OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 4 February …€¦ · official record of proceedings wednesday, 4 february 2015 the council met at eleven o'clock members present: the president

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 February 2015

5559

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 4 February 2015

The Council met at Eleven o'clock MEMBERS PRESENT: THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 February 2015 5560

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H. PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N. THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C. THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S. THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.


5561

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.


THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.


5563

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSANG CHUN-WAH, G.B.M., J.P. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY THE HONOURABLE RIMSKY YUEN KWOK-KEUNG, S.C., J.P. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE PROF THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING THE HONOURABLE TSANG TAK-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT MR LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS


CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


5565

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

Dutiable Commodities (Liquor) (Amendment) Regulation 2015 ........................................................................

20/2015

Dutiable Commodities (Liquor Licences) (Fees)

(Amendment) Regulation 2015 ..............................

21/2015 Dutiable Commodities (Amendment) Regulation 2015 ..... 22/2015 Land Survey (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 2015 .......... 23/2015 Registration of Copyright Licensing Bodies (Amendment)

Regulation 2015 ......................................................

24/2015 Trade Marks (Amendment) Rules 2015 ............................. 25/2015 Registered Designs (Amendment) Rules 2015 ................... 26/2015 Import and Export (Strategic Commodities) Regulations

(Amendment of Schedule 1) Order 2015 ...............

27/2015 Port Control (Public Cargo Working Area) Order 2015 .... 28/2015


Other Papers

No. 65 ─ Government Flying Service Welfare Fund Report by the Controller, Government Flying Service on the Administration of the Fund and Financial Statements for the year ended 31 March 2014

Report No. 11/14-15 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments

QUESTIONS UNDER RULE 24(4) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. Apart from six oral questions for this meeting, I have permitted Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Cyd HO and Mr Andrew LEUNG to respectively ask an urgent question under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure. As the three urgent questions are about the contingency measures for coping with the outbreaks of influenza, to facilitate Members' follow-up, I will first call upon the three Members to ask their urgent questions and the public officer to reply to the three questions respectively. I will then invite Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Andrew LEUNG and other Members to respectively ask supplementary questions. Urgent question 1. Contingency Measures for Coping with a Major Outbreak of Influenza 1. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, it has been reported that the influenza epidemic in Hong Kong since the onset of the winter influenza season at the end of last year has been more severe than previous years. As of the end of last month, there were already 81 influenza-associated deaths and one of the deceased was a young person aged only 38. However, some members of the public have pointed out that they are unable to obtain the latest information on the epidemic on a daily basis through government channels at present and the ineffective flow of epidemic-related information is not conducive to containing the epidemic. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


5567

(1) whether the Government will immediately strengthen the existing work relating to the dissemination of information on the influenza epidemic, including daily publication of information on the situation of various relevant target services provided by public hospitals and data on the influenza epidemic (including the number of influenza-associated hospitalizations that require admission to the intensive care units and the number of deaths, etc.) through press releases and government web sites during the peak of the influenza season;

(2) given that the vaccine targeting the H3N2 Switzerland influenza

strain will only be available in sufficient numbers in March or April this year, whether the authorities have put in place immediate measures to ensure that prior to the supply of the vaccine in sufficient numbers, there are sufficient resources in public hospitals (such as the general wards, accident and emergency departments, infectious disease wards, intensive care units, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines, etc.) to cope with a major outbreak of influenza; if so, of the details of the various measures and the manpower and other resources involved; if not, whether they will immediately formulate such measures; and

(3) whether it has formulated other contingency measures for coping

with a major outbreak of influenza, such as the introduction of preventive measures at community level, the formulation of clinical and medication guidelines for treating influenza patients and the implementation of class suspension arrangements at schools, etc.; if so, of the details of such measures; if not, whether it will immediately formulate such measures?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong usually experiences two influenza peak seasons every year ― one between January and March and the other in July and August. The 2014-2015 winter influenza season arrived in late December 2014. The activity of seasonal influenza has continued to increase since then and rapidly reached a high level in mid to end of January.


The Centre for Health Protection (CHP) closely monitors influenza activity in the community through its surveillance systems covering childcare centres, residential care homes for the elderly, the Hospital Authority (HA)'s out-patient clinics and Accident and Emergency (A&E) Departments, and clinics of private practitioners and Chinese medicine practitioners. Besides, CHP monitors the positive influenza detections among respiratory specimens received by its Public Health Laboratory Services Branch. To monitor the severity of admitted influenza cases, the CHP, in collaboration with the HA and private hospitals, has been operating an enhanced surveillance system during influenza seasons. From noon 2 January 2015 to noon 3 February 2015, the CHP recorded 178 intensive care unit (ICU) admissions or deaths (including 111 deaths) with laboratory diagnosis of influenza for patients aged 18 years or above. One hundred and sixty three cases were influenza A (H3N2), five were influenza B and 10 were influenza A pending subtype. Among the cases mentioned above, 147 cases (82.6%) and 101 deaths (91.0%) involved elderly persons aged 65 or above. Separately, 11 paediatric cases of severe influenza associated complications with no deaths were recorded in the same period, amongst which 10 were influenza A (H3N2) and one was influenza A pending subtype. Among the severe cases reported in this season, about 85% so far were known to have underlying chronic illnesses. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), an antigenically drifted H3N2 strain, from A/Texas (that is, vaccine strain recommended by the WHO for the Northern Hemisphere 2014-2015 season) to A/Switzerland, has been observed. Locally, over 95% of the circulating H3N2 viruses also belonged to this drifted H3N2 strain. The mismatch of the circulating and vaccine strain of H3N2 may reduce the vaccine effectiveness for H3N2, but it is expected that the seasonal influenza vaccines would afford a certain degree of cross-protection against different but related strains, and also reduce the likelihood of severe outcomes such as hospitalizations and deaths, particularly for high-risk groups. As such, vaccination remains one of the important means to prevent influenza. Against the above background, my reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:

(1) The CHP is transparent and timely in the dissemination of information. Influenza surveillance data are uploaded to the CHP


5569

website every week. Such data are also summarized in the weekly online publication. Moreover, timely alerts are issued via press releases. For this influenza season, more than 20 press releases have been issued regarding surveillance data, outbreaks and severe paediatric influenza associated infections since the end of December 2014. Since 2 February 2015, the CHP has further stepped up information dissemination by providing daily update on the latest situation of severe influenza cases on the CHP website.

Furthermore, the CHP has issued notices to doctors, hospitals,

kindergartens, child care centres, primary and secondary schools as well as residential care homes for the elderly and the disabled to alert them about the latest influenza situation.

(2) The HA has already drawn up an overall response plan before the

start of the surge in service demand during influenza season, and has been closely monitoring the service provision situation. In response to the surge in service demand since January 2015, the HA and different clusters have deliberated and devised further response measures.

On hospital beds, to meet the continuously increasing service

demand, the HA has opened 205 additional beds in 2014-2015, and will open 250 additional beds in 2015-2016. To further increase the service capacity to cope with the surge in service demand during the influenza season, the HA has opened a total of 282 additional beds on a time limited basis for six months from December 2014 during the influenza period. Since the demand for in-patient service has increased sharply in the past month, there have been insufficient beds in medical wards. Various clusters have, with regard to the actual demand and manpower situation, further augmented capacity through deploying beds among specialties and adding temporary beds in the existing medical wards as far as possible. If service demand rises further, the HA will consider reducing non-urgent surgery to reserve beds and manpower to deal with seasonal influenza. Nevertheless, cancer surgery, urgent heart surgery and surgery involving body parts and important organs will not be affected.


To relieve pressure on A&E, the HA increased the quota for general out-patient clinics (GOPC) by 560 during Christmas in 2014 and will further increase the GOPC quota by 1 486 in the Chinese New Year. The above additional quota represents an increase of 14% and 30% of service capacity in the respective period.

As for infection control, the HA has recommended the wearing of

surgical masks by all healthcare workers and visitors upon entering the patient care area during the influenza peak period. The HA has also put in place standard and droplet precaution measures for patients with influenza symptoms to prevent the spread of diseases in hospitals. The HA has urged healthcare workers, patients and visitors to strengthen the hand hygiene, and to promote influenza vaccination to healthcare workers and eligible patient groups. Each cluster will arrange Vaccination Mobilization Teams to provide influenza vaccines to staff at their workplace and at a time that is convenient to them. The HA has also established a referral mechanism in 2014-2015 to encourage eligible in-patient to have vaccine injection in out-patient clinics after discharge.

(3) Regarding prevention and control measures in the community, the

CHP has produced a variety of health education materials on the prevention of influenza including a thematic webpage, television and radio announcements in public interests, guidelines, pamphlets, posters, booklets, FAQs and exhibition boards. Various publicity and health education channels, for example, websites, television and radio stations, health education hotline, newspapers and media interviews have been deployed for promulgation of health advice. The CHP has also widely distributed the health education materials in public and private housing estates, healthcare settings, schools and non-governmental organizations, and so on. The main message is to advise the public to maintain good personal and environmental hygiene against influenza, such as putting on a surgical mask when respiratory symptoms develop to avoid spreading the infections to others; avoid going to crowded or poorly ventilated public places when influenza is prevalent, and high-risk groups should consider wearing a surgical mask especially when staying in crowded places.


5571

Moreover, the CHP keeps the stakeholders updated of the latest influenza activity and preventive measures, and solicits their co-ordination and support to strengthen the related health messages.

Regarding institutional and school outbreaks of influenza, the CHP

conducts prompt epidemiological investigations, implements necessary public health control measures and provides appropriate health advice to the institutions concerned. Following field investigations, the CHP continues to closely monitor the institutions to ascertain that the outbreak of influenza is under control.

There are a spectrum of public health measures that are effective in

controlling influenza transmission. The Government will consider a host of factors, such as the type of virus and the ability of the virus to cause disease, the sick leave rate, hospitalization rate, number of affected persons with severe infection, and so on, in considering the most appropriate public health measures to be deployed. The CHP will base on the situation of seasonal influenza outbreak in individual schools and institutions, such as the incident rate, number of affected persons with severe infection, and so on, to adopt different response measures and provide advices to the institutions. The CHP will closely monitor the latest situations to consider whether there is a need to implement class suspension arrangements at schools.

Immediate Measures to Ensure Effectiveness of Newly Produced Influenza Vaccine 2. MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, since the beginning of 2015, influenza has been rampant in Hong Kong, with 122 cases of influenza associated admissions to intensive care units or death in January, in which 64 were fatal. The severity of the epidemic sets to rival that of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome outbreak in 2003. The Secretary for Food and Health said a few days ago that the vaccine this year had had a lower protection rate, while the vaccine targeting the H3N2 Switzerland influenza strain would be available in sufficient numbers only by March and April this year the earliest. Given the warning by Professor YUEN Kwok-yung, Chair Professor of the Department of Microbiology of the University of Hong Kong, that the influenza virus has undergone


reassortment, will the Government inform this Council of the immediate measures in place or solutions available to cope with the situation in which the aforesaid newly produced vaccine becomes ineffective due to a new round of reassortment of the virus, so as to ensure that there will be a sufficient supply of effective vaccine for public vaccination at that time? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong usually experiences two influenza peak seasons every year ― one between January and March and the other in July and August. The winter influenza season arrived in late December 2014. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), an antigenically drifted H3N2 strain, from A/Texas to A/Switzerland, has been observed. Locally, over 95% of the circulating H3N2 viruses also belonged to A/Switzerland strain. The mismatch of the circulating and vaccine strain of H3N2 may reduce the vaccine effectiveness for H3N2 recommended by WHO, but it is expected that the seasonal influenza vaccines would afford a certain degree of cross-protection against different but related strains, and also reduce the likelihood of severe outcomes such as hospitalizations and deaths, particularly for high-risk groups. As such, vaccination remains an important means to prevent influenza. Hence, we still advise the public especially the high-risk groups to consider receiving vaccination as soon as possible although the protection of this year's influenza vaccine is comparatively low. As regards the vaccine against Switzerland type H3N2 seasonal influenza, our preliminary understanding is that the earliest timing for sizable production is around March to April. The Administration will continue to closely monitor the production situation of these vaccines and examine whether their supply would be available within this influenza season. Immediate Measures to Prevent Influenza from Spreading in Densely Populated Places and Institutions 3. MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, seasonal influenza is raging in Hong Kong, resulting in a death toll of dozens in a month, including some young and healthy people. It has been reported that there have been successive institutional outbreaks of influenza in a number of schools, and the


5573

medical wards of public hospitals are grossly overloaded amid a worsening trend of rampant influenza epidemic. Given the lower protection rate of the influenza vaccine being used this year and the new vaccine is expected to be available in sufficient numbers only by March or April, will the Government inform this Council of the immediate measures in place to prevent influenza from spreading in densely populated places (such as immigration control points before and after the Lunar New Year) and in institutions? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the Centre for Health Protection (CHP) closely monitors influenza activity in the community through its surveillance systems covering childcare centres, residential care homes for the elderly, the Hospital Authority (HA)'s out-patient clinics and Accident and Emergency Departments, and clinics of private practitioners and Chinese medicine practitioners. Besides, CHP monitors the positive influenza detections among respiratory specimens received by its Public Health Laboratory Services Branch. Regarding prevention and control measures in the community, as I have just mentioned, the CHP has produced a variety of publicity materials on the prevention of influenza to disseminate to the public through channels of television, radio stations and printed media. Of course, various publicity and health education channels, for example, websites and health education hotline have also been deployed for promulgation of health advice. The CHP has also widely distributed the health education materials in public and private housing estates, healthcare settings, schools and non-governmental organizations, and so on. The main message which is so important that I need to reiterate is to advise the public to maintain healthy lifestyle, good personal and environmental hygiene. People should put on a surgical mask when respiratory symptoms develop to avoid spreading the infections to others. Members of the public are advised to avoid going to crowded or poorly ventilated public places when influenza is prevalent. Over the past few days, I repeatedly reminded low immunity high risk groups, such as chronic patients to consider wearing a surgical mask especially when staying in these places. Moreover, the CHP will maintain close liaison with the stakeholders and keep them updated of the latest developments of influenza.


For port health measures and public education efforts at boundary control points (BCPs), the Department of Health (DH) has already reminded relevant departments to regularly inspect and replenish the alcohol-based handrub at BCPs. Moreover, the DH has been carrying out health screening at different BCPs, and patients will be transferred to medical institutions for follow-up if their cases fall within the reporting criteria of suspected infectious diseases, including influenza. Through press releases and announcements, the DH advises travellers who come from affected areas to Hong Kong to wear a surgical mask and seek medical examination if they present symptoms of respiratory diseases. They should also inform the doctors of their travel and contact history. As regards institutional and school outbreaks of influenza, the CHP requires the institutions and schools to report to the CHP if there is any outbreak involving a certain number of cases. The CHP will then conduct prompt epidemiological investigations, implement necessary public health control measures and provide appropriate health advice to the institutions or schools concerned. Following field investigations, the CHP will continue to closely monitor the institutions or schools to ascertain that the outbreak of influenza is under control on the following few days. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Members to ask supplementary questions. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, notwithstanding the Secretary's lengthy reply, his performance over the past few days has given the public an impression that he is slow in handling an urgent crisis. While the SARS epidemic in 2003 had resulted in the death of 299 persons, 12 deaths were recorded yesterday, in just one day, making the death toll so far stand at 111. As far as cases requiring ICU admission are concerned, the death rate is as high as 60%. Just now, the Secretary has not answered several important questions. In the past, in handling certain issues, the Government would arrange media briefings on a daily basis though that might not be necessarily warranted. A case in point is that Mr HUI of the Police Force met the media every day at 4 pm. But regarding the current influenza epidemic, the Secretary has failed to issue reminders to the public, particularly the high risk groups, on a daily basis. Take


5575

for example the simple message of washing our hands frequently. The Government has to make much effort to get the message across to the public. Under the current circumstances, the Government should clearly publicize the message that members of the public, especially the sick and the elders, must wear a surgical mask and get vaccinated. Should the Government attach greater importance to the publicity of such matters? Regarding the preparation work of public hospitals, the Secretary's reply is just empty words because the additional beds are only, so to speak, a drop in the ocean. If the Secretary is still telling us that arrangements would only be made by hospitals depending on the actual situation, a crisis will definitely arise in two weeks' time during the Chinese New Year holidays … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please raise your supplementary question directly. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): … As we all know, even without the outbreak of influenza, the death rate will be rather high during the Chinese New Year holidays. President, according to past experience, only 12 out of the 70-odd general GOPCs will remain open during the Chinese New Year holidays to provide services. Given the particularly high risks this year, should the Government open all GOPCs in order to reduce the risks of delayed treatment for patients as well as the pressures on A&E? I would also like to raise a question on drugs, such as whether there is a sufficient supply of Tamiflu for public use, but the Secretary has not given any reply. Most importantly, despite major outbreaks in over 30 schools and child care centres, nothing has been mentioned in the Government's main reply about having any mechanism or arrangement in place to consider the implementation of various emergency measures such as class suspension at schools. If the Government cannot even handle such simple matters properly, how can the Secretary put the public's mind at ease as they read newspapers every day, particularly in respect of special arrangements to be made by the Government to target the elders and high-risk children over the age of six?


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, please let the Secretary reply. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I want to give the Secretary another chance to answer the questions that he has not answered just now. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as DrKWOK has specifically pointed out that I have not discharged my duty to explain to members of the public the severity of this influenza epidemic and remind them of the need to take precautionary measures, please allow me to spend more time to give a detailed reply. I would like to cite some examples. As we all know, I often meet the media every one or two days to talk about various issues. On the issue of influenza epidemic alone, I have been briefing the media on the latest situation since 17 January 2015. When I first talked to the media on the subject, I had already highlighted the drifted virus and encouraged the public to get vaccinated, develop a healthy lifestyle, maintain good environmental and personal hygiene, and so on. I had also reminded members of the public to wash their hands frequently. On 18 January, I met the media again to brief them on the latest influenza situation, the effectiveness of vaccine protection, and so on. Once again, I encouraged members of the public to get vaccinated. On 20 January, I met the media after attending a radio programme. Once again I talked about the effectiveness of vaccine protection and whether consideration would be given to using new vaccines. I also urged the public to develop a healthy lifestyle and maintain good personal hygiene. During a radio interview on 22 January, I pointed out the problem related to the relatively quick mutation of influenza virus, and compared the influenza situation of this year to that of previous years on the basis of the statistics of the HA and the CHP. Once again, I advised the public again to get vaccinated, especially chronic patients who belong to the high-risk groups. Members of the public should wear a surgical mask and seek medical treatment early if they present any symptoms. On 22 January, I attended a radio interview again to answer questions about the antigenically drifted influenza virus, and I kept reminding the public to take the necessary prevention measures. On 23 January, I disseminated the


5577

same messages to the public again and responded to questions concerning the views of some experts that the vaccine effectiveness might be reduced due to the mutated A/Switzerland influenza virus. I will not mention the relevant details after 24 January, but suffice to say that I have advised the general public through the media on 24, 29, 30 and 31 January, as well as 3 February. Regarding the second question about the contingency measures of public hospitals, I have briefly mentioned in the main reply just now the HA's work to increase the GOPC quota during last Christmas and the coming Chinese New Year. Regarding the use of drugs such as Tamiflu, I can assure Members that there is an adequate supply of such drugs in Hong Kong. Regarding the need to implement class suspension arrangements at schools or otherwise, as I have just stated in the main reply, once any report of school outbreaks has been received, the CHP will conduct epidemiological investigations and provide health advice to the school concerned accordingly. If the CHP holds that a serious outbreak has occurred after considering factors such as the number of patients involved, the seriousness of their cases, the likelihood of a continuous outbreak, and so on, appropriate advice will be provided to the school concerned. If considered necessary, the CHP may advise that class suspension arrangements be implemented at schools with outbreaks of influenza. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): My question is very clear … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, as 20-odd Members are waiting for their turn to ask questions, I cannot allow you to raise any follow-up question. I am sure that if the Secretary has not answered your supplementary question, other Members will definitely follow up. Hence, please leave the opportunities to raise questions to other Members. MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, the authorities should have made the decision for class suspension a long time ago because outbreaks of influenza have already occurred in two schools, affecting some 40 students.


President, as pointed out by the Secretary in the main reply, among the many cases of influenza, some 140 cases (82.6%) and 101 deaths (91%) involved elderly persons aged 65 or above, but how does the Government disseminate such information? Via the Internet. As we all know, not every elderly person aged 65 or above has a computer at home, or knows how to use smartphones or browse the Internet. They receive information mainly by watching free television programmes. While the Secretary has just now mentioned when and when he had responded to questions from reporters, the degree of seriousness is not the same as the regular press briefings held during SARS on a daily basis. The situation can be described as the Secretary telling the public gently that a fire has broken out, but nobody is aware that they should evacuate from the scene. How can the public become more vigilant if the Secretary does not adopt a pressing attitude? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms HO, please ask your supplementary question directly. MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary had actually also experienced SARS. At that time, the Government was under fire for keeping a low profile or even concealing the severity of the epidemic in order to maintain a good business environment. I would like to ask the Secretary: Given his experience in handling SARS, why does he still choose to handle the present case in such a low-profile manner by disseminating information via the Internet, rather than holding regular media briefings so that information can be disseminated to the public directly? As just mentioned by some Members, the Police Force had daily media briefing given by Mr HUI at 4 pm, why does the Secretary not adopt the same approach? Will he change the mode of information dissemination immediately in order to heighten public awareness? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am also an elderly person above the age of 65, and I often browse the Internet. (Laughter) Secretary, please answer Ms HO's supplementary question. (Some Members talked loudly in their seats)


5579

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. Secretary, please reply. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I cannot agree with Ms HO's comment that the Government is handling the epidemic in a low-profile manner. Ms HO is also selective in saying that the Government only disseminates information through websites. I think there is no need for me to repeat in detail the various means of information dissemination as stated in the main replies just now, including terrestrial airwaves, printed leaflets, websites, and so on. Such information serves to repudiate Ms HO's claim that the Government only disseminates information through websites such that elderly persons are not properly informed. As mentioned just now, I have met the media personally 17 times from the latter part of this month (that is, from 17 January) to this day, sometimes more than once a day. I think people would also note my appearances when they watched the television. Moreover, I do not agree with Ms HO's claim that I have been handling the matter or disseminating information in a low-profile or overly gentle manner because on various occasions I just mentioned, say, in some phone-in programmes which lasted for half an hour or one hour, I talked about influenza most of the time. Personally, whenever I meet the media, I would try to bring out a message for the public, that is, they should take the necessary precautions, adopt a healthy lifestyle, maintain good personal and environmental hygiene and get vaccinated. As far as I am concerned, I have been adopting a highly vigilant attitude and hence, I cannot agree with Ms HO's observations at all. MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Just now, I asked the Secretary whether he would change the current mode of information dissemination, including the release of information on a regular basis? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms HO, likewise I cannot allow any follow-up question from you because 20-odd Members are still waiting for their turn. Please leave the opportunities of raising questions to other Members. If the Secretary has not answered Members' questions satisfactorily, I am sure other Members will definitely follow up accordingly.


MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I think much work has been done by the Secretary as well as the CHP, but society has seemingly failed to sense the severity of the influenza epidemic. Why is that so? As pointed out by some Honourable colleagues, the present situation is different from that during SARS. On the other hand, much concern has been expressed by parent groups on the Internet for they consider that little has been done by the Government, and the matter has been handled in a low-profile manner. In this connection, what measures will be adopted by the Government to make various groups in society treat the present influenza peak period seriously? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I agree with Mr LEUNG's observation that notwithstanding the large amount of work undertaken by the Government in terms of publicity and exposition, as well as alerting members of the public of the influenza through various means, the general public have actually not shown great concern. On the other hand, as pointed out by Mr LEUNG, some people have shown overwhelming concern about the influenza epidemic through various social networking sites, and they may even circulate information that is totally untrue. Hence, the actual situation may be exactly the opposite of what Ms HO has claimed. In my view, what is lacking in terms of communication between the Government and outside parties including members of the public is that we fail to fully utilize the social and information networks. The authorities will review how work in this area can be strengthened, especially regarding the need for the Government to make timely clarifications when wrong messages are circulating on the Internet. Regarding the reason why members of the public or society as a whole have not shown great concern, I would like to draw Members' attention to a few points to facilitate their understanding. As a matter of fact, influenza is endemic in Hong Kong with two peak seasons every year. Most people would get influenza at some point of time, perhaps this year or last year. Overall speaking, the death rate of influenza is relatively low; even in the present situation, the death rate is definitely lower than 1%. However, for patients who have acute symptoms or must be hospitalized, the death rate can be 3.5%, which is by no means low. In other words, most influenza patients need not be hospitalized, but for those who are admitted to hospitals, their death rate is


5581

3.5%. For the more severe cases or patients who are admitted to ICUs, their death rate is 50% or even higher. Of course, I do not consider it necessary for me to frighten members of the public with these figures every day, but they do reflect the real situation as well as the severity of the problem. Since 2 February, the CHP has been providing updated information about the influenza epidemic in the front page of its website. Once members of the public click into the CHP's website, they can get daily update on the latest situation of the epidemic, including the number of severe cases of ICU admissions/deaths. I hope this can help convey a correct message to the public and arouse their concern. Through such concern, they will step up protection through adopting a healthy lifestyle, maintaining good personal and environmental hygiene, and considering vaccination. Coupled with the precautionary measures I just mentioned including the proper use of surgical masks, it will help alleviate the severity of this seasonal influenza. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will now call upon Mr WONG Kwok-kin, MrJames TO and Mr Alan LEONG to ask supplementary questions in that order. MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, the menacing influenza has caused the death of more than 100 people, leading to grave concern in society. In this regard, most people would like to receive accurate information about the epidemic. As pointed out by a number of Members just now, the public might treat the matter lightly if inadequate information is disseminated by the Government, but on the other hand, excessive warning from the Government might cause panic in the community. I would like to ask the Secretary: Can the current influenza be treated by some readily available over-the-counter drugs such as flu tablets, or must specific drugs such as Tamiflu be used immediately once a patient gets influenza? This is a question of great concern for many members of the community. As influenza is a common disease, most people may get it at some point of time. But the present situation is somehow different and hence people become quite nervous. If a person gets influenza now, can the method in treating influenza in the past be adopted, such as drinking more water and taking more rest?


SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Mr WONG for the supplementary question. First of all, it is very important to bring out a balanced message, but as I have just pointed out when answering Mr LEUNG's question, I hope members of the public would not treat the matter lightly simply because there are two influenza seasons in Hong Kong every year, and the death rate of influenza is still lower than 1% to date. As I pointed out just now, we must face the facts squarely, that is, in the present influenza epidemic, the death rate of patients admitted to hospitals due to acute conditions or complications is 3.5%, and the death rate of severe cases requiring ICU admission is even higher than 50%. This is a fact which we must grasp correctly. Regarding medication and treatment, practices which are good for health such as drinking more lukewarm water and taking more rest are conducive to enhancing the immunity system and hence, reducing the chances of being infected with epidemic diseases. These practices form part of the healthy lifestyle which I mentioned just now. However, if someone gets influenza, I cannot say for certain whether these practices would actually have curative effect for such a claim would require scientific proof. Regarding scientifically-proven treatment for influenza, apart from providing supportive treatment to patients to avoid the development of complications, specific drugs such as Tamiflu are also useful. Such drugs have to be prescribed by doctors. Hence, if a person feels sick, the best practice is for him to wear a surgical mask first in order to protect other people. He should then seek medical attention and, as pointed out by me just now, he should reveal his full clinical record to the doctor including travel and contact history, and so on. If the patient is diagnosed with influenza, Tamiflu will be prescribed. However, drugs such as Tamiflu should be best taken within the first 24 hours to 48 hours of onset of symptoms. Regarding other drugs mentioned by the Member such as Chinese medicine or other over-the-counter drugs, some can help relieve the symptoms but I cannot say for sure whether there is scientific proof that such drugs can actually treat the viruses. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, as an accountability official, the Secretary's judgment and attitude are critical in handling the epidemic. At present, have the public showed concern or have they showed overwhelming concern, or should the Secretary show more concern so that society as a whole can become more vigilant and take better precaution?


