need to be afraid? However, the general public―I am referring to those poor people living in "shoebox" homes, subdivided units or on the Waiting List of Public Rental Housing―they are not provided with proper shelter, nor do they have enough food and clothes. The poor people would not have become so angry and have strong grievances if Carrie LAM Administration had had true regard for them. While Hong Kong has over $1 trillion of reserves, there are still over 1 million poor people out there. Chairman, I am not speaking without any basis as there is actually one: According to the poverty report, there are still over 1 million poor people in Hong Kong even after government policy intervention. Is that fair? As the city's Government, it should make good use of the Budget as a tool to achieve equitable redistribution of wealth, but our Government tilts towards the rich and powerful and favours the wealthy cliques instead, thus resulting in a widened wealth gap. The poor general public can only sigh at the overflowing treasury then. In a society full of monopolies like ours where large consortia and businesses can do whatever they like, it is hard for one to survive, let alone living one's life. Is this fair? Chairman, after discussing equality, let us talk about justice. As set out in "Head 160―Radio Television Hong Kong", its annual estimates of expenditure amount to $1 billion. To be honest, it is not easy for a broadcaster to operate with just $1 billion funding given its various channels, including both radio and television channels. Moreover, the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") is endlessly suppressed by Carrie LAM Administration, but it is indeed worthy of our respect in that it can still manage to uphold its ethos as a radio station for Hong Kong people. I would like to say to each and every dedicated reporter: Hong Kong would have already fallen if not for the freedom of the press, editorial independence, and the monitoring power by the fourth estate (i.e. the media)! Thank you for upholding justice! I want to tell each of the reporters that this is the justice of the people of Hong Kong. In addition to equality and justice, there is also righteousness. Is Hong Kong a society of righteousness? So simple then―it all depends on whether people can tell right from wrong. Among the various heads is the Independent Police Complaints Council, which should have been an effective body that


oversees the conduct of the Police Force, but it has been slow to show us if it has played its role well. Since June last year, Hong Kong people have gone through countless sleepless nights, and the night has become extraordinarily long because every time they switched on the television to watch live news broadcast, they would always see something happening outside, such as young people being hit in the head and bleeding as well as some frontline police officers using excessive force―they were never punished for their wrongdoings and people had no idea what they could do to stop that. No police officer has ever been formally prosecuted for wrongdoing so far. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the common feeling of frustration shared by the people of Hong Kong. Whenever we switch on the television, we will catch sight of the arrogant faces of Carrie LAM, John LEE and Teresa CHENG. The trio looks so abominable indeed. If you ask the Hong Kong people who the top three most detestable figures in Hong Kong, the answer must be the trio. Chairman, every time we debate the Budget in the Council, we are trying to seek redistribution of wealth which will better cater people's livelihood needs in order that they do not have to lead a miserable life, at least. Our city is so wealthy indeed, but there are still over 1 million of poor people out there. Moreover, those elderly people who apply for OALA (which provides monthly subsidy of $2,000 or $3,000) are required to undergo means test, but what happens in the end? The universal retirement protection scheme proposed by Members is still far from sight. Actually, a simple approach can be taken, that is, let those who are present get the money. Universal retirement protection can serve as a token of respect because apart from giving money to the elderly people, due respect is also something the Government must have for them―give them respect and thank them for their contribution to building today's prosperous Hong Kong. Yet, as I have said just now, as far as the funding allocated for Hong Kong's social welfare is concerned, it is really ironic. As we all understand, it is about an increase of a few dozens of dollars only, but in the meantime, the Government has allocated $100 million or $200 million for building a Police Officers' Club for entertainment purposes. Why allocate funding for that? Is this too ironic to be acceptable to us since this is meant for the enjoyment of the police officers only? And so this is how public money is spent: purchasing treadmills, television sets and kitchen cabinets. As Members returned by election, we have the responsibility to speak up for the public in this Chamber and let the senior officials know that Hong Kong people are working very hard to make a living and struggling for survival outside


5915

the Chamber. As I have said last time, their wishes are rather humble. They only expect that there are equality, justice and universal righteousness in society, but their wishes are destroyed so often by some senior officials and Carrie LAM Administration. In this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary proposed to give $10,000 cash handout to every citizen as if it were a big deal that Hong Kong people are given much more than they deserve because the Government has generously loosen the purse string to hand out cash to the public. However, it is already the end of April now and Members are still debating the proposal. Assuming that registration for collection of the cash handout will begin by the end of June, but it is not known how many months people will have to wait before they can get the $10,000. I am afraid that those waiting for the subsidy would have already lost their jobs for long by the time they receive the $10,000 cash handout. We asked the Government to introduce the unemployment assistance fund―Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong happens to be present here―in hopes of giving Hong Kong people a chance to catch their breath and make a turn so that they need not resort to Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"), but Dr LAW said in response that we should not label the CSSA recipients. He said it would be pretty fine for a family of four to receive $16,000 a month, but how did he come up with the amount then? Many people do have this same query. Perhaps this figure is derived by adding also DA for members of the family in the calculation. On the one hand, the Secretary has not considered how SWD can take up and deal with the sudden surge in the number of CSSA applications, on the other, the authorities have failed to take on board the feelings of CSSA recipients' families. They just act according to the existing system because they consider that applying for CSSA is the solution to people's problems. In fact, people having lost their jobs are eager to seek jobs immediately. The Government should help them given the economic downturn. The sum of $130 billion has been allocated but it is not known how the money will be spent. Actually, the Government can render direct assistance to the public through various channels. Chairman, the outbreak of the epidemic will have impacts on the future economic situation of Hong Kong, and it is very sad to see the plight of the poor people and the general public. I referred to their plight here because if we, as elected representatives, do not speak out their plight, we are only living in a


bubble and think that the world is really beautiful: There is no problem with the outbreak as members of the public can resolve their problems simply by resorting to CSSA and this is quite fine indeed. However, does it ever occur to the Government that some members of the public will not apply for CSSA? If that is really the case, what will become of them in these months? Find solutions on their own? What if they cannot find any? No one cares about and takes care of them. "For one who worries about the people's worries, the people will also worry about his worries." Has Carrie LAM really taken to her heart people's worries and sufferings as if they are her own worries and sufferings? If she really had this kind of courage to perceive things from the public's point of view, she would not have been reproached so savagely by the people of Hong Kong. Nevertheless, she infuriated Hong Kong people time and again throughout the entire "Anti-extradition to China" movement, the preventive and containment phases of the pandemic, and post-pandemic period. Carrie LAM herself is indeed the one who should take the blame and resign, but it is the four Secretaries who were made to leave in consequence―it is a pity one of them was fired on his birthday. The popularity of the departed Secretaries might not be high, but must be higher than that of Carrie LAM, OK? She got only nine points, and if she is in other civilized cities, she should have stepped down and left much earlier, right? Has she no shame? How can she continue to lead the SAR Government? I find this so ridiculous indeed. Chairman, a Budget alone is definitely not enough to resolve the series of structural problems that I have brought up just now―we still have quite a number of issues to raise, such as the waiting time for the allocation of a place in residential homes is as long as 41 months, a record high in five years; the waiting time for consultation in the specialist outpatient clinics is 20 months at present and it may take 28 months before the patient can see the doctor―we find that the Government has neither concrete ideas in mind nor given a thought to how it should face the problems which I have brought up just now. If the Government keeps repeating the same old practice year after year in the same way as dispensing drugs in accordance with prescriptions, it will, at best, only consider whether to offer cash handouts or not. The original intent of giving cash handouts actually lies in that everyone in society will get his share, but I think $10,000 is not enough. As I have repeatedly told, a $30,000 cash


5917

handout should be offered instead, that is, each citizen should be given $30,000. The Anti-epidemic Fund should be fully utilized to offer everyone a $30,000 cash handout if we were to help people get through the period of difficulty during phases of preventing and containing the pandemic. By doing so, we will be able to help them. However, the Government chooses to adopt rather complicated procedure that members of the public are required to submit applications accordingly etc. This requires $1 billion as administration fee but then, no one can tell what the purpose of registration is. Will the Hong Kong SAR Government take a look at Macao please? Are they making things so complicated as ours? Is the situation there as awkward as ours? Of course not. Both Hong Kong and Macao are special administrative regions of China, except that our city has become as ridiculous as this. Chairman, a lot of people think that there may not be a heated debate for this session as there is no amendment proposed to the heads concerned but I am sorry because pursuant to the Public Finance Ordinance, as Mr Charles Peter MOK is also aware, Members can only ask for a decrease (i.e. reduction in the amount of appropriation) but not an increase in the amount of funding. Given the budget constraints, should we still seek to cut SWD's spending? You cannot make bricks without straw, and so, should we still propose to cut the $1 billion estimated expenditure for RTHK when the latter has been so smart in operating under a tight budget? Of course not! I just want to tell Members how much money these departments will receive and how much other departments can spend now. For example, the Police has been allocated more than $20 billion, but it would be really appropriate to let members of the public share this sum of $20 billion. Simply put, Chairman, as this is the last time the Council examines the Government's budgets within the current term, I call upon those viewers now watching live broadcast of this meeting on television―I once said that we are unable to exert influence over the Budget within the current term, but the most important thing is the vote in every voter's hand―so with the votes we got in hand, let us expel the good-for-nothing Members (i.e. those who go out of their way to curry favour, bow and scrape to the Government, ignore public opinions, and have no regard for people's livelihood) from the Council later in September. I so submit.


MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): In this speech, I am going to express some views on "Head 155―Government Secretariat: Innovation and Technology Commission". Not long ago, I was told by colleagues in my office that another group of students wished to interview me concerning the current state as well as the pros and cons of the innovation and technology policy in Hong Kong. I am actually very grateful that many students have chosen the subject as the topic of their assignments, but this can also bring out the following question: why does it still remain a subject of interviews for students after 10 years of implementation? I think they may already be very familiar with the achievements or inadequacies. We can perhaps look at the matter from another perspective, and ponder why the relevant work has still attracted so many criticisms or the efforts made are still not enough, although so much time has been spent, so many resources have been given, and even a dedicated Policy Bureau has been set up by the Government. What has actually gone wrong? I certainly have my own views, and will perhaps say something about them later. It so happens that after the delivery of the Budget this year, a new Bureau Director was appointed to head the Innovation and Technology Bureau, and I of course hope that he will deal with the matter with a more innovative mindset and new ideas, because I do not wish to see that people will still be asking the same questions and receiving more or less the same answers when he leaves office. In the past, it was fair to say that the Government was quite generous in providing financial support for the development of innovation and technology. This was of course not really about the handing out of $10,000 to each person, $100,000 to each company or $20,000 to each member in the science and technology sector. Instead, the Government has set up quite a number of funds for application by those who are interested. This is also the same measure adopted in many countries and places to promote certain initiatives, and it should give no cause for criticism, though we should never rely solely on it. However, it seems that Hong Kong has focused its efforts only on "handing out cash", setting up funds and then developing infrastructure, with projects implemented one after another and the expansion of the Science Park and Cyberport. According to what the former Secretary has said when he left office, he thought that he had made good contribution by taking forward the development of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park ("the Park") in the Loop and engaging in Shenzhen-Hong Kong cooperation. However, the problem now


5919

is that no one knows when the Park in the Loop will be available for occupation, and people do not know how long they have to wait, even though they are ready to travel a long distance to get there and consider Shenzhen-Hong Kong cooperation a viable direction. As I have told many friends in the industry, there is a slim chance of having the Park completed before the retirement of many of those working in the industry who are still in their prime of life, and the place may not be available before they are rendered jobless. It is often said that the Innovation and Technology Bureau is made up of only two parts: the Innovation and Technology Commission whose biggest function is to "hand out cash" and set up assistance funds, and the Government's internal information technology policy which is not within the scope of discussion under this head. However, what about application of science and technology within the Government? Has technology been applied by the Government? Has policy innovation been promoted? What should be done to further innovation in terms of legislation? Efforts in such aspects have not been seen, or no achievements have been made after much waiting, while "handing out cash" turns out to be its ultimate solution. Hence, although the setting up of funds for application by companies is surely effective in some areas, which will benefit many start-up companies, it is to a large extent very difficult to help these companies survive and develop into large enterprises. The former Secretary was very fond of citing the example of unicorn start-ups, but frankly speaking, many of them were created only through the employment of financial skills, and we cannot find many examples in which such start-ups were established on the basis of solid performance in technology, which could provide them with a source of great profits or a chance of becoming listed companies on its own or targets of acquisition. Where does the problem lie? Let me go back to talk about the projects currently under "Head 155―Government Secretariat: Innovation and Technology Commission". There are still numerous complaints or views about these projects recently, especially because the Innovation and Technology Commission is mainly responsible for processing applications submitted under various funds. Many people have submitted applications for fundings for many projects, including


some new or revised ones proposed in the Budget this year, and they are all related to the purview of the Innovation and Technology Commission. For example, under the scheme launched to recruit researchers, financial assistance will be provided for employing candidates holding a doctoral or master degree, and this is a good attempt to create employment opportunities for such candidates. Previously, people taking science or technology subjects in Hong Kong might think that the types of jobs in relevant fields were relatively limited, and it is indeed a good thing to have some job opportunities created under the scheme. However, the problem is becoming more serious lately, especially as a result of the current epidemic, many companies have queried the exceedingly long procedures involved for vetting and approving applications for funds. Given that reimbursement of grants will be made by the Government for successful applications, it becomes very important to put in place some efficient procedures in this respect because as affected by the epidemic, many enterprises are under very tight cash flow conditions and facing immense difficulties. Some company operators told me that from past experience, it often took the Government six months to complete the reimbursement procedures. For those companies which employ several employees with a monthly salary of several tens of thousands of dollars each, we can just imagine the total amount of funding needed for meeting their salary expenditure for these six months. It will cost the companies employing two or three employees a huge sum of money, but the Government has simply been procrastinating. Although it is not fair to say that the Government's initiative to provide funding support to private companies has done harm rather than good to them, it has indeed got them into trouble sometimes by making it necessary for them to have a cash flow of millions of dollars as advance expenditure before the Government reimburses the money to them. Why? Why should the matter be handled this way? In some cases, the delay was caused by a slow work process of some government departments, perhaps due to the impact arising from the current epidemic. This is of course another problem, and there is no reason why the Government cannot even resolve such a basic problem of making arrangements for civil servants to work from home. As far as I know, the


5921

employees of many technology companies have been working from home since February after the Chinese New Year, but these companies are still operating as usual, so why is it not possible for the Hong Kong Government to do so? This is another problem not covered by the head under discussion. However, in this connection, I have received reports of many such cases and pointed out the problem to the Innovation and Technology Commission, which has followed up on the matter very expeditiously. It is hoped that as the operation of the Government will return to the so-called "normal state" later, the processing work will genuinely be speeded up and actions will even be taken to improve the entire mechanism, so that the reimbursement procedures will no longer be delayed for as long as six months. What we are talking about are start-up companies, and how can they afford to spend millions of dollars meeting their salary expenditures before funding support from the Government is available for settling the costs? Hence, instead of offering assistance, this will only restrict their development. Secondly, from what I have heard recently about the work under this head (i.e. the Innovation and Technology Commission), the definition of "research and development" ("R&D") seems to have posed a problem. According to some of my friends, it seems that some documents have set out the definition of "R&D". The definition of "R&D" is very important, because when it comes to the fundings approved by the Government for different projects under the Innovation and Technology Fund as well as projects relating to researchers and the Postdoctoral Hub etc., they are not meant to be used for hiring sales personnel to perform marketing duties. Rather, they should be spent on scientific research work. However, I was told that the definition of "scientific research work" has been narrowed down, and is it really the case that only some relatively basic researches or biotechnological researches will be covered? It should be noted that as far as scientific and technological development is concerned, Hong Kong has been doing a better job in the area of application, and when it comes to products development, we should bear in mind that apart from doing researches, development is also a very important part in R&D. During the development of certain products, the process of commercialization may be needed and appropriate support should in fact be rendered, but sufficient efforts have not been made in this respect previously. However, due to unknown


reasons, the relevant definition was narrowed down rather than relaxed, thus failing to put investment and the Government's funding to optimal use and benefit the market by promoting free research and development activities and putting the products developed on the market. There should be initiatives in place to ensure business opportunities for these companies, which should not simply be asked to conduct basic researches, when a gap is created in the application area. This will only bring us back to the situation we were facing a few years ago, and why is this so? In this connection, we are actually making enquiries with the department concerned in the hope that it will give an undertaking as soon as possible to dispel the concern in the industry about backtracking. Finally, I would like to raise another point about the criticism made by many people against the Innovation and Technology Bureau and the Innovation and Technology Commission for the absence of Key Performance Indicators, and indicators are something frequently mentioned by Mr WU Chi-wai. The only indicator put forward by the Bureau is the one proposed by Carrie LAM in her first Policy Address delivered in 2017, when she set a goal to double the Gross Domestic Expenditure on R&D as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product from 0.75% to 1.5% within her five-year tenure. We are rather certain that it will be very difficult to achieve this target. It is of course a fact that due to the impacts of the current epidemic or other reasons, we have experienced some delay in this respect, but the percentage has so far not yet risen to over 1% and has remained at something above 0.9% only. The latest figures last year do worry me a lot. If I raise a question about this in this Council today, the Secretary or the Commissioner for Innovation and Technology will give me an answer like this: We wish to express our gratitude to the Legislative Council for endorsing the proposal of introducing the "super tax concession" in the year before last, and this has helped to resolve the problem by benefiting enterprises, which can in turn invest more in research and development with the money saved from tax reduction. However, although R&D institutions (such as those operating under the Government and various universities) identified by individual clients can be automatically included in the relevant scheme, I wonder if Members are aware of the number of private institutions participating in the programme and applying to become accredited private R&D institutions. Are fellow colleagues aware of the relevant figure? The scheme has been introduced for more than one year for


5923

open applications but as of today, applications have only been received from four institutions, including a large company and three start-up companies. All fellow Members from the business sector are not present now, and they were all very supportive of this "super tax concession" scheme back then. I also shared the same views then, because there is nothing bad about offering tax concession to encourage more efforts to conduct research and development as well as create more jobs. In fact, I am very curious about the reasons why they did not apply. How come applications have not been received from their companies and members of their business organizations? Is it due to insufficient promotion on the part of the Government? This should not be the case, is that right? Members representing various business organizations are well aware of the introduction of the scheme, so why did they not apply? Is it because the Inland Revenue Department has been too stringent in processing the applications received, thus making things very difficult for applicants? I do consider that it is not an easy task because in some experience sharing sessions which I have organized, I noted that the procedures involved were quite complicated, and a number of tax accountants have to be consulted before people could get a full understanding of the whole thing. However, the question is: Why are there so few applications? As some start-up companies managed to join, things should actually not be that difficult. The issue is worth exploring. The Government should not consider that the matter has been settled once the relevant legislation is enacted, and information is available for putting down on record. We still have to consider the effectiveness of the measures adopted, and in the case under discussion, the effectiveness of the scheme has obviously left much to be desired. Although a system has been established, it has in fact failed to attract and benefit too many users. With regard to the Budget this year, I may not be able to say too much in the current session due to time constraint. I originally wished to talk about four relatively more down-to-earth policies, and express my views about whether they are adequate from the perspective of the Budget this year. If I have the opportunity to speak again, I may speak a few more words on my opinions about the effectiveness of the Innovation and Technology Commission in taking forward some policies mentioned in the Budget.


MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): In this session, I will speak on Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") and the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"). I heard just now many colleagues speak on RTHK. In my opinion, the SAR Government has striven with all means to suppress and persecute RTHK, which is a highly credible broadcaster. It wants to "dry up" RTHK's resources and subject it to verbal pressure. This precisely reflects one of the reasons for the SAR Government's low rating in opinion polls. It is clear that the general public find the programmes produced by RTHK credible. Many of its programmes have won awards. RTHK is highly acclaimed among all mass media institutions in Hong Kong in terms of credibility. RTHK is a government department and also a public service institution. It actually is an excellent "thermometer of public opinions". But the Government persecutes RTHK because it dislikes this "thermometer". RTHK records the truth for the Government. It truthfully records the conflicts between the people and the Government. However, the Police Force did not want their enforcement actions to be recorded. It thus regards such records of truth taken down by this government department as a challenge to its authority. How could the Government take the pulse of society then? If the Government disregards the importance of taking the pulse of society, its policies will not be realistic. If government policies are unrealistic, it shows that the Government does not have any ideas as to what to do, nor does it have its people in mind. It also shows that the Government only cares about serving the powerful and the rich. A government as such, how could it be worthy of being the servant of the people and be worthy of the high remunerations it receives? Regarding the construction of the New Broadcasting House, RTHK has been persecuted by the pro-establishment camp. The construction plan has been put on hold. RTHK has increased its broadcasting channels, but its annual funding has been increased minimally. This reflects the attitude of the Government towards a public service broadcaster. Worse still, another example is a recent episode of the RTHK programme The Pulse. In the episode, a reporter posed a question which has been criticized by the Government in a high-sounding manner for having violated the principle of "one country, two systems". However, the Government has failed to notice the professionalism, the prudence and the care that this reporter of The Pulse has exhibited in raising the question. The reporter was very careful in raising the question. She used


5925

the concept of "Taiwan region" and "membership" in the question. Besides, what she did was only raising a question. If the Government has to restrict RTHK in matters as simple as asking questions, it shows that the Government only wants RTHK to be its mouthpiece, or act as a tape player. RTHK will then become a useless organ. Since the joining of pro-China figures to its management in 2015, the credibility of the Television Broadcasts Limited has been on the decline and its business at a low ebb. Has the Government ever reviewed the operation of this broadcaster? When a broadcaster loses its credibility and cannot help the Government in publicity, it is similar to placing an advertisement in Ta Kung Pao or Wen Wei Po. Does the Government think that the advertisement will generate effective publicity? Even if the Government spends a large sum of money on a full front-page advertisement in Ta Kung Pao or Wen Wei Po, the advertisement cannot help spread the message to all Hongkongers for the Government. This is the crux of the problem. The Government must honestly ask itself what is the criterion that makes RTHK an effective organ to disseminate messages that the Government needs to disseminate to the public. The criterion is the strong credibility that RTHK has. This credibility is built on its unbiased broadcast and report of the truth, and also on its perseverance in standing by a free press and its refusal to be intimidated in news broadcasts and reports. This is a very basic criterion. However, is the Government aware of it? Or, is the Government told about it but refuses to listen to it? Or is it that the Government has taken note of it but refuses to do anything? Or is it that the Government has done something but done it in a wrong way? As a result, the credibility of the Government is weakened, which makes it become unenlightened. The second part I wish to discuss is SWD. I wish to explore the subject of unemployment assistance with Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong again. Actually, I have repeatedly debated this subject with him. His response is always the same, and that is, the Government cannot provide unemployment assistance; and that the unemployed in need can apply for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"). In fact, in the same line of thought, how did the Government select taxi drivers, tourist guides and tour escorts as the eligible persons for the subsidy? How will the Government verify the work hours they declare? How to assess in


order to minimize the risk to be borne by the Government? In fact, if the Government trusts that taxi drivers, tourist guides and tour escorts will provide in good faith their work records, it should also trust that people who are unemployed will do the same, so that they can tell the Government that they need urgent help to deal with the epidemic because of unemployment. How difficult is it? What are the difficulties? I am not asking the Secretary to establish a comprehensive unemployment protection mechanism. I am only asking the Government whether it is willing to do a little more to provide urgent help. But the Government is unwilling and it does not provide any justification for not doing so. The Government says it is difficult to provide unemployment assistance. How difficult is it? The Government will use the same honour system to verify the information provided by the applicants. It can lay down certain conditions, such as requiring applicants to be in employment for six months prior to the unemployment. Anyone who meets this condition may apply. Why can the Government not do so? Why is the Anti-Epidemic Fund not applicable to the unemployed? Let us say that I temporarily agree with the Secretary's justification, and that is, the Government can assist the unemployed through the CSSA mechanism with relaxed requirements. Then, I expect that the number of applicants will increase. This will then bring heavy workload to SWD. Do not forget that all sorts of difficulties may appear under the present epidemic. But the Secretary gathers all these difficulties together and places them onto the already very busy SWD. Has the Secretary tried to understand the work pressure of SWD colleagues and deal with it? Moreover, as the vetting department, SWD will need to conduct means tests on CSSA applicants and unemployment assistance applicants. In terms of administrative cost, it is more expensive to process the unemployment assistance applications by SWD than creating a new category to deal with the applications. So, why does the Government have to use the former approach? What is its justification? Or, is it true that where one stands depends where one sits? In his capacity as Secretary, he does not have the difficult livelihood of the grass roots in mind. This is what is clear about the Government which I criticized this morning. The Police Force, in the name of security reasons, refused to provide the floor plans of its Police Officers' Club to this Council for scrutiny. And the Government finds this acceptable. How unbelievable! Our


5927

public officers still called on Members aloud at the meeting to trust the Police Force. If the Police Force is trustworthy, over half of the Hongkongers would not have given it a zero mark. Its rating would not be so low. This is what the Government needs to rectify. Do not think that sending a public officer out to say a few words can change the world. This is absolutely impossible. There is something I do not understand. Being a public officer, the Secretary is smart and has a good grasp of what is going on in Hong Kong. And he has served the colonial government for a long time. Besides, as we always emphasize, our civil service system has its proper knowledge in the operation of the Government or the ways to conduct business. But the Secretary does not even have such proper knowledge. This naturally gives the public an impression that the SAR Government does not have a brain and a heart; and it does not have common sense and intelligence. More horrifying still, the Government relies on the 30 000-strength Police Force as its means of suppression. It even decides to increase $5 billion for the Police Force (accounting for 25% of the estimated expenditures) to employ 2 500 more police officers and expand police armaments in the coming year, in order to further strengthen the ability of the police in suppressing social movements. How could this attitude of the Government break the present deadlock in society? Hence, I need to point out the phenomena of these two departments. An idea dawned on me after listening to the response of the public officer this morning. The SAR Government has become heartless. It has not considered from the interest of Hongkongers. Its only consideration is how to obey the requests of the Central Government. It does not even hesitate to alter itself, in order to deny the fact that the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") should be governed by Article 22 of the Basic Law in respect of its role and position of Hong Kong. The outcome is, like what Carrie LAM said, that LOCPG can comment on and supervise the daily matters of Hong Kong and the SAR Government. Is this not a total kowtow of the SAR Government to LOCPG? This is the same as telling the public that the SAR Government has given up administering Hong Kong and handed over the ultimate decision-making power on administering Hong Kong to LOCPG. If so, how could Hong Kong implement the genuine form of "one country, two systems"? How could we realize the principle of "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of


autonomy" under the Basic Law? Without this fundamental concept, how could Hong Kong contribute to our country? Not to mention the ability to address the present difficulties facing Hong Kong society. (The buzzer sounded) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU, please stop speaking immediately. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, this joint debate today is on the sums for the 42 heads with no amendment standing part of the Schedule. Since there are many heads, we can only choose a few for discussion. I have been listening attentively to the views of Members when discussing various subject matters. Mr KWONG Chun-yu said at the latter part of his speech that as a directly elected legislator, he was obliged to reflect the voice of the citizens and the general public, as well as the universal values of many Hong Kong people who were working hard to survive. As a directly elected Member, I am also obliged to reflect clearly in this Council the voice of the citizens and the general public that I have heard, as well as the universal values and core values of many Hong Kong people who are working hard to survive. Many Hong Kong people want to resurrect the law-abiding society that was built up in the past few decades or even the last century. Hong Kong used to be a safe, peaceful society free from worry and full of happiness. It used to be a society which genuinely enjoyed freedom of speech and a free economy. But today, it is true that the mutual destruction camp has emerged in Hong Kong. Perhaps Mr Alvin YEUNG already knows that what he said earlier does not work. Because he clearly pointed out in a press conference that if they could get the majority seats in the Council, they would veto all financial budgets, all major government motions and funding proposals. In other words, only if they can take over half of the Council seats, Hong Kong will be paralysed and the Legislative Council will be unable to convene any meeting to deal with urgent issues in relation to health care services, public health care, public education, CSSA or Old Age Living Allowance, not to mention the funding applications for the Anti-epidemic Fund. Hence, they have changed from the pro-democratic camp that I recognized back then to the opposition camp which opposed to whatever proposal from the Government and then to the mutual destruction camp now. The voice of the public and the ordinary people is not to destroy Hong Kong altogether. They ask them not to destroy the entire Hong Kong and break the rice bowls of the general public.