5583

President, I have been struggling as to whether I should reveal this true case here. But my colleagues considered that I should share this case in order to enquire about the triage system of A&E services of public hospitals. What I am going to say is not a formal complaint … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please be concise. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, it is a case concerning my son. A few days ago at 1 am, he was running a high fever at 40°C, so I took him to the Eastern Hospital. Actually he had attended a private doctor previously and had been taking anti-fever drugs for one and a half days. But he still ran a high fever at 40°C. When we arrived at the Hospital, we told the medical staff his clinical record, and he was triaged as a category 2 patient. At that time, the waiting time was about 5.5 hours. Hence, we took him to a private hospital immediately. After examination at the private hospital, he was diagnosed with Influenza A. Eventually he recovered after taking five days of Tamiflu. My supplementary question is very simple. Given that most people in critical conditions would seek medical treatment in public hospitals, for example, if a three-year-old child is still running a high fever at 40°C after taking anti-fever drugs for one and a half days, does he need to be hospitalized? Or at least should a doctor check on him? This is very important because it matters whether the patient can be saved or whether his critical conditions can be alleviated. In this connection, should a review be conducted by the authorities? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I must admit that A&E Departments of public hospitals are now facing enormous pressures. Hence, patient triage measures have been implemented in public hospitals. Under the mechanism, patients will be triaged into five categories. Thereafter, consultation and treatment will be suitably arranged on the basis of the urgency of their conditions. As we are in the middle of an influenza peak period, more patients with various symptoms associated with upper respiratory diseases would seek consultation from public hospitals. As a result, the waiting time for non-urgent patients would become longer. Of course, regarding the triage guidelines and mechanism, they have been put under


the charge of specialists in the HA, while a committee has also been set up to conduct regular monitoring. Reviews would be conducted as and when necessary. Of course, I cannot promise Mr TO today that I will amend the relevant guidelines immediately on account of this case. The HA actually has an established mechanism to conduct regular reviews on the guidelines. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, just now, the Secretary was still calling on members of the public to get vaccinated. I would like to ask the Secretary whether Hong Kong has a sufficient stock of vaccines to target this specific type of influenza? How many people can get vaccinated? President, you may also recall that in 2009, the Government purchased a batch of vaccines against the human swine influenza, but eventually all vaccines had to be disposed of in the landfills. Can the Secretary give us more information about the influenza vaccines? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, there are currently two issues concerning the vaccines against influenza. The first issue has been mentioned previously, that is, whether the vaccines can target the circulating H3N2 Switzerland influenza strain? As I have said, despite the reduced vaccine effectiveness, it can still provide a certain degree of extra protection. Hence, we should strive to encourage more people to get vaccinated. Regarding the quantity of vaccines, as I had already told the media several days ago, the DH and HA have a total stock of some 40 000 doses of vaccines. Specifically, the HA will provide these vaccines to high-risk groups as well as healthcare personnel. In this regard, I have already instructed the relevant authorities to maximize the use of all vaccines during the current period. As for other citizens, they would normally receive vaccination through private doctors in the community. According to surveillance data of the CHP, there is no shortage of vaccines so far. But if more people choose to receive vaccination after receiving the messages in these few days, I cannot rule out the possibility of a shortage. Nonetheless, the CHP will closely monitor the market situation and liaise with pharmaceutical companies when necessary.


5585

I also mentioned another issue earlier, that is, given the antigenic drift, can Hong Kong find a vaccine targeting the H3N2 Switzerland influenza strain? The vaccines currently available in Hong Kong were actually manufactured to target the vaccine strain recommended by the WHO earlier last year in the light of the last influenza season. As production takes several months, vaccines manufactured in October and November are in fact targeting the vaccine strain recommended by the WHO at the beginning of last year. Hence, there is a mismatch between the circulating and recommended vaccine strain. Regarding the situation in the Southern Hemisphere, as the antigenic drift has already been noted by the WHO, it made another vaccine strain recommendation in the latter part of last year, including the H3N2 Switzerland influenza strain. However, the vaccines to be produced are supposed to be used by countries in the Southern Hemisphere in the middle of this year. According to the reply given by pharmaceutical companies in response to our enquiry, the earliest timing for sizable production is around March to April this year. Of course, the questions remain as to whether we still need the vaccines by that time, and whether we can procure them. We will work closely on that. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, many Honourable colleagues are concerned about the severity of the present influenza epidemic is or its impact on the community. I heard the Secretary mention in his reply that the HA has already opened 200-odd additional beds, while 250 additional beds will be opened in a later stage. In my opinion, the public would have expectation if those measures have been taken by the authorities. In fact, it is not entirely correct to say that influenza patients need to be hospitalized. Instead, we should say that influenza patients with complications would need to be hospitalized. Given the provision of additional beds, the public would expect that public hospitals can cope with the situation properly. But as far as I know, that is not the actual situation. President, here is my supplementary question. Notwithstanding the additional beds, there is still a need for manpower support, including nurses and doctors. Regarding the additional beds which are mainly provided in medical wards and ICUs, I would like to ask the Secretary whether he can provide us with the relevant bed occupancy rates, say, over the past three months as well as the period after the provision of additional beds in the HA clusters? The provision of additional beds means a higher bed occupancy rates. I would like to ask the


Secretary whether adequate manpower support is available? Otherwise, the authorities are only saying that additional beds have been opened to put the public's mind at ease, but it turns out that front-line healthcare personnel in public hospitals are actually breaking their backs. How can they stay healthy? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof LEE, please let the Secretary reply. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, Prof Joseph LEE's concern is valid. To cope with service demand during the influenza peak period, we have implemented various contingency measures. As stated in the main reply, some additional beds are opened under the HA's Annual Plan. Generally speaking, when opening these beds, manpower support has been factored in. Yet the same does not apply to additional beds opened on an ad hoc basis. I am sure Members would understand that if additional beds are to be opened to cope with the influenza peak period, the HA might have difficulty in providing sufficient manpower right away within a short time. Hence, the necessary manpower requirement is invariably met by internal deployment. As I pointed out just now, if the situation deteriorates, the HA would need to open a large number of additional beds and deploy the necessary manpower. In that case, staff would have to be re-deployed from other service areas in order to cope with the unexpected manpower requirement outside the scope of the HA's Annual Plan. If necessary, the HA might need to consider adjusting other non-urgent services. I have already mentioned this point in the main reply. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I have to declare that I might have also come down with influenza. President, the number of influenza cases has been rising, and many viruses have spread from the Mainland. Take for example the latest case of H7N9 in Canada, the viruses was imported from China. Given the large number of Mainland visitors to Hong Kong, are the current influenza cases imported from the Mainland? Does the Secretary have any information in this regard? What actions will be taken by the Secretary to reduce the number of influenza cases imported from the Mainland, while ensuring


5587

that Hong Kong people will not suffer from further harm from influenza as a result of the ever-increasing number of Mainland visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I hope Mr CHAN can take good care of himself. I hope he has already consulted a doctor. Mr CHAN mentioned two scenarios. The first one is about one or two H7N9 cases in the United States and Canada. As the patients have travelled to the Mainland, the incidents might have been classified as cases imported into the United States and Canada from the Mainland. Undoubtedly, the H7N9 avian influenza now mainly affects places in the Mainland. Hence, for reported cases in Hong Kong, the United States or Canada, it is possible that their local citizens might have contracted the H7N9 virus when travelling in the Mainland if they have touched any live poultry or visited places where poultry are kept, such as wet markets. When the patients returned home, they brought the disease back to Hong Kong or Canada. Such a scenario is clearly possible. However, it may not be the same case for seasonal influenza. In fact, seasonal influenza has become endemic in different places. According to the data of the CHP, seasonal influenza came early in North America this year than Hong Kong. Hence, it is very difficult to trace how the virus is spreading from places to places. As such, I cannot give a definite answer to Mr CHAN's question, that is, whether seasonal influenza was spread from Hong Kong to other places or vice versa. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I think we all agree that prevention is always better than cure. There are three precautionary measures to fight the present influenza epidemic, namely, vaccination, frequent disinfection or cleaning and wearing surgical masks. As far as vaccination is concerned, as the Secretary has said, it might not be highly effective in targeting the antigenically drifted influenza strain. Notwithstanding the Secretary's repeated public statements, affected citizens, particularly the high-risk groups (that is, children and elders), are still coming down with influenza. The rising trend shows no sign of stopping.


Hence, on account of this situation and under the principle that prevention is better than cure, I would like to ask the Secretary specifically whether he will make a territory-wide appeal for high-risk groups (that is, children and elders) to wear surgical masks? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, some people have indeed suggested that all people of Hong Kong should wear surgical masks. I have also discussed time and again with my colleagues at the CHP, as well as some outside experts in the universities. No conclusion can be drawn for the time being. Some experts hold that it is not the right time to require all people to wear surgical masks, while others have made the same suggestion as DrCHAN, that is, greater efforts should be made to encourage high-risk groups who are more vulnerable due to various reasons such as old age or chronic disease to wear surgical masks in order to prevent influenza. But the fact remains that it would be most important for the patients to wear surgical masks ― Mr CHAN is doing the right thing ― because the virus is spread by the patients' droplets. While the wearing of surgical masks by other people may help to a certain extent, it cannot offer total protection because the virus may also spread easily through direct contact, say, touching by hands. Nonetheless, if everyone has to wear a surgical mask, it will create social alienation. The case of social alienation happened during the SARS epidemic. At that time, everyone wore a surgical mask and they would not come into close personal contacts such as shaking hands. If the situation of social alienation has arisen as a result of all people wearing surgical masks, it may actually help in preventing the spread of influenza. So far, no consensus has been fostered on this practice, and I also find it difficult to mandatorily require the wearing of surgical masks by all people. At this stage, I still maintain the view expressed earlier, that is, people who are sick and frail should wear a surgical mask, while others may consider doing so taking into account their personal circumstances, for example, if they have a weak immune system or if they are chronically ill. Of course, if people stay in well-ventilated places such as the countryside, the problem will not be serious, but if they stay in crowded or poorly-ventilated places, they should definitely consider wearing a surgical mask.


5589

Of course, I respect the different views held by different people. They all have their reasons. As I just said, should the Government mandatorily require the wearing of surgical masks by all people, it will create social alienation, and social alienation per se can help reduce the rate of influenza infection. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, I suggest that the Secretary should take two more steps forward when handling this matter. As he mentioned just now, influenza has become endemic, and this is exactly our greatest concern because whenever we tell elderly people to wear a surgical mask and take medication when they feel unwell, they always say that they would naturally recover in a few days. But as reflected from the current influenza cases, the worst scenario is that patients can die within two to three days. That is really the greatest problem. That is exactly why many Honourable colleagues have kept asking similar questions just now, to the extent that the Secretary might even feel a bit annoyed. I understand that the Secretary works diligently, but the question is that the public at large have yet to take the present influenza situation seriously, which is the worst … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, please ask your supplementary question and refrain from expressing your views at length. MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): My question is very simple. I would like the Secretary to take a few more steps forward. So far, more than 100 people have died from influenza, and it is estimated that the final death toll may well exceed 300. Under the circumstances, what can we do? In my opinion, it is of vital importance to take preventive measures. Apart from wearing surgical masks, I hope the Secretary can consider whether other measures can be taken, for example, can he give daily briefings on the updated situation to serve as a reminder to the public? The point at issue is that the public at large have yet to take the present influenza epidemic seriously, and they only consider it an ordinary influenza. That is the greatest problem and the worst-case scenario. President, I hope the Secretary can take this matter seriously and tell us what he thinks.


SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as I just said, the situation is very serious in my opinion. Through answering questions from various Members just now, I have also explained why some members of the public have yet to take the situation seriously. That is because notwithstanding the large number of severe influenza cases, the overall death rate is still lower than 1%. But we must not treat the matter lightly. As I have reiterated time and again, the death rate of severe cases requiring hospitalization is 3.5%, whereas for more severe cases requiring ICU admission, the death rate even exceeds 50%. Hence, the present situation is indeed very serious. I have also been contemplating what would be the best course of action to take to heighten the vigilance of the general public on the one hand, and avoid causing panic as just mentioned by Mr WONG Kwok-kin on the other? Regarding Members' suggestions that I should meet the media on a daily basis in order to keep the public informed, I can certainly do so. Nonetheless, starting from today, the CHP will provide daily updates. Depending on the circumstances, information may also be disseminated through press releases or press conferences. Apart from providing updates and general statistics on the Internet, we may also issue special messages. Hence, I agree that we can always take a few more steps forward. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, evidently, by allowing three Members to ask urgent questions today, you also agree that the present influenza outbreak is menacing and severe. In our view, the Government does not show much concern while the public are over concerned. Is this a case of the Government underestimating the severity of the problem, the public being over-anxious, or the media playing up the incident? Secretary, this headline appears in a magazine today: "Government plays down epidemic and refuses to use new drugs". This is indeed a very serious allegation. According to the report, a new drug, Peramivir, which is effective in treating influenza was approved by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States in December last year. Although the new drug is more effective than conventional anti-influenza drugs, the HA refuses to procure Peramivir because it has a large stock of Tamiflu, a traditional anti-influenza drug. I would like to ask the Secretary to confirm whether this is the case? Has the Government considered introducing this anti-influenza drug, Peramivir?


5591

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Mr CHAN for the question. Let me briefly clarify the media report or answer Mr CHAN's question: the HA has this drug in stock. Nonetheless, I think a detailed explanation is needed. For the treatment of influenza, we mainly rely on supportive treatment to help prevent complications in patients. As far as seasonal influenza is concerned, the preferred medication is still oral or inhaled antiviral drugs, such as Tamiflu. Regarding the said new drug, it is an intravenous medication, and the HA has it in stock. But as far as we know, the drug company concerned has only registered it in a few places around the world. Insofar as a new drug is concerned, the manufacturer is responsible for its registration in different places, but the drug company has not done so. Nonetheless, the HA has contacted the manufacturer and acquired a supply of the new drug. As it is an intravenous drug, the expert panel of the HA has drawn up the relevant guidelines for its usage, including the suitable patient groups. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): I also consider that the authorities have not done enough in terms of publicity and education in the community for the prevention of influenza. For instance, there are many elderly persons living in housing estates in the districts, yet they do not seem to be particularly concerned or know what to do about prevention. Moreover, in high-risk and crowded places such as public transport, the Government has seemingly made little extra effort to step up publicity or appeal to the public to wear surgical masks. Many people told me that a lot of passengers on the MTR train compartment cough or sneeze, yet they do not wear a surgical mask. In that case, other passengers might get infected easily because there is nowhere to escape. Under the circumstances, what is the Government's plan regarding strengthening publicity, promotion and education in the community to prevent the further spread of the disease? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Dr QUAT for the question. As I just stated in the main reply, a lot of work has actually been done in the districts, for example, distributing publicity leaflets


and health advice in housing estates, and so on. Nonetheless, is that enough to arouse the concern of the public at large in the community? Judging from the present situation, I would say we may need to do more. Regarding the way forward, I have consulted Dr LEUNG and we agree that more publicity in the district level may be required. One possible channel is though district organizations such as District Councils (DCs), especially through the Healthy and Safe City programmes of various DCs. In this connection, we will actively liaise with the relevant organizations in the districts. I would also like to appeal to Honourable Members that if they have contacts with district organizations that can offer assistance, we would be most willing to disseminate information through such channels to ensure greater publicity in the community. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, at the age of 65, I am an elder belonging to the high-risk groups. I learnt about the serious condition of the present influenza epidemic in Hong Kong through public statements made by the Secretary. Hence, I am highly concerned about this matter. Secretary, I had this experience myself yesterday. At 8.30 am yesterday, we were having a meeting in the conference room, and Mr Albert CHAN walked in wearing a surgical mask. The hoarseness in his voice then was even worse than today. Throughout the four hours of the meeting, he spoke time and again, sometimes pulling down his mask. I am gravely concerned about his act. As I did not have a surgical mask at that time, I could not do the things as suggested by the Secretary just now. Moreover, I had no idea how his act would affect me as I was not too far away from him, say, about 10 feet. Under such circumstances, would the Secretary advise the sick Member to leave the venue so as to avoid affecting other Members, or are there some other precautionary measures? This situation can indeed happen to any of the 70 Members. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Mr TAM for the supplementary question. My understanding is that there are two parts to the question. The first part is about the use of surgical mask, I would like to provide an explanation from a more professional perspective. Mask-wearing is an important precautionary measure, but surgical masks must be used properly. Otherwise, it would create problems instead of offering protection. In this regard, we have learnt a great deal during SARS, including


5593

the correct ways to wear and dispose of surgical masks, which must be handled carefully. Once a patient puts on a surgical mask, the inside of the mask would become infected by droplets. If he takes off the mask or puts it on again, the virus might have already been transmitted to his hands and hence, affecting his health. This is a technical question. That is why we must take extra care when we teach people how to wear surgical masks properly in hospitals. Regarding the second part of the question, I think Members would also note that when I enquired about Mr CHAN's health just now, I said that I hoped he had already consulted a doctor. In fact, the best practice is to attend a doctor who should decide whether the patient is fit to continue working or whether he should rest at home, depending on the patient's condition. The decision should be made by the doctor after attending the patient. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, as we all know, the Secretary works diligently, and there is no question about his hard work. We learn from various reports that in the present influenza epidemic, many patients have symptoms associated with upper respiratory diseases, probably because of infection in the lung causing breathing difficulties. As Members may recall, upper respiratory tract infection was also found in SARS patients. At that time, the Government had mobilized Chinese medicine practitioners to help caring for the patients. Under the present threat of influenza, does the Government have any plans to make good use of Chinese medicine to help patients maintain health and hence, recover early? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, during SARS, Chinese medicine practitioners had indeed taken part in treating SARS patients in Hong Kong through a co-operation initiative with Mainland universities. Chinese medicine practitioners from Mainland universities who had experience in treating SARS patients were deployed to Hong Kong to treat SARS patients by co-operating with Chinese and Western medicine practitioners in Hong Kong. Nonetheless, the co-operation initiative was based on scientific research and conducted within the framework of clinical studies. Chinese medicine practitioners in the community always have a role to play whenever there is an outbreak of influenza or other communicable diseases. However, it is worth noting that the present influenza outbreak is different from that during SARS. At that time, the HA had yet to provide formal Chinese


Medicine Services in its hospitals. But now, through collaboration between HA hospitals and non-governmental organizations/local universities, 18 Chinese Medicine Centres for Training and Research are in operation, and they have definitely played an active role in the present influenza epidemic. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, there are frequent exchanges between Hong Kong and the Mainland, including conflicts arising from the activities of Mainland parallel traders. Nonetheless, the Mainland authorities have never disclosed their situation of influenza outbreak. I wonder if that is some sort of national secret. I would like to ask the Secretary whether discussions will be held with the Mainland authorities in this regard? The situation in the Mainland is like a black hole, and coupled with a large number of Mainlanders coming to Hong Kong, what impact does it have on Hong Kong? More importantly, China should disclose its epidemic situation for its own sake as well as for the sake of Hong Kong, isn't that right? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong and the Mainland authorities have already established a regular communication mechanism in respect of epidemiological surveillance or the control of communicable diseases. Regarding the influenza situation in the Mainland, past experience shows that seasonal influenza in southern China usually peaks slightly after Hong Kong, and we have been closely liaising with the Mainland in this regard. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, many people are indeed gravely concerned about the present influenza outbreak, so much so that they worry about getting infected when having contacts with other people. Recently, I heard about the serious situation of avian influenza in the Mainland, and I also note that the selling of live chicken in markets had been banned in Shenzhen. I would like to ask the Secretary: Given the presence of both seasonal influenza and avian influenza now, is it possible that the combination of these viruses may result in more serious consequences such as the emergence of a new virus? Just now, the Secretary talked about the antigenic drift of influenza virus, which made us all the more concerned about other possible ways of spreading the disease apart from personal contacts.


5595

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Mr LEUNG for the question. As a matter of fact, Mr LEUNG has highlighted a long-standing concern in epidemiology, that is, the occurrence of seasonal influenza in different countries or places periodically, while some places might also be affected by avian influenza. We are gravely concerned about what will happen if people in a place should come under the threat of both avian influenza and influenza or seasonal influenza. Will the co-existence of both viruses in the same patient give rise to re-assortment of the viral genome? What will happen if a new type of virus emerges after re-assortment of the viral genome? Of course, the result would be beyond anyone's prediction. The new virus may become less severe or more severe. The severity of a virus can be measured in two aspects, namely, causing more severe infections and being more contagious. If the new virus can cause more severe infections while being highly contagious, the threat of a major influenza epidemic is imminent. In fact, the CHP and experts in universities have been monitoring the situation closely. Hence, whilst we guard against avian influenza, we also remind the public to take the necessary precaution to prevent influenza, receiving vaccination is one of the means. We appeal to the public to get vaccinated for a number of reasons. The first one is of course to prevent seasonal influenza. But the public are generally less concerned about seasonal influenza and hence, we have been stressing that apart from offering protection against seasonal influenza, vaccination can help reduce the chance of re-assortment of the viral genome should a patient get infected by both avian influenza and seasonal influenza. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I am concerned about a question at another level. Secretary, it seems that this year's influenza outbreak is particularly severe, especially because many elderly persons and chronically-ill patients died as a result. Why does Hong Kong's situation seem particularly serious when compared to other places? Surely, is it really the case? Notwithstanding these important questions, the Government seems to be focusing on issues such as which drugs should be used, whether there is regional outbreak, whether the situation has become particularly worse due to manpower shortage, and so on. It seems that no detailed analysis has been conducted by the Government. Just now, many Honourable colleagues have been asking


questions about the prevention and handling of this year's influenza outbreak, but what I would like to know is that given the repeated occurrence of influenza peak seasons every year ― perhaps the Secretary has also heard of the term "big data" in the area of information technology ― whether the DH, HA and CHP would make use of or analyse the relevant clinical cases in the present outbreak or over the past few years, including the age of patients, their distribution, district, treatment, and so on, in order to predict future situations? I do not want to see the Legislative Council having to discuss the same issue year in, year out. Perhaps this year's situation is particularly worse, yet we have no idea why does it happen or what should be done; instead, we can only suggest that the Secretary should make a greater effort to appeal to the public on television. Given that there are two influenza peak periods every year, can the Government make use of technology to project the future actions for handling influenza outbreaks, so that the same problem would not come up year in, year out? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Mr MOK for the question. In fact, Mr MOK's view is absolutely correct. Institutions around the world including the HA, CHP or various universities in Hong Kong, as well as authoritative international organizations (such as the WHO) have been collecting the relevant data and analysing the trend of influenza in order to make future projections. Nevertheless, such approach has its limitations. As we know, the WHO would analyse the virus strains of this influenza season and make a recommendation for the vaccine to be used next year. The biggest problem lies with the time taken for production, and it usually takes months to research, develop and manufacture the vaccines. Hence, authoritative organizations around the world have actually been making good use of these data in the hope of making the best prediction on the vaccine strains for the next influenza season. This year's situation well illustrates that predictions made wholly on the basis of the relevant data cannot always reflect the real situation, mainly because time is needed to produce the vaccines, resulting in lags. Of course, antigenic drifts may vary from year to year, sometimes at a faster pace like this year and sometimes in a relatively normal pace. In fact, under the WHO's mechanism, the recommended vaccine strains tend to offer protection in the range of 60% to 70%. But given the fast pace of antigenic drift this year, even with the relevant data, we cannot necessarily produce or use vaccines to target the circulating virus strains of this influenza season.


5597

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I hope we all agree that prevention is better than cure. Just now, Mr Charles Peter MOK has enquired about the analysis of data. Notwithstanding the Secretary's explanation, it is still quite difficult for the general public to grasp the crux of the problem. In my opinion, it would be most important to inform members of the public how to prevent influenza, rather than getting treatment after falling ill. Just now, the Secretary said that more efforts will be made in respect of publicity and education, and will also co-operation with committees under the DCs. While this idea sounds good, I think it would only be useful to a limited extent. I would like to ask the Secretary whether consideration will be given to setting up mobile stands in local districts and even at MTR stations before the next influenza season, or even at the present stage, so that healthcare personnel can interact with the public to ensure publicity and education? Can this approach help foster closer contacts in the community and achieve a greater effect in respect of publicity, education and disease prevention? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr LEUNG for his suggestion. As far as risk communication is concerned, the CHP has an established mechanism to consider what channels are most effective in maintaining contacts with the public. As I just mentioned, I have consulted Dr LEUNG on this matter. We will contact the DCs and their Healthy and Safe City Committees as soon as possible and explore the ways of collaboration to do more in the community. Regarding the modes of publicity in the districts, such as seminars, door-to-door visits and mobile stands, further discussion is required to finalize the detailed arrangements because we may need to adopt different modes in different districts. Nonetheless, we will definitely explore the relevant options and give due consideration to Mr LEUNG's suggestion. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): The present influenza outbreak is indeed severe as more than 100 people died within the short span of one month. We also note that institutions or special schools with boarding sections are most likely to have an outbreak of influenza because the elderly and the chronically-ill (including persons with disabilities) are most susceptible to influenza.


At present, given the general space constraint in institutions, especially private institutions, isolation is not possible; even subvented institutions and hostels of special schools have no space for proper isolation. I would like to ask the Government whether consideration has been given to setting up temporary isolation centres in holiday camps or other facilities, like during SARS, in the event of outbreaks in institutional settings? If not, what can the institutions do in case of an outbreak in their confined setting? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as pointed out by many Members, prevention is of vital importance. Hence, free or subsidized immunization programmes have been launched by the Government earlier, that is, in October and November last year, with the high-risk groups as the main targets. The targets of subsidized immunization programmes are the elderly and children; whereas for the Government's free immunization programme, the main targets are residents in residential care homes for the elderly and other special care homes. Thus, the immunization rate of these groups may be even higher than other groups in the community. Of course, as I have also pointed out just now, once there is any outbreaks in institutional settings, the CHP will first conduct epidemiological investigations and provide appropriate health advice to the institutions or schools concerned in the light of the outbreak situation (in particular, factors such as the number of patients, whether there is a continuous outbreak, and so on) as well as the objective environment. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has reiterated time and again today that he is extremely concerned about the present influenza outbreak, and he is not being complacent. But honestly, I am surprised to hear the reply he gave just now to Mr James TO's supplementary question, and I cannot quite understand. Mr TO's question is about the handling of a child patient ― it does not matter whether the child is Mr TO's son ― the child was running a high fever, and despite being treated by a private doctor and getting medication for quite some time, the fever could not be brought down, his parents then took him to the A&E department of a public hospital and he was triaged as a category 2 patient, meaning that he had to wait five hours. Finally, his parents took him to another place for treatment, but at that time, many children were still waiting in A&E.


5599

Secretary, this case brings out two issues. Firstly, if a patient has to wait for five hours, his condition may deteriorate. Secondly and more importantly, as many other patients were also waiting in the A&E department, they might be infected should there be any patient with symptoms of influenza. But what is the Secretary's reply? His first response is that A&E departments of public hospitals are facing a tight manpower situation. His second response is that he would not amend or review the relevant guidelines lightly just because of a single case, but he would study the issue in the future. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please raise your supplementary question as soon as possible. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Honestly, I cannot understand his reply. If the influenza outbreak is indeed so severe, should the Secretary give a reply along this line: If patients waiting in A&E have influenza symptoms, special measures would be adopted for the patients to undergo preliminary checking first, and special triage arrangements would be made if necessary. That is what I consider a sensible reply under the circumstances, unless the Secretary couldn't care less. May I ask the Secretary to explain himself further, just in case I have misunderstood his earlier reply? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, when I mentioned a category 2 triage just now, I should have also explained that there are five categories under the triage system of A&E, and the priority of category 2 patients is higher than those in categories 3, 4 or 5. The number of attendees at A&E is indeed too high, especially during the influenza peak period. Let us not forget that A&E should accord the highest priority to patients in critical case under category 1, that is, those requiring immediate treatment. Hence, I would not query the A&E triage guidelines because the triage categories are drawn up after evaluation and deliberation by experts. Under the guidelines, there are reasons why some patients are considered more critical than category 2 patients. Given the limited resources in A&E, we must always accord priority to the treatment of category 1 patients.