5929

In fact, Mr Alvin YEUNG is very smart. He quickly knows that mutual destruction does not work. However, many young and naïve protesters, who know nothing about the hardship of the public, have been instigated to become rioters, and some of them may even have participated in certain terrorist activities. In the City Forum, they claimed that they would destroy the entire Hong Kong. But they later realized that it was undesirable to be labelled with mutual destruction, and thus put the blame on the Government, saying that what the Government was doing amounted to mutual destruction. It is because they know that mutual destruction does not work and most of the Hong Kong people are against the idea of mutual destruction. The public want to return to a place familiar to them―I dare not say to a harmonious society, but to a safe and peaceful place where they can go out and sing the national anthem in the vicinity of their residence, where they will not be hurled petrol bombs when airing their political views, where they will not be set on fire on the footbridge when their political opinions differ from the others, or where they will not get hit by bricks, like what the innocent old man experienced, when going back home from work. Tomorrow is a public holiday, but many people say that they dare not go out by taking MTR, because there is already a message on Internet that bombs will be set tomorrow. This is not the Hong Kong that Hong Kong people are familiar with. This is also not the voice of those Hong Kong citizens who are working very hard to survive. They very much hope that Members can say no to violence. No matter how dissatisfied we are with the Government, we have to oppose violence. No matter how bad the Government's performance is, in the face of terrorism, we are willing to make an all-out effort, regardless of our political views, in blocking the spread of terrorism. This is what the public want to hear and is the core value of Hong Kong. What we want is a society that upholds the rule of law. Today, … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please return to the theme of this debate. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I know. Chairman, you did not interrupt them but you interrupt me. I will remember you.


Today, I have to say to them that the Government is indeed not doing a good job. I have asked Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong numerous times to quickly include those people aged between 60 and 64 into the group of target beneficiaries of the $2 public transport fare concession scheme. I have also asked him to listen to the public voice that CSSA cannot replace temporary unemployment assistance, on which we have submitted a specific proposal to him that a subsidy of $9,000 per month shall be provided for each unemployed applicant for a period of six months. It is because they do not want to be CSSA recipients. As a matter of fact, when the Government is not performing well, it is fine that it takes up the role of "Sorry Sir". One interesting feature of Hong Kong people is that they do accept apologies and will then attend to other issues very soon. Therefore, it is fine if the Government admits that it has not done a good job. The Government is certainly partly to blame for the present plight of Hong Kong. Nevertheless, no matter how bad the performance of the Government is, people's dissatisfaction with the Government can still not be taken as an excuse to destroy the edges and core values of Hong Kong. Today, many people talk about the Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"), and we very much hope that RTHK is the broadcaster of Hong Kong people. I understand very well that journalists have to pursue the details until they get to the very bottom of the issue, but the responsibility actually really lies in the officer-in-charge. Hong Kong people expect to have an officer-in-charge of high quality who can guard the gate for us. When the basic bottom line of "one country, two systems" is well guarded, we can strive for a "high degree of autonomy", including political freedom and economic freedom, in a better manner. But it is unfortunate that people are biased. I think in regard to the RTHK programmes, the pro-establishment camp or the citizens in support of the pro-establishment camp have not thought of lodging any complaint for all these years. But now, we always receive their telephone calls, expressing their dissatisfaction with certain programmes. One example is the radio programme broadcasted at about 3:00 pm on Saturday, which I did not have a chance to listen before. One day when I was driving, this programme was on and I really found that its content was rather extreme. The most important point is that after these young people were allowed by RTHK to talk about how they would become radical rioters in 2019, I could not hear any balanced views from RTHK. Should this situation be reviewed? If it is really a broadcaster of Hong Kong people, the public will wish that RTHK can air the true voice of Hong Kong people.


5931

I do not see any amendment relating to RTHK today. In fact, I have known Director LEUNG Ka-wing for a long time. I wish that he can carefully follow the radio programmes of RTHK broadcasted from Monday to Saturday, especially those programmes to which we pay little attention. At present, people usually pay more attention to the programmes like The Millennium broadcasted at 8:00 am or Open Line, Open View, but pay less attention to some Saturday programmes which, however, are more problematic in my view as their contents can impose a deep impact on the radio audience. And it is very unfortunate that among the audience, many are young people aged between 10 and 14 who are in lack of mental immunity. Hence, RTHK also has corporate responsibility, particularly when it is funded by public money and is thus subject to supervision by our Legislative Council Members. In fact, if the opposition camp does not want to be the mutual destruction camp, we should discuss together the contents of RTHK programmes and study how RTHK can be restored to the broadcaster of Hong Kong people. Yesterday, the United Nations released a document, expressing its concern over the Hong Kong Government's intention to invoke the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance, and reminding the Hong Kong Government not to suppress dissidents. First of all, Chairman, concerning the dissidents in Hong Kong, I sometimes will think: Who are actually being suppressed? I immediately recall that my own office was hurled three petrol bombs on National Day last year, and this was definitely due to diverse political views. Were we threatened with violence? It is obvious that we were under threat of violence. Therefore, has the United Nations objectively and impartially asked about the experience of other victims like us? We really wish that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") that it mentioned can really be enforced impartially in Hong Kong just like before. We have the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and many provisions of which are related to Article 19 of ICCPR. For example, everyone shall have the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression. The same Article indeed mentions that while you have the right to freedom of expression, you cannot defame others, and while you have the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech, you shall not undermine public morality. As regards the issue of public morals nowadays, I have no idea how those social media … I wish that my view can be heard. The contents of those articles, including Article 19(3) of ICCPR, should at least be incorporated into the present programme of the Liberal Studies subject, and this should be discussed by us. In regard to national security, public order and public health, there shall be reasonable restrictions. In the common law


practised in Hong Kong, there is a principle of proportionality. When the United Nations has any query, why does it not say a word for us that a majority of Hong Kong citizens wish to have a peaceful and lawful society? It says many Hong Kong people wish that these rioters can stop using violence. But when it mentions violence and terrorism, we have the impression that such violence is somehow rationalized … (Some Members loudly asked for clarification from Dr Priscilla LEUNG in their seats) DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, you can decide on your own whether to make a clarification. If you do not clarify, please continue with your speech. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I can make a clarification. It is because my views on RTHK have stabbed into their hearts. When they rose from their seats, it showed that they have listened carefully to my speech. It is no big deal, I know what I am talking about … because they have been mentioning freedom of the press and freedom of speech. They also need to give us an opportunity to air some balanced views, or the voice of the general public who want us to express here. The general public, after listening to them for a few hours, wish that we can convey their voice. Hence, in my opinion, when RTHK or the United Nations wants to express its views on Hong Kong, it is free to do so but that it has to be impartial. Most importantly, it has to consult the victims and their family members. Since some people have lost their lives, it also needs to consult their family members before it can express any fair and impartial views. Secondly, I also have to talk about our Judiciary. Not many Members have touched upon this aspect as the requests for additional funding to the Judiciary are usually endorsed by Members. I only want to particularly mention my wish that the Judiciary can be granted more funding, as it is always in short of manpower. Apart from the social unrest cases from 2014 to 2019, the courts also have to deal with a backlog of tens of thousands of torture claims. I hope


5933

that the Judiciary can really consider with an open mindset how to practically increase resources and appoint more deputy judges and judicial officers in order to deal with this huge backlog of cases. It is because the Hong Kong society is waiting for a final judgment from the court which can help illustrate where the bottom line of the rule of law lies. The trial of such important cases should not be procrastinated for five years. The courts are still hearing the Occupy Central cases, but while the social unrest cases are pending to be heard, there is also a backlog of torture claims. In fact, justice delayed is justice denied, Chairman. I wish that the courts can again hear and practically consider our proposal of setting up a dedicated court. It is best to learn from the experience of the United Kingdom where certain courts operated 24 hours a day to hear the cases back then. As regards funding to the Judiciary, we should not merely consider a pay rise―concerning the requests for increased remuneration, actually they will usually be endorsed by us―do not recruit judges through increased remuneration only, as we should not merely resort to a pay rise in the recruitment of judges. Similarly, the remuneration of Members is actually not hefty … Secretary, talents cannot be retained simply by increased remuneration. The judges concerned must be committed to Hong Kong, must be fair and impartial in the hearings, and must defend the rule of law. I very much hope that the Judiciary can genuinely do its utmost to recruit manpower without resorting to such passive and negative means. The Hong Kong society is in pain and cannot wait indefinitely for certain important judgments, which seem to be still far away from us. No matter the outcome, I think court hearings are still the most civilized way to deal with our social conflicts. Chairman, I so submit. MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, Dr Priscilla LEUNG is also good at parroting the words of others. This morning, the Secretary for Security teased Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, saying that he wondered if Mr CHAN hastened to get on his feet to speak because he had hit his sore point. If the Secretary was right, then is it right to say that Commissioner of Police "P K TANG" wrote a letter to The Education University of Hong Kong and asked it to teach Sam CHOI a lesson also because Sam CHOI had hit his sore point somewhat inadvertently in the progamme called Pentaprism? Dr LEUNG honestly has so much time to idle away. "Genuine mutual destruction camp" should refer to those in power. Did she hear the speech of our party leader Mr Alvin YEUNG just now?


Initially, I wished to discuss the issues concerning the Audit Commission and the Office of The Ombudsman ("the Office") in the next part of my speech. Why? The Government is now seeking a substantial amount of resources … I will put aside the problems with the Police for the time being. Sometimes, these two departments can assist people in monitoring the Government's effectiveness in spending public money and assessing whether its work is value for money. In my view, these two departments have made great contributions, and it so happens that the Audit Commission has presented an audit report today. But since Dr Priscilla LEUNG has just "put on a show" for 15 minutes, I certainly have to give a reply. I now ask the "genuine mutual destruction camp" to listen to me carefully. Who is now in charge of the Government? Haven't those in power heard clearly the voices of genuine Hong Kong people on "1124"? Are they feigning deafness now? On "1124", 80% of the voters came forward and told us the voices of genuine Hong Kong people. But the Government is feigning deafness. When District Councils ("DCs") hold meetings with the intention of discussing problems, District Officers ("DOs") will tell DC Chairmen that the relevant problems cannot be discussed due to suspected violation of the District Councils Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), and they will even lead their staff out of the venue. Isn't this absurd? Have they ever read the Ordinance? The Ordinance uses the word "well-being", meaning the welfare of local residents. Policemen patrol the streets in order to maintain law and order. What is wrong with discussing their performance at DC meetings? Are they saying that all this is not part of the well-being of local communities? How can they think that the answer is in the negative? If the answer is really in the negative, then there will be no need for policemen to patrol the streets, issue tickets for illegal parking, or even seek appropriations because they need not do anything at all. These days, even DOs can give DC members a dirty look and treat those elected members who are genuinely returned through the ballot box this way. Who really wants to see "genuine mutual destruction" most, may I ask? Are they saying that DC members are not allowed to serve the people? Does the Government think that it can simply ignore them after they have won the seats? We just want to let the Government know that if it counts on the pro-establishment camp in whatever it does … Frankly speaking, they have also forced the Government to do things. A pleasant way to put it is that they "raise recommendations" with officials. But they have likewise forced the Government to do what they want in communities. The Government does not treasure the votes of democratic Members because it has already obtained the majority of votes. But the Government is unable to proceed with what Members have requested it to do if it does not have the votes of the pro-establishment


5935

camp. Here is an example. The previous appropriation request for increasing university facilities was withdrawn somewhat inexplicably because, as Members all know, the Government failed to obtain enough votes from the pro-establishment camp. The Government is in their hands, but even so, it must still be fair when exercising its power, recognize the genuine needs of people and pay heed to the voices of genuine Hong Kong people. I do not understand why they now instead accuse us of having the intention to seek "mutual destruction". I must give a reply … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, please return to the debate topic. MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): I was giving a reply on Dr Priscilla LEUNG's argument. I now return to the debate topic. Sometimes, the Government is really antagonizing to Hong Kong people. I have not talked about public opinion surveys yet. Initially, I prepared a few public opinion surveys, and I really wanted to discuss the relevant heads. I must discuss "Head 24―Audit Commission" as a start. Chairman, the Audit Commission has honestly worked very hard and made much contribution. But pitiably, its estimated expenditure has only increased by 4.1%. Perhaps government officials may have noticed―I wonder if the Chairman has also noticed―that the Audit Commission published 10 reports around October or November, and it issued eight reports in April. After joining the Public Accounts Committee ("PAC"), I have seen for myself how diligently they have performed their work. They have worked so very hard, but why is the resource increase for them so little? Besides, they are not without any contribution as they have unveiled some big news. Members may recall a previous case in which a department head equipped his office with a dancing room and a private bathroom. The Audit Commission actually wants to ascertain whether something is value for money, in the hope that the Government will follow the rules in the future. Chairman, the report I have read today is really something, and I dare not discuss it in depth because PAC Chairman Mr Abraham SHEK will deal with it, and PAC will also hold a meeting next week. The report points out the number of committees under the Sports Federation & Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China ("SF&OC") and also their meeting attendance rates. There are over 20 committees under SF&OC, but it has been discovered that only 10 or so of its


committees would hold meetings. Worse still, certain members were persistently absent from meetings. It can really be said that their attendance of meetings was "spiritual". From this, we can notice a necessity to establish such a fair and independent government department because the relevant organization is not subject to control despite its receipt of government resources. By "control", I do not mean the same thing as the Chief Secretary. Rather, I mean truly independent operation without any political interference. This will command people's respect and appreciation, especially under the prevailing circumstances. The department I wish to discuss next is the Office. I have to say "Sorry" to the Secretary, and I also wonder whether I am lucky, or the Secretary is unlucky. I come downstairs to discuss the Office today because I want to continue with my discussion on the problems with the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") this morning. This is one example. Let me make it clear to the Chairman beforehand. The Chairman may have noticed that just as many people, even I as a Member sometimes am unable to think of any ways to dig into a certain problem, obtain any papers through the Legislative Council or even request an inquiry. Back in that year, for example, I approached The Ombudsman. If I remember it correctly, the then Ombudsman was Mr Alan LAI. At the time, we followed up the felling of the "ghost tree" at Maryknoll Convent School because this was closely related to Hong Kong's tree policy. In the end, we sought help from The Ombudsman and remained in correspondence with him. Chairman, the Office's workload has become increasingly heavy. But why is there no increase in its resources? Why has the Office's workload increased day after day? Chairman, I wonder if you know there is the Code on Access to Information ("the Code"). If a journalist, an individual or a Member tries to obtain information from any government departments but to no avail, he may have to approach The Ombudsman. The Ombudsman will base on the Code and ascertain whether the information concerned should be provided. This morning, members discussed issues relating to the Police Officers' Club ("POC") and the Police Sports and Recreation Club ("PSRC") under the SCL project. POC is located near the Island exit of the Cross Harbour Tunnel in Causeway Bay, and the area is now a construction site. In the case of PSRC, it is situated in the vicinity of Prince Edward Station. Chairman, for the sake of people's well-being, I must explain the background. As the Government is now constructing SCL, some area within the original POC site must be used for installing certain primary facilities of SCL. But since the authorities have yet to identify a site for the reprovisioning of POC before its demolition, some facilities


5937

in POC must be relocated to the police-only PSRC near Prince Edward Station, together with the enhancement of PSRC's facilities. When we asked the Government to produce papers, we faced much difficulty, and it can be said that we had to "beg" it. I was provided with the relevant papers only after half a year of pursuit. But the most "amazing" thing is that when we asked the Government to provide the building plans of POC and PSRC, it said: "According to paragraph 2.6(f) of the Code on Access to Information, the disclosure of the relevant building plans is likely or reasonably expected to harm or prejudice the preservation of the peace, public safety or order, or the preservation of property, so the information concerned cannot be provided." Chairman, I am a fair person. On the one hand, the Government refused to disclose the building plans. And, the Government's assertion this morning sounded even more unreasonable. It said to the effect that even though POC had been demolished, its building plan could not be disclosed all the same. How can the disclosure of the building plan of the demolished POC affect "the preservation of the peace" and "public safety"? What can Members do? We can only keep asking the Government. If we are still not provided with the building plans, we will base on the Code and demand the Government's disclosure. Chairman, why do we insist on pursuing the matter in the end? Why are there such major problems with the Government now? Members of POC are all trained police officers. But the Government nonetheless argues that the disclosure of its building plan will pose danger. Is this reasonable? Actually, the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") is likewise a mysterious department. Upon checking some information, I found that ICAC also provided all its floor plans. Now, I can tell Secretary beforehand that at the next meeting, I will definitely pursue the matter with him. I have checked some information on purpose, and I have found that the Government also provided all floor plans of the ICAC Headquarters building. The paper number is PWSC(2003-04)22. At the time, we did not have to ask repeatedly for the information as the authorities provided it on their own initiative. The information covered the construction floor area and also a breakdown of various expenditure items (including the expenditures on site works, piling works, building works, drainage works, and also furniture and equipment). Chairman, I just managed to receive some information only after asking the Government for half a year. But I am not given any building plans. Back then, the authorities provided the floor plan of the ICAC Headquarters building, and the Secretary may read the paper on the Internet himself. I am not quoting anything casually.


I deliberately went through the relevant paper at the meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee today. As Members can see, the arrangements back then were so transparent, at least more transparent than the present ones. We tried to obtain those building plans. But the Government nonetheless argued that their disclosure would affect peace. How would this affect peace, may I ask? Then, the Secretary relayed the assertion of his client―the Police―saying that the disclosure of building plans would affect peace, and he also bought the Police's assertion. I still remember how infuriated Mr WU Chi-wai was this morning, and he also questioned whether this was reasonable. I will definitely continue to follow up this matter. Even if the Government refuses to provide the building plans, I will continue to ask for them. While the remainder of my term as a Member is very short, I am sure that other Members will follow up this matter. The Government is now creating difficulties on purpose, and it has made it difficult for journalists, people and Members to obtain any information that could have been readily provided. Perhaps the Government sees the right to know as something unimportant. If the Government refuses to provide information, I may have to approach the Office again. But the Office has limited resources. The provision of information is something that can be done very easily, and there have also been precedents before. But I do not know why the Government will hasten to turn down the request for information when the Police are involved―I wonder if they are its sore point. If the Secretary still remembers, during our previous discussion on the Capital Works Reserve Fund, the Police also sent a representative to the Legislative Council at long last. I believe the Secretary may still remember that "Madam" (female police officer). At that time, she gave an account on a number of issues, including the works for the relevant departments on various floors. We would certainly pursue all such matters, and of course, the process also took us several weeks or even several months. But in the end, she answered our queries. In fact, some questions were sensible and reasonable. Chairman, regarding the facilities of POC and PSRC … For the time being, I will put aside the question of whether the Secretary, the Commissioner or the Chief Secretary can enjoy that 65-inch television set which is as expensive as $45,998, that swim suit water extractor and also that coffee machine worth $16,888. I do not think any coffee machine in the Legislative Council Complex is that expensive. Our only wish is that the Government can act with transparency and integrity. It should not shirk its responsibilities to the Office and compromise people's right to know. Our demand is modest. The Code is already defective, as it is without a sufficient legal basis. For this reason, we have been striving for


5939

the enactment of legislation on freedom of information, in the hope that the Government can provide more information. But we have not attained any success yet. So, in this session, I wish to make particular mention of these two departments in my speech. Chairman, initially, I wished to discuss "Head 37―Department of Health" because I was worried about them after seeing the estimated expenditure in that head. Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN is not present now, and I also understand that she is busy with her work. But under its "Programme (2): Disease Prevention", it is specifically stated that the department will "continue the work in prevention and control of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)". But the amount of funding sought by the Government under this Programme is less than before. As we have learnt when reading the relevant news, the authorities once indicated its expectation that the epidemic could possibly be contained. But the problem is that it may be impossible to develop any vaccine before the end of this year in time, and the epidemic may break out again by then. If the amount of funding for the related work (including prevention and publicity) in this appropriation request is less than before, then she may need to redeploy resources at that time. Is this reasonable? In the case of the Police, however, their overtime expenditure is already as much as some $1 billion. But the Department of Health ("DH") has done a lot for Hong Kong people … DH has not held any press conference for four consecutive days. I hope they can dispense with the press conference at 4:30 pm in the days ahead because this is an indication of zero confirmed cases in Hong Kong. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 5:15 pm. 4:42 pm Meeting suspended. 5:15 pm Committee then resumed.


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please speak. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I would like to discuss "Head 80―Judiciary". As we can see in the Budget, the estimated expenditure of the Judiciary this year is $2.26 billion, among which around $1.5 billion is the expenditure on emoluments. We are responsible for examining this proposed funding for the Judiciary in the Budget which totals some $2.26 billion. In the past, very few Members would mention the Court and the Judiciary during Budget debates. It was also seldom for Members to make open criticisms of the Court or to discuss matters such as the operation of the Court. We have been holding the belief that Hong Kong has judicial independence, and we thus have the awareness that we should refrain from interfering in the operation of the Court. It is with this awareness that I make the following speech.

At present, the general public of Hong Kong has a lot of opinions and even concerns about the Court, and this is a growing trend. As representatives of public opinions, we wish to express some views for the public to reflect on, and we also hope that the Judiciary will get the message conveyed by us and consider some of our views as appropriate. There is a particular view that I have heard more and more often … In the past, there was a phenomenon that all sectors of the Hong Kong society have deified the Court. A moment later, I wish to share with Members some questions that I raised during the examination of the Budget at the special Finance Committee ("FC") meetings, and the replies given by the Judiciary, so that Members may consider whether these concerns warrant our deliberation. During the debates in the special FC meetings, I raised questions about some figures concerning the "anti-extradition to China" movement-related cases which have gone to the Court. I asked the Judiciary about the number of cases where search warrants applied by the Police for entering premises and inspecting mobile phones―in a few words, that means breaking into the premises―were granted, the Judiciary replied that it was unable to provide the information. I asked for the number of cases in which the defendant complained in Court of being subject to police violence. The Judiciary stated that it was unable to provide the information. I then asked for the number of criminal cases in which


5941

the defendant was not granted bail. The Judiciary stated that it was unable to provide the information. Besides, as people can observe, many young people have disappeared … have been made disappeared without a trace during the "anti-extradition to China" movement, and objectively speaking, there has been an increase in the number of suicide, cases of dead body found in the sea, and cases of fall from height. The Police concluded that there was nothing suspicious about these cases. Therefore, I put in questions about it formally in written form. For my question about the number of applications for death inquest made by non-officials, i.e. family members of the deceased, the Judiciary replied that it was unable to provide the information. For my question about the number of cases into which death inquests were held―that means cases for which pathologists examined the causes of death―and pathologists were unable to determine a cause of death, the Judiciary again replied that it was unable to provide the information. What was fairly outrageous to me was that the Judiciary could not even provide an answer to my question about the number of cases handled by each judge in the District Court and each magistrate in the lowest level of courts, the Magistrates' Courts. Has it not gone a bit too far? I made enquiries about these figures, not because I intended to question the operation of the Court, or to attack the rationality of the judicial comment and judgment of each case. I have no intention to do so. I just hope Members will understand that all my questions concerns whether the human rights of every Hong Kong citizens are protected in court and in the Judiciary, and whether Hong Kong is really a place where the rule of law operates normally with the fundamental civil and political rights of the general public protected. These figures serve as indicators measuring Hong Kong's ability to uphold the rule of law. So, if … Some figures … I know that the Court … the Court, having very heavy caseloads, may not keep a record of many things, but should the Court start doing it then? I mean, if … This has nothing to do with the handling of cases by judges, but the administrative operation of the Court. That is why the person giving us replies during the special FC meeting was the Judiciary Administrator. If the Judiciary Administrator cannot even tell the number of cases handled by each judge, well, on the whole, the number of cases handled by each judge in a year―I was not asking for the number of cases relating to the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, but rather the overall number―it seems to me that she lacked any sincerity to reply to us. The Judiciary does not maintain the statistics on certain aspects―so do many departments―and our role is to raise questions for it to find out the answers by going through all the files to check the annual number of cases handled by


each judge. If it cannot even do it, I am worried that … The point I wish to make is that we are legislators, members of the legislature which is responsible for examining this funding proposal, and we have not seen the Court acting as a gatekeeper in these cases which involved human rights and civil and political rights. This is exactly what worries Hong Kong people. Simply put, if these … It is a well-known fact that the Police has made arbitrary arrests and initiated arbitrary prosecutions during the "anti-extradition to China" movement, and this is something that happens every day with no end in sight. Except for the cases which have been tried in open court, we have no other ways to learn about the situations of Police entering premises for house search and seizing young people's mobile phones for inspection. If some young people complain about being subjected to police violence and excessive force during their arrests or detention through their lawyers in court, will their complaints be followed up by the Court? Will the judges concerned order an investigation into the complaints? Or, for cases where the situation is relatively minor, will the victim be allowed to give an account of the situation personally? If the Court is satisfied with his testimony, will it then conduct an investigation into the situation concerned? The Judiciary should make public the number of cases where bail was not granted, so that we can pursue and openly comment on each one of them. As for Coroner's Court cases, family members of the deceased have to wait endlessly and the transparency of the relevant proceedings is very low. Let us talk about what worries us again. We are worried because we can see that the autocratic, despotic, authoritarian regimes around the world always extend their invisible hands to the Court to influence its operation through different ways. While the setting of separation of powers is supposedly available under the Basic Law, will the Court really be free from any interference and operate independently? Recently, there are many discussions about whether there is any safeguard for the rule of law, and now, I wish to talk about the Court. I do not know whether there is any safeguard for the rule of law, but to uphold the rule of law, it is necessary to defend the Court's checks-and-balances role. So, who should be the one to defend this role? Back then when I put questions to the Secretary for Justice and the Judiciary Administrator during Budget debates, I would say this: If the Court or the Judicial Officers lack the awareness of serving as the tool to keep the Government in check, they will be reduced to Government's tool to suppress freedom. So, among the staff of the Judiciary, particularly those handling its administration, do they have the awareness to defend the Court


5943

against the interference and intrusion of the autocratic regime? Of course, I will not draw a far-fetched conclusion, saying that the Court is already very corrupt, grossly biased, being manipulated and so on. I will not go that far. But if we do not have this awareness … I suspect that the Police's applications for any search warrant are 100% successful―I have exhausted all means to ask for the relevant figures, but without success―I suspect that their search warrant applications in relation to "anti-extradition to China" cases are 100% granted. If this is not the case, I hope that we will be told about it by the Secretary for Justice or by the Judiciary through the Secretary for Justice. I really want to know the answer. If the general public have strong opinions about the figures disclosed by the Judiciary or the judgments ultimately made by the judges, thinking that the situation has deviated from their perception of justice―actually, this is a question often raised by Prof Benny TAI these days―can the law operating under such circumstances still be regarded as the law? We have previously over-deified the Judiciary and the judgments made by judges, though we actually know that judges are human beings of flesh and blood, and the Judiciary operates under the legal system. When this system falls far short of public expectations, will people still be able to seek justice through this avenue? If people do not believe in the legal system anymore and become increasingly concerned about the position of the Court, Hong Kong will then fall into a more perilous situation. From the Judiciary's point of view, the role of the Legislative Council is to examine the funding proposal in the Budget, and to approve the appointment of the Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal later on. At this time … in the midst of this era when people's freedom is suppressed by the despotic regime, I think we should ask more questions. I think we should examine the Judiciary more carefully on behalf of the public … For these questions of the public which the Judiciary should openly answer, I have actually raised them through different ways, but simply failed to get any proper answer. One of the questions that I raised may be quite academic. That question was whether the constitutional role of the Judiciary, i.e. the Court, was one of keeping a check and balance on the Government or complementing the Government. Regrettably, the Secretary for Justice whom I considered to be the so-called foremost defender of the rule of law is actually the foremost destroyer of the rule of law. How about the Judiciary Administrator who also replied to this question? Their respective replies are as follow: Teresa CHENG just replied, "Mr HUI, the Court of Hong Kong does not have the function that you mentioned, i.e. the function of keeping a check and balance on the Government."


Well, she was pretty frank in her reply. I believe she is closely toeing the line of the Government and the country. As for the Judiciary Administrator, she evaded my question without providing an answer. In both her oral and written replies, she stated that the Judiciary had the constitutional function of administering justice in Hong Kong in accordance with the law, and cited Article 85 of the Basic Law which provides that the Court shall exercise judicial power independently and free from any inference, and judges and judicial officers shall, in discharge of their duties, uphold the Basic Law, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, safeguard the law, etc. Under a system of separation of powers, the Court is the branch which keeps the two other branches of government in check. Well, it just turns out that this simple logic or rationale―or what the public generally knows, or something that may even be written into the teaching materials of General Studies―underpinning the Court's ability to keep checks and balances on the Government is something that neither our Secretary for Justice nor the Judiciary Administrator dares to say directly in their replies. We are in a state of anxiety and so are members of the public. I am not going to repeat the remarks about "noble qualities" recently made by a judge in his reasons for sentence―I do not want to use one or two judges as examples to criticize the Judiciary―I just want to urge those holding powerful positions in the Judiciary or the bureaucracy to maintain the awareness of the need to keep the Government in check. The very absence of this awareness has turned many people into the Government's tools to suppress freedom. I hope that Members will have a deeper reflection and understanding about the funding allocated to the Judiciary in the Budget and the operation of the Judiciary based on my observation. I so submit. Thank you, Mr LEUNG. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members who wish to speak in this session, in particular those who have not yet spoken, please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please speak.