As we all know, generally speaking, and in particular during influenza peak periods, A&E alone can never cope with all patients throughout the territory who have influenza symptoms or fever. Hence, I hope the public can also understand that as a rule, influenza patients will not be given category 1 priority under the A&E triage system. Of course, it is another matter if the patient is found to have other complications or conditions apart from influenza when assessed by a nurse according to the triage guidelines. Generally, influenza patients will not be classified as critical cases under category 1. Hence, members of the public should consider seeking treatment from private doctors, depending on their own conditions and means. Of course, when patients seek treatment from A&E, we will still do our best to take care of their needs. During the influenza peak period, the HA has in fact implemented a special arrangement under which special subsidies are offered to doctors in public hospitals (including those in other departments) to provide additional service quotas for non-critical cases in A&E. We will always strive to do our best. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, it is very important to prevent the spread of influenza through droplets and direct contacts. But according to my observation, society has become less vigilant about cleaning escalator railings and lift buttons, street cleaning, refraining from feeding wild birds and pigeons, and so on. Here is my supplementary question. Apart from launching publicity, should the Government also take the lead in promoting awareness through actions? I would like to ask the Secretary whether the Government will take the lead and launch a territory-wide cleaning campaign to tie in with the Chinese custom of every household doing a thorough cleaning before the Chinese New Year? Would it be more effective if the Government can take concrete actions to promote general awareness against influenza? Will such consideration be given by the Secretary? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, it will definitely help in controlling the influenza outbreak if the entire city as well as all members in the community can pay special attention to the maintenance of public and personal hygiene. As I said just now when answering the questions from


5601

other Members, the authorities will contact various district organizations as soon as possible, including the DCs and their Healthy and Safe City Committees, and explore ways to ensure effective precaution against influenza in the community. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, regarding Ms Emily LAU's question just now about the influenza situation in the Mainland, while the Secretary told us that there are contacts and exchanges between the Administration and the Mainland authorities, he has not given an answer about the actual situation in the Mainland. As 111 deaths were recorded in Hong Kong in just one month, can the Secretary provide Members with some information about the situation in the Mainland, namely, the number of severe and death cases for various types of influenza and avian influenza, including H3N2 (Type A) and H7N9, as well as their distribution in various provinces? Does the Secretary have such information? Given the frequent exchanges between the Mainland and Hong Kong, how can the authorities ensure proper pandemic control in Hong Kong? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as I just pointed out when answering the question from another Member, we have regular contacts with the relevant Mainland authorities in respect of the control of communicable diseases, and we also have information about the situation in the Mainland (including the situation of local influenza outbreaks). Just now, I also mentioned the situation in the United States and Canada. Let me now provide some additional information. In the United States and Canada, or even northern China, the peak of the influenza season has just passed, and their caseload has started to decline. In southern China, the peak of the influenza season has just started. Regarding the data sought by the Member just now about various types of influenza (including avian influenza) other than seasonal influenza, we have in fact been providing regular updates on a daily basis. If the Member wants to have such information, we will provide the relevant statistics in a written reply after the meeting. (Appendix I) DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I was asking about the situation over the past one month or so. According to the Secretary's understanding, how many death cases are there in the Mainland, and how does it compare with the situation in Hong Kong …


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, I think the Secretary has heard your question. Secretary, do you mean you will provide the relevant statistics about the situation in the Mainland? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): We will provide the statistics we have to the Council. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, while the elders are the most vulnerable in the present influenza epidemic, we also note that influenza outbreaks have already occurred in some schools. I would like to know more about the advice given by the authorities to these schools. I note that a school has issued the following notice to parents on the Internet: "More than 20 students in our school have already been infected by influenza. Parents should closely monitor the personal hygiene of their children and ensure that they wear a surgical mask for safety's sake." The school asks its students to maintain good personal hygiene and wear a surgical mask. Is this advice good enough? This is the case of a school hit by an influenza outbreak and reported in the newspapers. In this connection, I would like to know … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, you have already asked your supplementary question, please let the Secretary reply. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Mr IP for the question. Regarding the situation of schools and other institutions, the CHP has actually issued two rounds of circulars earlier to inform them about the influenza situation and provide advice on the handling and prevention measures. The CHP will soon issue the third round of circulars to schools and institutions with updated advice on measures to be taken under the present influenza situation, especially when outbreaks have already happened in some schools. Such measures include taking the temperature of students as they arrive at school and advising students who feel unwell or have a fever to wear a surgical mask and go home for rest.


5603

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, the Mainland has seemingly never disclosed any information about its influenza outbreak. Is this some sort of national secret? Recently, the Chief Secretary has led a delegation of Directors of Bureaux to visit Guangzhou for exchanges. I do not know if the Secretary was also a member of the delegation. Or has he made use of that opportunity to ask the Guangdong authorities to disclose the relevant figures, so that Hong Kong people who visit the Guangdong Province can have a better understanding of the local situation? As Chinese New Year is just around the corner, many Hong Kong people would visit their relatives in the Mainland. I would like to know if the SAR Government is aware of the influenza situation in Guangdong Province? Can such information be disclosed publicly? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, as I just said when answering the supplementary question from another Member, we have maintained communication with the Mainland authorities. As far as we know, different places in the Mainland have also publicly disclosed their influenza situation. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I learnt from some reports that the immunization rate of healthcare personnel is on the low side, at just some 20%. I also notice that in his reply, the Secretary said that sizable production of the vaccine against Switzerland type influenza might have to wait until March or April this year. I would like to ask the Secretary if he has any measures or plans to boost the immunization rate of healthcare personnel, so as to give them better protection whilst working under a high risk environment? On the other hand, if time is needed to obtain the bulk supply of the said vaccine, is it possible for the Administration to acquire a smaller supply first and provide them to healthcare personnel as a matter of priority, so that they have better protection when fighting the epidemic? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): First of all, we attach great importance to the immunization of healthcare personnel. At the same time, we are concerned about the relatively low immunization rate of healthcare personnel as a whole. Hence, Members may have noticed that when the immunization programmes were launched in October and November last year, I myself, as well as other colleagues at the HA and DH, had taken the lead to get


vaccinated. We hope other colleagues would also understand that by getting vaccinated, they are not only protecting themselves, but also other people in an indirect way. Regarding the policy concerned, as healthcare workers belong to one of the high-risk groups, we will provide them with free vaccination. As individual staff may have difficulty in getting vaccinated for various reasons, such as hectic work or inconvenience, various facilitation measures would be adopted by different hospitals, for example, by visiting different wards or work areas in the hospitals to provide vaccination to the staff. Nonetheless, as professional healthcare workers, they can make their own choice and decision as to whether they want to receive the vaccination or not. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council has spent more than one and a half hours on these three urgent questions. Urgent question time ends here. We will now proceed to the six oral questions today. First question. ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First question. Safety Standards for Heavy Metal Content in Food 1. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, some food safety concern groups have relayed to me that the standards for maximum permitted concentration of certain metals present in specified foods under the Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) Regulations (the Regulations) are outdated and far laxer than the relevant standards set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). For example, compared with the standards of the rest of the world and even the Mainland of China, the maximum permitted concentration of lead as prescribed in the existing Regulations of Hong Kong is six milligrams per kilogram, which is much higher than the standard of 0.1 milligram per kilogram set by CAC, and some metal content standards in the Regulations are only classified by solid and liquid food with no specific standards set for different types of food. On the other hand, the Food and Health Bureau (FHB) told this


5605

Council in October 2007 that it would formulate a set of comprehensive and clear food safety standards that was applicable to Hong Kong. Also, FHB was mindful that there was always a need to review the food safety standards from time to time, with a view to dovetailing with the latest international practice and development. In this regard, the Finance Committee of this Council approved in January last year the creation of one permanent post of Administrative Officer Staff Grade B in the Food Branch of FHB to enhance its work in ensuring food safety and other related policies and measures. The duties of the post holder include reviewing the safety standards for heavy metal content in food. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the date on which the safety standards for heavy metal content in various types of food set out in the Regulations were last revised, and the details of the revisions;

(2) whether the authorities have, after the creation of the aforesaid

permanent post, started the review of the safety standards for heavy metal content in food; if so, of the details, and whether the review includes amending the relevant provisions of the Regulations; if so, of the legislative timetable; and

(3) whether it has assessed the impact of the ongoing adoption of the

safety standards for heavy metal content in food that are laxer than international standards on the health of the members of the public, particularly children; if it has assessed, of the details?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, ensuring food safety has always been one of the top priorities of the Food and Health Bureau. We are committed to enhancing food safety in Hong Kong through a multi-pronged approach, including updating the food safety standards in legislation from time to time and putting the requisite food types or items under regulation. This will ensure that our regulatory regime is in line with the best international practices and the food consumption behaviour of the public, thereby safeguarding public health. In the few years since 2008, the Government had introduced or amended 14 pieces of legislation relating to food safety, including:


(i) amending the legislation to update the standards for preservatives and antioxidants in food and to regulate the use of melamine in food in 2008;

(ii) legislating in 2009 to empower the Director of Food and

Environmental Hygiene to prohibit the import and supply of problem food and to order the recall of such food;

(iii) updating the list of sweeteners in 2010 for regulation of their use; (iv) enacting the Food Safety Ordinance (Cap. 612) and amending the

legislation to prohibit the presence of three exogenous estrogens in dried milk, condensed milk and reconstituted milk in 2011;

(v) enacting the Pesticide Residues in Food Regulation (Cap. 132CM) in

2012; and (vi) legislating to regulate the export of powdered formula in 2013 to

protect the health of local infants and young children. Food and Health Bureau obtained the approval of the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council in January 2014 to create one permanent post of Administrative Officer Staff Grade B (AOSGB). The new post strengthens the senior directorate support to cope with the increasing workload and to pursue amendments to and implementation of relevant legislation to safeguard public health. Food and Health Bureau, in collaboration with the Centre for Food Safety (CFS), has in the past year since the post was created, effectively carried out the following work relating to the updating of food safety legislation:

(i) tabled an amendment regulation at the Legislative Council in June 2014 to regulate the nutritional composition of infant formula and mandate nutrition labelling of infant formula, follow-up formula and prepackaged food for infants and young children under the age of 36 months. The Legislative Council completed the scrutiny of the amendment regulation in October 2014;

(ii) brought the Pesticide Residues in Food Regulation (Cap. 132CM)

into effect in August 2014;


5607

(iii) published a consultation document in January 2015 to consult the public on a proposed regulatory framework to enhance the regulation of nutrition and health claims on formula products and prepackaged foods for infants and young children under the age of 36 months in Hong Kong through legislation; and

(iv) drafted the amendments to the Imported Game, Meat and Poultry

Regulations (Cap. 132AK) to extend the import control regime to cover poultry eggs, with a view to strengthening the control of avian influenza and enhancing the food safety of poultry eggs. We intend to table at the Legislative Council the relevant legislative amendments in the first half of 2015.

Besides, a few food incidents that occurred in 2014 caused widespread media attention and public concern. Such incidents include the supply of suspected problematic meat products by Shanghai Husi Food Company in July, and the Taiwan substandard lard incident which occurred between September and November. The holder of the newly created AOSGB post played an effective role in handling the two incidents by co-ordinating the response of various departments (including CFS) and providing the required policy steer and resources. In particular, he co-ordinated the issue of three food safety orders by CFS in the Taiwan substandard lard incident. Food and Health Bureau also briefed the relevant Panel of the Legislative Council on the two incidents on three separate occasions. In response to these incidents, Food and Health Bureau has decided to accord priority to reviewing the regulation of cooked meat and to introducing legislative proposals to step up regulation of the safety of edible oil and the recycling of waste cooking oil in Hong Kong. These are also two of the major initiatives of Food and Health Bureau this year as announced in the policy agenda of the 2015 Policy Address. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) and (2)

The Food Adulteration (Metallic Contamination) Regulations (Cap. 132V) (the Regulations) regulates the level of metallic contaminants in food and prescribes the maximum permitted concentration of seven specified metals present in specific food types. The seven specified metals are antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury and tin. Their respective maximum permitted concentration is set out at the Annex. Although the


maximum permitted concentrations have not been modified since the enactment of the Regulations in 1983, the current Regulations has already contained provisions which explicitly prohibit the import, manufacturing and sale of any food containing any metal in such amount as to be dangerous or prejudicial to health. Offenders are liable to a maximum fine of $50,000 and imprisonment up to six months. In order to bring the provisions into effect to safeguard food safety, CFS will conduct a risk assessment to determine whether a food item contains a metal in such amount as to be dangerous or prejudicial to health. In doing so, CFS will take into account the health effect of consuming that food item, as well as the probable cumulative health effect of consuming such item in ordinary quantity.

We have noted the discrepancies between certain metallic

contamination standards and the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) standards. Some standards are more stringent than those of CAC (such as the cadmium limits in leafy vegetable and rice) while some are more lenient (such as the lead limits in beef, pork and mutton). Moreover, the food classification under the laws of Hong Kong and that adopted by CAC are different.

In this connection, Food and Health Bureau has embarked on the

preparatory work of amending the Regulations. CFS has set up a working group under the Expert Committee on Food Safety to offer views on the legislative amendments. The current approach of the Government is to formulate proposals for amendments to the Regulations on the basis of the CAC standards, having regard to local food consumption behaviour. Since the proposals will involve a wide variety of food, CFS is carefully working out details of the amendments. Food and Health Bureau plans to consult the public on the proposed amendments to the Regulations within this year, and aims to put forward detailed legislative proposals as soon as possible after collating the views received during the consultation period.

(3) Under the risk-based Food Surveillance Programme, CFS takes

about 3 800 food samples each year for testing of metallic contaminants to ensure that food on sale in Hong Kong complies with the relevant legal requirements. The number of samples with unsatisfactory results in 2012, 2013 and 2014 was 20, seven and


5609

eight respectively. As mentioned in parts (1) and (2) of the reply, the current Regulations explicitly prohibit the import, manufacturing and sale of any food containing any metal in such amount as to be dangerous or prejudicial to health. Before the implementation of the amended Regulations, CFS will continue to conduct risk assessments to ascertain whether the consumption of the food being tested is dangerous or prejudicial to health to ensure food safety.

Separately, CFS completed a total diet study on metallic

contaminants in 2013, which estimated dietary exposure of the local population to metallic contaminants such as antimony, cadmium, lead, methylmercury, nickel and tin, and so on, and assessed the associated health risks. The results revealed that dietary exposure of ordinary citizens to these metallic contaminants was all below the respective health-based guidance values and was therefore unlikely to pose any health risks.

Annex (1) Maximum Permitted Concentration of Certain Metals Naturally Present in

Specified Foods

Metal Description of food Maximum permitted

concentration (in parts per million)

Arsenic Solids being fish and fish products 6 (AS2O3) Solids being shellfish and shellfish products 10 (2) Maximum Permitted Concentration of Certain Metals Present in Specified

Foods



Antimony Cereals and vegetables 1 (Sb) Fish, crab-meat, oysters, prawns and shrimps 1 Meat of animal and poultry 1




Arsenic Solids other than ― (AS203) (i) fish and fish products; and (ii) shellfish and shellfish products 1.4 All food in liquid form 0.14 Cadmium Cereals and vegetables 0.1 (Cd) Fish, crab-meat, oysters, prawns and shrimps 2 Meat of animal and poultry 0.2 Chromium Cereals and vegetables 1 (Cr) Fish, crab-meat, oysters, prawns and shrimps 1 Meat of animal and poultry 1 Lead All food in solid form 6 (Pb) All food in liquid form 1 Mercury All food in solid form 0.5 (Hg) All food in liquid form 0.5 Tin All food in solid form 230 (Sn) All food in liquid form 230 DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, we know that the CFS and the Food and Health Bureau have put immense efforts into food inspection as the gate-keeper of food safety. These days, many visitors from the Mainland all say that they have come here for the purpose of purchasing foodstuffs because they have doubts about food safety on the Mainland. President, food inspection is understandably very important, but the problem is that the Regulations has remained unchanged for some 30 years, and our existing standards are completely out of keeping with international standards or even worse than those adopted by the Mainland. As our standards are already out-dated, the food concerned is not necessarily safe even if a food test on its heavy metal contents does not show any exceedance in the findings. As the Secretary is well aware, the international and Mainland standard for the content of heavy metal lead in food is 0.1 milligram to 0.3 milligram per kilogram, but our standard is 6 milligrams per kilogram. For this reason, we may have consumed foodstuffs with large amounts of lead. President, the Secretary has not told us the kinds of


5611

harms that our health will suffer if we consume excessive amounts of lead and mercury. The Mainland standard for the content of mercury in food is 0.01 milligram per kilogram, but our standard is 0.5 milligram per kilogram. Secretary, are you saying that Hong Kong people are all invulnerable such that despite these unsatisfactory standards and the consequent consumption of such heavy metals, their health will not suffer any harm? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, first, let me remind Members once again that as pointed out in my main reply, we have already commenced a review based on the CAC standards. Depending on the progress of the review and the outcome of consultation, we will submit proposals on legislative amendments as soon as possible. This is my first point. Second, Members may observe, and I have also pointed out, that there are indeed discrepancies between our standards for heavy metal contents and those of CAC. This is true. Some of our standards are more lenient while others are more stringent. This is my second point. Third, I have also pointed out that the relevant standards aside, the most important part of the whole mechanism is the power of the CFS to conduct risk assessments under the law. The CFS conducts a risk assessment on the content of metallic contaminants in every type of food. Even if the heavy metal content in a certain type of food does not exceed the standard required by the Regulations, the CFS may still take actions if it believes after its assessment that the content of heavy metal may pose risks following the one-off or cumulative consumption of that type of food in an ordinary quantity. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not told us the kinds of impacts that people's health will suffer if they consume foodstuffs containing excessive amounts of heavy metals.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I think I have already attempted to offer an explanation to make Members understand that we will conduct a risk assessment in every case. When we conduct a risk assessment, we will determine whether the one-off or cumulative consumption of the type of food concerned will pose any health risks, based on the heavy metal content revealed by the test and with reference to the manner of consumption. If there are any risks, we will take actions. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary mentions in the last paragraph of the main reply that the authorities completed a total diet study on metallic contaminants in 2013. The last sentence reads: "Exposure to these metallic contaminants was all below the respective health-based guidance values". May I ask the Secretary what "the respective health-based guidance values" refer to ― Hong Kong standards or international standards? Was the exposure below international standards, or was it below the outdated Hong Kong standards? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Let me add that under the regular food surveillance programme from 2012 to 2014, the CFS took a total of over 11 000 food samples for testing of metallic contaminant content concentration. It was found that the concentration of cadmium or mercury in a total of 35 samples exceeded the statutory limit. Samples with cadmium concentration exceeding the limit included 15 vegetable samples, one cereal sample and four oyster samples. Besides, in the case of 15 fish samples, mercury concentration also exceeded the statutory limit. The test results of the remaining samples were satisfactory. Regarding most of the sub-standard samples, their exceedances or breaches were not serious and would not produce any adverse impact on public health. Members must appreciate that since we often prefer a safer approach when it comes to such standards and risk assessments, we usually leave some degree of buffer. Regarding foodstuffs proved to be problematic after testing, the CFS has been taking prompt and effective risk management actions in response, with a view to protecting public health, such as ordering food traders to stop selling the


5613

products concerned or staging prosecution against them, tracing the networks of import and distribution, testing and destroying the sub-standard foodstuffs, notifying the relevant authorities of the exporting countries, and stepping up import surveillance. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, the Honourable Member has specifically asked you to specify whether the standards you mentioned were Hong Kong standards or international standards. Does the Secretary have any reply in this regard? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, when we take actions under the law, we of course follow Hong Kong standards. But as repeatedly mentioned in my main reply, our standards may be stricter than international standards in some cases and more lenient in others. In Hong Kong, when we need to follow any standards, we of course adopt Hong Kong standards. Anyway, besides adopting such standards, we also conduct a risk assessment in every case. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, in part (3) of the main reply the Secretary says that under the risk-based Food Surveillance Programme, the CFS takes about 3 800 food samples each year for testing. In the past three years, the situation did not look very serious, as the number of sub-standard samples was only 20, seven and eight respectively. The situation looks very safe. But how does this figure of 3 800 compare with the figures of other countries or cities with a similar population size or land area? How does this figure of 3 800 compare with the figures of non-metallic substance tests? Can the Secretary provide us with some comparative statistics, so that we can gain an understanding? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I cannot grasp Mr TSE's supplementary question for the time being because his question is a bit vague and general, and involves our comparison with other places. It may take quite some time before I can get the relevant figures and provide them to Members.


Let me perhaps say a few more words here. Just now, when I mentioned Hong Kong standards, I basically meant to say that Hong Kong standards are adopted to deal with food incidents and determine whether there are any exceedances. But for the total diet study and also for the 11 000 samples I mentioned in my supplementary reply just now, we will make reference to international standards. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Perhaps my question is not specific enough. The Secretary says that some 3 800 food samples are taken each year for testing. My supplementary question is: objectively speaking, is this figure of 3 800 large, small or appropriate in comparison with other countries, in comparison with other tests for the concentration of non-metallic substances. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the number of samples we take each year is comparable with those of other developed countries. Generally speaking, on a per capita basis, the number of samples we take is no smaller those of other countries. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question. Regulation of Securities Dealers 2. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, it is learnt that Goodcape Securities Limited (GSL) was a corporation licensed under the Securities and Futures Ordinance (the Ordinance) to carry on Type 1 regulated activity (dealing in securities). Following a complaint to the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) about the failure of GSL to return client securities to the complainant, SFC issued a Restriction Notice on GSL on the 2nd of last month, prohibiting the firm from carrying on all regulated activities for which it was licensed under the Ordinance. On the other hand, while GSL operates as an introducing broker (commonly known as a "runner") that communicates client orders or introduces clients to other licensed securities dealers, some clients of GSL have indicated that they have no knowledge of this. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


5615

(1) whether it knows the current number of runners in Hong Kong, since when and why SFC has allowed licensed securities dealers to operate as introducing brokers, and whether SFC has plans to publicise among investors the differences between the business of a runner and that of a general licensed securities dealer for protection of investors' interests;

(2) given that a licensed corporation is required under the Ordinance to

notify SFC as soon as possible in the event that it is unable to maintain financial resources in accordance with the requirements, whether the Government knows the number of such notifications received by SFC from runners, as well as the respective numbers of cases in which SFC issued Restriction Notices to runners, revoked their licences and apply to the Court to freeze their assets, in each of the past 10 years, and the number of cases among them which involved fraud; and

(3) whether it knows the measures SFC has put in place to verify the

authenticity of the content of the monthly financial resources returns submitted by runners, and if SFC will consider raising the liquid capital level that runners are required to maintain, or introducing new rules to ensure compliance by runners with the requirements on financial resources; if SFC will not consider, of the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President,

(1) According to the information provided by the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC), as of 6 January 2015, 58 licensed firms were subject to licensing conditions that limit their operation to introducing clients and/or communicating transaction orders in the names of the clients to other firms (that is, operating as an introducing broker). Only seven of these firms introduce retail clients and/or relay their orders in listed securities to other firms, while the remaining serve professional investors, transact in collective investment schemes or form part of a larger financial group.


Securities introducing broking has been a long standing business in Hong Kong and has been regulated by the various securities licensing regimes in place in Hong Kong for a number of decades. Under the former licensing regime in the now repealed Securities Ordinance and the licensing regime in the current Securities and Futures Ordinance (the Ordinance), securities introducing broking has been recognized as a type of securities dealing activity and any person who carries on securities dealing activity is required to be registered or licensed.

Through the Internet, seminars and mass media programmes, the

Investor Education Centre (IEC) has been reminding investors that when they choose a securities broker, they should check the relevant information, including the individuals' and companies' licence status on the SFC website and find out from the register what types of regulated activities they are licensed for, as well as any conditions attached to the licence and disciplinary records, and so on. The IEC will continue to reinforce these messages to investors.

(2) According to the information provided by the SFC, on 8 February

2006, a securities introducing broker filed a notification on breach of the Financial Resources Rules (FRR) under section 146 of the Ordinance for liquid capital deficiency as of 31 December 2005. This was rectified on 22 February 2006. A caution letter was issued by the SFC on 3 March 2006.

Moreover, over the past 10 years, the SFC had taken actions against

two securities introducing brokers, including revoking the licence of Union Securities Limited (Union Securities) on 24 July 2014 and serving a restriction notice against Goodcape Securities Limited (GSL) and freezing its assets on 2 January 2015.

Concerning the revocation of licence of Union Securities, an SFC

investigation found that Union Securities, with the involvement of two responsible officers, misappropriated about $400,000 from two clients, and provided false and misleading information to the SFC. The two responsible officers fled Hong Kong in late 2012. As for the incident involving the GSL, enquiries and investigations remain


5617

active. To our understanding, the Police have classified the case as conspiracy to defraud, using false instruments, as well as carrying on business of taking deposits illegally, and are conducting a full criminal investigation.

(3) Currently, the SFC imposes stringent regulatory requirements on

licensed corporations (including securities introducing brokers). Any person who applies for a licence to carry out any regulated activities (including securities trading) has to satisfy the fit and proper criteria as stipulated in the Ordinance. A licensed person is also required to comply with applicable regulatory requirements and licensing conditions at all times.

Licensed broker firms (including securities introducing brokers) are

required to submit monthly financial returns to the SFC, which should be signed and certified by a responsible officer on behalf of the firm. As for the submission of annual audited accounts to the SFC by licensed firms, an independent auditor of the firm is required to express whether, in the auditor's opinion, the audited accounts give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of the firm, and to lodge a report with the SFC upon becoming aware of a reportable matter. If the SFC identifies any exceptions in the monthly financial returns and annual audited accounts submitted by a licensed firm or its independent auditor, the SFC will make further enquiry.

It is a criminal offence under section 384 of the Ordinance if a

person provides information which is false or misleading in a material extent. A person who commits such an offence is potentially liable to a fine of $1 million and to imprisonment for two years.

Regarding the capital requirements imposed by the SFC on a securities introducing broker, they are the same as those applied to a common stockbroker, that is, minimum paid-up share capital of $5 million and minimum liquid capital of $3 million, unless it has been approved as an "approved introducing agent" under the FRR. Under the FRR, "approved introducing agents" are subject to minimum liquid capital of $500,000 and no minimum paid-up share capital requirement.


The SFC sets lower financial requirements for "approved introducing agents" because securities introducing brokers which have become "approved introducing agents" can only introduce clients and communicate buy and sell orders to an exchange participant in the names of the clients. According to the FRR, this type of broker firms must not incur any liability to any person in connection with their clients' transactions, and the SFC also imposes licensing conditions that forbid this type of broker firms from holding client assets or doing any business other than introducing clients.

In conclusion, the Administration and the SFC will keep the current

regulatory regime under review to protect the interest of investors. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, on the present case involving the GSL, may I ask the Secretary to tell us the number of assistance requests that the SFC has received from GSL clients, and also the monetary amount involved? As can be ascertained by the investigation so far, what is the total value of the GSL's frozen assets, and how much can be used for making refunds to the victims or meeting compensation claims? We hope the Government can say a few words on how it can help the affected victims. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, as at 30 January 2015, totally more than 300 persons reported that they had suffered losses due to the closure of the GSL. Since the investigation by the SFC and the Police is still underway, it is inappropriate for us to disclose any details of this case, including the financial position of the GSL. As the investigation has not yet been completed at this stage, it is impossible to ascertain whether the assets of the GSL are sufficient to meet clients' compensation claims. I can tell the Honourable Members that the SFC already organized briefing sessions to explain the situation to investors who may be affected. The Investor Compensation Company Limited (ICC) and the SFC held two briefing sessions in Tuen Mun ― one on 14 January 2015 and the other on 16 January 2015. These briefing sessions were attended by some 200 GSL clients, and they were briefed on the background of the Investor Compensation Fund, how affected GSL clients should lodge a compensation claim, the compensation ceiling set by the ICC and also the procedures of compensation payment. It is hoped that such information can help affected clients understand


5619

the situation. The ICC is currently considering the applications received so far, and may request claimants to provide additional information and documents if necessary. At the same time, the ICC is also exploring how best to categorize the applications received, with a view to handling the simpler claims first. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not replied to one point. He has merely said that more than 300 persons are affected. But can he tell us the total amount of monetary losses suffered by these people? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can you provide any information on the total amount of monetary losses? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): As the case is still being followed up and investigated, we are unable to disclose the figures concerned. (Mr TAM Yiu-chung stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, what is your question? MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I am afraid the Secretary's reply is not quite so sensible. Why do I say so? Since the authorities already know how many people have suffered losses, and these people must have revealed their amounts of losses, how come the authorities are unable to give us the answer? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? Can you provide the relevant information?


SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Since the SFC is still processing the compensation claims, we cannot disclose the relevant figures to Members until the processing is all complete. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, about Mr TAM Yiu-chung's supplementary question a while ago, I think even one such incident is already too many to my sector. Actually, the SFC has all along exercised very stringent regulatory control over securities firms. Besides meeting the capital requirements, securities firms must also submit detailed financial statements to the SFC on a regular basis. Yet, the closure of the GSL this time around is rather complicated because the GSL is just a runner instead of an ordinary securities firm. As the GSL is not a Futures Exchange Participant (Exchange Participant), it must turn to other securities firms that are Exchange Participants if it is to do securities trading and settlement for its clients. However, the GSL engaged not only in securities trading but also in deposit-taking. Can the Secretary tell me which department is responsible for watching over illegal deposit-taking? What are the penalties for offenders? Will the Government step up investor education and publicity? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, although the GSL case is still under investigation, one thing is sure: the case obviously involves fraud and dishonesty, and the Police have classified it as a case of conspiracy to defraud, using false instruments and unlawful deposit-taking. A criminal investigation in many different directions has been launched. On the issue of deposit-taking, the Police are conducting an investigation to ascertain whether any deposit-taking business was undertaken without authorization by the GSL or any companies connected with it. Under the Banking Ordinance, any unauthorized institution that engages in deposit-taking businesses in Hong Kong shall commit an offence. From time to time, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) receives public enquiries or complaints about cases of deposit-taking by institutions suspected to be unauthorized. If there is prima facie evidence indicating the truth of a complaint, the HKMA will report the case to the Police for investigation, and the latter may initiate prosecution based on the facts of the case.