5945

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Just now, Chairman, I have heard Dr Priscilla LEUNG refer to the pro-democratic Members as "a group of people seeking to burn together with others". In fact, the title or label of "seeking to burn together" is a kind of "hat" which the pro-Government camp has been deliberately attempting to put on our heads in recent days. Any normal and reasonable person, I believe, would reject the idea of seeking to "burn together" with others. Seeking to "burn together" with others is to seek mutual destruction no matter what, meaning no one can have good ending. How would anyone like that then? This is definitely disgusting to everyone, however, this is a move of their political manoeuvring made for the sake of the next electioneering by labelling the other parties so as to give members of the public the impression that this group of people simply oppose everything. In effect, whoever voices disagreement is regarded as someone who seeks to "burn together" with others. First of all, I would like to draw a brief analysis on this. I have told the public and the media that I will vote against this year's Budget, but is this tantamount to an act of seeking to "burn together" with others? Should we assume that the best thing to do is to approve everything put forth by the Government? If this is the case, we no longer need to have the Legislative Council and all we need is a rubber stamp only. The reason is very simple: it will be impossible to gather collective wisdom without criticism and dissenting views. Something wrong is bound to happen as no one is perfect. Dictators certainly do not want any dissenting voices, but a civilized society … Why did Winston CHURCHILL say that democracy was the worst system, but we could not find a better system for the time being? It was because power would be subject to checks and balances under a democratic system, and so we need different voices. Despite the different voices and views about the Budget (i.e. some people may approve while some may disapprove of it), we can gather everyone's wisdom to deal with the issues concerned. However, there emerges a view at this stage that those who voice their disapproval are deemed people who seek to "burn together" with others. Why can we not allow voices of objection? Why can we not allow criticism?


As a matter of fact, there are quite a lot of matters that allow no criticism at present. As we all know, Article 22 of the Basic Law ("Article 22") clearly stipulates that no local department of the Central People's Government may interfere with the affairs of Hong Kong. None of those departments may interfere with the affairs which Hong Kong administers on its own in accordance with the Basic Law. This is loud and clear enough. Recently, however, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") has gone back on its word as it denied being bound by Article 22. The SAR Government immediately fell upon its knees and, within a few hours in the same night, issued three statements with inconsistent remarks. Although it has been stated clearly in the past 20 years that, whether verbally or in writing, LOCPG was bound by Article 22, but we were told all of a sudden that it is not so. We were further told that LOCPG has supervisory power. What should we do then? So we sang the song together … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, I have allowed you to digress for four minutes, so please get back to the question under debate. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): OK, let me sum up what I have said. Actually, we really do not wish to see Hong Kong take the road to destruction, but I am afraid that the group of pro-Government Members right before us here are those who genuinely seek to "burn together" with others because they have betrayed Hong Kong even at the cost of the basic protection enshrined in the Basic Law. This reminds me of some interesting remarks by Nobel laureate Aleksandr Isayevich SOLZHENITSYN, a Russian writer and dissident: "We know that they are lying, they know that they are lying, they even know that we know they are lying, we also know that they know we know they are lying too, but they are still lying." This is precisely the absurd situation facing Hong Kong. A budget … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, I have already reminded you. Please get back to the question under debate.


5947

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Am I not talking about the Budget now? If our opposing views cannot be tolerated and even the Legislative Council … We are supposed to be protected by the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, which is meant to enable Members (i.e. representatives of the people) to speak freely in the Council and vote in accordance with the intentions of the voters whom they represent, but now, even this very protection is under threat. The Budget covers a number of departments, among which Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") is the one that has been under most attack. A reporter for The Pulse (an RTHK programme) once asked a Senior Consultant to the World Health Organization ("WHO") whether consideration would be given to letting Taiwan join WHO. That being a simple question, but it is absolutely unacceptable to refer to Taiwan's affairs in any situation (in particular by an official body) under the principle of "one country" because this is deemed politically incorrect. Therefore, the Secretary had to step in, accusing RTHK of having violated the principle of "one country". Yet, he was unable to say exactly what the problem was. In a word, it is unacceptable that RTHK has allowed its reporter to ask such a question and broadcast the programme in question. It should be held responsible for this. When a totalitarian government wants to have full control and be at the heart of power, it must keep dissenting views and opposing voices under control, of course. Then, is RTHK a media organization or a government department? In my opinion, many pro-establishment Members are displeased that RTHK, though funded by the public coffers, keeps making negative comments on and criticizing the Government or raising some so-called politically incorrect questions. Yet, how should public broadcasting be conducted in order to stay politically correct? The Secretary said that RTHK has violated the RTHK Charter ("the Charter"), but I do not think so after reading through the Charter. The Charter calls on RTHK to fulfil the purposes of sustaining citizenship, promoting the development of civil society, and engendering a sense of citizenship and national identity. However, the question raised by the RTHK reporter utterly has nothing to do with these contents. I understand that the pro-establishment Members do hate RTHK so much because they want to take control of the


State's/Government's mouthpiece. The fourth estate and monitoring power of the people are absolutely unacceptable to a totalitarian society, just like the Council, which allows no opposing voices or monitoring power of the people. Chairman, I have spent quite a long time talking about the current situation in Hong Kong. Personally, my primary concern is the underprivileged. Having undergone the COVID-19 epidemic ordeal in the past few months, many people have to face the problem of unemployment. In Hong Kong, a capitalistic city that upholds self-reliance, the social security system is rather weak and people will feel helpless once they lose their jobs and have no income. And so, this year's Budget and the two rounds of the Anti-epidemic Fund should target at helping these people. In the face of the epidemic, it is often the underprivileged, be they the elderly, the disabled, the people not cared for, the people living in hospitals and residential homes, or the people living in subdivided units, poor families or the grassroots people, who are hit the hardest. Can the measures proposed in the Budget and the Anti-epidemic Fund be of genuine help to them if they lose their jobs or face great risks at work? The Government has already spent a great deal of time in dealing with the unemployment problem alone. Even with the introduction of two rounds of Anti-epidemic Fund and measures proposed in the Budget, the unemployed people are consequently made to endure more hardship until they become eligible to apply for subsidies under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme. Nevertheless, the upper asset limit for CSSA applicants will be doubled, that is, $44,000 for individuals and $88,000 for a family of two. I would like to ask that if we want to survive in Hong Kong … Let me use the most typical example for illustration: A family of three is subject to an asset limit of $132,000―Chairman, a family of three with assets valued at $132,000 cannot even afford to pay the annual rent of an ordinary flat indeed. If the family's value of assets has to drop to a level where it cannot afford the annual rent for accommodation in order to be eligible to apply for CSSA, does that mean the Government is willing to help the comfortably-off families or those living from hand to mouth only when their standard of living drops to such a level due to the present difficulties, the severity of the epidemic or some situation which no one can predict but not the personal problems of individuals (e.g. laziness,


5949

unwillingness to work, lack of the spirit of self-reliance, etc.)? Why can we not just give them a little bit more help? The Government's current proposal of giving a cash handout of $10,000 is actually what we had recommended a long time ago. In fact, the Government should have put forth the proposal (i.e. giving a cash handout of $10,000) much earlier at the Finance Committee meetings or special meetings―given that we have already held two meetings in particular―instead of waiting until the presentation of the Budget took place. As to the Anti-epidemic Fund, it is indeed of not much help and so many loopholes are found in the details now. I have read a news report just now about the remarks of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"). DAB said that there were loopholes in the subsidies for property management sector as it turned out that the money only fell into the hands of the property management agents, whereas property owners have not benefited―I have already known that there will be many loopholes―they further said that the subsidies granted failed to help the frontline staff of restaurants as the money only fell into the hands of the restaurant licensees. All along, the Government has been working to save the market but not the people, which I have told earlier. After doing some calculations, it is found that we would not need to spend so much money at all if we meant to help the unemployed or underemployed because for every $10 given out by the Government, $8 would be wasted. DAB seems to have just realized the truth at this moment. Pointing out that the property management companies suffered no loss at all, they questioned why the Government still helped them. Could it be the case that they did not learn the truth until now? Why did they not raise their objection a bit earlier? If they did have done so, they would have been able to discuss this with the Government then. And only by doing so can they help avoid misuse of public money. It is precisely their blindly rendering support to the Government that has led to today's situation. They just support everything the Government does, no matter if it pours money down the drain or proceeds with whatever plans. The Government is now proposing to give a cash handout of $10,000 and we certainly want this to be materialized soon, but there are still quite a lot of other problems in the Budget. On the one hand, the Government is going to give everyone the $10,000 in the form of cash handout, but on the other, it is


pouring $1,000 billion down the drain―the Government has set to take forward the Lantau Tomorrow Vision. There were many cases of cost overruns of "white elephant" works projects in the past, and there are also a lot of examples of cost overruns as well as delayed completion of works projects. We are always in a helpless situation of being fleeced, but is our government a capable one? Or does it have no intention at all to fight the big syndicates? If we are utterly unable to exercise our monitoring power in the Council, how can we press the Government to make improvements? In fact, these pro-establishment Members are genuinely seeking to "burn together" with others. If they are really meant to do good to the people of Hong Kong, will they please stand firm? They should point it out if the Government commits any mistake and not show any support. They should even object to any undesirable government proposal and disapprove of it. Well, will this lead to what Dr Priscilla LEUNG said that the world would fall and society would come to a standstill? Of course not. First, we can still receive temporary funding as before and society will not come to a standstill then. If society really comes to a standstill, the Government will have already fallen. Politics allows different voices for mutual checks and balances to take place within the system, so that the final distribution of wealth or other policy arrangements can be a little bit more equitable and every stakeholder in society can have his share. However, while the Budget has failed to play this role, today's political structure does not allow us to make this happen, and it is impossible for this to come true due to the pro-establishment camp's blind support for the Government. Eventually, this will really lead to mutual destruction. Therefore, we must allow for a mechanism to check and balance powers, and so, democracy is indeed necessary. People's livelihood cannot be sustained without democracy. In short, we hope that members of the public are well aware that Hong Kong will encounter more crises next, so we must not let the people who genuinely seek to "burn together" with others succeed. If they manage to gain power (The buzzer sounded) … we will have no future. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please stop speaking immediately.


5951

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): In this session, the debate will focus on the 42 heads with no amendment. I wish to briefly comment on the part concerning Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"). The problem of RTHK, in brief, is that the Government wants to crush it. The Government says it is politically incorrect. Hence, both the pro-establishment camp and the SAR Government try to control the reporting and editorial autonomy of RTHK. In my opinion, this is the main reason why the entire news media and the entertainment industry in Hong Kong fail and decline. The SAR Government politically scrutinizes television broadcasters and airwaves or radio broadcasters through the licensing system. As a result, they no longer enjoy the freedom in development and the freedom of creation they used to enjoy. So, my conclusion is that if RTHK is crushed, the ecology of the cultural and creative industries or the work of the media will be further jeopardized. I think it is meaningless to argue whether there is a double standard. Chairman, let me use a simple example for comparison. In the meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee this morning, Secretary Frank CHAN was there. Since the Police Officers' Club lied on the route of the Shatin to Central Link and there is no other location for relocation or redevelopment, the club will be reprovisioned. The reprovisioning cost has increased from $300 million to the present total cost of $900 million, including the cost related to the Police Force. Just now, Ms Tanya CHAN only spoke from the administrative or public policy perspective when she commented on the Police Officers' Club. I am not a pro-establishment Member, but if I were to speak from their perspective, I would say that the approach taken is also politically incorrect. The existence of the Police Officers' Club is a corrupt custom from the colonial era. How come the Police Force is allowed to have a royal club? This royal club is a pre-1997 legacy. This practice is inconsistent with those of other disciplined services. The club is a place where police officers can drink wine, watch fireworks, have barbecue, and play lawn bowl or golf. After 1997, the Government has not dealt with these colonial problems. Subsequently, because of the route of the Shatin to Central Link, which will pass through that location, the club will be reprovisioned, and the cost of which has escalated from $300 million to $600 million. Looking from the perspective of political correctness, that is, the standard being applied on RTHK, the Police Force has colonial ardour. How come the Police Force is still entitled to this kind of treatment after 1997? Is the People's


Liberation Army ("PLA") entitled to this treatment? The comparison may not be appropriate, but PLA definitely does not have this treatment. When we look over to the garrison every morning, we only find PLA soldiers jogging. They do not even have a sports ground. If they trip, they may fall hard on the ground and hurt themselves. Chairman, it may be absurd to cite this example. But I find it a little ridiculous that, as a responsible officer, he has such an extreme standard. I do not intend to speak on the Police Force or other departments this time. Chairman, on the whole, if I were the Financial Secretary, frankly I would withdraw this Budget because I did not think the money to be spent could help the Hong Kong society now. In my speech last week, I asked how, amid the global chaos, we as Members, or as the representatives of the people, should help the people. I expressed resignation at that time, but actually I did have some direction. I hope Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong will consider my idea. I believe the two of them will stay in the Government. If they will leave, I will cut my speech short and save time. If they will still have some public power, I hold that they should consider in line with my idea. Chairman, I will cite a piece of news here. It is related to the 42 heads. If I were the Financial Secretary, among the 42 heads with no amendment, I think the appropriation for some of the government departments should be slashed. It appears that all of these departments are related to the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. I will slash the $800 million for the Communications and Creative Industries Branch of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau; I will slash the $200 million for Intellectual Property Department; I will slash the appropriation for the Independent Police Complaints Council because it is meaningless to keep this department; I will slash the approximately $800 million appropriated for the Innovation and Technology Commission; and I will also slash the approximately $25 million for the Secretariat of the Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance. All of the above are targeted at the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. Why? Chairman, I believe you can understand the reason because you are a businessman. In the present state of Hong Kong, the top, middle and bottom echelons have no means to get by. The top echelon is slightly better. Land owners or property owners can get by this period as long as they refuse to lower rents. Today, several newspapers, including the Oriental Daily News, reported a loophole in the Anti-epidemic Fund regarding the catering industry. It is reported that the ultimate beneficiary of the fund will go to the licence holder of a


5953

restaurant, rather than the person actually operating the restaurant. Of course, this loophole arises from the design of the fund. It fails to consider the fact that the restaurant licence holder and its operator may not necessarily be the same person … Chairman, I believe Mr Tommy CHEUNG may wish to speak on this point … However, the real cause of this situation is the executive-led guiding direction, which prevailed in Hong Kong during the 1990s to 2010, and the neoliberalism thinking logic. As a result, everything is marketized, privatized and administratively regulated. In other words, it is neo-managerialism. I believe the Financial Secretary knows what I am saying. In the past 20 years, this is the cause that has stifled the local SME economy in Hong Kong or even the regional economy. The logic therein is simple. In the 1990s, before 1997, the British Colonial Government wanted to reap its last harvest. It thus kept selling our public properties and people had nothing to get by. In order to maintain order in Hong Kong and prevent riots before 1997 to facilitate the handover of sovereignty, together with the global common knowledge at that time that a big government would not give a promising future, the British Colonial Government thus introduced the market economy, hoping to instil competition through market force among industries, especially the public sector. As a result, there were the merger and listing of the two railway corporations and the privatization of Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link") (formerly known as The Link Real Estate Investment Trust). Obvious to all, in the past 20 years, we have witnessed the harm that this has brought to us, but I will not go into the detail. However, Chairman, the present situation facing us is that amid global activities coming to a halt, people who do business in the Mainland can no longer do so. Local governments in the Mainland also dislike Hong Kong people and refuse to let them do business there. As a result, people like Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and members of the Liberal Party suffer. On the other hand, people engaging in international business are also stung by the de-sinicization initiated by foreign countries. Hong Kong's role as an entrepot does not have any real meaning because of the general impression that the economy of Hong Kong has been hijacked by politics. In other words, the middle class of Hong Kong will lose its means of living and face an unknown future. There may be a glimpse of hope if Hong Kong is not bounded by these limitations. What I am saying is related to the Budget. Like the example I just cited, if catering licence is registered under the operator of the restaurant rather


than the address of the restaurant, there will not be such a problem. Many restaurants, and also guest houses and B&B, find it very difficult to remain viable because the costs of licence application and registration are high. When the fixed cost is so high, they suffer losses easily. The subsidy to be provided by the Government for these operators is so little. No wonder they want to close their businesses. Even if a guest house operator wishes to give up his business and give the licence to the landlord, he may not be able to do so because the landlord may not be willing to take up the guest house. For the catering sector, some catering outlet operators operate the business under the name of the previous licence holder. This is why there is a loophole. Chairman, the problem is not about the sector taking advantage of a legal loophole. But rather, it is about the Hong Kong Government's bigotry of adopting neoliberalism and neo-managerialism as its administrative principle since the mid-1990s. The licensing system and registration system have taken away the room for these trades to operate. So, if I were the Financial Secretary, I will try to revive the local economy. Let me tell Members, I am actually a localist liberal. When Members cannot categorize me, they can put me under this category. For the future Policy Address and Budget, I will advocate relaxing these economic limitations and reissuing hawkers' licences. For markets, I do not think that the Government should operate rural markets. When the local community economy re-emerges and when hawkers re-appear, people will have the room to make a living again. By then, we do not need to be bothered by the problem of Link. Second, the catering and retail industry players are now having a tough time. It is just that they do not dare to tell you. Mr Tommy CHEUNG often says that the licence application system should be simplified. But the point is not streamlining the licence application procedures but changing the whole mentality of the administration. Chairman, in the context of the Budget, the Government still uses the old mentality in licensing. Why does the ecology of the media die? Why does the Government make so little progress in developing the creative industry except having set up some apps? It is because the administrative costs involved are too high. It takes two years for a restaurant to be up and running. But the restaurant operator can lose all his investments under the sudden prohibition on group gathering.


5955

Two friends of mine respectively operate a restaurant serving sushi and western food. Tomorrow, the first of May, is the Labour Day holiday. But today is the last day of my friends' restaurants before closure tomorrow. The food they serve is of good quality. The problem lies not in the rent, and also not in the real estate hegemony which we often say. The problem lies in the SAR Government which always uses an executive-led approach in administration. The same is true for RTHK. The Government uses the same approach to suppress RTHK, thus turning the media and the creative industry into a pool of stagnant water. On the education front, the Commissioner of Police issued a letter requesting follow-up actions be taken on the remark made by an Education University lecturer. If the Commissioner of Police only wishes to prove his learning, or if he has so much free time, he should write to other departments. The Secretary for Education should speak out against the Commissioner of Police for using his public power to suppress a teacher. This is power abuse. Here is my conclusion. It is regrettable that the Budget has 42 heads without any amendment being put by Members. If I were the Financial Secretary, I would tell Members that the departments I just mentioned would not be allocated any funding; and the licensing system should not be given any resources as well. Why? In order to encourage Hongkongers to stay behind … of course, I am speaking from the pro-establishment mindset … and to maintain stability in society, one has to understand what makes Hong Kong stable, and that is having the chance to make a living. The disturbance last year was political in nature. It hindered the top echelon in making a living. When they injected their capital into Hong Kong, they disturbed the social order and disrupted the internal order of politics and the establishment. The crisis we will need to face is that when the bottom echelon also becomes poor and the top echelon takes the opportunity to disrupt social order, that will be a genuine civil disturbance and that should be called a riot in Hong Kong. Hence, public officers of the Hong Kong SAR, they had better prepare well for it. Hong Kong in poverty is the political crisis they will have to face. I so submit.


MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): I wish to spend my 15-minute speaking time discussing head 155 before other heads. Head 155 concerns the Innovation and Technology Commission ("ITC"). The Budget of this year puts forth the idea of "deepening local development of innovation and technology in four major areas" as advocated by the industry. The first three of these four areas are related to this head. As for the other area, I will leave my discussion on it until the debate on those heads with amendments tomorrow or later. What are those three areas all about? The first area concerns the support given to enterprises for applying technologies. The major initiative is an increase in the proportion and maximum amount of subsidies under technology vouchers. The proportion will be increased from the current two thirds to three quarters of the total cost, and the subsidy ceiling for each enterprise will be raised from $400,000 to $600,000, along with an increase in the number of approved projects that may enjoy the $600,000 subsidy to six. From the perspective of relaxing the requirements, all this is desirable. The operation of technology vouchers can hopefully become smoother after some two years of operational experience, and vetting and approval can no longer take such a long time. But frankly speaking, many enterprises may not have enough cash flow as the Budget is under scrutiny because they have to afford one fourth of the total cost after all. For this reason, enterprises may not make good use of the subsidy at this moment. In view of this, the Government has launched a second round of the Anti-epidemic Fund and proposed the Distance Business Programme. But I do not intend to go into the particular details today. While we support and welcome the relevant initiatives in principle, we think they are tantamount to handing out money. The second area is to expand the development of innovation and technology flagships and platforms to drive development. Measures include the second-phase expansion of the Hong Kong Science Park and also the development of Cyberport 5. The Budget also touches on InnoHK Clusters, an initiative for development work, and the authorities will examine the development of a third InnoHK Cluster. But Members should not forget that since the first two InnoHK Clusters were established, they have failed in one major task―inducing sizable or leading research and development ("R&D") institutions from overseas to establish bases in Hong Kong. ITC is now


5957

considering the setting up of a third InnoHK Cluster, but the work progress of the first two InnoHK Clusters has been slow. Strictly speaking, all such initiatives are merely about infrastructure development. As I said at the beginning of my speech in the previous session, the Government focuses its work mainly on "handing out money" and developing infrastructure. In order to "deepen local technological development", the top priority is that the Government must adopt the relevant technologies, formulate a policy on innovation, and update the legislation. All this is rather of utmost importance. But it can be seen from the Budget that the Government seems to have adhered to its old mindset. The reason may be that the relevant work only requires money and can be implemented more easily. While we have yet to find out the effectiveness of the relevant initiatives, we cannot say that they are useless. The Government must squarely address this problem. The third of the four major areas is the stepping up of efforts in nurturing local innovation and technology talents. At long last, the Budget talks about talents. What are included? The setting up of a STEM Internship Scheme on a pilot basis with the allocation of $40 million as subsidies for undergraduates and postgraduates of STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) programmes offered by local universities to undertake short-term internships in innovation and technology and in turn get a sense of innovation and technology jobs. And, there is no limitation on the location. Frankly speaking, it is not a bad idea to provide students with one more internship option. The second initiative is the consolidation of the Researcher Programme and also the Postdoctoral Hub. An enterprise may hire up to four students enrolling on bachelor's degree programmes, master's degree programmes or doctoral degree programmes to undertake R&D duties, and the respective amounts of government subsidies are $18,000, $21,000 and $32,000 each month. As I asked in my speech for the previous session, has the definition of "R&D" been tightened? I am not going to repeat this point. Even though this is a benevolent measure, all will have to depend on whether enterprises have sufficient cash flow. For instance, will the authorities disburse the subsidies half a year later? True, employers must pay salaries to their staff every month. But then, how long will the Government delay subsidy disbursement? The Government must deal with this.


The Government will be deceiving itself if it thinks that the implementation of the above two tasks can improve the supply of innovation and technology talents. I say so because one important segment is not included. I am glad to see that the Secretary for Labour and Welfare happens to be present here now. I want to say a few words to him, and I hope that he can step up his efforts with an innovative mindset. Why should the Government refuse to begin with talent training? Speaking of training, the Government often talks about university training alone. There is no problem with the implementation of STEM education in primary and secondary schools. And, it is all the more reasonable to do so. But when it comes to on-the-job training, the Government's efforts are honestly far from satisfactory. Today, the Audit Commission published the Director of Audit's Report No. 74. One of its chapters is precisely dedicated to the Employees Retraining Board ("ERB"). Chairman, what I am going to say may be irrelevant to the head concerned, but I hope you will allow me to discuss it very briefly as the Secretary is now present. The report points out that during the four years from 2014-2015, the number of young people enrolling on ERB's courses dropped from 13 423 to 10 600 in 2018-2019, and ERB even incurred a deficit ranging from $142 million to $402 million during each of those years. The main duty of the Audit Commission is certainly to ascertain whether government departments have incurred any deficits. But actually, the development opportunities of young people have gone down the drain. Why are young people unwilling to enrol on ERB's courses? Is it true to say that they have no interest in ERB's courses? Is it true to say that ERB's courses aim to train them up as, for example, a dim sum chef? The Government should not underestimate the ability of young people. In many overseas places, due to a talent shortage on the market, their local governments even provide programmer training for prison inmates as a means to enhance their skills. At present, many industry practitioners who are minded to embark on further studies have invariably said that they are unable to obtain any government support. This shows that the Government's support is not adequate. The Government still adheres to its old mindset of providing young people with subsidies through the Continuing Education Fund ("CEF") for enrolling on ERB's courses, just like offering young people with subsidies for taking night-school courses a few decades ago. The Government should stop doing this because the Internet can now be used to offer training courses.


5959

There is a world-renowned online training institution whose training courses all come from various first-class universities around the world. They have said that owing to the epidemic, as long as any government departments―it must be government departments but not individuals―approach them within this year and indicate their intention to offer the relevant courses to unemployed people, the institution can provide their courses free of charge. Initially, their tuition fees may cost a few thousand Hong Kong dollars or even a few thousand US dollars because their courses come from first-class universities. Instead of becoming a dim sum chef, this is rather what people need. Why should the Government refuse to adopt this measure? Why should the Government refuse to help them through this? I have already raised this matter with certain government departments, and I hope that the Secretary, who is present here, can help follow it up after listening to me. The reason is that if the Government refuses to take up this matter, this opportunity will slip away. Many overseas governments have agreed to take up this matter. There are benefits in doing so as this can enable those people who are now underemployed or even unemployed to enrol on such courses free of charge. But the actualization of this matter must depend on the Government because there is no reason to shift the responsibility to commercial organizations. And, they only trust the Government. If the Government is unwilling to take up this matter, or do anything because it was not aware of this information before or even though it has become aware of it now, the opportunity will slip away. Why is the Government unwilling to take up this matter? This is rather a measure that people need. Speaking of on-the-job training, I have put forth my views over all these years. Regrettably, the Government adheres to the previous approach all the same and argues that the ERB and CEF now in place can already solve all problems. I must say it again that we are no longer in the times of enrolling in night schools. Now, I wish to discuss "Head 55―Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Communications and Creative Industries Branch)". Here, I must express extreme dissatisfaction with their policies and previous work. In early April, the press reported on the Pacific Light Cable Network ("PLCN"). Carrie LAM would definitely brag about it whenever she attended any innovation and technology forums over the one or two years that have just passed, saying that it would see the construction of a first cable line ever


connecting Hong Kong directly to Los Angeles. But as reported by The Wall Street Journal in April, the Federal Communications Commission of the United States ("FCC") has made a decision permitting the investors of that project―Google and Facebook, the two largest technological corporations in the United States―to connect the cable line directly to Taiwan instead of Hong Kong. As far as I can see, the Hong Kong Government has not done anything on this matter. As early as August last year, it was already reported that various departments in the United States were concerned about the national security problems posed by the connection of a cable line to Hong Kong. I believe the Hong Kong Government will disagree. But has it initiated contact with them? In February this year, it was widely reported by the press that the two American corporations mentioned above had to revise the application that had already been submitted to FCC because the latter did not approve the connection of the cable line to Hong Kong. That is why they can only connect the cable line to Taiwan. Has the Hong Kong Government taken any action? At a meeting of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting in January, I already raised a question with the authorities. At the time, the official concerned replied to this effect, "Everything is as usual." Later on, I discovered that the authorities had not raised any enquiries with those two American corporations or shareholders, and they had only asked the contractor―the contractor that was excavating the seabed to lay the submarine cable lines. This is really ridiculous, and the situation is like one where a person asks renovation workers instead of the property owner in order to find out whether a renovation project will carry on. The renovation workers will of course reply, "Everything is as usual." The property owner (that is, those shareholders) will nonetheless say, "You did not ask me; neither did you offer any help or information to me, so that I could assure the United States Government that there would be no problem. You did not tell me that there would be no problem, so the United States Government needed not worry about any national security problems." What is more, suppose political factors are involved. The authorities have not given a clear explanation either. This is the reason why we are now concerned about the degradation of "one country, two systems" and the gradual loss of our rule of law together with our freedom of speech, of information and of the press, with the result that the desire of overseas investors to come to Hong Kong will be dampened.