5621

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): May I ask whether the Government will step up investor publicity? I fear that as a result of this incident, the Government may subject the lawful businesses of securities firms to a greater number of harsh and unfair regulatory measures. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, you have already asked your supplementary question. Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): This case involves many kinds of fraudulent acts, and we will definitely take law-enforcement actions. Speaking of investor publicity and education, we also agree that there is room for enhancement, especially because many of those affected by this incident are older in age. Actually, many of our previous publicity efforts were designed for elderly investors, but we will step up our publicity efforts in any case. MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, as pointed out by the Secretary just now, many victims in the GSL incident are elderly persons. Having seen the GSL operating and doing business continuously for several decades, they did not notice anything wrong at all. They simply did not know that the GSL was just a runner, nor were they aware that the GSL was not permitted to take interest-bearing deposits. We can thus see that the incident has actually revealed many problems. Even the Secretary himself has also admitted the inadequacy of investor education and the need for improving regulatory control and law- enforcement. The alarm has now been sounded. As such runners still exist in the community, have the authorities conducted any relevant review? Have the authorities detected any loopholes in our laws and law enforcement? If so, what measures will the authorities put in place to deter or prevent the occurrence of similar incidents in the future? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Ms LEE for asking this supplementary question. At present, the SFC is conducting a risk assessment on the 57 firms (excluding


the GSL) operating as an introducing broker. As I have mentioned in the main reply just now, most of these firms serve professional investors or belong to large financial groups. Only a handful of them serve as introducing brokers for retail investors. We will perform risk assessment accordingly in the light of the above situation, and will further review our regulatory regime if required. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the GSL incident has indeed made the general public skeptical of the safety of doing transactions through such securities firms. As a matter of fact, the confidence of some people has already been eroded. If we are to restore public faith in the securities industry, do the authorities think that they should disclose the information about these 50 or so runners, so that the public can be made aware of their existence in Hong Kong? If some people still want to place their capital with these runners, they should remind themselves that similar incidents may occur in the future. Besides, can the authorities require these runners to obtain a formal broker's licence? In this connection, what can be done by the Secretary? SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the number of runners serving retail investors is in fact very limited. Through the Public Register of Licensed Persons and Registered Institutions in the website of the SFC, investors can check the licensing and registration status of intermediaries. The Register maintained by the SFC sets out all the conditions attached to each licence. Concerning the question just now ― I mean the question of whether similar incidents will happen to other runners (besides the GSL) ― the SFC is now conducting a risk assessment on such runners and will redouble its efforts of law enforcement and risk assessment. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 22 minutes on this question. Third question. Expansion of Hong Kong International Airport into a Three-runway System 3. MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, at present, where an aircraft taking off at the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) in Hong Kong needs to use the mainland airspace, it must enter that airspace at a higher altitude, so as not to affect the safe operation of the aircraft taking off and landing at the airport


5623

in Shenzhen. Such altitude restriction (commonly known as the "sky wall") is 15 700 feet in the daytime. There are comments that the sky wall has indirectly rendered the number of aircraft movements of the two runways in Hong Kong unable to reach their designed capacity. On the other hand, the Airport Authority (AA) is planning to expand the HKIA into a three-runway system. Some green groups and airport development concern groups have pointed out that the third runway of the HKIA can operate effectively only if the mainland authorities permit Hong Kong flights to use part of the lower airspace in Shenzhen. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has studied if the flight path arrangement for the proposed third runway complies with flight safety requirements, and if AA has gained a full understanding of the impact of the current busy traffic at the lower airspace in Shenzhen on the flight path arrangement for the third runway; if it has conducted such studies, of the outcome;

(2) whether it has discussed with the mainland authorities the granting

of permission for Hong Kong flights to use part of the airspace in Shenzhen; whether the authorities will take forward the construction of the third runway only after they have reached such an agreement with the mainland authorities; and

(3) given the comment that as the airport in Shenzhen is expanding

continuously and the number of aircraft movements at the airport has been increasing, the mainland authorities may not be willing to permit Hong Kong flights to use part of their airspace, whether the authorities have studied if, under such circumstances, the expected maximum capacity of 102 movements per hour can be reached after the commissioning of the three-runway system; if the study outcome is in the negative, of the maximum runway capacity per hour that the three-runway system can reach?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA) is one of the world's busiest cargo and passenger airports, and is a major driver of Hong Kong's economic growth. The HKIA under the existing two-runway system (2RS) will reach its maximum capacity in a few years' time. With the Government's support, the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AAHK) has been enhancing the


HKIA's facilities and capacity to cope with the growing demand for aviation services. As mega infrastructure projects take time to complete, we have to plan and implement the three-runway system (3RS) as soon as possible to prepare for the future, with a view to consolidating Hong Kong's status as an aviation hub, thereby enhancing the overall economic strength and competitiveness of Hong Kong. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) My consolidated reply to the questions raised by Mr Gary FAN is as follows: First of all, I would like to take this opportunity to explain the so-called "air wall". The term "air wall" generally refers to the boundary between adjacent airspaces. To ensure that aircraft in adjacent airspaces operate concurrently in a safe and efficient manner, an aircraft must reach a certain altitude before an air traffic control (ATC) unit may hand over the control in respect of that aircraft to another ATC unit. This is to ensure that aircraft drawing near each other from opposite direction in adjacent airspaces could avoid conflicts by flying at different altitudes. This ATC arrangement seeks to safeguard flight safety, and is commonly applied by busy airports all over the world, including those in London and New York. As regards runway capacity, including that of the 2RS of HKIA, it is subject to the time interval and space separation required between aircraft movements on safety consideration, and has no relationship with the aforesaid ATC arrangement. Given the close proximity between the Shenzhen Airport and the HKIA and the fact that the two airports are separately managed by two ATC units in the Mainland and in Hong Kong, an aircraft departing from the HKIA must reach the designated handover altitude of 15 700 ft before it can enter the Mainland's airspace, and an aircraft from the Mainland has to fly at the designated handover altitude of over 19 000 ft when it enters our airspace. After discussions between the two sides, the handover altitude has since 2005 been lowered to 12 800 ft for aircraft entering the Mainland airspace during specified non-peak hours at night (11 pm to 7 am the next day). The Civil Aviation Department (CAD) will maintain close liaison with the Mainland ATC unit in this respect.


5625

There are a number of airports in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) region. Due to the robust economic growth, the air traffic in the region has become busier day by day. As early as in 2004, the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), the CAD of Hong Kong and the Civil Aviation Authority of Macao (CAAM) has set up a Tripartite Working Group (TWG) to formulate measures to improve the airspace structure and ATC arrangements in the PRD region to optimize the use of airspace and enhance safety. In 2007, the TWG drew up the "PRD Region ATC Planning and Implementation Plan (Version 2.0)" (the Plan), which clearly stipulated the short, medium and long term optimization targets and measures to be achieved and implemented before 2020. The ultimate target of the Plan is to achieve joint airspace planning, use of common standards and harmonized flight procedure design for the air traffic in the region, thereby ensuring safe and efficient use of the airspace, for mutual benefits and a win-win situation to the three sides. The Plan was drawn up by the three sides based on the safety standards promulgated by the International Civil Aviation Organization. In addition, the future expansion needs of the airports within the PRD region, including the development of the 3RS of the HKIA, the three-runway planning of the Bao'an Airport in Shenzhen and the five-runway planning of the Baiyun Airport in Guangzhou were taken into account during the formulation of the Plan. The Plan is premised on the mutual co-operation and co-ordination among Hong Kong, the Mainland and Macao with a view to optimizing the use of PRD airspace resources through adjustment of flight procedures and optimization of ATC measures, therefore facilitating the future development of the airports in the region. The CAD has been maintaining close liaison with the CAAC and the CAAM through the TWG to discuss the implementation of the measures set out in the 2007 Plan. At the moment, a number of improvement measures in the Plan have been implemented, including the establishment of peripheral flight paths in the PRD region, the addition of handover points and the adjustment of the Zhuhai airspace structure. To cope with the development of the 3RS of the HKIA, the CAD will continue to discuss with the ATC units in the Mainland and in Macao on the enhancement of flight procedures and ATC measures through the TWG. In January this year, I visited the CAAC to discuss the collaboration of airspace matters between the Mainland and Hong Kong, with a view to expediting the implementation of the various enhancement measures set out in the


2007 Plan. The CAAC expressed interest in the development of the aviation industry of Hong Kong, and was supportive of the development of the 3RS. The CAAC also supported the ATC units of the two places to maintain liaison and co-operation. The CAD is discussing with the ATC units in the Mainland, with a view to convening the next tripartite meeting as soon as possible to deliberate the arrangements for full implementation of the enhancement measures set out in the Plan, as well as the specific issues to be dealt with during the implementation process. The planning objective of the 3RS is to gradually achieve a maximum capacity of 102 movements per hour after the commissioning of the 3RS, in line with the growth of demand for aviation services. Deputy President, amidst competition brought about by the active expansion plans of other airports in the region, the development of the 3RS is crucial to maintaining Hong Kong's status as a global aviation hub. Its strategic significance to the competitive strength of Hong Kong cannot be neglected. The 3RS will also bring about tremendous economic gains and create huge number of direct and indirect job opportunities for Hong Kong. MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary's main reply simply cannot clarify what he means by optimization measures and "gradual" in his response, and whether these measures include Shenzhen's permission for Hong Kong flights to use part of its airspace. Deputy President, my main question quotes a recent study conducted by two organizations ― the Airport Development Concern Network and Green Sense ― on nearly 18 000 flights landing at the Shenzhen Airport. According to a flight path study relating to all these flights, the landing paths of 43% of these flights, that is, 3 877 flights, will intersect with the northward departure track and missed approach tracks of the future 3RS. The intersections are as represented by the three circles in this diagram, and the vertical clearance in each case cannot meet international safety standards. Hence, Secretary Anthony CHEUNG must give a clear answer as to whether the Mainland authorities will permit Hong Kong flights to use part of the Mainland airspace. If the Mainland authorities refuse to do so, would the third runway, which costs so much in its construction, end up like the Express Rail Link (ERL) today? The ERL has now turned into a "large white elephant" due to the lack of co-location arrangements.


5627

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the information from the two organizations quoted by Mr FAN is rather simplistic, but my reply just now is based on the 100-page plan drawn up by the aviation authorities of the three places ― the Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC), the CAD of Hong Kong and the Civil Aviation Authority of Macao (CAAM) ― in April 2007 through the Pearl River Delta Region Air Traffic Management Planning and Implementation Supervisory Group. The ATC authorities in the three places have thoroughly discussed how best to optimize the PRD airspace, with a view to facilitating the sustainable development and expansion of the different airports there. As I mentioned earlier, the Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport has a plan for five runways. Hong Kong has a plan for three runways, and Shenzhen also has a plan for three runways. The 100-page plan aims precisely to improve aviation procedures and ATC arrangements within such a busy aviation region. Therefore, this is a question which must not be answered rashly. At present, the Shenzhen airport and the Hong Kong airport do not need to use the airspace of each other. In case of future expansion, as when both the Shenzhen airport and the Hong Kong airport adopt the 3RS after expansion, the Version 2.0 Plan that I just mentioned will enable both sides to use the adjacent airspace. The northward departure track of the Hong Kong airport will slightly enter the airspace of Shenzhen, known in the industry as the north downwind leg. According to the approach procedures, aircraft departing from the Shenzhen airport will slightly enter the airspace of Hong Kong, that is, the long downwind leg to the south of the Shenzhen Airport. So, the concept is about making the best use of the overall PRD airspace. MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My question is very clear. It is not about any optimization or spending of money for Mainland airspace entry as discussed by the Secretary just now. I asked the Secretary whether the Mainland would permit Hong Kong flights to use part of the airspace in Shenzhen … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, please sit down.


MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): … so that upon the completion of the third runway in Hong Kong, we can use the Mainland airspace there. If permission is not granted, the development of our 3RS will be restricted. The Secretary has likewise failed to answer my earlier question on the word "gradual" used in his response … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, you have already pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add? MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): I asked … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have already asked a follow-up question. A Member can ask only one follow-up question, not several. MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Secretary, how long will it take to gradually achieve a maximum capacity of 102 movements per hour? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my main reply is very easy to understand. Our target is to achieve a maximum capacity of 102 movements per hour under the 3RS. But whether the maximum capacity of 102 movements can be achieved depends upon the traffic demand at that time. Therefore, I have mentioned in my reply that we would gradually achieve this air traffic movement capacity on the basis of increases in air transport demand. But this is not the construction capacity. Besides, Mr FAN … (Mr Gary FAN stood up to speak)


5629

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, I have not called upon you to speak. The Secretary will now reply and it is not your turn to speak. Please sit down. You may only speak when I call upon you to do so. Secretary, do you still have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Mr FAN asked whether the Mainland authorities would give their consent. The tripartite plan I mentioned earlier has been drawn up by the CAAC, the CAAM and the CAD of Hong Kong. Can anyone possibly say that the CAAC do not represent the Mainland authorities? MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the new airport in Shenzhen has inaugurated, and it is going to construct the third runway next year (in 2016). However, no decision on the third runway of the Hong Kong airport has been made despite all the long discussions. The likely result must be the gradual erosion of our competitiveness. May I ask the authorities how they are going to maximize the effectiveness of the third runway of the Hong Kong airport in the face of the competition from neighbouring places? Have the authorities conducted any negotiations on Freedom Rights with other places or countries? Do the authorities have any plans? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Hong Kong has signed over 60 civil aviation agreements (Freedom Rights agreements) with other places (including the Mainland), and the number of such agreements is increasing. Foreign flights entering the Mainland via Hong Kong or flying straight to the Mainland will involve different Freedom Rights because the Mainland is under a separate jurisdiction of airspace control. Mr WONG is right in saying that the Hong Kong airport is facing fierce competition from the neighbouring airports. Let me provide some figures here. The target turnover of the Changi Airport in Singapore after expansion is 130 million passenger trips. For the airport in Seoul, Korea, it is 100 million passenger trips. For the Narita Airport in Tokyo, it is 127 million passenger trips. In the case of the Pudong Airport and the Hongqiao Airport in Shanghai, a


combined total of 110 million passenger trips is expected. And, the target of the Guangzhou airport is 80 million passenger trips. The target of the 3RS in Hong Kong is 100 million passenger trips. All this shows the considerable growth in air traffic within the region, and Hong Kong is facing challenges. If no reasonable expansion is carried out, I fear that Hong Kong's status as an aviation hub would be threatened. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think we should remain calm when discussing this issue. I believe the Secretary can also appreciate people's worry and fear that when the third runway is completed, it may be unable to serve any useful purposes. You know, airspace negotiations ― as the Secretary says in his main reply ― are still going on. Certain measures were indeed finalized in 2007, but we must still strive to expedite their implementation. Hence, the public perception is that the authorities' approach is to seek funds for the construction of the third runway on the one hand, and to hold negotiations on airspace availability on the other, in the hope of preventing the third runway from becoming something that serves no useful purposes but causes environmental damage. Are there any solutions? Transparency is an issue. Deputy President, let me try to put my question in specific terms. Secretary Anthony CHEUNG says that the ultimate target is to achieve "joint airspace planning, use of common standards and harmonized flight procedures". Does this mean that the CAAC will execute and manage all these airspace traffic control or related arrangements totally on behalf of Hong Kong? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy, President, the ultimate target of "joint airspace planning, use of common standards and harmonized flight procedures" mentioned in the 2007 Plan is meant to ensure flight safety from the standpoint of procedures. Flight procedure arrangements and ATC measures are very important, especially during periods of frequent flight movements. Besides, the standards promulgated by the International Civil Aviation Organization must also be complied with. The Plan does not mention any change in the role of Hong Kong as an independent ATC unit. However, it must be added that individual ATC units must indeed step up their co-ordination with one another.


5631

As a matter of fact, under the Version 2.0 Plan, some flights from Hong Kong will slightly enter the airspace of Shenzhen when going northward into the Mainland airspace, and flights from Shenzhen will also slightly enter the airspace of Hong Kong when they are flying southward. Thus, the two sides must strengthen their co-ordination. Dr CHAN has expressed the hope that the third runway will not become something useless after its completion. Any responsible governments must think likewise. Nevertheless, the further expansion of the international airport in Hong Kong can no longer afford any delay. We have treated this issue very responsibly and pragmatically, and we realize that regarding the airport, we must do well in the following three aspects. First, we do not want to damage the environment. When implementing the whole airport project, our emphasis is both construction and conservation. Second, in respect of overall financing, all proposals must be reasonable, and so must the costs. Third, we must optimize the use of the airspaces throughout the PRD region upon the completion of expansion. In this connection, the Version 2.0 Plan already points out the broad directions, but the three sides still need to discuss a lot of measures. Some technical and co-ordination issues are involved, such as the units of measurement adopted by the three sides. Hong Kong adopts the imperial units of measurements, but the Mainland adopts the SI System. Hence, co-ordination is required. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): I'm sorry. I want to follow up a supplementary question very quickly. The Secretary has not stated clearly whether Hong Kong's airspace control will come under CAAC planning due to the ultimate target of "joint airspace planning". SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have said that Hong Kong is still an independent ATC unit. Under the Basic Law, Hong Kong shall be an independent unit in respect of civil aviation. As I mentioned earlier in my reply to Mr WONG Ting-kwong's supplementary question, Hong Kong is a completely independent unit in Freedom Rights negotiations with foreign countries because it has been authorized by the Central Government to do so.


MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Hong Kong people have learnt many bitter lessons. When the Government wanted to build the ERL, it applied for over $60 billion, but it now fails to put in place any co-location arrangements, so its undertaking on efficiency cannot be honoured. In order to construct the third runway of the airport, the authorities now want to apply for more than $100 billion. My greatest worry is that the $100 billion spent on constructing the third runway will all be wasted again if the airspace negotiations cannot bear any fruit after its completion. Will this happen? Hong Kong people have learnt many bitter lessons, and the Secretary has also deceived us many times. How can we believe that the Secretary can achieve success in the negotiations? Obviously, the negotiations have not been successful. The authorities only say that tripartite meetings will be held as soon as possible. We all know that a tripartite meeting has not yet been held. It is most worrying that even if a tripartite meeting is held in the future, Shenzhen may not necessarily permit Hong Kong flights to use part of its airspace because the issue is about two separate airspaces. In that case, the runway built in Hong Kong cannot be used and it will become another "white elephant". Secretary, is it still too early to talk about the construction of the third runway? Would you agree that before any proper discussions on Freedom Rights, there is simply no need to plan for a third runway? Will the authorities promise that before any success in Freedom Rights negotiations and the proper handling of the "sky wall" issue, Hong Kong will not construct the third runway, lest it should become useless after damaging the environment and spending $100 billion? SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first, I would like to explain that this issue has nothing to do with Freedom Rights and the "air wall". I mentioned in my main reply that the term "air wall" refers to the boundary between adjacent airspaces. From the perspective of Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, our concern should be whether any conflicts may occur in the future over the use of airspace and whether there can be proper co-ordination between different ATC units. As I said earlier, the Version 2.0 Plan drawn up in 2007 already proposes such a target, and the relevant issues will be addressed accordingly.


5633

Since 2004, the TWG has held more than 40 meetings and the related issues have been discussed over and over again. The short-, medium- and long- term measures proposed at these meetings cannot be implemented within two or three years because many of them require co-ordination, and overall planning and collaboration is also required. In any case, the Government is considering the specific proposals submitted by the AA. The highlights include, first, the impact of the third runway on the environment; the AA has completed the related environmental assessment procedures; second, financing arrangements; third, issues related to airspace and other related issues. The Government will carefully consider these issues and it will not implement the plan for the third runway with eyes closed. I understand that many Members are concerned about airspace issues, and as Secretary for transport and Housing, I am even more concerned about this issue. Many people are concerned about Shenzhen but I hope they would also be concerned about Hong Kong. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question. Involvement of Hong Kong Garrison of People's Liberation Army in Training of Local Youngsters 4. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it has been reported that on the 18th of last month, a new uniformed group known as the Hong Kong Army Cadets Association (HKACA) held its founding ceremony at Ngong Shuen Chau Barracks of the Hong Kong Garrison of the People's Liberation Army (HK Garrison). The Chief Executive, the Director of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and the commander of the HK Garrison serve as HKACA's honorary patrons, while a number of Directors and Secretaries of Bureaux are its honorary advisers. It has also been reported that the HK Garrison will assist in training HKACA's members. Besides, a community organization has been organizing the Military Summer Camp for Hong Kong Youth jointly with the HK Garrison and the Education Bureau each year since 2005. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


(1) of the role of the Government in HKACA, and whether it will participate in the operation of, provide financial support for or organize activities jointly with HKACA; if it will, of the details;

(2) whether it has studied and assessed if the HK Garrison's assistance

to local uniformed groups in training the youth, including providing training on live-ammunition shooting, weapon disassembly and assembly, military boxing and military knowledge, etc., in military training camps, is in contravention of Article 14 of the Basic Law, which provides that the HK Garrison shall not interfere in the local affairs of Hong Kong, and any provision of the Public Order Ordinance; if the study and assessment outcome is in the affirmative, of the details; if the study and assessment outcome is in the negative, the justifications for that; and

(3) whether it knows the role of the HK Garrison in HKACA, and

whether the HK Garrison will participate in the operation of, provide financial support for or organize activities jointly with HKACA; if the HK Garrison will, of the details; as there are comments that in the past, the HK Garrison used to maintain a low-profile presence in Hong Kong and was rarely involved in Hong Kong's local affairs, whether the Government has approached the mainland authorities to gain an understanding of whether the HK Garrison has changed its low-profile approach recently to become actively involved in Hong Kong's local affairs by assisting in training HKACA's members?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): I thank Mr IP for his question. Deputy President, uniformed Groups (UGs) have a long history in Hong Kong and they have been taking up the role as agents for organizing youth activities. The Home Affairs Bureau currently provides recurrent subvention for 11 UGs to support their work in youth development. The Home Affairs Bureau-subvented UGs include The Scout Association of Hong Kong; the Hong Kong Adventure Corps; the Boys' Brigade, Hong Kong; and so on, consisting of over 130 000 youth participants. There are also UGs not subvented by the Home Affairs Bureau, for example, the Auxiliary Medical Service of Hong Kong, the Civil Aid Service, and so on. Any UG that is set up by the public may operate on its own so long as they register in accordance with relevant requirements and abide by the laws of Hong Kong.


5635

UGs provide various kinds of group activities outside the classrooms to help enhance the youth's confidence, discipline and leadership skills; train up their physical fitness, as well as offering opportunities for participating in voluntary community service and overseas exchange activities to widen their horizons and build up positive values. The Chief Executive announced in his 2014 Policy Address that the recurrent subvention to UGs would be doubled. UGs can make use of the funding to provide more diversified training, enhance their corporate governance, strengthen their training to the voluntary leaders, and so on, so as to raise the quality of their youth service continually. We also encourage all UGs to strengthen their recruitment so that more youths can participate in their activities. To help needy students who are interested in joining UGs, the Home Affairs Bureau has set up the Assistance Scheme for Needy Student Members, under which additional assistance is provided to UG members who are Primary One to Secondary Six students for buying uniforms and accessories as well as participating in training activities. The newly-established Hong Kong Army Cadets Association (HKACA), which was set up last month, is pioneered by a group of passionate members in the community. As we understand, the HKACA is going to leverage on the past activities of the Military Summer Camp for Hong Kong Youth as the basis to provide regular training to promote spirit of unity, discipline and stamina among youth, so that they can be equipped to contribute to the development of Hong Kong and our country. We welcome the establishment of this new UG and wish that it would work on its corporate governance and improve its transparency, similar to what other UGs are doing, so that the community can have a better understanding of the organization and avoid unnecessary speculations and concerns. The answers to the three parts of the question raised by Mr IP are as follows:

(1) The HKACA is an organization that has just announced its establishment. The Government did not take part in its formation or provide any financial support; nor does the Government participate in its operation or co-organize with it any activities. The


Home Affairs Bureau has not received any funding application from the organization. If we receive such an application in future, we will consider it thoroughly in accordance with our established criteria.

(2) ever since the Reunification over 17 years ago, the Hong Kong

Garrison of the People's Liberation Army (HK Garrison) in Hong Kong has been performing defence functions in Hong Kong in strict accordance with the Basic Law, the Garrison Law and other relevant ordinances. The HK Garrison does not interfere in the local affairs of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The HK Garrison has been putting a lot of emphases on building up

its military strength and performing its defence functions, which contribute greatly to the maintenance of the long term economic prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. At the same time, the HK Garrison has been enthusiastic in participating in various kinds of charitable work in Hong Kong and communicating with local residents. For example, the HK Garrison organized many military camp open days that allowed over 500 000 citizens to visit the camps and various types of light and heavy weapons; the HK Garrison planted over 70 000 trees through joining the Hong Kong Tree-planting Day; over 6 400 officers and soldiers donated blood to Hong Kong residents; the military marching band and artistic team have been popular and were from time to time invited to perform to local residents; the HK Garrison also organized many visits to the aged and the young ones. Throughout these years, the HK Garrison has organized 10 Military Summer Camp for Hong Kong Youth and helped train up many participants.

The HK Garrison has built up an outstanding image and gained the

recognition, trust and praise from the residents. We have never heard of any case of the HK Garrison violating the Basic Law and other relevant laws.

As for the newly-established HKACA, it is set up in accordance with

the law. According to its Articles of Association, there is no mention of issues such as live-ammunition shooting as raised in the question.


5637

(3) The HKACA is an autonomous civil organization and has no subordinating relationship with the HK Garrison. The HK Garrison did not participate in the establishment of the HKACA, and will not participate in its operation or provide any financial support.

The HK Garrison performs its duty and responsibilities in accordance with the law and this principle will remain unchanged. The discussion on the so-called "low-profile", "high-profile" presence is only the comment made by some third parties, rather than an approach that the HK Garrison adopts deliberately. On 29 June 2012, the day before Hong Kong celebrating its 15th Anniversary of Reunification, the HK Garrison was inspected by Mr HU Jintao, the then Chinese President and Chairman of the Central Military Commission, at the Shek Kong barracks. The troops inspected were in 15 formations with more than 3 000 officers and soldiers from the army, navy and the air force; the maneuverable missiles and other equipment were also on display. A number of well-known community leaders in Hong Kong and the past participants of Military Summer Camp for Hong Kong Youth and the tertiary military camp also attended the ceremony. The inspection was widely reported by the media and drew much attention both locally and overseas. This has obviously nothing to do with a "low-profile" or "high-profile" presence. The HK Garrison embodies the autonomy of our country. On 1 July 1997, the HK Garrison marched in on time and stationed in the designated positions. Since then, HK Garrison's role, function and principle, as well as their direction have remained the same. We should all support the work of the HK Garrison. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the main concern of my question is whether the HK Garrison has strictly complied with the existing law and system, including the Basic Law, and I would like to follow up the issue of military training. In the main reply, the Secretary states that in the Articles of Association of Hong Kong Army Cadets Association (HKACA), there is no mention of issues such as live-ammunition shooting as raised in the main question. And yet, as the Secretary has said in the main reply, the HKACA is going to leverage on the past activities of the Military Summer Camp for Hong Kong Youth (Military Summer Camp) as the basis to provide regular training. Hence, we must find out the kind of training provided in the summer camps.


There is clear description on the Internet and according to the information on the website, the Military Summer Camp for Hong Kong Youth mainly provides military training, including foot drills, military boxing, weapon disassembly and assembly and live-ammunition shooting. If the establishment of the HKACA is to intended to turn the training on the aforesaid skills into a kind of regular training, will live-ammunition shooting, military boxing, weapon disassembly and assembly that are not mentioned in its Articles of Association actually become part of the training in the future? If this is really the case and the training is to be conducted by the HK Garrison, will there be any contravention of the relevant provisions of the Public Order Ordinance, or the Basic Law provisions on the role of the HK Garrison? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I have stated in the main reply, the Military Summer Camp has been held 10 times in a row over the years, and I myself also attended some of the passing-out ceremonies. The Military Summer Camp mainly seeks to cultivate the discipline of young people and provide them with moral education, in addition to enhancing their self-management ability and confidence. The Military Summer camp does not offer any training of a military nature, and its training activities concentrate wholly on young people's ethics and values. We have never heard of any contraventions of the law in connection with the 10 camps held in the past. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now the Secretary said that the Military Summer Camp seeks to … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You only need to point out the part of the supplementary question that the Secretary has not answered. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): I am actually about to make my point. The Secretary says that the aforesaid training activities are not the main contents of the Military Summer Camp. But in reality, they are the main contents. In that case, is there any contravention of the relevant laws?


5639

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, you have pointed out the part that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, let me reiterate that we have never heard of or received any news about contraventions of the law in the Military Summer Camp. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the HKACA has aroused widespread concern since its establishment on 18 January. But since its aim is to enhance young people's confidence and discipline by teaching them Chinese-style foot drills, I fail to see how the provision of assistance by the HK Garrison will clash with the Basic Law. Rather, I am interested to ask the Secretary when the HKACA will recruit new members and what the requirements are. For example, is there any weight restriction? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr CHEUNG for its supplementary question. Although I was invited by the HKACA to be its honorary adviser, I will only give advice upon its request. I therefore do not have the slightest idea about the actual operation of the HKACA, including its future recruitment, recruitment targets and weight restriction. Thus, all enquiries should be directed to the HKACA. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has pointed out in part (3) of the main reply that the HKACA has no subordinating relationship with the HK Garrison, that the HK Garrison did not participate in the establishment of the HKACA, and that the Hong Kong Garrison will not participate in its future operation or provide any financial support. In that case, financial support aside, will material and manpower support also be excluded? Under Article 14 of the Basic Law, the HK Garrison is only responsible for the defence of Hong Kong. The main reply mentions a troops inspection and open days as examples of the work done by the HK Garrison ― I can treat them as an armaments exhibition and military music performances. It also mentions certain charity work, such as tree planting, blood donation and visits. My supplementary concerns the kinds of activities that are permitted and prohibited. Is the


provision of military training a kind of defence work? If military training is treated as charity work, then what kind of activities are prohibited? If everything can be included in this scope, what is the use of Article 14 of the Basic Law? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the HK Garrison has provided training for youths for many years, and Hong Kong residents have never voiced any opposition. As a matter of fact, such activities have been well-received by young participants and their parents. Such activities are clearly not any form of military training but just ordinary training. As far as my understanding goes, these are all charity work, and they have been going on all the time . DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, has any part of your supplementary question not been answered? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is: financial support aside, is the Secretary aware that the HK Garrison has provided any material and manpower support to the HKACA? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think the HK Garrison should deserve our welcome if its aim is to carry on the work of the Military Summer Camp in the past and continue to provide training to young people. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Since the Secretary is an honorary adviser of the HKACA, and SAR Government officials from the Chief Executive to the Secretaries of Department and Directors of Bureaux are either its patrons or advisers, the Secretary will definitely find it difficult to detach himself when making a reply. Nonetheless, I still want to ask the Secretary if he and other government officials have ever studied Article 17 of the Garrison Law, which clearly states, "Members of the Hong Kong Garrison shall not join any political organizations,


5641

religious organizations and public organizations of Hong Kong." One of the personages who are patrons of the HKACA is TAN Benhong, who takes part as a member of the HK Garrison. Does the Secretary think this is in contravention of the Garrison Law? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this is not in contravention of the Garrison Law. Commander TAN was invited by the HKACA to serve as an honorary patron. The role of an honorary adviser is as the title suggests, and he has accepted the post to show his recognition of the work and direction of youth training. The Articles of Association of the HKACA does not set out a role for honorary patrons in its actual operation. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered? DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, is the sudden emergence and disappearance of honorary patrons due to the public attention drawn to Article 17 of the Garrison Law? Is this the reason for the disappearance of all honorary patrons from the Articles of Association of the HKACA? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as we all know, all associations are required to register under the laws of Hong Kong, and the time from drafting the articles of association to actual operation is very long. As a matter of fact, the HK Garrison has no role to play under the Articles of Association of the HKACA. Hence, the question of honorary patrons suddenly emerging and disappearing simply does not exist. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary mentions in the main reply that 130 000 people have joined the UGs in Hong Kong, implying that there is nothing special about all this. However, as we all know, the HKACA is no ordinary UG. Rather, it is nicknamed "The Lobster's Regiment"


because it is composed of top government officials and the commander of the HK Garrison, who are all no ordinary people. Interestingly, the HKACA was set up after a number of Beijing "big shots", including CHEN Zuoer, had strongly criticized Hong Kong for doing badly in brainwashing and condemned Secretary for Education Eddie NG for not doing his best to brainwash students. Secretary, be honest, is the HKACA given the heavy national responsibility of continuing to brainwash young people? And, must the HKACA work hand in hand with the Communist Youth League and the Young Pioneers when performing this brainwashing task? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I am aware, the formation of the HKACA has nothing to do with the remarks made by CHEN Zuoer. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered? DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now I only asked whether this was a brainwashing project, and I did not say there was any direct relationship. Once CHEN Zuoer uttered his words, many people would automatically take his order. He did not need to get personally involved. Secretary, did you pitch in? SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the establishment of the HKACA was not due to the order of CHEN Zuoer or any person. Just as I say in the main reply, the HKACA was formed and founded by some passionate members in the community on their own initiative. The best way to guard against brainwashing is to stand firm on Hong Kong's position as an open society, safeguard the free flow of news and information and teach local youths how to tell right from wrong, that is, to investigate things to enrich their knowledge. I do not think local youths will still be brainwashed under these circumstances. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Speaking of the provision of military training by the HK Garrison, I think that in Hong Kong, no other organization or group can be more professional and suitable than it. Since the activity is so


5643

well-received by parents and members of the public, and the last part of the main question asks if the HK Garrison has recently changed its approach and started to involve itself actively in Hong Kong's local affairs by assisting in training HKACA members, may I ask the Secretary how he looks at this issue? Since the provision of professional training requires the participation of professional teams, why should anyone put on any "glasses tainted by politics" and make such non-professional comment? Are such comments appropriate? (Dr KWOK Ka-ki stood up) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, what is your question? DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I notice that the voice of Mr NG Leung-sing is hoarse and I remember Mr TAM Yiu-chung's reminder on wearing a mask. I just want to offer him a piece of advice. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Yours is not a point of order. Please be seated. Secretary, please reply. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as in the case of UGs in general, the main purpose of setting up the HKACA is to provide training to young people. As Mr NG has said, we should not look at the issue with any bias or politicize the issue. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth oral question. Provision of New Public Markets and Retrofitting of Air-conditioning Systems in Existing Public Markets 5. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Quite a number of residents in newly developed districts, such as Tseung Kwan O, Tin Shui Wai and Tung Chung, have relayed to me that the districts in which they live lack public


markets. For example, while the population of LOHAS Park in Tseung Kwan O together with its neighbouring housing estates has exceeded 30 000, there is no public market in that area. Residents there have to travel a long distance to buy fresh food and daily necessities. Also, the prices of such goods are often higher than those in other districts due to inadequate competition. On the other hand, some tenants and customers of public markets without air-conditioning systems have relayed to me that the unbearable swelter of these markets during summer turns people away and causes foodstuffs to decay easily. However, the threshold for retrofitting air-conditioning systems in these markets is very high, i.e. the Government will consider such works only when 85% or more of the tenants give their support. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of its major considerations in determining whether to provide permanent or temporary public markets in newly developed districts; whether it has any plan to provide a permanent or temporary public market in Tseung Kwan O Area 85, which is adjacent to LOHAS Park;

(2) whether it will amend the relevant planning criteria and provide

more public markets in newly developed districts, so as to introduce competition and facilitate residents in buying fresh food and daily necessities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it has any plan to review the threshold for retrofitting

air-conditioning systems in existing public markets, and devise a fairer method for sharing air-conditioning costs, etc.; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, at present, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) manages 101 public markets, including 76 public markets which mainly sell fresh provisions and other dry and wet goods, as well as 25 free-standing cooked food markets. The Link Real Estate Investment Trust (Link REIT) and the Housing Authority each manages 90 and 20 market venues respectively. Other than these, there exists a good number of private markets, supermarkets and fresh provision shops run by private operators. In addition to the some 2 600 stalls in


5645

public markets selling fresh provisions such as fish, meat and poultry, there are currently around 2 700 licensed fresh provision shops (including those in supermarkets) which offer choices to consumers. According to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, apart from the population of the area in question, the Administration would take into consideration other relevant factors. These include the demographic mix, community needs, the provision of public and private market facilities nearby, the number of fresh provision retail outlets in the vicinity, and the public sentiment towards the preservation of hawker areas. The Planning Department will consult the relevant Policy Bureaux and government departments, including the FEHD, when preparing or reviewing town plans to ascertain whether there is a need to reserve land for public markets. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) Building a new public market involves both land and public money. Before determining whether a market should be built, the Government would have to duly assess the demand for the market and the question of cost-effectiveness, for the purpose of ensuring that public resources are put to proper use. Specifically, factors that are taken into account include the population of the area in question, the demographic mix, the community needs, the provision of public and private market facilities nearby, and the number of fresh provisions retail outlets in the vicinity.

We have looked at the situation in Tseung Kwan O. At present, six

markets managed by The Link REIT and four private markets exist in Tseung Kwan O. They are located in major public or private housing estates and shopping venues. There are 27 shopping malls, 24 supermarkets and about 130 fresh provisions shops. Different areas in the district are connected to each other by various modes of transport. This helps facilitate the shopping activities of local residents. According to experience, the stall vacancy rate of a new market will be relatively high if the products and services provided are similar to those of existing traders who have been operating in the district for a long time.


Even in the case of a temporary market, the Administration has to put in a sizeable amount of resources to provide basic facilities such as ceiling, stall partition, electrical installation, water supply and sewerage systems, ventilation, lighting system, fire-fighting system, toilets and refuse storage chamber. Hence, the Government has not developed any new temporary market in recent years. Most of the existing temporary markets are provided to resite hawkers who would otherwise be trading on-street causing environmental nuisance and obstructing pedestrian and vehicular traffic. The last temporary market development project, comprising the Nam Cheong Street Temporary Market and Tung Chau Street Temporary Market, was carried out by the former Urban Council in the early 1990s. These markets were used to accommodate on-street hawkers selling wet goods in Sham Shui Po and tenants of the former Sham Shui Po Market. In the latter case, the purpose was to vacate the site for developing the present Pei Ho Street Market.

On account of the above considerations, the Administration has no

plan to provide a permanent or temporary public market in Tseung Kwan O Area 85 at present.

(2) The above requirements in the "Hong Kong Planning Standards and

Guidelines" pertaining to the planning of public markets have been in use since they were last updated in 2009. As to the requests for providing new public markets in individual districts, we will continue to closely monitor the local situation as well as listen to the views of stakeholders and assess the need to review the planning guidelines for public markets as and when appropriate. We will carefully consider the various relevant factors, including those set out in the planning standards and in part (1) of the reply, before deciding on the provision of any new public market in a certain district.

(3) Following the existing practice, a request for installation of

air-conditioning system at a public market will first be discussed at the meeting of the relevant Market Management Consultative Committee (MMCC). Where there is a consensus among members of the MMCC that the request should be further explored, the FEHD will conduct a questionnaire survey to gauge the extent of support


5647

from market tenants for the request. If 85% or more of the tenants support the proposal, the Administration will conduct a detailed technical feasibility study. Taking into consideration the findings of the study, the extent of works required, cost-effectiveness, length of business disruption and tenants' views, the Administration will decide whether there is a case for bidding resources for the installation of air-conditioning systems.

When the air-conditioning system is being installed, a public market

would have to be enclosed. After installation, the system has to be turned on all year round for adequate ventilation. All tenants will have to pay for the recurrent expenses, including the electricity charges and general maintenance costs for the whole year, and not just during the summer months. Any tenant who refuses to pay these charges will have to move out of the public market. The additional operating cost related to the air-conditioning system is a factor that existing tenants had not taken into account when they bid for their public market stalls.

Secondly, the provision of air-conditioning systems often involves

partial or complete closure of the public market for as long as several months depending on the circumstances, disrupting business and affecting the livelihood of tenants. In one case, all the stalls of a market-cum-cooked food centre had to cease business for around six months for the installation of air-conditioning system. The business cessation period may even be longer in more complicated cases. Tenants who do not support the installation of air-conditioning system will also be affected. The threshold that must be met in order to support a decision in favour of the installation of air-conditioning system should not be too low. Otherwise, disputes may proliferate.

I understand the concern of Dr QUAT about the propriety of the

existing threshold relating to the provision of air-conditioning system. I wish to stress that regardless of where we pitch the threshold, it could hardly please everybody. When considering whether to adjust the existing arrangement, apart from the technical feasibility and resources implications, we have to take into account the demand of tenants who would like to install air-conditioning


system, as well as make allowance for arrangements meeting the interests of those tenants who do not support the installation but have been running business in the public market concerned for many years. In a nutshell, we have to be very cautious if we are going to review the 85% threshold. We need to reiterate that in the formulation and review of public policies, we have to strike a proper balance among the interests of various stakeholders in a responsible manner.

As for the calculation of air-conditioning charges, after taking over

public markets from the two former municipal councils, the Administration reviewed the arrangements for recovery of air-conditioning charges in public markets and considered that separate charging of rental and air-conditioning charges was more in line with the "user pays" principle. According to the existing practice, the Government is responsible for the capital costs of installing the air-conditioning systems, and, unlike the usual arrangement adopted by commercial landlords, we will not recover the capital costs from tenants through subsequent rental adjustments. The Government's policy is to have the recurrent expenses, including electricity charges and general maintenance costs, borne by market tenants. The recurrent expenses incurred by the provision of air-conditioning system will generally be borne by tenants pro rata, based on the floor area of their respective stalls. For vacant stalls, the relevant costs will be borne by the Government. This cost sharing method is consistent with that adopted for all other government rental properties.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, public markets not only provide the public with fresh food but also give grass-roots people and small business operators opportunities to start their own businesses and make a living, thus breaking the monopolistic control of large consortia. The Secretary has not explained why the four newly developed districts of Tseung Kwan O, Ma On Shan, Tung Chung and Tin Shui Wai are equipped only with private markets but not any public markets. According to a number of surveys and newspaper reports, the prices of goods in some markets of these districts, particularly Tseung Kwan O and Tin Shui Wai, are the highest in Hong Kong. Therefore,


5649

will the Bureau consider building public markets in the abovementioned districts from the perspectives of promoting the development of small businesses in the economy, introducing competition and reducing the burden of the public? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as I pointed out earlier, the Government has to take various factors into account before determining whether a public market should be built in any district. I certainly understand that Dr QUAT's main point is about goods prices. But as shown by the information provided by the FEHD, the Department does not seek to control goods prices in the markets under its management because goods prices are determined by the market mechanism. Rather than considering just one single factor, we must consider a whole range of different factors. Past experience shows that the operating efficiency of some existing public markets is rather low. In fact, the Government has commissioned a consultant to prepare a study report on this issue, and the relevant Panel has been briefed on the abstract of the report. The Government will study the report, and at a later time, we will advise the Panel of our views on the report and how existing public markets should be improved. Why do I think that the operating efficiency of existing public markets is also an important factor? The reason is that due to the low operating efficiency of some existing public markets, we must be very cautious when considering the construction or otherwise of new public markets in certain districts. I believe the consultancy study report will not only assist the Government in exploring ways to improve the operation of existing public markets but will also shed light on whether we should provide or build new public markets in the future. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): Both in the main reply and when responding to the further questions asked earlier by the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, the Secretary made special reference to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines as amended in April 2009, saying that the planning of new markets must be considered on the basis of the specific circumstances in each case, and that the consumption habits of the public had changed. However, let me point out that while the inflation rate was 0.5% in the whole of 2009, it has risen to 4% to 6% these few years, and food prices in particular have recorded the greatest rate of increase among all commodities. Therefore, as Dr Elizabeth QUAT said, residents in the four new towns, including those who


want to buy things at low prices or those who aspire to starting their own businesses, feel that they are discriminated against or neglected by the Government. Their demands are clear enough, Secretary. Since you say that you would assess the need and make a decision as and when appropriate, I hope you will tell us when you would make an assessment. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, apart from saying that various factors must be considered, I also pointed out in my reply to Dr QUAT's supplementary question that the Government had commissioned a consultant to prepare a report on how to improve existing public markets and presented the abstract of the report to the relevant Panel. After the completion of the whole report, the Government will examine how it should plan to improve the operation of existing public markets in the light of the report. As I pointed out earlier, the report will shed light on the need or otherwise of building new public markets in the future and the operating mode of such markets. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary says in his main reply that the Government has commissioned a consultancy study. I am a member of the relevant Panel and working group, and I have heard of the gist of the report. In fact, the consultant has not conducted any study on the construction of markets in new development areas. Secretary, I am telling the truth and please correct me if I am wrong. The Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines was amended in 2009 and it is now 2015. I urge that the Secretary should consult the relevant Panel of the Legislative Council on the construction of public markets, rather than saying so casually in the main reply that he would listen to the views of the stakeholders as and when appropriate. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I did refer to the recent consultancy report, but I also said very clearly that the subject of the report is how to improve the operation of existing public markets. I pointed out at the same time that when deciding whether to provide any new public markets, we must consider various factors. Apart from the local needs of the district and the availability of market facilities and fresh provision retail outlets in the vicinity, a factor which has to be considered is whether we can


5651

ensure the operating effectiveness of the new public market if one is built in the district. Although the current consultancy report is supposed to make recommendations on improving the operation of existing public markets, its proposals will provide useful reference in respect of the need or otherwise of building new public markets and the operating mode of such markets. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, has your supplementary question not been answered? MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My question is very clear. I asked the Secretary whether he would consult us once again on the parts and comments about the construction of public markets in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines as amended in 2009. But the Secretary has not given any response. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we have actually touched on this question many times in the relevant Panel and I have been pointing out clearly that when considering whether to build a new public market in a particular district, we will consider various factors, and our consideration will not confined to any particular set of planning standards. Throughout the whole process, we have always maintained communications with the relevant Panel and listened to members' views. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary's main reply gives a very long treatment to the point on air-conditioning raised in Dr Elizabeth QUAT's question. In relation to air-conditioning, the 85% threshold is certainly a problem. But this is not the main problem. The main problem is about the costs of air-conditioning. Many stall-operators have told me their greatest discontent with the Government: it not only requires them to share air-conditioning charges proportionally on a stall-area basis but also charges them for the air-conditioning provided in the public areas. This is the crux of the problem. Therefore, may I ask the Secretary whether he would re-examine the principles of air-conditioning charges, with a view to requiring stall-operators to pay such charges proportionally on a stall-area basis only, and


leaving the air-conditioning costs in the public areas to the Government itself? If this is not done, it will not be very meaningful to discuss the 85% threshold. The biggest worry of stall tenants is that while air-conditioning charges may exceed rents, their incomes may not be sufficient to pay the charges. This is the most serious and important problem. Will the Secretary conduct a review on this issue once again? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I understand very well that this is one underlying reason for the reluctance of some public market tenants to bear the recurrent electricity expenses on air-conditioning. However, I must still point out that the Government's policy is to require stall-tenants to bear the recurrent expenses, including electricity charges and general maintenance costs. And, the recurrent expenses incurred by the provision of air-conditioning for the whole market are generally shared by tenants proportionally on a stall-area basis. At present, the Government bears the air-conditioning charges for vacant stalls only, and tenants will share such charges in the public areas proportionally on a stall-area basis. In fact, this cost-sharing method is not restricted to public markets. It is also adopted in the case of all other government rental properties. Therefore, I think it will be difficult to review this arrangement only in relation to public markets as requested by the Honourable Member. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I know the Secretary has answered that it will be difficult to do so, but I would like to ask the Secretary further whether he will conduct another review despite the difficulties? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, will you conduct a review afresh? SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, let me give a simple answer. I have been thinking about this issue, but in regard to whether any review is to be conducted, I cannot give any promise to the Honourable Member at this moment.


5653

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question. Measures to Increase Income Generated by Kai Tak Cruise Terminal 6. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, there are comments that as the gross receipt of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal (KTCT) in 2014 was only $30 million, the Government could only share $2.19 million at the most. If KTCT's operation fails to make a "great leap forward" in the years to come, it may take as long as 23 years, i.e. in year 2037 or 2038, to fully recover the $8.2 billion investment of public funds. In this connection, the tourism sector and some marketing academics have attributed KTCT's operational failure to erroneous positioning, its supporting facilities being "a fiasco", lack of any long-term planning for tourism policy, inability to compete with the neighbouring regions, and reducing Hong Kong to a shopping spot for mainland tourists. They therefore have described KTCT as "expensive chicken ribs", which means that it is of dubious worth but too costly to give up. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has, based on the current business situation of KTCT and the terms in KTCT's tenancy for operation and management, made projections as to when the Government can recover the aforesaid $8.2 billion investment of public funds; if it has, of the details; if not, whether it can make projections immediately and give an account of its projections to the public as early as possible;

(2) as the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) is

currently occupying one of the units in KTCT's roof garden that enjoys a 360-degree panoramic sea view, of the total floor area of the unit, the purpose for which the unit is used by LCSD, the number of staff members using the unit and their scope of work; whether it has assessed the rental income that may be brought to KTCT each year if the unit is leased to a private organization; and

(3) whether it will, in response to the aforesaid comments made by the

tourism sector and marketing academics, review the positioning and mode of operation of KTCT and, by making reference to the success of the Wine and Dine Festival held at KTCT, implement the proposal of establishing "a bar street" in the roof garden, increase the number


of occasions on leasing KTCT facilities for holding concerts or other performances, or explore other means to create new sources of income, so as to boost KTCT's income and shorten the cost recovery period?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): The Government has all along been committed to developing Hong Kong into one of the leading international cruise hubs in Asia. Since the building of mega-size cruise vessels has long become an international trend, to ensure that the berthing facilities in Hong Kong could keep pace with this trend and to facilitate the inclusion of Hong Kong into the itineraries of mega-size cruise ships of cruise companies, the Government decided in 2008 to adopt the "Government Design, Build and Lease" approach in developing the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal (KTCT) after consulting various sectors. The Government obtained funding approval from the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council for two public works items at a total estimate of $8.2 billion in 2009 and 2010 to take forward the KTCT development and the KTCT was officially commissioned in mid-2013. The construction of the KTCT is a long-term infrastructural investment which promotes the development of cruise tourism and, in turn, fuels the growth of the overall economy of Hong Kong. Cruise tourism is an important part of the development of a diversified tourism portfolio in Hong Kong. Upon arrival in Hong Kong, transit cruise passengers would usually go on-shore for sightseeing, dining and shopping. Cruise passengers and crew members having itineraries which embark or disembark at Hong Kong would stay overnight and incur spending in Hong Kong before boarding or after leaving the cruise ships. Their spending will spur the development of local tourism, hotel, retail, transport as well as food and beverage industries, bringing substantial economic benefits to Hong Kong. On the other hand, the associated support services for cruise terminal operation have also created quite a number of job opportunities for Hong Kong. As such, in considering and analysing the benefits brought by the KTCT, we should not consider solely the rental receipts that the Government collects from the terminal operator. Instead, we should take a more comprehensive approach in evaluating the long-term economic benefits. My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:


5655

(1) The Government provided an estimate on the long-term economic benefits brought by the cruise industry as a whole in its funding application to the Legislative Council in 2010. According to the estimate, the economic benefits brought by the cruise industry as a whole would range from $1.5 billion to $2.6 billion per annum by 2023. We do not have an assessment on the short-term economic benefits brought by the KTCT since its commissioning. However, according to the statistics of the Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB), the number of passengers of transit cruises that used the various cruise berthing facilities of Hong Kong was 22 733 in 2013. The passenger throughput of traditional cruise itineraries with destinations which embarked or disembarked in Hong Kong was 145 596 in 2013. Survey conducted by the HKTB also revealed that the average per capita spending of transit cruise passengers was about $1,500 while that of cruise passengers embarking or disembarking in Hong Kong was about $4,700. These figures illustrate the substantial economic benefits that the cruise industry brings to Hong Kong each year. Indeed, we are optimistic about the prospects of the KTCT. We anticipate that the number of ship calls in 2015 will be more than double to around 60, and among which, many of them will homeport in Hong Kong.

(2) The Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Park (the Park) is a popular spot for

local residents and tourists to enjoy the panoramic view of the Victoria Harbour. To support the operation of the Park, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) has, as early as in the design stage of the terminal building, reserved a unit of about 350 sq m in total area at the Park for use as its staff office, installation of operation-related facilities and storage of supplies. The staff office, measuring about 32 sq m in area, accommodates six officers on duty for the daily operation of the Park. The remaining area is occupied by toilets, a first-aid room, electrical switch rooms and space used for keeping items necessary for the management and maintenance of the Park.

At present, the terminal building has an ancillary commercial area

totalling 5 600 sq m, which does not include the unit occupied by the LCSD office and the associated facilities. The leasing of the


ancillary commercial area is managed by the terminal operator. Under the current planning, the unit is not designated for commercial use and, as such, cannot be leased to private organizations. Therefore, there is no question of possible additional rental income.

(3) On the proposal to develop a "bar street" at the Park, our preliminary

view is that it involves certain complicated factors and difficulties. In fact, the proposed conversion of some parts of the Park into a "bar street" or for other commercial uses will reduce the recreational space available for public enjoyment. The proposal will also have implications on planning restrictions, traffic arrangements and its integration with other facilities and the neighbourhood around the KTCT. It is also necessary to tap the views of the local community and consult the District Council.

The Government has maintained close liaison with the terminal

operator to discuss, among others, the ways to further enhance the operation and utilization of the KTCT. On days when there is no cruise ship berthing at the terminal, the terminal operator may lease venues (such as the waiting halls on the second floor and the baggage handling areas on the ground floor) for organizing events. Since its commissioning in mid-2013, over 25 events have been held at the terminal building or its adjoining areas and they were well-received by the participants. Event organizers may also stage events at the open space adjacent to the KTCT and in the ancillary commercial areas within the terminal. The terminal operator and tenants will continue to actively promote the KTCT as an event venue to draw in more visitors and increase its utilization rate.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, one can say that whether the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal (KTCT) is going to succeed or going to fail, its very location will always be the cause. It is easily a cruise terminal with the best location in the whole world. Yet, despite its excellent geographical location, its usefulness will still come under widespread doubt if it is left idle or unproductive for prolonged periods. Honestly, if the commercial value of the KTCT cannot be fully exploited despite its excellent location, it would have been much better for us to simply build a cruise terminal in Kwai Chung in the very first place. That


5657

way, we would not have to bear the sight of the KTCT day and night, saddened by its lack of any substantial contribution. In this connection, besides my oft-repeated proposal of expeditiously constructing a floating pedestrian bridge for connection with Kwun Tong, do the authorities have any other feasible commercial measures to prevent the KTCT from being left idle so very often? SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr TSE for the supplementary question. It takes time for the operation of the cruise terminal to attain full development. Since its commissioning in 2013, its business result has been improving. For example, in the first year, nine cruise liners called at the terminal and in the second year, the number increased to 28. And as pointed out clearly in the main reply, about 60 ship calls are expected this year. The Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) has also launched the Asia Cruise Fund in conjunction with other ports to provide incentives to cruise companies for scheduling more cruise liners to call at Hong Kong. Besides, we also maintain contacts with people in charge of overseas cruise companies. These people all agree that the geographical location of Hong Kong is excellent and its harbour is beautiful (Mr TSE's remarks just now are indeed right). And, since the KTCT is equipped with excellent facilities, they are very interested to develop their cruise business in Hong Kong. I believe that as time passes, the business result of the terminal and the number of ship calls will continue to improve. Moreover, we will also commence seabed dredging works for the second berth this year. When the works are completed, the second berth will be able to accommodate the largest cruise vessels in the world. I believe this will further increase the attractiveness of the KTCT. MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Only 60 cruise liners will call at the KTCT this year. We estimate that in the short run, the shops there will be unable to overcome the business hardship arising from the shortage of visitors. In that case, an increase in local customers will be the only way to improve the business of the shopping centre. The Secretary says in his reply that an area of 350 sq m (over 3 000 sq ft) in the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Park (the Park) is now used by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) as offices and supplies storage areas. Actually, offices and supplies storage areas can be moved to the


lower storeys of the terminal building, because the rooftop with its 360-degree panoramic sea view is of very great value. I think the Government should consider the use of the terminal building for more commercial purposes, so as to induce more local customers to spend money there. May I ask whether the Secretary will consider holding discussions with the LCSD on vacating more space, so that more shops can be made available for rental and the commercial value of the terminal building can be increased. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr YIU for asking this supplementary question. As already mentioned in the main reply, the space currently used by the LCSD as offices and storage areas is not planned for commercial uses. Unless the planning is amended, the space cannot be reduced. And, another point is that the LCSD has a real need for space to store the supplies required for managing this vast rooftop garden. In addition, there is an ancillary commercial area totalling 5 600 sq m in the terminal building, and two commercial units in the rooftop garden are available for rent. We consider that at this stage, we should concentrate on optimizing the use of these commercial facilities as a means of increasing the overall cost-efficiency of the cruise terminal. At the same time, we also think that an area of an appropriate size should be maintained for public recreational purposes. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YIU, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered? MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has not answered my question. I have just said that the value of the rooftop garden is very high. My supplementary question is whether the Secretary will hold discussions with the LCSD on boosting its commercial value. Put simply, the offices may …


5659

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have already pointed out the part which is not answered. Secretary, please reply. MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): … The Secretary has not answered whether he would take the initiative to discuss with the LCSD. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I would try to answer Mr YIU's question. The space concerned is not planned for commercial uses. Hence, at the present stage, the supplies cannot be removed. Anyway, two shops over there can be rented to commercial organizations. I think at the present stage, the operator should make the best use of the space available for rental before considering using other ancillary facilities. As the rooftop garden is a recreational space for the public, there is a need to store those supplies, the supplies of the LCSD. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The Innovation and Technology Bureau is in deep trouble. It cannot even address those problems. Very simply, first, the Secretary has not answered Mr YIU Si-wing's question. He said that the units on the rooftop garden command a 360-degree panoramic sea view and Mr Paul TSE also said that a restaurant or entertainment venue can be established there. There are also restaurants in the Discovery Bay Ferry Pier building. The idea is feasible. I would like to ask the Secretary if the authorities have any intention of turning the KTCT into a place of sea view appreciation, funs and good food for Hong Kong people, just like the site next to the Tamar Park where the Hong Kong Observation Wheel and restaurants are located. Will the authorities do so? Will they turn the cruise terminal into a tourism spot, a place where one can eat, drink and have fun, and a place for both tourists and local people? Does this sound sensible to him? Will he do so?


SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr LEUNG for his question. I wonder if Mr LEUNG has been to KTCT. The terminal building is full of restaurants, cafes and other eateries. Space was reserved for such purposes at the planning stage and the public … Perhaps Mr LEUNG has not yet had any chance to visit KTCT. The facilities there are very attractive. I think the best strategy is to optimize the use of the space already designated for commercial uses. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, he has not answered my question. The restaurants there are not located outdoors. Smokers like me who want to enjoy the sea view can only stay outdoors if they want to smoke. You know, smokers alone can give operators lots of business … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have already pointed out that the Secretary has not answered your question. Secretary, please reply. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in my reply to Mr YIU's question, I already mentioned that two shops on the rooftop could be used as restaurants. We should make the best use of such unoccupied shops for the time being. MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, cruise terminals around the world all face one problem. In a year, the number of days with ship calls is very small, and idle periods are thus very long. When we visited Singapore last year, we learned that its cruise terminal also faced similar problems: not only prolonged idle periods but also problems with supporting transportation such as buses in times of ship calls. I believe this is very similar to the situation in Hong Kong. If we want to upgrade the operation of the KTCT, we must do more thinking. I certainly know that the operator is in charge of the operation and management of the cruise terminal, but I also think that there are still many things which the Government can do. Some examples are projects on developing the surrounding areas and providing them with supporting facilities.


5661

For years, many such projects pending implementation have seen very little progress. May I ask the Secretary whether the Government will conduct an internal study on exploring the possibility of expeditiously implementing other projects in the vicinity of the cruise terminal, so as to bring forth a kind of synergy that can increase the flows of visitors and traffic, improve the various supporting services and facilities, and induce more people to use the cruise terminal? SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHAN Kam-lam for his question. I strongly agree that we must ensure the availability of proper supporting services and facilities upon the completion of the KTCT. I have visited the cruise terminals in Tianjin and Singapore and found that they also face the same problems. Such problems must be solved, one example being ancillary transport facilities. I think Members must have heard about the shortage of taxis from the news. Last year I met with the representatives of various taxi organizations to discuss how to tackle the problem. Our communication was very effective as we all wanted to work out a solution. Thanks to the efforts of the taxi trade, the situation has improved greatly. I am aware that the operator of the KTCT holds regular meetings with the taxi trade. We must put in place proper ancillary measures. As for ancillary facilities in the vicinity, the Government has announced that it will deliver six hotel sites by the end of this year. As regards transport facilities, the existing one-lane two-way carriageway will be widened into a dual two-lane carriageway, and other traffic measures will be implemented to tie in with this. Secretary for Development Paul CHAN has introduced to Members the project named Kai Tak Fantasy to be implemented in the vicinity of the cruise terminal. All facilities in the whole district will be designed to support the development of tourism under the project. I agree with Mr CHAN that KTCT is the first completed project in the Kai Tak Development Area, and if the works of other projects can commence soon, Hong Kong's cruise tourism can be developed more effectively.


MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, there is still much room for the development and improvement of the KTCT. For example, in a recent visit to the cruise terminal, I found that there were insufficient parking spaces, and since the parking spaces were small, vehicles could easily get scratched. Besides, cars in the middle storey of the carpark building could not drive through the whole storey but had to drive up or down on the two sides. Looking at the statistics, we can see that in 365 days of a year, there are only 60 ship calls. In other words, no ships will call at the cruise terminal for 300 days of the year. Also, only 25 events have been held at the terminal building since 2013. Should the Government hold more discussions with the operator on how to improve the traffic in the district to attract more visitors? While young people lack space to start up their business, there is so much space in the cruise terminal. Is it possible to spare some space in the office area of the Immigration Department, for example, because the whole place is virtually empty when no visitors enter Hong Kong? Why not let young people use the vast space for free to hold some business start-up events? Will the Government do more thinking, so as to avoid wasting the space? SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I am very grateful to Mr TAM for his question. There are currently about 150 parking spaces. The provision of parking spaces under our initial planning for the KTCT was meant to cater for the operation of cruise tourism and the businesses in the terminal building. When necessary, 30 temporary parking spaces can be made available in the car circulation lanes on the first floor. We will provide more ancillary facilities as far as possible. Mr TAM has asked whether more space can be provided to young people for business start-up. According to the design, when there are no ship calls, the commercial space or space in the main hall can be used for other events. I will relay Mr TAM's views to the operator later on. As far as I know, the operator has set up a dedicated team to proactively explore matters concerning the organization of commercial or big events. If any youth events are suitable for holding in the terminal building, I believe the operator will give consideration to them. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.


5663

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Footbridges in Private Housing Estates Open for Public Use 7. MS STARRY LEE (in Chinese): President, some owners of the flats in a large private housing estate have relayed to me that the land lease of their housing estate provides that the lessee must build a footbridge within the precincts of the housing estate for public use and bear the management and maintenance responsibilities for the footbridge. The relevant management and maintenance costs, as well as third party insurance premiums place a heavy burden on the owners of the housing estate. However, the utilization rate of the footbridge has been very low as it is not connected to any shopping mall or other footbridge. It is learnt that the owners of the housing estate generally support the Government's taking over of the management and maintenance responsibilities for the footbridge or even its demolition. However, the relevant proposal involves modification of the land lease and must therefore have the consent of the Government. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the existing number of footbridges open for use by the public throughout Hong Kong that were built according to the requirements of the land leases of private developments and, among them, the number of footbridges the management and maintenance responsibilities for which are borne by the land lessees;

(2) of the circumstances under which the authorities will take over from

the land lessee the management and maintenance responsibilities for a footbridge which is open for public use; whether there are precedents; if there are, of the details and the authorities' considerations in the cases concerned; and

(3) whether it has measures (such as setting up a maintenance fund) to

assist owners of private housing estates to cope with the expenditure on the repair and maintenance of footbridges open for public use within the precincts of their estates; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?


SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the provision of public facilities in private developments is intended to encourage integrated design, optimization of land use and better site planning and utilization; to facilitate the timely availability of some public facilities for the envisaged population intake of private development projects, or to meet citizens' broader needs. Moreover, the land leases of some private developments would include requirements for the provision of facilities for public use such as footbridges in order to enhance the connectivity between sites. Based on information provided by the Lands Department, the Highways Department and the Transport Department, I reply to the various parts of the question as follows:

(1) Since 1980, a total of 257 footbridges have been built by developers for public use as required under the land leases of the private developments concerned. Of these, 29 have been taken over by relevant government departments in accordance with the land lease conditions; 227 footbridges are now being managed and maintained by the owners concerned according to the land lease conditions; and the Government had also invoked the relevant land lease condition to take over the one remaining footbridge located on Government land for management and maintenance, with the responsibility of such handed over to the relevant Government departments.

(2) For cases involving the management and maintenance of public

facilities in accordance with the land lease conditions of private developments, the owners of the respective developments shall perform their obligation under lease. As the use of public resources will be involved in the event of the Government taking up the management and maintenance responsibility of the relevant public facilities, the Government does not make such arrangements as a matter of principle. The Government may prudently examine individual cases on a case-by-case basis if there are compelling reasons supporting the Government to take back the relevant management and maintenance responsibility.

According to the records of relevant departments, from 1980 till the

present day, only on one occasion in 2005 did the Government invoke the relevant land lease condition to take over a footbridge


5665

situated on Government land and its management and maintenance responsibility from the owners (which were originally responsible for such responsibility) to the departments concerned. In making this exceptional decision, the Government had taken into account the owners' request, location of the footbridge, other practical considerations as well as the consolidated views of the departments concerned.

(3) The owners of the concerned developments shall perform the

obligation specified in the land lease of providing the public facilities as well as the related management and maintenance responsibility. The Government has no plan of considering the use of public money to introduce supporting measures for the owners of these developments to assist their performing of obligations under lease.

Recruitment of Persons with Disabilities by Government 8. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Chinese): President, the Government always emphasizes that it welcomes persons with disabilities to apply for government jobs and has put in place suitable facilitating measures with a view to enabling candidates with disabilities who meet the basic entry requirements to compete with able-bodied candidates on equal footing, so as to ensure that candidates with disabilities will enjoy equal opportunities when applying for government jobs. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of new recruits to the Civil Service in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 who declared their disabilities, and set out a breakdown in the following table;

Types of disability/year 2012-2013 2013-2014

Visual impairment Hearing impairment Physical disability Intellectual disability Ex-mentally ill persons Visceral disability


Types of disability/year 2012-2013 2013-2014 Others, e.g. autism, speech impairment, specific learning difficulties, etc.

Total number of new recruits who declared their disabilities

Total number of new recruits

(2) given that under government guidelines, candidates with disabilities who meet the basic entry requirements for a post will not be subject to shortlisting criteria and will be automatically invited to attend selection test or interview to compete with other candidates on equal footing, and recruiting departments are required to proactively ascertain from individual candidates any assistance or accommodation needed so as to facilitate him/her in attending the test or interview, whether the authorities have required recruiting departments to contact candidates with disabilities within a certain number of days after receiving their applications to invite them to such tests or interviews; whether the authorities have assessed if the recruiting departments will contravene the relevant requirements under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by failing to contact candidates with disabilities and thus failing to provide them with the assistance or accommodation needed;

(3) given that under government guidelines, the recruiting departments

will suitably adjust the selection test or interview process to cater for the special needs of the candidates with disabilities, e.g. extension of the examination time with regard to the degree of the candidates' disability and complexity of the paper, of the number and percentage of those candidates with disabilities in the past three years for whom the selection test or interview process was suitably adjusted by the recruiting departments, as well as the reasons for such adjustments not being made for some candidates with disabilities;

(4) as it is learnt that although recruiting departments did extend the

examination time or arrange separate test centres for some candidates with disabilities, these candidates were nonetheless assigned to take the examination at inconveniently located test centres due to the small number of candidates with disabilities,


5667

whether the authorities have assessed if such arrangements constitute differential treatment rendering candidates with disabilities unable to enjoy equal opportunities when taking such tests; and

(5) given that some persons with disabilities employed by government

departments on short-term or one-year contracts have relayed to me that while they need to attend follow-up medical consultations regularly, the attendance certificates issued to them are not accepted by their departments and they are hence required to work extra hours or accept salary/paid leave deduction to compensate for the loss of working hours incurred by their follow-up medical consultations, whether the authorities will consider accepting attendance certificates from employees with disabilities as valid sick leave certificates?

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Chinese): President, our reply to the question is as follows:

(1) Based on information available, in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014, the numbers of new recruits who were appointed on civil service terms and declared their disabilities are as follows (by types of disability):

Types of disability/year 2012-2013 2013-2014

Visual impairment 7 7 Hearing impairment 8 28 Physical disability 5 14 Intellectual disability 0 1 Ex-mentally ill persons 3 7 Visceral disability 5 21 Others (for example, autism, speech impairment, specific learning difficulties, and so on)

2 2

Total number of new recruits who declared their disabilities 30 80

Total number of new recruits 7 316 8 460


(2) According to the existing guidelines, if a recruiting department/grade invites a candidate who has declared his/her disabilities to attend the selection test and/or interview, it should proactively ascertain with the candidate the assistance or accommodation necessary to facilitate him/her in attending the test and/or interview. The recruiting department/grade will normally verify the candidates' eligibility and ascertain with them the assistance and accommodation needed before inviting them to the test and/or interview. As the number of candidates, the test and/or interview arrangements involved as well as the process and time required for verifying eligibility of candidates vary from post to post, the existing guidelines do not specify a standard timeline for recruiting department/grade to contact the candidates and invite them to such tests and/or interviews. The recruiting department/grade will make appropriate arrangements having regard to the circumstances of individual cases.

(3) When arranging selection test and/or interview, the recruiting

department/grade will make suitable adjustments to the process and/or arrangements of the test and/or interview taking into account the special needs of individual candidates with disabilities. Examples include extending the examination time for candidates with visual impairment or dyslexia; providing visually impaired candidates with display of larger size, electronic amplifiers, enlarged/braille question papers, enlarged answer books and table lamps, and allowing them to write on alternate lines of an answer book and to use their own magnifier; conducting interview with hearing impaired candidates through written communication and arranging them to sit in the front row or the left- or right-hand side of the examination hall (depending on the degree of hearing impairment of the candidates), making available a set of written directions for them to follow during the announcement of the presiding invigilator, and speaking at a slower pace when putting questions to them in an interview; and identifying examination venues with appropriate facilities and passageways for wheel-chaired candidates to facilitate their easy access, and arranging them to sit near the entrance of the examination hall, and so on. The Civil Service Bureau does not keep statistics on the number of candidates with disabilities for whom the selection test and/or interview process has (have) been


5669

suitably adjusted, and information on the reasons why such adjustments were not made for individual candidates with disabilities (if any).

(4) When arranging for a selection test or interview, the recruiting

department/grade will take into account relevant factors (for example, circumstances of a particular recruitment exercise, and preference of the candidates with disabilities, types and degree of their disabilities, assistance or accommodation required, and so on) before making appropriate arrangements to facilitate them in attending the test and/or interview. In the process, candidates with disabilities may indicate their special needs to the recruiting department/grade to facilitate the latter's consideration and making of suitable adjustments. The recruiting department/grade will arrange, as far as possible, for the test and/or interview to be conducted at a convenient location to facilitate attendance of the candidates with disabilities and will consider making special transport arrangements for them where necessary. For example, for the Joint Recruitment Examination conducted by the General Grades Office (GGO) recently, visually impaired candidates requiring special equipment to take the examination were arranged to sit for the examination at a venue where such equipment was available. As the venue was in Pokfulam, taking into account the transport needs of the visually impaired candidates, GGO deployed its staff and a shuttle to take these candidates to the examination venue and the Mass Transit Railway station before and after the examination.

The Government's policy objective on employment of persons with

disabilities seeks to ensure that they will, like other candidates, have equal access to job opportunities in the Government. On the basis of the policy objective, we have formulated the relevant facilitating measures, including the accommodation arrangements for recruitment tests and/or interviews to facilitate the participation of candidates with disabilities in the relevant recruitment process. There is no question of subjecting candidates with disabilities to less satisfactory or unfair treatment due to their smaller number.

(5) Given the nature of the Non-civil Service Contract (NCSC) Staff

Scheme, and in order to maintain flexibility of the Scheme, bureaux/departments (B/Ds) are given the discretion to decide on


matters relating to the employment of NCSC staff, including day-to-day management, according to their own circumstances. Therefore, should NCSC staff need to receive treatment, examination or consultation at clinics during office hours, Heads of Department could exercise discretion to decide whether the concerned staff will be allowed time-off for the medical appointments having regard to operational needs, and whether he/she will be required to produce relevant documentary proof. In normal circumstances, B/Ds may, having regard to their operational needs, allow full-time NCSC staff to take time-off as necessary for medical appointments with valid medical certificates or attendance slips, without the need to cover such absence by extending normal working hours, deduction of salary or paid annual leave.

Traveller Immigration Clearance at Various Land Boundary Control Points 9. MR JEFFREY LAM (in Chinese): President, some mainland visitors to Hong Kong and local residents have complained to me that it often takes them half an hour to one hour or more to complete immigration clearance when they enter or leave Hong Kong via the Lo Wu, Lok Ma Chau and Shenzhen Bay immigration control points (control points) during weekday peak cross-boundary traffic hours and on holidays. Also, as the mainland authorities have recently started issuing to mainland residents the electronic Exit-Entry Permits for Travelling to and from Hong Kong and Macao, the number of people using e-channels at the mainland boundary control points for immigration clearance have increased, resulting in a substantial increase in the time taken for immigration clearance by Hong Kong residents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the total number and average daily number of mainland visitors entering and leaving Hong Kong via various land control points in 2014, with a breakdown by control point;

(2) whether the Immigration Department has assessed afresh if the

existing manpower at various land control points is sufficient to cope with the volume of work during peak cross-boundary traffic periods; if the Department has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;


5671

(3) whether it has discussed with the mainland authorities the formulation of measures to enhance the efficiency of traveller immigration clearance at the boundary control points of both places, such as diverting mainland residents and Hong Kong and Macao residents to use different e-channels or increasing the number of e-channels at the mainland boundary control points; if it has discussed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) whether it has studied the extension of the opening hours of the Lok

Ma Chau, Lo Wu and Shenzhen Bay control points, as well as the introduction of other measures to enhance the capacity for traveller immigration clearance of various land control points; if it has studied, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, to cope with the continued passenger growth, the Immigration Department (ImmD) has implemented various measures to enhance clearance capacity of boundary control points (BCPs). In addition to flexible manpower deployment, these measures include improvement works, flexible passenger flow management, launching a new immigration control system (ICONS), extension of e-Channel service, enhancing the workflow for immigration clearance and stepping up publicity efforts, and so on. A summary of these measures implemented in recent years is at Annex. The Administration's reply to various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) The total and daily average numbers of trips (arrival and departure) made by Mainland visitors at various land BCPs of Hong Kong in 2014 are tabulated below:

Land BCPs Number of trips (arrival and departure)

made by Mainland visitors (daily average)

Lo Wu 23 637 014 (64 759)

Lok Ma Chau Spur Line 20 585 553 (56 399)


Land BCPs Number of trips (arrival and departure)

made by Mainland visitors (daily average)

Hung Hom 2 247 211 (6 157)

Shenzhen Bay 18 217 964 (49 912)

Lok Ma Chau 9 326 338 (25 552)

Man Kam To 2 129 784 (5 835)

Sha Tau Kok 1 034 306 (2 834)

Total 77 178 170 (211 447)

(2) The ImmD has been closely monitoring the passenger traffic

situation at various land BCPs and the ImmD will, in accordance with the actual situation, deploy manpower flexibly and implement other necessary measures to ease congestion during peak hours. The ImmD's performance pledge at land BPCs is to clear 98% of Hong Kong residents within 15 minutes and 95% of visitors within 30 minutes. On the whole, the performance pledge was met at various land BCPs last year, whilst the waiting time for immigration clearance might be longer during the occasional extreme peak hours of passenger traffic. The ImmD will continue to monitor the situation closely and implement appropriate mitigating measures, as well as to review its manpower and other resource requirements from time to time.

(3) The ImmD has maintained close contact and liaison with relevant

Mainland authorities on such matters as the situation on immigration clearance and passenger traffic management at BCPs to ensure smooth arriving and departing passenger flow. We understand that at present, arrangement is in place at the Shenzhen side of the Lo Wu BCP for Mainland and Hong Kong/Macau residents going northbound to use separate automated passenger clearance facilities


5673

where possible. The ImmD will continue to relay the relevant suggestion to the relevant Mainland authorities at appropriate junctures.

(4) The Hong Kong SAR Government has been closely monitoring the

demand of cross-boundary passengers and has reviewed the opening hours of BCPs from time to time. At present, the Lok Ma Chau BCP is providing round-the-clock passenger clearance service. In 2013 and 2014, the average daily passenger traffic during the overnight period (that is, from midnight to 6.30 am) at the Lok Ma Chau BCP respectively accounted for 16.4% and 15.1% of the daily passenger volume of that BCP. Such figures has remained steady, reflecting that the current opening hours of land BCPs should be able to meet with the demand of cross-boundary passengers. The suggestion of extending the opening hours of other BCPs requires deliberation and co-ordination between the Hong Kong and Shenzhen authorities. Careful consideration on such areas as cross-boundary passenger demands, manpower support, effective use of resources and available transportation arrangement, and so on, on both the Hong Kong and Shenzhen sides is required. The Hong Kong SAR Government will continue to closely monitor the relevant situation and liaise with the Mainland authorities, with a view to taking forward the relevant deliberation at an appropriate time.

The ImmD will continue to monitor the situation of BCPs and ensure

their smooth operation through the aforementioned measures as appropriate.

Annex

Key measures for enhancing the clearance capacity of BCPs - Improvement works at the Man Kam To and Lok Ma Chau BCPs,

including increasing e-Channels, cross-boundary coach bays (including cross-boundary school coaches) and private car kiosks, will enhance clearance efficiency.


- Contra-flow Crowd Management is implemented to relieve congestion at the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line and Shenzhen Bay BCPs during peak hours, where arriving passengers are diverted to the departure hall for arrival clearance.

- A new ICONS will be launched in 2016 as planned, which would further

enhance clearance efficiency by upgrading all existing resident e-Channels to multi-purpose ones and installing over 150 new multi-purpose e-Channels (making a total of nearly 600 e-Channels), allowing more flexible deployment of e-Channels.

- Various measures to extend the e-Channel service are implemented,

including allowing eligible electronic Exit-Entry Permit for Travelling to and from Hong Kong (e-EEP) holders and frequent overseas visitors to use e-Channels, and continuing liaison with other countries and regions on the reciprocal use of automated immigration clearance service, and so on.

- Streamlining the workflow for immigration clearance by introducing the

non-stamping immigration clearance service for visitors in March 2013 and for Hong Kong non-permanent residents in December 2013, thereby shortening the clearance processing time.

- Publicity efforts are stepped up to promulgate updates on BCPs situation

through different channels including radio/TV broadcast, the ImmD's website and the Hong Kong Immigration Mobile Application, allowing cross-boundary passengers to choose the BCP and hours to travel at their own convenience.

Curbing Visitors Coming to Hong Kong for Engagement in Prostitution Activities 10. MR YIU SI-WING (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have relayed to me that visitors coming to Hong Kong for engagement in prostitution activities has become increasingly rampant in recent years, and that the penalties imposed on such visitors for engagement in these illegal activities are too lenient to have any deterrent effect. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


5675

(1) of the number of reports received by the Police in each of the past three years about visitors engaging in prostitution activities in Hong Kong, with a breakdown by the country/place from which the arrested persons came;

(2) of the number of visitors prosecuted for contravening the conditions

of stay by engaging in prostitution activities in Hong Kong, the number of such persons convicted, as well as the terms of imprisonment and the amounts of fines imposed by the Court on the convicted persons, in the past three years; and

(3) of the new measures the authorities have put in place to curb visitors

coming to Hong Kong for engagement in prostitution activities, and whether they will consider stepping up the law enforcement efforts, raising the penalties concerned and denying entry of such persons who have been convicted?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President,

(1) The number of complaints against unlawful employment (sex work) received by the Immigration Department (ImmD) from 2012 to 2014 is set out as follows:

Year Number of ComplaintsNote 2012 636 2013 527 2014 497

Note: The Police does not maintain the relevant statistics.

The breakdown of the number of persons arrested for being

suspected of taking up unlawful employment (sex work) is set out as follows:


Place of origin Year The Mainland Other TotalNote

2012 3 501 118 3 619 2013 3 708 121 3 829 2014 4 039 94 4 133

Note: Including persons who have contravened the conditions of stay (such as overstaying) and illegal immigrants.

(2) The number of persons being prosecuted and convicted for taking up

unlawful employment (sex work) in the past three years is set out as follows:

Year Number of persons prosecuted Number of persons convicted 2012 939 919 2013 801 799 2014 578 573

Pursuant to section 41 of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115), any

person who contravenes a condition of stay in force against him shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine of $50,000 and to imprisonment for two years. Most of the persons convicted for taking up unlawful employment (sex work) would be sentenced to imprisonment. The length of imprisonment sentenced in the last three years is set out as follows:

Year Length of imprisonment 2012 From 4 weeks (suspended for 2 years) to 14 months 2013 From 1 month (suspended for 2 years) to 19 months 2014 From 6 weeks (suspended for 3 years) to 18 months

The ImmD does not maintain statistics on the amount of fines

imposed. (3) The ImmD is committed to preventing visitors from and fighting

against breaching the conditions of stay in Hong Kong including taking up unlawful employment (sex work) and has taken the following measures and enforcement actions:


5677

(i) to assess visit visa applications and reject applications if the applicants' bona fides are in doubt;

(ii) to perform immigration control at control points to avoid

visitors from entering Hong Kong to engage in activities not commensurate with the conditions of stay;

(iii) to enhance intelligence collection and step up enforcement

operations against doubtful intermediaries or agents; (iv) to step up investigation and prosecution actions against

persons who overstay and contravene the conditions of stay and also the intermediaries or agents which aid and abet them;

(v) to step up enforcement actions including joint operations with

other law-enforcement agencies; and (vi) to enhance publicity to drive home the message that hiring

illegal workers is a criminal offence and that employers have to inspect travel documents of non-Hong Kong permanent resident job seekers before hiring them; and encourage the public to report illegal employment via hotline, facsimile, mail or online platform.

With a view to effectively deterring Mainland visitors from entering

Hong Kong to take up unlawful employment, the ImmD will continue to exchange intelligence with the Mainland authorities and pass the particulars of those Mainland visitors who were convicted to the Mainland authorities to cancel their exit endorsements and prevent them from entering Hong Kong for two years in accordance with the established mechanism. For those not convicted but reasonably suspected to have breached the Immigration Ordinance, they will be subject to secondary examination upon their subsequent visits to Hong Kong. If their purposes of visiting Hong Kong are in doubt, they will be refused entry and repatriated to the Mainland immediately.

In parallel, the Police will adopt a multi-agency approach to combat

illegal sex activities and continue to liaise and exchange intelligence with the Mainland and overseas law enforcing agencies in the curbing of organized prostitution activities.


Short-term Residential Care Service for Persons with Disabilities 11. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, quite a number of social workers and carers of persons with disabilities (PWDs) have relayed to me that the short-term residential care service (respite service) provided for PWDs not only enables PWDs to live in the community on a long-term basis but also allows carers to take a short break. However, since respite service is in short supply, PWDs need to wait for quite a long time for the service. Some PWDs have no alternative but to switch to long-term residential care services, and this not only increases social costs but also deprives PWDs of the choice of living in the community. Furthermore, the information on respite service provided on the computerized central platform set up by the Social Welfare Department is outdated. As carers of PWDs and social workers have no way of knowing the latest utilization of respite service places in various residential care homes, they must make enquiries with residential care homes one by one on their own. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the overall utilization rate and waiting time of respite service at present, with a breakdown by the type and degree of disability of the PWDs;

(2) whether it has formulated a long-term strategy to increase the

number of respite service places, with a view to improving the community care services provided for PWDs so as to avoid an increase in demand for long-term residential care services due to insufficient respite service places;

(3) of the current supply and demand situation of the respite service

provided for PWDs with high nursing care needs (such as PWDs with stomas and those who need to use ventilators); whether the Government has plans to increase the number of the relevant respite service places; and

(4) how often the information on respite service provided on the

computerized central platform is updated, and whether it has assessed if the information can meet the needs of users; of the factors constraining the updating of information more frequently?


5679

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to the questions raised by Dr Fernando CHEUNG is as follows:

(1) There are currently 156 places for day respite service in Hong Kong. Between April 2013 and September 2014, the total number of day respite service users was 2 439.

For residential respite service, there are currently 256 places in the

territory. In the aforementioned period, the total number of residential respite service users was 4 685. The length of stay did not exceed 14 days for 90% of residential respite service users. Subvented residential care homes for persons with disabilities (RCHDs) provide residential respite service through designated places or casual vacancies. The service targets are persons with disabilities in need of a certain level of personal and/or nursing care which should be within the scope of the residential service to which they would like to be admitted.

At present, day or residential respite service users are not required to

be waitlisted for the services through the central waitlist system. Applications can be made to the relevant service units by applicants directly or through social workers of medical social services units, integrated family services centres, special schools or rehabilitation service units. Applicants can be admitted directly by the day or residential rehabilitation service units if respite service places are available. Whether the applicants are required to be waitlisted for respite services depends on the circumstances of individual RCHDs in different periods (higher service demand expected in certain periods such as long school holidays). The Social Welfare Department (SWD) does not maintain information on the utilization rate and waiting time of residential respite service provided by RCHDs as well as the type and degree of disability of the service users. There is no waiting list for day respite service.

(2) The Government has always strived to provide the necessary training

and community support services (including respite services) for persons with disabilities. Our aim is to help them develop their potential, enable them to continue to live at home and prepare them


for full integration into the community while strengthening the carers' caring capacity and relieving their pressure. This will improve the quality of life of both the persons with disabilities and their families.

To this end, the Government has implemented a series of support

services. These include day care services, services of the district support centres for persons with disabilities (DSCs), vocational rehabilitation training, home care services, respite services and allied health and care services, so as to provide the necessary training and support for persons with disabilities. The Government also constantly reviews and enhances existing services. The supporting measures implemented in recent years include regularizing the services under the Pilot Scheme on Home Care Service for Persons with Severe Disabilities, introducing a case management service approach for DSCs, and implementing the Integrated Support Service for Persons with Severe Physical Disabilities (ISS).

In fact, the Government allocated additional recurrent funding of

$23.8 million in 2014-2015 to provide extra places of short-term day respite service and residential respite service for persons with disabilities aged six or above, so that their families or carers may take a planned short break such as travelling outside Hong Kong or attending to such personal businesses as undergoing a medical operation. This also helps temporarily relieve these families or carers of their caring duties and alleviate their stress.

The Government has also explored alternative ways of providing

respite services to meet service demand. In addition to the respite services provided by RCHDs and day rehabilitation service units, centre-based or home-based respite and support services are provided for persons with disabilities through DSCs, the home care service for persons with severe disabilities and the ISS. For home respite service, home care workers provide care, supervision and companionship for persons with severe disabilities at their homes. The above services can, through rendering appropriate support, help persons with severe disabilities stay in the community, thus reducing the demand for subsidized residential care places.