5961

I once expressed my concern to the Financial Secretary in this respect. At the time, he gave a serious reply, "Mr MOK, the matter you are concerned about does not exist." "Mutual destruction" should rather mean investors' refusal to choose Hong Kong due to the Government's inaction. At the time, I even said that this was "mutual destruction in the Buddhist style". In any case, the result remains the same, in the sense that such major overseas investments will not come to Hong Kong. Some may say, "Let it be! As the Government acts this way, it must bear the consequence." Actually, this is not the case, because everybody must also bear the consequence. If Hong Kong is stripped of this high-speed Internet communications facility, how can it develop 5G? For this reason, the Communications and Creative Industries Branch of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau must bear the bulk of responsibility. I still have some speaking time left, and I want to talk about "Head 160―Radio Television Hong Kong" very briefly. Lately, Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") has come under pressure from various sides, and such pressure has been exerted on RTHK itself, its journalists, the Director of Broadcasting, and so on. Everybody can see this clearly, and political interference is definitely involved. Hong Kong people are very supportive of this public broadcaster. A public broadcaster is by no means a government mouthpiece, and it should not be subservient to government departments. These are precisely the two concepts involved. If Hong Kong loses its press freedom and editorial independence and autonomy, Hong Kong will become a Hong Kong that we are no longer familiar with, and the brand of RTHK will be officially shattered within the term of the current Government. If Members can put forth a request for increasing the appropriation for RTHK, I will definitely put forth an amendment to this effect. But we cannot do so because of certain Basic Law constraints. I can only say here, "Hongkongers, show your continued support for RTHK!" MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this session we are having a joint debate on 42 heads. I am particularly concerned about some of them, including "Head 80―Judiciary" and "Head 94―Legal Aid Department". The reason for my particular concern about these two agencies is that, as I believe Members and the people of Hong Kong also know, the social incidents triggered since June last year by the proposed amendment to the Fugitive Offenders


Ordinance have actually put Hong Kong through a very dark period of time, which has lasted several months and overlapped with this epidemic. I believe that people of all trades in Hong Kong now understand what "mutual destruction" means. Just now, I have also heard Mr Charles Peter MOK mention "mutual destruction" several times. Why am I particularly concerned about the Judiciary and Legal Aid Department ("LAD")? It is because I am not sure whether the relevant provisions are sufficient. As far as I know, 7 000 to 8 000 people have been arrested. With so many people awaiting trial, does the Government have sufficient resources to cope? If not, I believe that the Government should act early to seek funding approval from the Legislative Council again, so as to avoid any delay to the trial or sentencing, among others, of these cases as a result of insufficient funding. Chairman, I believe that many Hong Kong people have now understood what "mutual destruction" really means. It means that all go to die embracing each other. During the past period marked by social incidents, some people were often heard advocating "a general strike on three fronts", namely a general strike by the labour, education and business sectors. Despite their vociferous calls, not many people in the community responded; otherwise they would not have needed to have some people to deliberately block the MTR or traffic, thus rendering the public unable to go to work as if there was a strike by businesses or a labour strike. As for the boycott of classes, we saw that, in fact, it took place only in a small number of schools rather than in the majority of them. Why were those people often chanting "labour strike", "boycott of classes", "strike by businesses" and "mutual destruction" back then? What was their purpose? It was to capitalize on the economic downturn to put the SAR Government under pressure so that it would yield to their political demands. Chairman, over the six to seven months of social incidents, the drops in business in many retail and wholesale industries have exceeded 30% to 40%. Every month they have to dip into their own pocket to keep the companies running and pay wages. Further hit by this epidemic, many retail industries abound with instances of employees being furloughed or laid off and businesses being wound up. Those people advocate "mutual destruction". What exactly will be the consequences of "mutual destruction"? Chairman, if not for the current epidemic, the consequences of "mutual destruction" might not have emerged so soon, but they will surely emerge. For the past six to seven months, turnover has been dropping by 30% to 40% per month. Members of our sector estimated that, even in the absence of the outbreak, they might be able to stay


5963

afloat for one year, or a year and a half, amid social incidents alone. But eventually they will still be unable to operate and have to close down their businesses because no company can operate at a loss on a long-term basis. However, the current epidemic has taken only three months to vividly bring "mutual destruction" to light in the eyes of Hong Kong people. Now many Hong Kong people know what "mutual destruction" means. How many students have not attended school in these months? How many of our fellow workers are unable to go to work as they wish? How many shops cannot even be unshuttered? Chairman, the Government is now going to allocate $280-odd billion, or nearly $300 billion, to rescue the market, but how much public money is at the Government's disposal to go on filling the market? If the current epidemic does not stop, I believe Hong Kong is not far from the point of winding up and bankruptcy. Fortunately, however, as we can all see, our epidemic-prevention efforts have been so effective in the past few months that the number of confirmed cases has remained at zero for five consecutive days. This is a culmination of the wholehearted efforts made by most health care workers, widespread public support, as well as forced and ordered closures of many businesses, because we hope that when the epidemic is over, there will be opportunities to do business, earn income, afford rent and keep jobs for our fellow workers. Chairman, why do I have to come down from my floor to speak in the Chamber even at such a late hour? In fact, as they are well aware themselves, on Saturday and Sunday during the Easter holidays, Hong Kong people began to go out in droves for a shopping stroll and do some spending. This was because, firstly, they had been marooned for a long time and, secondly, seeing that the number of diagnoses could be kept at single digits, they began to feel confident. Chairman, while the shops just started to see a little pick-up in business, that bunch came again to Taikoo Shing last Sunday and to the International Financial Centre in Central District yesterday. They will come again today and tomorrow. Actually, I wish to ask all non-pro-establishment Members, opposition Members, "mutual destruction camp" Members, or whatever, who in the past have supported "mutual destruction" and "a general strike on three fronts" across Hong Kong as a whole, whether they stick to their guns even at this moment today, 29 April? They can voice their stance and speak in this regard.


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-fai, please focus your speech on the two heads that you specified earlier. MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, it is because the two heads are related to the funding for the Judiciary and LAD. Many people came out, as Chairman presumably saw yesterday, right? Some talked about $2,000, the ban on gathering, and this and that, professing innocence while holding a fine ticket in their hand. If they are innocent, they should lodge an appeal. The laws of Hong Kong are fair. However, it is also my wish to lodge an appeal. I would like to ask: those people actually gathered in groups of more than three in the same place for a long time, prompting shops to shutter and other members of the public to leave in panic; could it be that there are no laws in Hong Kong to regulate them? What purpose does the legislation against unlawful assemblies serve? If people frequently assemble in the dozens, how can business go on in future? Crowds would gather and yell at the entrances of businesses. Some are now even saying they have to use fire or whatever on 1 May. Chairman, I am deeply worried that the amounts now allocated to "Head 94―Legal Aid Department" and "Head 80―Judiciary" are not sufficient. Why do I need to speak here? It is because they are coming again soon, and with the losses due to business closure taken out of the equation, any form of subsidy is useless. To be honest, many members of my sector have called me, all wearing a long face. The Government came up with a method to help our fellow workers by subsidizing them with $9,000 for a period of six months, but it will not be implemented until June. Now, with no business, no way to open for business, and not all landlords willing to cut rent, how can the employers stick it out? They will end up being forced to close down. If an employer has laid off a few employees, he will be unable to file an application by June. So, what should Hong Kong do as a whole? At this juncture, that bunch is even touting "mutual destruction" to me! I really feel puzzled. What can we actually do? I would like to ask non-pro-establishment Members to teach me, and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to say later, what we can do. What should we do to stop them touting "mutual destruction" to everybody? To be honest, all are doomed to go out of business and all are doomed to lose their jobs.


5965

Dr Fernando CHEUNG said something three times at the last meeting. What did he tell us? He said that if they were in power, they would get things on the right track. What did he mean by that? I heard him say that if they held power in Hong Kong, they would work on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") for the unemployed and unemployment relief, and then $20 billion would be enough. Chairman, as I already said last week, he thinks that $20 billion, accounting for only 7% of the $280-odd billion to be dished out by the Government, is not enough for unemployment relief, so he will vote against the funding in its entirety, rendering the sum of $280 billion unable to help people while giving it the usual "no". It is his profession to help the unemployed and it is ours to help people stand on their own feet. Buddy, it is not that we expect everyone to receive CSSA for the unemployed. As "Father of Refugees", Dr Fernando CHEUNG helps South Asians, which I would not mind, but he must not turn all Hong Kong people into refugees. Chairman, several journalists asked me today how I foresee the Labour Day Golden Week playing out. I told them that I had never heard of the Labour Day Golden Week when I was a child. It is just because this is a holiday period in China that many tourists come to Hong Kong, thus providing a boost to the whole economic chain in Hong Kong, including the retail sector and the catering sector, and therefore more and more people open their own company, take on the role of employer themselves and recruit staff, bring vibrancy to Hong Kong as a whole. I asked: "What is the point of talking with me about this year's Labour Day Golden Week?" Now that there are zero tourists, the significance of this year's Labour Day Golden Week no longer exists. We rely solely on the spending of local Hong Kong people. But if some people continue to go to different places in such a way that scares others from coming out to spend money, or even causes shops to be shuttered, I can guarantee that even if the Government keeps handing out money, members of the public will lose their jobs. Dr Fernando CHEUNG called for setting up an unemployment relief fund, which would serve as a panacea for the unemployed in the future. He will certainly succeed because the majority of the public will likely lose their jobs in the future, but I would like to ask: how much money can the Government hand out? Hong Kong's fiscal reserves stand at just over $1.1 trillion, and $300 billion has been handed out this time. I wish to ask Dr Fernando CHEUNG: how long can the cash handout initiative last? When the reserves are depleted, what should we do? I really feel puzzled. If he were in power, would Hong Kong really go on like this?


Chairman, excuse me, I had better get back to the Judiciary and LAD so as not to put you in a difficult position. In fact, how much can an aid of merely $2,000 help those friends? There are 7 000 to 8 000 similar cases in the pipeline. People were under the impression that the same bunch would keep coming out, but all they saw were teenagers. Some of them cried when arrested yesterday. Will they need aid from LAD when the time comes? How much do we need to allocate? We pay lawyers with our left hand and judges with our right hand, but in any event it is all Hong Kong people's money. Can we start from the root and tell them they should not break the law? Do they know that, by coming out, they are destroying the economy of Hong Kong? Do they know that many companies are going bust, many people are losing their jobs, and members of the public will become homeless because they have no money to pay rent? Are they aware that some children cannot even afford to pay their school fees? Can we tell them all this? When will "mutual destruction" end? I really find it weird. Strikes in the labour, education and business sectors have succeeded. The current epidemic has let us know right away that there is no need to wait 18 months. It is already evident now that nobody can cope with it. All are shouting in fear of closure. Apart from the retail, wholesale and import sectors, now even Hong Kong employers who have factories in the Mainland are unable to ride through the storm. All trades and industries are threatened with closures. So, if they continue telling me that Carrie LAM caused a three-day delay because she stepped on the brakes on 15 June instead of 12 June, and they will use this excuse to totally destroy Hong Kong and put everyone out of work, then I will ask them to go on! Let Dr Fernando CHEUNG be the Chief Executive! The people of Hong Kong will always remember them. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The debate in this section has now been proceeding for about four hours and a half. I urge that Members who wish to speak, especially those who have not yet spoken, press the "Request to speak" button as soon as possible. After this session has proceeded for about another two hours, I will call on the public officer to speak, and then end this debate. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please speak.


5967

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, many Members touched on the issue of "mutual destruction" in their speech today. The entire 13-odd minute speech delivered by Mr SHIU Ka-fai just now did not discuss the heads with no amendment either. He was also talking about "mutual destruction". I have voted against the Budget for many years. Now, entering the eighth year, I will still do the same. In the past, when we voted against the Budget, no one ever used the term "mutual destruction". But this time when we were about to do so, or previously when we voted against the Anti-epidemic Fund, we were accused of pursuing "mutual destruction" or leaving Hong Kong people to sink or swim. We have made it very clear that we voted against the Budget or proposed many amendments in the past for the sole purpose of putting pressure on the Government, because no matter how pathetic a Budget the Government might submit, the pro-establishment camp would eventually vote for it even though they uttered harsh words with dramatic facial expressions during their speech, and it followed that the Government had no incentive or felt no pressure to do better. They said: "If the democratic camp actually won more than half of the seats in the Legislative Council Election in September, would Hong Kong not fall victim to 'mutual destruction'? How would it be possible to have any luck?" If the democratic camp actually wins more than half of the seats in the Legislative Council Election in September, the Government will not be able to wait for luck to come and routinely submit a failing Budget that is lashed by a thousand tongues. If the Government submits such a Budget even though fully knowing that we will vote against it, the Government is the one who wants "mutual destruction". The so-called "mutual destruction" refers to the one who wants Hong Kong to perish, who wants to put Hong Kong to death, and who pushes Hong Kong off the cliff. Certainly we think the SAR Government is the very one. As for the royalists here, if they look on with folded arms, help the evildoer, and disregard democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law, then no one can remain unscathed in the end, all will end up perishing together, businesses cannot operate, and Hong Kong will be subject to foreign sanctions. But today's discussion on the Budget, particularly in this session, is not about the definition of "mutual destruction" and "genuine mutual destruction", or who said who initiated "mutual destruction". If Members are interested, they can propose


a Member's motion for debate and we will then be able to discuss it in detail. I find the ongoing war of words really pointless. Our argument is very clear. Members of the public who can understand and accept it will listen to it. That is to say, if the royalists and the Government under Carrie LAM not just remain stubbornly and adamantly unresponsive to the Five Demands, but also want to put their political rivals to death, then we have the determination to die, but they have to perish together instead of staying unscathed. It is that simple. Chairman, let me get back to "Head 37―Department of Health". As some Members have also mentioned today, it is really very strange that this Budget was prepared in February, was it not, Secretary? The Secretary is not present at this moment. Nevertheless, given that the pneumonia pandemic already broke out in February, why is it possible that the estimate of expenditure under Programme (2) Disease Prevention of the Department of Health ("DH") for 2020-2021 (i.e. $7.485 billion) is $112 million less than last year's figure (i.e. $7.597 billion)? Is it beyond imagination? Despite the epidemic outbreak, the expenditure on disease prevention has been surprisingly reduced. Did the Centre for Health Protection, which is also placed under Programme (2), anticipate that all the people would be sick or dead and need no prevention? If not, does the Government think that as Hong Kong people are very clever, it does not need to devote resources to prevention at all, and in addition we will take even the preventive measures that have not been mentioned by the Government, so the expenditure on prevention is superfluous? Is that why the Budget released in February even boldly cut down DH's expenditure on disease prevention? Common sense dictates an increase instead. How come it is less than last year's figure? It is still unknown when the epidemic will be over. Even if it is over, it will probably return in winter. Is this not infuriating and unfathomable? Should the expenditure of DH not be deducted? The overall expenditure of DH should not, but I have contemplated deducting the expenditure on the salary of Director of Health ("DoH"). However, some people queried: "Should the expenditure on the salary of DH staff be deducted even amid the current fight against the epidemic? This move will certainly be lashed by a thousand tongues and blown out of proportion." However, let me take you all back to 23 January. What happened on that day? When asked by a reporter whether she should wear a mask in public, DoH, Dr Constance CHAN, went so far as to claim that, generally speaking, she does not need to wear a mask in ordinary social occasions


5969

unless she has symptoms. I am not sure whether the SAR Government has been influenced by Carrie LAM's early suggestion, as Carrie LAM did say that colleagues had to take their mask off even if they had put it on unnecessarily. That was a very callous remark. Thankfully, the people of Hong Kong have not followed the advice of DoH or Carrie LAM, and 99% of the people wear masks, because having experienced SARS before and received the blessing of the "anti-extradition to China" movement over the past six months, we do not trust the SAR Government. We are unlike Singapore, whose government have it coming now because they have made a video to ask the public not to wear masks, echoing DoH's narrative that those without symptoms do not need to wear masks. At present, what Hong Kong people are doing runs counter to the Government's approach. Therefore, the Government does not need expenditure on publicity and education. We know how to do publicity and education. As long as we speak contrary to what the Government says, things will be fine. Speaking of wearing masks, I would like to say that, as I know, recently the public have begun to let their guard down a little bit. Maybe they think it is fine to go without a mask when there is nobody around them. Some Members may think that if they will not affect the colleagues next to them, there is no need to wear a mask when they speak later. But I would like to point out that wearing a mask is not only for self-protection, but in fact also has a demonstration effect in the sense that it sends a message or signal to the public about your wish that Hong Kong people contemplate whether they should continue to wear masks or take them off. I do not mean to offend Chairman, but I know that, with a mask on all day, you are suffering from suffocation. As there is nobody around you, spraying of spittle, if happens at all, will not affect others, hence no need for you to wear a mask. However, I hope that particularly officials, Members or influential public figures wear masks, so as to send a message to the community. The United States is an example. President TRUMP does not wear a mask, and Vice President PENCE refused to wear a mask when he visited a hospital yesterday even though it clearly required that he should wear one. What message do they want to get across? The message is that they want to play down the severity of the crisis …