5681

(3) The service units currently providing high care level residential respite service include hostels for severely mentally handicapped persons, hostels for severely physically handicapped persons, hostels for severely physically handicapped persons with mental handicap, and care and attention homes for severely disabled persons. Between April 2013 and September 2014, a total of 172 residential respite service places were provided by the above service units with a total of 3 862 service users.

Moreover, the transitional care and support centre for tetraplegic

patients provides services including residential respite service for tetraplegic patients (including persons with severe physical disabilities who are dependent on respiratory support medical equipment). From April 2013 to September 2014, the centre provided residential respite service for an average of five service users per month. Among the service users, two were persons with severe physical disabilities who are dependent on respiratory support medical equipment. Furthermore, the ISS launched in November 2014 provides one-stop community support services, including post-discharge home-based support service, home respite service and cash subsidy, for persons with severe physical disabilities living in the community (including persons with disabilities who are dependent on respiratory support medical equipment), so as to relieve them of the burden of acquiring respiratory support medical equipment and medical consumables. The SWD will closely monitor the implementation of the ISS, review from time to time the service content, and meet with the service operators and service user groups regularly to ensure effective service delivery.

(4) The service units providing designated residential respite service

places will inform the SWD of the vacant residential respite service places twice a month. The SWD will, twice a month, upload the latest information on vacant places of all service units onto its webpage for public information. The SWD will closely monitor the operation of the online system and review in a timely manner the mechanism of disseminating information on vacant places through maintaining contact with the relevant organizations.


Proposed Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect 12. MR DENNIS KWOK: President, it has been reported that the Premier of the State Council recently said that a stock connect for cross-boundary trading of stocks listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (the Sz-HK Stock Connect) should be the next scheme to be launched following the commencement of the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect (S-HKSC) in November last year. Meanwhile, the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited said that the launch of the Sz-HK Stock Connect would be a must for 2015, and that the technical systems of the stock markets in Hong Kong and Shenzhen would be connected soon after the regulators from both places completed their study of the proposed Sz-HK Stock Connect. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows whether the Hong Kong Monetary Authority as well as the Securities and Futures Commission:

(1) have drawn up details regarding the proposed Sz-HK Stock Connect,

including the implementation timetable; if so, of such details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) have assessed the risks to be posed to Hong Kong's financial

regulatory system by launching the Sz-HK Stock Connect shortly after the commencement of S-HKSC; if they have assessed, of the details and whether they have formulated measures to minimize the risks; if they have not assessed, the reasons for that; and

(3) have reviewed the achievements and failures of S-HKSC (including

the fact that utilization of the investment quotas has been well below market expectations), and the implications of a recent plunge of the Shanghai stock market due to the China Securities Regulatory Commission curbing margin financing; if they have reviewed, of the details and how the review outcome will affect the proposed Sz-HK Stock Connect; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY: President,

(1) We understand that Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited is discussing with Shenzhen Stock Exchange regarding


5683

Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect. Details including operational arrangements and implementation timetable will be available at a later stage when the discussion progresses further.

(2) The implementation of Shenzhen-Hong Kong Stock Connect will

require regulatory approvals. In reviewing any proposals, the regulators will assess the potential implications for the Hong Kong financial market to ensure an orderly market and prudent risk management.

(3) Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect (S-HKSC) has been in

operation for only two months and, as a pilot programme, it is too soon to make a comprehensive assessment of its impact in the Mainland market and in the Hong Kong market. Nevertheless, the operations of S-HKSC, including order routing and matching, trade confirmation and reconciliation, clearing and settlement as well as risk management, have been smooth.

Also, since the launch of S-HKSC, the offshore Renminbi (RMB)

market in Hong Kong has been stable and orderly, and is able to accommodate the related fund flows. Specifically, the pool of RMB deposits in Hong Kong (that is, customer deposits and certificates of deposit issued by banks) grew from RMB 1,117 billion yuan at end October 2014 to RMB 1,158 billion yuan at end December 2014. The offshore RMB exchange rate and interbank interest rates have also moved generally in line with the onshore rates.

S-HKSC has opened up a new channel for cross-border use and

circulation of RMB funds, and will help further develop Hong Kong's offshore RMB business. Moreover, the unique connectivity with the Mainland stock market offered by the scheme is benefiting the financial intermediary businesses in Hong Kong as they provide services ranging from investment management, market research to custodian and brokerage services to Hong Kong and international investors going into the A-share market. All in all, S-HKSC and other cross-border investment schemes will help reinforce and enhance Hong Kong's position as the premier international financial centre and offshore RMB business centre.


Regarding the other questions raised in part (3) of the question, in terms of quota utilization, it should be noted that the quota is designed to control cross-boundary fund flows which only reflect market activities on a net buy basis and thus is not an appropriate indicator for assessing usage of the programme. Since launch on 17 November 2014 to 16 January 2015, the average daily turnover (that is, aggregate buy and sell transactions) of Northbound and Southbound trading represented 231% and 183% of the daily quota utilized respectively.

The recent plunge of the Shanghai stock market in January 2015 did

not carry any significant adverse implications for the Hong Kong market; market operations in Hong Kong, including the operations of S-HKSC, remained smooth and orderly.

Fees and Deposits Relating to Bankruptcy Petitions and Individual Voluntary Arrangements 13. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Chinese): President, under the Bankruptcy Ordinance (Cap. 6), debtors who are unable to pay their debts may file bankruptcy petitions against themselves with the Court or make repayment proposals to the Court and creditors under individual voluntary arrangements (IVAs). Debtors filing bankruptcy petitions are required to deposit with the Official Receiver (OR) a sum of $8,000 to cover the fees and expenses to be incurred by OR (or trustees) and pay a court fee of $1,045. As for debtors who have opted to apply for IVAs, they are required to deposit with the nominees an initial sum of $12,150 to cover the relevant fees. Some members of the public have sought my assistance, claiming that as they were unable to pay their debts, they and their families had been living under heavy livelihood and mental pressure all day. Eventually, they had decided to apply for bankruptcy but could hardly afford the exorbitant statutory fee and make the aforesaid deposit. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether, in conducting the last review of the levels of statutory fees and deposits relating to bankruptcy procedures, the authorities had made reference to the changes in the Consumer Price Index since the review preceding the last one; if they had, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;


5685

(2) whether it knows the respective numbers of bankruptcy petitions received from debtors by the Court and IVA cases reported by nominees to the OR's Office last year; and

(3) among the debtors mentioned in (2), whether any of them told the

authorities that they were unable to pay the aforesaid statutory fees and make the aforesaid deposits; if there were such debtors, whether the Government provided assistance to them under the existing mechanism; if it did, of the details and, among such debtors, the number of those who filed bankruptcy petitions successfully; if it did not provide assistance, whether the Government will review the existing mechanism and provide assistance through the Social Welfare Department or other government departments to those who are unable to pay the relevant fees; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,

(1) It is Government's policy that any fees charged should in general be set at a level adequate to recover the full cost of services provided so as to ensure that the cost of service provision would not be borne by general taxpayers. The Administration has thus made reference to the cost incurred by the Official Receiver's Office (ORO) in providing its services when reviewing and adjusting its statutory fees, charges and deposits. The last adjustment was made on 1 November 2013, when the Administration reduced a number of ORO's fees, charges and deposits following the scrutiny and approval by the Legislative Council.

(2) In 2014, the ORO received 9 550 bankruptcy petitions presented by

debtors, and outside nominees reported 782 approved individual voluntary arrangements (IVA) cases to the ORO.

(3) The ORO does not maintain record on whether a debtor has claimed

to be unable to afford the statutory fees, charges or deposits for bankruptcy petitions or IVA.


During the scrutiny of the proposals to reduce a number of ORO's statutory fees, charges and deposits in 2013, the relevant subcommittee of the Legislative Council discussed whether the Government could explore ways to offer assistance to bankruptcy petitioners who could not afford the deposit for filing bankruptcy petitions. In response to the subcommittee's request at that time, we have provided written reply to the subcommittee on the subject from the angle of social welfare policy and legal aid after consultation with the Labour and Welfare Bureau, the Home Affairs Bureau and the Legal Aid Department.

Regarding part (3) of the question, we have approached the above

bureaux/department again to seek their views. The Social Welfare Department reiterated that the department provides relevant services which include counselling having regard to the circumstances of individuals or families in need (including any personal or family problems arising from or leading to financial hardship). Depending on the circumstances, social workers will also refer them to appropriate services (such as debt counselling service, and so on). Individuals (including those filing for bankruptcy) with difficulties in meeting daily living expenses may also, through the assistance rendered by social workers, apply for charitable/trust funds to pay for living expenses (including expenses for medical treatment, rehabilitation equipment, educational items, rental and home relocation, and so on). Apart from the above services, eligible individuals with financial difficulties may also apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance to meet their basic needs.

The Home Affairs Bureau also reiterated that the policy objective of

legal aid is to ensure that no one with reasonable grounds for pursuing or defending a legal action is denied access to justice because of a lack of means. Applicants must pass both the statutory means and the merits tests in order to be eligible for legal aid. Legal aid service aims to provide legal representation for eligible applicants in legal proceedings. At present, legal aid service already covers proceedings in relation to bankruptcy, winding-up and recovery of arrears of wages by employees. In a debtor-petitioned bankruptcy case, the petitioner is seeking to free himself from his debts and liabilities before his creditors take action


5687

so that the petitioner can start afresh, instead of seeking to enforce a right or defend a claim. The procedural requirement is such that the petitioner can effectively represent himself. Given that legal aid is a public-funded service, using taxpayers' money to pay for the fees and charges relating to a debtor's bankruptcy petition, such as the statutory deposits payable by a debtor to the ORO, goes against the principle of effective use of public money.

In light of the above, the Administration considers that there is no

need to change the existing policy. Sponsorships for National Education Promotional Activities 14. DR KENNETH CHAN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the Committee for the "Passing on the Torch" National Education Activity Series (the Committee) appointed by the Government is responsible for scrutinizing and deciding whether programmes applying for sponsorships for national education promotional activities (sponsorships) offered by the Education Bureau (EDB) should be included in the "Passing on the Torch" National Education Activity Series (Passing on the Torch Series). Programmes included in the Series will have priority in receiving sponsorships from EDB. Regarding the composition and operation of the Committee, as well as EDB's vetting and approval of applications for sponsorships, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the appointment procedures and terms of office of the members of the Committee as well as its current membership list; whether the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has participated in the appointment of the members of the Committee and its operation; if it has, of the reasons for that;

(2) of the organizations from which EDB received, in each of the past

five years, applications for sponsorships for organizing mainland exchange programmes which aimed at promoting national education, and set out by applicant organization the amounts of sponsorships applied for, the application results and the amounts of sponsorships approved;


(3) whether the authorities can make public (i) the procedures adopted by the Committee for processing an application for including a certain programme in the Passing on the Torch Series, and the specific criteria and guidelines adopted by the Committee for making such decisions, (ii) all documents related to the processing of applications by the Committee (including the scoring criteria, and (iii) the specific procedures as well as the assessment and selection criteria adopted by EDB for vetting and approving applications for sponsorships, and the relevant documents; if they can, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(4) given that the key leaders of some of the organizations applying to

the Committee for inclusion of their programmes in the Passing on the Torch Series and to EDB for sponsorships are also members of the Committee, whether such members have participated in the Committee's vetting and approval of the applications submitted by those organizations; and

(5) as it has been reported that some organizations have commissioned

the private companies owned by their key members to organize the national education promotional activities sponsored by EDB, whether EDB will take follow up actions (including conducting investigations); if EDB will, of the details and progress of the follow-up actions; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, regarding the media report cited by the Member about Mainland exchange programmes run by organizations sponsored by the Education Bureau, we issued a "Clear the Air" article on 21 January 2015 to clarify that the commissioning of Mainland exchange programmes is processed in accordance with the Government's established procurement procedures. Any organizations meeting the eligibility criteria set out in the tender documents may submit a tender. The Committee for the "Passing on the Torch" National Education Activity Series (the Committee) was neither involved in the procurement of the service nor given any priority for the Education Bureau's funding support. The Education Bureau is responsible for the itinerary, tendering and implementation of Mainland exchange programmes. My reply to the Member's question is as follows:


5689

(1) To take forward the initiative announced in the 2008 Policy Address, the Education Bureau has created a national education activity platform known as "Passing on the Torch" (PoT) to provide Hong Kong teachers and students with more learning and exchange opportunities in the Mainland by co-ordinating the work of various voluntary groups to promote national education in a more strategic and systematic approach. In 2009, the Education Bureau invited DrAnnie WU Suk Ching, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr Andrew YAO Cho-fai, Dr Bunny CHAN Chung-bun, Mr YEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr Adrian CHENG and Mr George LUNG Chee-ming, who support and promote the above objective actively, together with a number of representatives from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and from the Education Bureau, to form the Committee to co-ordinate the operation of PoT. The above seven persons serve as Chairpersons while the Under Secretary for Education as the convenor of the Committee, with secretariat support provided by the Education Bureau. The Committee promotes the development of PoT by garnering strength through partnership between the Government and community organizations. The PoT inauguration ceremony was held in 2009 to officially announce the launch of PoT and the establishment of the Committee. PoT disseminates Mainland exchange programmes organized by the Education Bureau and other non-governmental organizations for the reference of schools, teachers, parents, students and members of the public. The Committee, responsible for co-ordinating the activities of PoT, is not subject to any specific regulations in respect of its tenure.

(2) Unlike the Education Bureau-commissioned Mainland exchange

programmes, the "Passing on the Torch" Subvention Scheme (the Subvention Scheme) is a programme under the Education Bureau. It is administered by the Education Bureau without any involvement of the Committee in the vetting of funding applications submitted under the Subvention Scheme. With an annual provision of $2 million, the Subvention Scheme provides sponsorship for non-profit-making organizations to arrange for Mainland exchange programmes in support of the objective of "promoting national education in schools" for the purposes of enhancing national knowledge and fostering a sense of national identity among primary


and secondary students of Hong Kong. Sponsored organizations should prepare the itinerary and implementation details of the exchange programmes on their own according to the proposals submitted. In general, the total amount of sponsorship for all projects submitted by the same organization will not exceed 50% of the costs of all activities. The maximum amount of sponsorship for each approved project under the Subvention Scheme is $0.5 million, while the total amount of sponsorship for all projects submitted by the same organization should not exceed $1 million.

In the past five financial years, 25 organizations submitted 59

applications under the Subvention Scheme of the Education Bureau. Details of sponsorships are set out below:

Year Organization Amount Sought (HK$)

Amount Approved (percentage of the total cost)#

2009-2010 WooFoo Social Enterprises

124,293 124,293 (28%)

2009-2010 Hong Kong Youth Exchange Promotion United Association

14,908 11,181 (36%)

2009-2010 Hong Kong Youth Exchange Promotion United Association

30,960 23,220 (38%)

2009-2010 Warehouse Teenage Club

498,800 498,800 (45%)


491,809 491,809 (42%)


330,500 330,500 (49%)

2010-2011 Hok Yau Club, Liberal Studies Department

132,500 88,313 (38%)

2010-2011 Hong Kong Association of Youth Development

31,755 31,755 (50%)


5691

Year Organization Amount Sought (HK$)

Amount Approved (percentage of the total cost)#


31,755 31,755 (50%)

2010-2011 Hong Kong Holistic Education Network

171,000 171,000 (35%)


42,700 22,575 (38%)


497,536 373,152 (34%)

2011-2012 Hong Kong Federation of Education Workers

490,000 490,000 (50%)


489,888 489,888 (39%)


309,184 309,184 (50%)

2011-2012 Economic Synergy

142,376 87,616 (31%)


221,888 165,516 (37%)


387,980 145,493 (19%)

2012-2013 Education Convergence

498,300 498,300 (49%)


108,720 108,720 (50%)

Note: # Sponsorship is provided on a reimbursement basis to meet the actual costs

of activities and the actual amount disbursed may be less than the amount approved.


(3) All applications are examined by an assessment panel, which comprises members drawn from the school sector, experts, academics and the Education Bureau's representative, according to the established assessment criteria in a fair and just manner before recommendations are made to the Education Bureau. The assessment criteria include quality of the proposed project, whether the objective of promoting national education in schools can be achieved and cost-effectiveness. When inviting applications for the Subvention Scheme, the Education Bureau will make available relevant details and documents, which include the application form, assessment criteria and points to note on the use of funds, on the PoT website.

(4) Members of the Committee do not sit on the assessment panel of the

Scheme. The assessment panel has put in place a mechanism for declaration of interests to avoid conflict of interests.

(5) Applicant organizations of the Subvention Scheme are required to

set out clearly the details of each proposed activity and the amount of sponsorship sought in the application form for consideration by the assessment panel in accordance with the criteria stated in part (3) above. The approved projects should be organized strictly in accordance with the details specified in the application proposal. Should changes are made on their own, the Education Bureau has the right to withdraw the sponsorship. Successful applicants are required to submit an activity report and statements of income and expenditure of the sponsored projects to the Education Bureau upon completion of the projects. Reimbursement is made according to the approved amount of sponsorship for the estimated budget to meet the actual expenses of the activities.

Dentists and Ancillary Dental Personnel in Hong Kong 15. MR ALBERT HO (in Chinese): President, according to the Health Facts of Hong Kong compiled and edited by the Government in 2014, as at the end of 2013, the number of dentists in Hong Kong was 2 310, giving a ratio to population of 1:3125, and the number of dental hygienists was 367, giving a ratio


5693

to population of 1:19672. However, the numbers of dental therapists and dental surgery assistants were not provided. It is learnt that the Government has conducted a manpower projection for 13 healthcare professions subject to statutory regulation, which include dentists. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has measures to increase the number of dentists; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) of the respective current numbers of dental therapists and dental

surgery assistants in Hong Kong; and (3) whether it has conducted any manpower projection for dental

therapists, dental surgery assistants and dental hygienists; whether it has assessed if there is a shortfall of such professionals at present; if the assessment outcome is in the affirmative, whether measures are in place to increase their numbers?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President,

(1) Any person who wishes to practise dentistry in Hong Kong must fulfil the qualifications stipulated in the Dentists Registration Ordinance (Cap. 156) (the Ordinance) and obtain the necessary approval from the Dental Council of Hong Kong (DCHK) in order to become a registered dentist. The DCHK is an independent statutory regulatory body established under the Ordinance for handling matters relating to the registration and regulation of the dental profession in Hong Kong.

As for local training, the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of

Hong Kong is the only institution offering undergraduate programme in dentistry in Hong Kong, providing about 50 training places per annum. In addition, the DCHK conducts a licensing examination annually for those overseas trained dentists to get qualified for practice in Hong Kong. As at December 2014, there were about 2 300 registered dentists on the register of the DCHK.


To tackle the challenges brought about by a growing and ageing population and increasing demand for healthcare services from the community, the Government has set up a steering committee to conduct a strategic review on healthcare manpower planning and professional development in Hong Kong. The review covers 13 professions which are subject to statutory regulation, including doctors, dentists and allied health professionals. Chaired by the Secretary for Food and Health, the steering committee will recommend ways to cope with the anticipated demand for healthcare manpower and facilitate professional development, with a view to ensuring the healthy and sustainable development of the healthcare system in Hong Kong.

(2) and (3) Dental hygienists refer to persons who have met the qualifications

prescribed in section 3 of the Ancillary Dental Workers (Dental Hygienists) Regulations (Cap. 156B) (the Regulations) and are admitted by the DCHK for enrolment as dental hygienists. According to section 6 of the Regulations, the scope of work of a dental hygienist mainly includes cleaning and scaling of teeth, exposure of oral x-ray films, and giving of advice on matters relating to dental hygiene in accordance with the directions of a registered dentist. As at end December 2014, there were 387 enrolled dental hygienists in Hong Kong.

Dental therapists refer to those ancillary dental workers who have

completed the requisite period of training and passed the Dental Therapist Certificate Examination or equivalent. Their main responsibilities are to provide basic dental treatments such as scaling and filling to children under 18 years of age, and to educate the general public on common oral health knowledge. Although dental therapists in Hong Kong are not required to register with the DCHK, according to section 31(3) of the Ordinance, they can only work in the school dental clinics of the Department of Health (DH). Therefore, the number of serving dental therapists in the DH can be taken as the number of dental therapists practising in Hong Kong. As at 1 January 2015, there were 276 dental therapists employed by the Government.


5695

Dental surgery assistants refer to those ancillary dental workers who assist dentists in the treatment of patients. They are not required to enrol or register under the Ordinance, nor are they subject to any specific entry requirements. Some dental surgery assistants have completed certificate courses operated by various institutions (for example, the Prince Philip Dental Hospital), while others enter the profession through on-the-job training. According to the Health Manpower Survey conducted by the DH in 2009, there were a total of 2 847 dental surgery assistants as at 31 March 2009.

In April 2014, the DH embarked on a new round of Health

Manpower Survey which covers dental hygienists, dental therapists and dental surgery assistants. The survey results will be uploaded to the website of the DH upon completion of data collection and statistical work. The Administration will encourage institutions to operate relevant training courses as circumstances warrant.

MPF System 16. MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Chinese): President, in June last year, the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority and the Hong Kong Monetary Authority launched the "E-Payment for MPF Transfer system" (the E-payment system) to automate payments for the transfer of Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) accrued benefits between trustees, and expected the time taken for such transfer to be shortened by about one week. Moreover, it has been reported that each MPF scheme member currently maintains about 3.7 MPF accounts on average. There are comments that if the members do not actively consolidate their MPF accounts, it will be difficult for the ratio of administrative costs to the total expenses to decrease. On the other hand, the law stipulates that not more than 10% in total of the funds of an MPF constituent fund may be invested in shares listed on a non-approved stock exchange (the restriction). Given that the stock exchanges in Shanghai and Shenzhen are non-approved stock exchanges, investments of the funds of MPF schemes in shares listed on these two stock exchanges through the Shanghai-Hong Kong Stock Connect and a similar stock connect between Shenzhen and Hong Kong to be launched in future are also subject to that restriction. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:


(1) whether the authorities have compiled statistics on the utilization of the aforesaid E-payment system since its launch and collected views from various parties, so as to review the effectiveness of the system and to make improvements; the amount of resources that the authorities will deploy in the coming year for publicizing the use of the system;

(2) whether the authorities have plans in the coming year to launch

other measures and electronic systems to streamline the administrative work so as to attract more members to consolidate their MPF accounts; if they do, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether the authorities will consider relaxing the aforesaid

restriction on investments in stock markets of places outside Hong Kong, so as to allow more investment choices for MPF schemes; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,

(1) The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) introduced the E-payment for MPF Transfer system (the E-payment system) in June 2014. As a payment system designed for use among trustees, the E-payment system has now been adopted by all trustees for handling the transfer of a scheme member's accrued benefits to another trustee, thus reducing the manual work and time required for mailing, issuing, verifying and cashing cheques. It also enhances the accuracy and efficiency of the transfer process. According to the MPFA, the E-payment system has been operating smoothly, and has shortened the time required by trustees for handling transfers of accrued benefits (reduced from an average of three to four weeks to two to three weeks) and out-of-market time (reduced from an average of two weeks to one week).

The MPFA will continue to gauge views from various parties to

further improve the operation and effectiveness of the E-payment system. Considering that all trustees have already adopted the E-payment system, there is no need for the MPFA to earmark additional resources for publicity-related work.


5697

(2) In recent years, the MPFA has introduced various measures to encourage and facilitate the consolidation of MPF personal accounts by scheme members, with a view to creating more room for further fee reduction. Apart from sending letters and application forms to scheme members with more than one MPF personal account, the MPFA has distributed promotional flyers to all scheme members and, with the help of trustees, issued account consolidation reminders to scheme members who are leaving their current employment. The MPFA has also simplified the relevant application form. For the period from September 2013 to December 2014, trustees have received over 122 500 applications for account consolidation.

In the coming year, the MPFA will continue to actively explore the

possibility of introducing other measures for streamlining and automating administrative procedures, and strengthen publicity and public education efforts on various media (including the MPFA Newsletter, the MPFA website, promotional videos and print advertisements, and so on). The MPFA aims to encourage and facilitate the consolidation of MPF personal accounts through simplifying the consolidation process and enhancing scheme members' knowledge of account management.

(3) At present, MPF constituent funds may invest in securities listed on

more than 20 approved stock exchanges outside Hong Kong. The MPFA will examine whether it is necessary to expand the list of approved stock exchanges from time to time, taking into account the market and economic developments of overseas jurisdictions and the views of the industry. Considerations include the specific operations of the exchanges, related market factors, and so on. The MPFA will also closely monitor the developments of the mutual market access initiatives between Hong Kong and Mainland exchanges to assess whether these Mainland exchanges meet the MPFA's approval criteria, including pre-delivery of securities and the adequacy of quotas to meet demand.

Any changes to the MPF investment regulations will have to be in

line with the objective of MPF as long-term investment which requires a diversified approach in investment strategies. In formulating the relevant investment regulations, the MPFA aims to


enhance the protection of scheme members' interests through providing appropriate risk and return trade-offs and at the same time providing sufficient investment choices for scheme members.

Provision of Parking Spaces at Tsuen Wan Town Centre 17. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Chinese): President, some residents in the Tsuen Wan district have relayed to me that with the completion of a number of housing estates, the population in the district has continuously increased in recent years, resulting in the worsening of the problem of shortage of parking spaces in the district, particularly in the four District Council (DC) constituencies in the town centre, namely Tak Wah, Yeung Uk Road, Clague Garden and Fuk Loi. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of parking spaces for various types of vehicles in the four aforesaid DC constituencies in each of the past five years (set out in tables of the same format as Table 1);

Table 1 Constituency：Tak Wah

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Private car Goods vehicle Tourist coach Motorcycle

(2) of the respective numbers of prosecutions/Fixed Penalty Notices for

parking offences in respect of various types of vehicles in the four aforesaid DC constituencies in each of the past five years (set out in tables of the same format as Table 2);

Table 2 Constituency：Tak Wah 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Private car Goods vehicle Tourist coach Motorcycle


5699

(3) after taking into account the number of housing estates to be completed in the Tsuen Wan district in the next five years, of the numbers of additional parking spaces for various types of vehicles that need to be provided in the four aforesaid DC constituencies for meeting the relevant standards set out in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines; whether it will provide more parking spaces for various types of vehicles in these constituencies in the next five years; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) whether it will review the existing planning standards and the

relevant policies in respect of the provision of parking spaces for various types of vehicles to ensure that adequate parking spaces are provided; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr CHAN Han-pan is as follows:

(1) The numbers of parking spaces at Tak Wah Constituency, Yeung Uk Road Constituency, Clague Garden Constituency and Fuk Loi Constituency of the Tsuen Wan District Council in the past five years are set out at Annex. The figures include parking spaces managed by the Transport Department (TD) and those provided by private developments. As regards temporary short-term tenancy (STT) car parks, depending on the terms of the tenancy agreement, operators have the right to adjust the number of parking spaces for different types of vehicles according to market demand. As such, the TD does not have accurate records of these parking spaces.

(2) The Police do not have a breakdown of prosecution figures of illegal

parking by District Council constituencies or by types of vehicles. Overall speaking, the Police issued 26 233, 31 183, 36 797, 39 826 and 46 416 fixed penalty tickets respectively from 2010 to 2014 for illegal parking in Tsuen Wan District.


(3) When planning for development projects, relevant departments will, after making reference to the guidelines set out in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines and taking into account the traffic condition in the vicinity of the relevant development projects, formulate suitable requirements for parking spaces and incorporate the requirements into the land lease. Currently, the buildings in Tsuen Wan District provide specific number of parking spaces according to their respective land leases.

The residential development projects in Tsuen Wan town centre

which are expected to be completed in the coming five years mainly include Tsuen Wan Area 5 (TW5) (Cityside), TW5 (Bayside), Tsuen Wan Area 6 and Tsuen Wan Area 7 at Tsuen Wan West Station, as well as the Home Ownership Scheme project of Sheung Chui Court. According to the requirements of the relevant land leases, the above residential development projects will provide 1 136 private car parking spaces, 56 goods vehicle parking spaces and 111 motorcycle parking spaces. Furthermore, the shopping centre of the TW5 property development project at Tsuen Wan West Station will provide 172 private car parking spaces, 30 goods vehicle parking spaces and 45 motorcycle parking spaces. That project is also required to provide 100 additional public parking spaces for private cars and 120 parking spaces for the Mass Transit Railway park-and-ride scheme.

There are other development projects in Tsuen Wan District which

are still under the design stage (such as Tsuen Wan Town Lot Number 393 in Tak Wah Constituency). The number of parking spaces to be provided is yet to be confirmed.

The TD will continue to monitor the demand and supply of parking

spaces in the district. If necessary, the Government will consider including additional requirements in the tenancy terms of temporary STT car parks for parking of certain types of vehicles (such as coaches). The TD will also provide on-street parking spaces for different types of vehicles at appropriate locations, as long as road safety and other road users are not affected.