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please focus your speech on the situation of Hong Kong MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): … Yes, getting back to Hong Kong means talking about Dr Constance CHAN. Chairman, you can also think it over. I do not want Hong Kong's officials or Members to send … Although we are not intentional, nor committing a heinous crime, when we make a decision on whether to wear a mask, we are sending a message to the public. If half of the Legislative Council Members begin to go without masks, the public will not wear any either. Therefore, this point deserves our attention. Finally, I have not proposed to deduct the expenditure on DoH's salary, considering that she has not come out again to make the fallacious argument which she insisted on. But why do I think that the expenditure of DH should be increased instead of deducted? What other shortcomings exist now? One of the shortcomings in Hong Kong's epidemic prevention efforts is that the number of tests is still insufficient, which has left us unable to identify some invisible patients, nor test all arrivals. Under the current testing policy, DH conducts comprehensive tests and quarantine checks only on inbound travellers arriving via the airport, but inbound travellers arriving via land boundary control points are not all tested even though they need to be quarantined. In fact, some statistics show that the current number of tests in Hong Kong is 140 000, which translates to 19 000 per million people. Although higher than the average of 16 000 per million in the United States, it is lower than the per-capita test numbers of such countries as Iceland, the United Arab Emirates, Brunei and Germany. In actuality, as a community with such a high population density, Hong Kong should, if capable, carry out virus detection work on a larger scale. The authorities should not just test some inbound travellers, close contacts of confirmed cases and persons with symptoms, but also draw on New York City's experience to conduct random tests on thousands of citizens, so as to investigate the proportion of population with antibodies to the virus and thus project the real number of people infected with COVID-19 in Hong Kong. The authorities should collect samples from all inbound travellers, no matter arriving via air or land, in order to ensure that nobody slips through the net. Earlier on, a Member raised the question why nobody proposed amendments to these heads, which are so numerous. I would like to point out a phenomenon, and I hope that Members understand, as I believe Chairman does


5971

too, that there are many reasons for not proposing amendments. For example, in relation to "Head 33―Civil Engineering and Development Department", actually I also wanted to propose an amendment, but the Government said that as Members had raised too many questions in recent years, it had to get priorities straight and first answer the questions that we considered important, and therefore it would answer Members' questions in two stages. Only yesterday did I receive the reply to the questions about the items related to the Civil Engineering and Development Department ("CEDD"). Of course, when we propose an amendment now, we need such data as the subhead code and the expenditure of the relevant item. That is why I was unable to propose an amendment to deduct the expenditure on an item under the head for CEDD and it was grouped with the heads with no amendment. The item concerned, which I am still asking this year, is the staffing establishment and expenditure for CEDD's studies related to the artificial islands in the Central Waters. As I expected, the authorities are still conducting the relevant studies, although they have not yet obtained the Legislative Council's approval for a provision of $550 million and are still awaiting scrutiny by the Finance Committee ("FC"). Rumour has it that they may not seek funding approval in this connection for the time being, but will first seek funding approval for the studies related to Lung Kwu Tan. I am not sure about this point, and rumours are not reliable. However, in 2020-2021, the staffing establishment for CEDD's studies related to the artificial islands in the Central Waters involves nine persons and the total annual expenditure is $9.5 million. Had they answered my questions earlier, I would have proposed an amendment to deduct the current expenditure on the staffing establishment for the studies related to the artificial islands in the Central Waters. In fact, at a point during the "anti-extradition to China" movement, the Government withdrew the funding proposal for the preliminary studies related to the artificial islands in the Central Waters (i.e. the funding proposal of $550 million that I referred to), which was set to be deliberated on by FC, claiming a need to explain it to the public before re-submitting it to FC for scrutiny. However, more than half a year has already passed since June last year. As a stakeholder to take forward the development of the artificial islands in the Central Waters, CEDD has never conducted consultation or held any forum


again in relation to the project to understand public concerns and doubts, and these nine researchers are still hunkering down in their office to continue their work in this regard, which is probably some studies delinked from reality. I anticipate that when, in its view, the social movement, namely the movement of opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, aka the "anti-extradition to China" movement, is over and peace is really restored, the Government will seize the opportunity to revive this trillion-dollar … Instead of $1 trillion, the Government says that the cost involved in this project of artificial islands in the Central Waters is only in the hundreds of billions, but we call it "Trillion-dollar Lantau". I hope that in this period when the anti-epidemic efforts have just achieved some success, the Government does not hastily seek funding approval for the artificial islands in the Central Waters (i.e "Lantau Tomorrow"). Of course, the Secretary for Development will say that it is just for the studies. There are deep reservations about a project that is without public support and opposed by many Members in this Council. Besides, the outlook for Hong Kong's financial situation is uncertain at present, as Secretary Paul CHAN said today. Should we go on to dump this $500 million into the sea? This $500 million will really be dumped into the sea if the researchers say that the construction should be put on hold or should not go ahead. Therefore, although I was unable to propose an amendment, I oppose the funding for CEDD's studies related to the artificial islands in the Central Waters. (Mr IP Kin-yuen is not present) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen is not present. Mr WU Chi-wai, please speak. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, Over the past period of time, in the face of the current epidemic as well as the social movement against the proposed amendments of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance which has been going on since the middle of last year, the SAR Government, the Central Government and the pro-establishment camp have gradually resorted to laying the blame for the many problems on protesters, criticizing them for putting forward the idea of "mutual destruction" and undermining the governance of the Government.


5973

However, I would like to point out that if a score of only around 2.0 is given to the SAR Government by the general public, and the score given to the Chief Executive has also fallen to a single digit, who is actually the one seeking "mutual destruction"? It is the SAR Government which has turned a deaf ear to public opinions, ignored the overall views of the community on the governance of the Government and insisted on having its own way. Who is helping a tyrant to oppress his powerless subjects? The pro-establishment camp and the royalist camp have done so because despite seeing the Government go into a dead end, they still offer their encouragement and support, making it not possible to pacify the social movement … (There was interference with the broadcasting system in the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please move your mobile phone away. (Mr WU Chi-wai moved his mobile phone away) MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): … and alert the Government about the need to respond to public views. This is where the genuine problem lies. Recently, there have been some happenings in the international community, some European countries and the United States, in the wake of the epidemic, floated the concept of "desinicization", under which international enterprises operating in the Mainland were encouraged to relocate their businesses away from China. This will very obviously have a major impact on Hong Kong, but have we ever heard of any proposals from the SAR Government to act in response to the concept of "desinicization" and introduce the necessary policy revisions or strategies? I have raised my views on the issue at a meeting of the Panel on Commerce and Industry, and asked the Government whether it should do its utmost to convince factory operators of Hong Kong to establish a logistic base in the territory when relocating their businesses from the Mainland to Southeast Asia. The objective of doing so is to develop new advantages for coping with the transformation of the overall economic structure. However, what is the strategy of the SAR Government in this respect? They only replied that Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices have already been set up in a number of Southeast Asian countries to take charge of the relevant work.


However, instead of the recurrent work and the setting up of permanent offices in certain regions or countries to answer enquiries, I am actually talking about the taking of proactive actions, and this is also a point which I frequently mention. During a duty visit to Israel some years ago, we have already pointed out very clearly that when it occurred to the Government that there was a change in the entire economic situation, all public officers in charge of foreign trade and economic affairs should have the responsibility to make proactive and aggressive attempts in soliciting business for the country or the territory. Particularly, Hong Kong is very unique because many factory operators have chosen to take root here although they have set up overseas factories for their business, and we should make even better use of our unique strengths in this respect. However, the Government has done nothing, and what should we do then? The greatest assets of Hong Kong are our differences with Mainland China under the principle of "one country, two systems". The daily life of the people here is protected by the Basic Law, and the business environment of Hong Kong is also protected by the freedom of speech, of the press and of communication. However, the SAR Government has little regard for these, and by making it clear that the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in HKSAR ("LOCPG") has the natural right to monitor the work of the SAR Government in its handling of the daily affairs, it has let the supreme ruler administer Hong Kong directly. Such being the case, how can we prove to the whole world that there is no distortion or deformation of the "one country, two systems" principle in its implementation in Hong Kong? How can we convince the people? I therefore would like to point out … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, this is the second time you speak. You have already made similar points in your last speech, so please focus your speech now on the 42 heads under discussion. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, there is only one more word before I get to the point. Against this background, the biased attitude adopted by the SAR Government in handling policy issues and in its governance has given rise to numerous problems.


5975

The work under "Head 44―Environmental Protection Department" is one example. The Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") may not be solely responsible for environmental protection work, because it is after all under the supervision by the Environment Bureau, while energy policy is also involved. When it comes to the energy policy in Hong Kong, two major issues are often mentioned, and the first one is the problem of "quick going up, slow coming down" of fuel prices. The matter is within the purview of the Environment Bureau and this is of course handled with assistance of EPD staff, but there is something very strange about the policy itself. Judging from the reply given by the Secretary to questions raised by Members, it seems that he has confused his personal concept of environmental protection with his duties and responsibilities to supervise the provision of petrol filling station service and the determination of fuel prices by oil companies in Hong Kong. According to the Government's environmental protection policy, fuel costs for vehicles should be increased through the implementation of taxation measures, thereby reducing the incentives for the use of vehicles. However, when faced with the oil companies' pricing practices of "quick going up, slow coming down", the Environment Bureau let them reap huge profits without doing anything to rectify the problem, and all sorts of monitoring measures put forward are nothing but empty words. As a matter of fact, the Bureau has distorted the entire policy concept by mixing up different policy principles in the false belief that we will not be able to make a painstaking examination and find out the truth. Regarding this phenomenon in the auto fuel market, similar observations have repeatedly been made by the Competition Commission ("the Commission") in various relevant studies, and the Commission has made many recommendations for improvement and asked the Government to enhance the transparency of information about the auto fuel market, so that the Commission may obtain more information for monitoring the operation of the market. However, the Government has completely turned a deaf ear to such views, and the Commission as well as the Competition Ordinance, which was enacted back then after so much hard work, were thus rendered nothing but "toothless tigers". Another policy issue is related to the electricity market, and involves the arrangements made by the Government with the China Light and Power Company Limited and the Hongkong Electric Company Limited. Under our environmental protection policy, in order to improve air quality, power companies are required to introduce more generating units using natural gas. As an increased use of generating units firing natural gas will incur more capital


investment, the Government has included provisions in the Scheme of Control Agreements signed with the two power companies to ensure that handsome profits will be made at a fixed level. However, although the permitted rate of return has already been reduced from 10% to 8%, this move has failed to strike a balance with the increase in the capital ledger account. Moreover, apart from infrastructural facilities, the use of natural gas also involves natural gas prices, and in other words, the general public will be faced with the problem of high electricity tariffs in the future. Yet, the Government has adopted the strategy of using billions of dollars in the coming few years to subsidize electricity expenses for the public, but all of us will have to pay the high electricity tariffs by ourselves in the future. The problem thus generated is that the Government has just pursued a piecemeal approach without taking the long-term interests of our society into its policy consideration. The Department of Health is another department which I would like to talk about. Regarding the epidemic prevention work carried out this time, we consider that the Department of Health has not done enough to implement all necessary measures, such as endeavouring to expand the screening and inspection system, and urging the Innovation and Technology Bureau to introduce screening methods that are developed by Hong Kong people and satisfy the required inspection standards. These are what the Government can do under the current epidemic, but it has taken no action to adopt and implement the measures, and during the process, it has also paid little attention to public concern over the need to close down the boundary control points. We proposed to tackle the problem at source, but the Government did not take our views seriously. It is reported today that the Government is planning to reopen the boundary control points to allow entry of business endorsement holders from the Mainland without the need to observe the 14-day compulsory quarantine requirement. Will this bring about a second wave of epidemic outbreak in Hong Kong? This is something we do not wish to see, but has the Government endeavoured to ensure that the community will not be faced with a second wave of epidemic outbreak? According to Dr HO Pak-leung, there is on the one hand an increase in the capacity of quarantine centres in Hong Kong, while on the other hand, there will be more and more people under quarantine leaving various quarantine centres. Hence, the capacity of quarantine centres is basically enough to meet the increased demand, so why is there a need to suddenly reopen the boundary control points? It will be terrible if the SAR Government adopts such an attitude


5977

in its governance by heeding every request from the Mainland, and basing all its policy decisions on the views expressed by LOCPG and officials of the Communist Party of China. Under such circumstances, public officers of Hong Kong will not take the overall interests of Hong Kong society into their policy consideration, and will only yield to everything and kowtow to their superiors. This is simply not acceptable. Besides, at what status is public sentiment put by public officers in Hong Kong in their policy consideration? Will the ideas they come up with be necessarily perfect and flawless? If public officers are willing to listen to public voices and make policy adjustments accordingly, will they establish a more reasonable policy process for our society as a whole, instead of pushing everything through as long as the Government has got enough votes, just like what it is doing today? This is not the due process for this legislature. It is normal to see different voices and opinions within this legislature and our society, but is the Government determined enough to listen to public opinions and make adjustments accordingly? I do not think so, and this is also related to the work of Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") under head 160. As I have pointed out in my last speech, the mission of RTHK is very clear, and the Government should cherish the institution for it has successfully maintained public trust and credibility. It can serve as a good tool for the Government to feel public pulse and grasp public sentiments, and by making better use of the institution, the overall governance of the Government can better respond to public aspirations. This is also my sincere advice to the SAR Government. Losing people's heart will lead to the loss of power, and the SAR Government is so unpopular today that it has got a completely failing score from the people here for its governance. Such being the case, it will really be of no help to improving the situation if the Government still adopts a hard-line approach in implementing its policies, and even relies on the 30 000-strong police force to suppress the people. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes. Council then resumed.


NEXT MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 6 May 2020. Adjourned accordingly at 6:59 pm.

Documents

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 29 ......LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 April 2020 5749 OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 29 April 2020 The Council met at Eleven o'clock