5701

(4) The Government's policy on parking provision is to provide an appropriate number of parking spaces to meet demand, but at a level which will not unduly attract potential passengers to opt for private cars in lieu of public transport, thereby increasing the number of private cars and causing road traffic congestion. The Government has been closely monitoring the demand and supply of parking spaces for various types of vehicles in Hong Kong, and review the parking standards in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines as appropriate. For example, to allow for the more efficient use of newly developed private residential sites and reduce the overall vacancy rate of private car parking spaces, the Government amended the guidelines concerning the provision of private car parking spaces for private housing in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines in February 2014.

Annex

Parking Spaces in Tak Wah Constituency, Yeung Uk Road Constituency, Clague Garden Constituency and Fuk Loi Constituency of

Tsuen Wan District Council in the Past Five Years

Constituency：Tak Wah Number of Parking Spaces 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Private car 2 926 2 982 2 978 2 871 2 768 Goods vehicle 58 58 61 61 63 Tourist coach 2 2 2 2 2 Motorcycle 91 91 91 82 70 Constituency：Yeung Uk Road Number of Parking Spaces 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Private car 2 600 2 600 2 600 2 592 2 569 Goods vehicle 467 465 465 472 464 Tourist coach 0 0 0 0 0 Motorcycle 82 82 82 62 62


Constituency：Clague Garden Number of Parking Spaces 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Private car 647 647* 1 447 1 435 1 435 Goods vehicle 26 26 26 26 29 Tourist coach 0 0 0 0 0 Motorcycle 27 23* 100 95 95

Note: * In order to tie in with the construction of the property development projects in TW5 at

Tsuen Wan West Station of the West Rail Line, the Tsuen Wan Transport Complex Car Park was demolished in 2013.

Constituency：Fuk Loi Number of Parking Spaces 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 Private car 442 442 442 442 442 Goods vehicle 46 46 46 46 46 Tourist coach 0 0 0 0 0 Motorcycle 47 47 47 38 38 Remuneration of Chief Executive and Politically Appointed Officials as well as Honorarium of Non-official Members of Executive Council 18. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, on the 16th of last month, the Government issued press releases at 11:01 pm and at 11:06 pm respectively, announcing the decisions to adjust the remuneration of the Chief Executive (CE) and the politically appointed officials (PAOs), as well as the honorarium of the non-official Members of the Executive Council (adjustment decisions). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) when the adjustment decisions were made; why it arranged announcing such decisions so late at night; whether, prior to the announcements, it had considered if such timing for the announcements would (i) create a public perception that the


5703

Government was acting stealthily, and (ii) render the media unable to report the decisions in their main news bulletins, thereby undermining the public's right to know;

(2) given the comments that although the adjustment decisions have

been described as restoring to the levels in 2009 prior to the pay cut voluntarily offered by the personnel of the aforesaid positions, the incumbents of those positions are actually given a pay rise of 5%, and coupled with the fact that prior to the adjustments, the remuneration of CE and PAOs was already higher than that of the heads of states and ministers in most other countries/places, whether the authorities had, prior to making the adjustment decisions, considered the current situation that quite a number of members of the public are dissatisfied with the performance of the current-term Government; if they had considered, of the details; and

(3) as CE undertook in 2012, when he was then the CE-elect, that he

would not implement the proposal by the Government of the last term on a pay rise to restore the remuneration of CE and PAOs of the current-term Government to its real value in 2009, and that the remuneration of his team would be frozen at the 2012 level, whether the authorities have assessed if the adjustment decisions are in violation of the aforesaid undertaking, and whether they will consider withdrawing the decisions?

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to Mr Frederick FUNG's question is as follows: The remuneration of Chief Executive and politically appointed officials (PAOs) has not been adjusted since the approval of the level by the Finance Committee (FC) of the Legislative Council in 2002. As for the honorarium of Non-Official Members of the Executive Council, in accordance with the adjustment mechanism approved by the FC in 1993, it is annually adjusted in October according to movements of the Consumer Price Index.


In 2009, the then Chief Executive and PAOs, having regard to the socioeconomic condition at that time, took a voluntary pay cut of 5.38% in order to stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Hong Kong to ride out the then difficult times. The Convenor and other Non-official Members of the Executive Council took the initiative to reduce their honorarium by 5.38%. In 2012, the last-term Government originally proposed to increase the remuneration for PAOs by 8.1%. In the light of the views of the public and the Legislative Council, it was decided not to pursue this proposal and the prevailing remuneration level would be maintained. In other words, the 2009 voluntary pay cut has not yet been restored, and the level of remuneration for Chief Executive and PAOs remain 5.38% lower than that approved by the FC. Considering that the present economic conditions are obviously much improved as compared with those in 2009, the reasons for continuing the voluntary pay cut and honorarium reduction no longer exist. The Government decided that, with effect from 1 February 2015, the remuneration of the Chief Executive and PAOs would be restored to the level as approved in 2002 by the FC, and the voluntary 5.38% reduction in the honorarium of Non-Official Members of the Executive Council adopted since July 2009 would also cease to apply on the same day. The above decision is in line with the prevailing system as approved by the FC. The Government made an announcement on 16 January 2015 as soon as possible after making the decision. Measures to Combat Illegal Felling of Trees of Valuable Species 19. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have relayed to me that cases of illegal felling of trees of valuable species have occurred one after another in recent years. For instance, an Aquilaria sinensis aged 80 years was felled at the end of last year. They are of the view that the results of the Government's tree conservation work are unsatisfactory, and the Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96) is unable to curb illegal tree-felling effectively. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


5705

(1) of the number of trees of valuable species which were illegally felled in each of the past three years; among these trees, of the respective numbers of trees belonging to the species of Podocarpus macrophyllus (Buddhist pines), Aquilaria sinensis (incense trees) and Diospyros vacciniodes; whether the Government has conducted a territory-wide survey to gather information on the numbers and distribution of trees of those species; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) of the number of cases of illegal felling of trees of valuable species

uncovered in each of the past three years, and the respective numbers of persons prosecuted and convicted for illegal tree-felling; the number of non-Hong Kong residents among these persons; apart from Cap. 96, which legislation the authorities invoked to prosecute the persons concerned; whether the authorities will enact a comprehensive piece of legislation to curb illegal tree-felling and increase the penalties concerned; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) of the manpower for and expenditure on law enforcement against

illegal tree-felling in each of the past three years; whether the authorities encountered difficulties in carrying out the task; if they did, of the details; whether the authorities will step up patrol at the black spots of illegal tree-felling and enhance the measures for preventing tree-felling; if they will, of the details; whether the authorities will adopt the tree guard monitoring systems developed overseas or by local tertiary institutions to prevent tree-felling?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government has always been very concerned about the illegal tree-felling activities in relation to native trees, such as Aquilaria sinensis (incense trees). Various departments concerned are committed to taking enforcement actions and stepping up patrols at black spots of illegal tree-felling with joint efforts. Our reply to Mr WONG Kwok-hing's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD)

has been conducting surveys and studies over the years to gather information on the distribution of most of the native plants, including


Podocarpus macrophyllus (Buddhist pines), Aquilaria sinensis (incense trees) and Diospyros vacciniodes. Our information shows that Buddhist pines mainly grow at the eastern coast; incense trees are mostly found in lowland broadleaf forests or in fung shui woods behind rural villages; and Diospyros vacciniodes is a very common shrub which is widely distributed in woodlands and shrublands in the territory. The AFCD does not maintain a record of the number of individuals of the above plants.

Currently, offenders suspected of involving in illegal felling of

incense trees and Buddhist pines are mainly prosecuted for criminal offences on theft, criminal damage, possession of offensive weapon, going equipped for stealing, and so on. The number of incense tree and Buddhist pine cases and prosecutions handled by the Police under the abovementioned offences in the recent three years are set out at Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. The Police does not maintain data on the nationalities of the persons involved.

Table 1: Cases involving Incense Trees

Year Number of cases

Number of arrested

Number of prosecutions

Number of trees involved

2012 67 64 28 99 2013 96 41 21 168 2014 134 65 30# 240 Note: # The number of prosecution might be updated upon the completion of

investigation.

Table 2: Cases involving Buddhist Pines

Year Number of cases

Number of arrested

Number of prosecutions

Number of trees involved

2012 1 0 0 6 2013 7 4 1 38 2014 11 6 2# 16 Note: # The number of prosecution might be updated upon the completion of

investigation.


5707

As for cases of felling of other plants, the number of investigations and prosecutions initiated by the AFCD under the Forests and Countryside Ordinance (Cap. 96) and the Country Parks Ordinance (Cap. 208) are set out at Table 3. Among them, there are three cases involving Diospyros vacciniodes. Table 3: Cases of illegal felling of other plants Year Number of cases Number of prosecutions* 2012 137 13 2013 47 9 2014 53 6

Note: * "Number of prosecution cases" include cases carried forward from

previous year(s) but do not include the prosecution cases that are still being processed at the end of the year.

Existing legislation relating to prosecutions against illegal tree-felling includes the Forests and Countryside Ordinance, the Country Parks Ordinance and its regulations, as well as the Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210). Under the Forests and Countryside Ordinance and the Country Parks Ordinance, any person who vandalizes or damages a tree, including felling a tree illegally, is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. Depending on the circumstances of individual cases, the Police may initiate prosecutions under the Theft Ordinance, which imposes a heavier penalty. Any person arrested and charged with theft is liable to a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years. The Government takes the view that the penalty already has a deterrent effect on the offenders. Therefore, we have no intention to increase the penalty at present.

(3) The AFCD closely co-operates with the Police in combating against

illegal tree-felling activities. As for the Police Force, it has stepped up patrols at relevant black-spots, as well as strengthened its communication with the villagers to collect intelligence on illegal tree-felling and suspicious persons nearby. The AFCD has also been conducting regular patrols in country parks and special areas, as


well as joint operations with the Police from time to time at black spots of illegal tree-felling. As the above patrolling and law-enforcement duties are part of the day-to-day duties of the departments concerned, a breakdown of the manpower and expenditure involved for such duties is not available.

Despite efforts made by various enforcement agencies in combating illegal tree-felling activities, it is difficult to eliminate such activities completely even with increased patrols, given that different types of plants are widely distributed in countryside areas throughout Hong Kong. The application of electronic monitoring systems in the countryside is subject to physical constraints, which may not be effective in preventing illegal felling activities. Furthermore, substantial resources have to be put in place in this regard. To combat illegal tree-felling activities, the co-operation of citizens, especially the residents living in the vicinity, is important. Any person who finds illegal tree-felling activities should inform the Police and the relevant government departments as soon as possible, so that timely enforcement actions can be taken. The AFCD and the Police will step up publicity in this regard in the coming year.

Reduction in Bus Fares and Retail Prices of Auto-fuel in Response to Drop in Oil Prices 20. MS EMILY LAU (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have relayed to me that the average prices of NYMEX Light Sweet Crude Oil Futures and ICE London Brent Crude Futures dropped by over 50% from their peaks in the past six months. The fuel cost, which makes up the major part of the operating costs of the transport industry, should have decreased significantly. They have pointed out that while franchised bus operators (bus operators) often applied to the authorities for fare increases in the past on grounds of rising operating costs due to high oil prices, the bus fares were not reduced correspondingly when oil prices dropped, resulting in a situation that the bus fares always rise and never drop. Moreover, some private car owners and taxi drivers have pointed out that in the same period, the retail prices of auto-fuel decreased by about 30% only, arousing suspicion that when international oil prices are rising, oil companies usually increase prices promptly at a significant


5709

rate, but when oil prices are falling, oil companies reduce prices sluggishly at a marginal rate. As such, users of auto-fuel cannot be benefited at all. In this connection, will the Executive Authorities inform this Council:

(1) whether they have asked the bus operators to provide operational

data for assessing the impacts of the significant drop in oil prices on bus operators' operating costs and, based on the outcome of such assessment, activated the procedures under the Fare Adjustment Mechanism, which provides for both upward and downward adjustments of fares, to demand bus operators to reduce their bus fares; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) whether, in the past six months, they obtained operational data from

oil companies to investigate if they have colluded to manipulate oil prices; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether they have measures to promote the further opening-up of the

auto-fuel market so as to introduce greater competition among oil companies; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the consolidated replies of Transport and Housing Bureau and Environment Bureau to the three parts of the question are as follows:

(1) The Government is aware of the concerns that the public has over the fares of public transport services. We are of the view that fares should be set at a reasonable level, having regard to the acceptability and affordability of the public on one hand, and the long-term financial sustainability of public transport operators on the other. This is to ensure that the public can continue to enjoy quality and cost-effective services as well as modal choices.

According to the Fare Adjustment Arrangement for Franchised

Buses (FAA), the Government would take into account a basket of factors in considering the need of any fare adjustment and the rate of the adjustment. These include:


(i) outcome of a fare adjustment formula; (ii) changes in operating costs and revenue since the last fare

adjustment; (iii) forecasts of future costs, revenue and return; (iv) the need to provide the bus operators with a reasonable rate of

return; (v) public acceptability and affordability; and (vi) quality and quantity of service provided. The abovementioned formula is: (0.5 x Change in Nominal Wage Index for the Transportation

Section) + (0.5 x Change in Composite Consumer Price Index (CCPI)) – (0.5 x Productivity Gain).

The formula reflects the marco-economic situation, particularly with respect to the changes in the nominal wage for the transportation section and CCPI. Changes in fuel price are included in CCPI. According to the established arrangement, the adjustment formula would be applied on a quarterly basis. If the formula outcome reaches -2%, the Government would proactively initiate a fare review. The factors mentioned under (ii) to (vi) above would be taken into account in the review. Moreover, there is a passenger reward arrangement under the FAA. According to the current arrangement, the passenger reward arrangement would be triggered when the rate of return for an operator reaches or exceeds the threshold of 9.7% as a result of changes in the overall costs and revenue. The operator would then have to share the profit above the threshold as fare concessions with the passengers on an equal basis. Some franchised buses have been offering fare concessions to passengers under this arrangement over the past few years.


5711

It must be pointed out that although changes in fuel price would inevitably affect the operating costs of franchised bus services, the operating costs are made up of various components apart from fuel cost. These include wage expense, maintenance and insurance. The expenditures on various cost components (particularly the labour cost) have basically been increasing in recent years. The Government will continue to keep the situation in view and handle the matters relating to the franchised bus fares in accordance with the FAA.

(2) Retail prices of auto-fuels in Hong Kong are determined by oil companies having regard to commercial practices and their operating costs. We appreciate the impact of the auto-fuels prices on the public and have 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 (FOB) prices for unleaded petrol and motor vehicle diesel). We have been in close contact with oil companies and in time of international oil price reduction, urge them to adjust prices promptly to lessen the burden on the public.

According to our observation, the trend movements of local retail

prices of auto-fuels and Singapore FOB prices (that is, Means of Platts Singapore (MOPS)) are generally in line, although the timing and magnitude of changes may not be exactly the same due to the following reasons:

(i) MOPS prices fluctuate day to day, but oil companies do not

adjust their auto-fuels price daily; (ii) Import price of refined oil product is only one of the costs of

local retail price. Retail price also includes tax ($6.06 for unleaded petrol and tax free for diesel), and other operating costs, such as land costs, Government rent, staff costs, transportation, promotion, operation of oil terminal, and so on. When oil companies adjust their prices, apart from the import prices of oil products, they also take into account changes in these operating costs; and


(iii) Oil companies generally provide various kinds of discounts and promotions to customers and drivers. Therefore, the actual selling prices of auto-fuels are effectively lower than their listed pump prices.

Since the beginning of July 2014, international crude oil prices have

accumulated a reduction of about 50%. The trend movements of MOPS for unleaded petrol and diesel are roughly the same during the period. In this period, oil companies, in response to falling import prices, have adjusted downwards the pump prices of unleaded petrol and diesel, each as many as 19 times, with maximum accumulated reduction of over $3.2 per litre. According to our observation, this is generally in line with the trend movements of international oil prices over the same period, and represents around 50% of the import price of its refined oil products.

To sum up, in analysing whether the prices of local auto-fuels are

adjusted in tandem with the changes in import prices of refined oil products, we should consider the portion of import price of refined oil product within the pump price, and should not take into account other components which do not have direct relationship with the international oil prices (that is, tax and other operating costs). Therefore, it is not appropriate to simply compare the percentage change of local auto-fuels pump prices with that of international oil prices. In addition, as oil companies offer various kinds of discounts and promotions to consumers, the actual prices paid by consumers are lower than the pump prices listed in petrol filling stations.

In a free market economy, the Hong Kong retail price of auto-fuels,

same as the prices of other consumer products, should be determined by the market. We will continue to monitor the trend movement of the oil prices, and urge the oil companies to promptly reduce their retail prices whenever there is room to do so, to lessen the burden of the general public.

(3) In a free market economy, the retail prices of auto-fuels are

determined by the market. The Government has been endeavoured to ensure a reliable supply of fuel, maintain an open market and


5713

enhance competition by removing barriers to enter into the fuel market. The Government has, since 2003, taken the following series of measures to facilitate new market entrants including:

(i) removing the requirement for bidders of petrol filling station

(PFS) sites to hold import licence and supply contract; (ii) re-tendering all existing PFS sites upon expiry of their leases,

instead of renewing the leases to the existing operators; and (iii) depending on the land supply situation, tendering PFS sites in

batches consisting of two to five sites per batch. The new tendering arrangement facilitates the new entrants in acquiring a critical mass of PFS to achieve economy of scale for an effective competition in the auto-fuel retail market.

Since the introduction of the new tendering arrangements, two new operators have obtained 31 out of the 52 PFS sites put up for tender and successfully entered the market. The share of the three biggest operators in terms of the number of PFS has dropped from over 90% to about 70%. At present, there are five oil companies in Hong Kong; in view of the size of Hong Kong market, competition certainly exists. In fact, consumers can obtain discounts through various means, and the amount of discounts from different oil companies are not the same. This reflects that price competition exists in the market. We therefore consider that these measures have effectively enhanced the competition in the auto-fuel market.

Second Round of Public Consultation on Constitutional Development 21. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Chinese): President, on the 7th of last month, the Government published the Consultation Document on the Method for Selecting the Chief Executive by Universal Suffrage to commence a two-month second round public consultation on the method for selecting the Chief Executive (CE) by universal suffrage in 2017. CE reiterated in the 2015 Policy Address that the substantive power to decide on constitutional development rested with the Central Authorities and the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on issues relating to the selection of CE by universal suffrage and on the method for forming the Legislative Council (LegCo) in the year 2016 had


irrefutable legal status and was legally valid, and that the slogan of "Hong Kong shall resolve Hong Kong's problems" did not conform with our constitutional arrangements. CE also named in his criticism some featured articles of Undergrad, a magazine of the Hong Kong University Students' Union, and a book named Hong Kong Nationalism published by it, which advocated the proposition that Hong Kong should "find a way to self-reliance and self-determination". CE considered that the society must stay alert to such a proposition, but such remarks had aroused some controversies in society. On the other hand, an opinion poll conducted by a university has indicated that the instant satisfaction rate of the public with this year's Policy Address is the second lowest among the policy addresses delivered since the reunification of Hong Kong. Moreover, the Chief Secretary for Administration, who is the main promoter of the constitutional reform, has described that there is a slim chance for the constitutional reform package to be passed by LegCo, but she would not miss any opportunity to approach the pan-democrats. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the members of political parties, political groups and organizations as well as LegCo Members met separately by the government officials responsible for the constitutional reform since the launch of the second round of public consultation; the respective numbers and dates of the meetings held, the number of persons met and the contents of the meetings;

(2) of the number of relevant open forums, briefing sessions and

consultation activities attended by the government officials responsible for the constitutional reform since the launch of the second round of public consultation; the respective dates, contents and organizers of such activities; whether the government officials have plans to attend similar activities in the remaining consultation period; if they have plans, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) of the number of submissions received by the Government from

members of the public by email, fax, mail and phone since the launch of the second round of public consultation; and the contents of such submissions;

(4) whether the government officials responsible for the constitutional

reform will make arrangements to meet the 27 pan-democratic LegCo Members one by one; if they will, of the Members whom they


5715

have arranged to meet; if not, the reasons for that; whether they have plans to meet the rest of LegCo Members as well as various political parties, political groups and organizations in the remaining consultation period to lobby them to support the passage of the constitutional reform package by LegCo; if they have plans, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) whether the government officials responsible for the constitutional

reform have plans to meet the representatives of the Hong Kong Federation of Students and Scholarism in the remaining consultation period; if they have plans, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(6) how the Government determined the weighting to be accorded to the

public opinions in formulating the proposals for selecting CE by universal suffrage in 2017, and of the details of such consideration;

(7) whether it has assessed if the relatively low instant satisfaction rate

of members of the public with this year's Policy Address will affect their support for the passage of the constitutional reform package by LegCo; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(8) given the comments that the Occupy Central movement has greatly

aroused the interest of young people and students in the constitutional reform, whether the Secretary for Education will have a direct dialogue with them on issues relating to the constitutional reform;

(9) whether it has assessed if there will be a greater chance for the

constitutional reform package to be passed by LegCo should CE meet and lobby pan-democratic LegCo Members in person; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(10) whether it has assessed if CE's criticism of Undergrad will

undermine the post-secondary students' support for the passage of the constitutional reform package by LegCo, or even result in their boycott of the second round of public consultation; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;


(11) whether it will consider expanding the membership of the Task Force on Constitutional Development by recruiting more government officials to participate in the consultation and lobbying work; if it will consider, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(12) given the CE's remarks that there are external forces intervening in

the political affairs of Hong Kong, whether it has assessed if there are external forces exerting influence on or intervening in the constitutional reform and the second round of public consultation; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether it has assessed when it will be the appropriate time for making public information on the intervention of external forces in the political affairs of Hong Kong;

(13) whether it has taken the initiative to invite officials of the Central

Authorities to have a direct dialogue with pan-democratic LegCo Members on the constitutional reform; if it has, of the details, if not, the reasons for that;

(14) whether it has assessed if the expressed support by pan-democratic

LegCo Members for the so-called "referendum" to be triggered by the resignation of a LegCo Member will affect the chance for the constitutional reform package to be passed by LegCo; if it has assessed, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(15) of the expected time for publishing the report on the second round of

public consultation and for submitting the constitutional reform package to LegCo?

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, the consolidated reply to the questions raised by Dr LAM is as follows: On 7 January 2015, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government published the Consultation Document on the Method for Selecting the Chief Executive by Universal Suffrage (Consultation Document) and launched a two-month public consultation on the method for selecting the Chief


5717

Executive by universal suffrage. The consultation period will end on 7 March 2015. The SAR Government hopes that different sectors of the community could, under the Basic Law and the legal framework laid down by the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by Universal Suffrage and on the Method for Forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the Year 2016 (Decision), discuss in a rational and pragmatic manner and forge consensus, so that the people of Hong Kong could elect the Chief Executive by universal suffrage through "one person, one vote" in 2017. Since the formal launch of the public consultation, information regarding the activities attended by members of the Task Force on Constitutional Development and other relevant government officials have been uploaded to the website of the Public Consultation on the Method for Selecting the Chief Executive by Universal Suffrage <www.2017.gov.hk>, and will be included in the consultation report. Similarly, submissions received during the consultation period will be truthfully disclosed in the consultation report and uploaded to the aforementioned public consultation website. The public consultation on the method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage is still under way. Under the premise that the discussion should be in accordance with the Basic Law and the Decision, the SAR Government is willing to have rational and pragmatic discussions with different groups and persons regarding the specific method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. After the conclusion of the public consultation, the SAR Government will consolidate and summarize the views received as soon as possible, with a view to submitting in the second quarter of 2015 a resolution to the Legislative Council to amend Annex I to the Basic Law regarding the method for selecting the Chief Executive, and securing support from a two-thirds majority of all Members of the Legislative Council. We are aware that an individual Member of the Legislative Council has expressed his plan to resign from his office, triggering on purpose and taking advantage of a by-election to create a so-called "referendum". The SAR Government reiterates that the constitutional and legal system of Hong Kong does


not provide for any referendum mechanism. The so-called "referendum" has no constitutional basis or legal effect. Should there be any vacancy in the Legislative Council, the SAR Government will handle the issues regarding a by-election in accordance with the law. As regards the suggestion of the SAR Government helping to invite officials of the Central Authorities to have a direct dialogue with Legislative Council Members, our position all along is that the SAR Government is willing to provide appropriate assistance if it is so wished by a majority of Members. Finally, regarding the question on external forces, the Chief Executive has already responded in various occasions. The SAR Government has nothing further to supplement. Statistics on CSSA Scheme 22. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Chinese): President, in late November last year, during her presentation on Hong Kong's poverty situation in 2013, the Chief Secretary for Administration stated that, among the various poverty alleviation programmes implemented by the Government, the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme had the greatest impact on poverty alleviation. Regarding the latest statistics on CSSA Scheme, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the annual number of households which ceased receiving CSSA payments since the implementation of the Statutory Minimum Wage regime on 1 May 2011, with a breakdown by case type and the age group to which the recipients belong;

(2) in respect of those existing CSSA households with at least one

member who is employed, of the distribution of their household income and the average number of work hours of such members last month, with a breakdown by type of cases;

(3) of the number of the existing CSSA households with a monthly

household income below the poverty line; among such households, the number of those who rent and reside in private housing units and are receiving rent allowance;


5719

(4) of the respective numbers of the existing CSSA recipients who have resided in Hong Kong for less than seven years and those CSSA households with all members belonging to the ethnic minorities; the number of cases in the past three years in which such recipients ceased receiving CSSA payments; and

(5) of the total expenditure on CSSA payments made to CSSA

households of the low earnings category last month and, in particular, the total expenditure on rent allowance; the total expenditure on the Low-income Working Family Allowance as estimated by the authorities should all CSSA households of the low earnings category switch to receiving the allowance?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to Mr TANG Ka-piu's question is set out below:

(1) During the period from 1 May 2011 to 31 December 2014, there

were 115 387 closed cases under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme. The breakdown by year and case type is at Annex 1. The Social Welfare Department (SWD) does not maintain statistics on closed CSSA cases by age group of the recipients.

(2) As at 31 December 2014, there were 25 512 CSSA recipients with earnings. The breakdown by monthly earnings, working hours and case type is at Annex 2.

(3) Poverty statistics are compiled on the basis of the "General

Household Survey". After recurrent cash intervention, it is estimated that there were 84 900 CSSA poor households in 2013, among which 9 400 were tenants in private permanent housing. The Survey does not contain information on whether a CSSA household receives rent allowance.

(4) As at 31 December 2014, there were 19 127 CSSA recipients

residing in Hong Kong for less than seven years. The SWD does not keep statistics on the number of CSSA cases with all members belonging to the ethnic minorities, or the number of closed CSSA cases involving recipients who have been residing in Hong Kong for less than seven years or are ethnic minorities.


(5) In 2013-2014, the expenditure on low-earnings CSSA cases was $742 million, which included the one-off additional month of CSSA standard rates granted to the recipients. The SWD does not maintain statistics on the amount of CSSA payment granted to low-earnings cases in a particular month, or the amount of rent allowance as a proportion of the above expenditure.

Under the Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA), the amount of allowance that each eligible family can receive depends on the number of working hours of the LIFA applicant, his/her family's income level and the number of eligible children in the family. At this stage, we are unable to estimate the number of low-earnings CSSA families that would be eligible for and would switch to LIFA. Therefore, we do not have any estimation on the amount of allowance which might be involved.

Annex 1

The Number of Closed CSSA Cases (1 May 2011 to 31 December 2014)

Case Type Number of Cases

1 May to 31 December 2011

2012 2013 2014

Old age 9 192 14 698 14 600 15 384 Permanent disability

823 1 307 1 157 1 229

Ill health 1 747 2 482 2 363 2 393 Single parent 2 671 4 091 3 815 3 714 Low-earnings 2 259 2 759 2 323 2 160

Unemployment 4 190 5 488 4 737 4 472 Others 981 1 561 1 476 1 315 Total 21 863 32 386 30 471 30 667


5721

Annex 2

The Number of CSSA Recipients with Earnings (As at 31 December 2014)

Table 1: Breakdown by Earnings

Monthly Earnings Number of Recipients Less than $1,000 5 358

$1,000 to less than $2,000 3 547 $2,000 to less than $3,000 2 870 $3,000 to less than $4,000 3 588 $4,000 to less than $5,000 3 137 $5,000 to less than $6,000 1 844 $6,000 to less than $7,000 1 273 $7,000 to less than $8,000 1 359 $8,000 to less than $9,000 961

$9,000 to less than $10,000 726 $10,000 and above 849

Total 25 512 Table 2: Breakdown by Working Hours

Monthly Working Hours Number of Recipients Less than 50 hours 9 153

50 hours to less than 100 hours 4 193 100 hours to less than 150 hours 6 217 150 hours to less than 200 hours 2 734 200 hours to less than 250 hours 2 472

250 hours and above 743 Total 25 512

Table 3: Breakdown by Case Type

Case Type Number of Recipients Old age 2 590

Permanent disability 3 147 Ill health 2 592


Case Type Number of Recipients Single parent 5 704 Low-earnings 6 772

Unemployment 4 520 Others 187 Total 25 512

Note: The SWD classifies CSSA cases according to the established mechanism. Family members of the same CSSA case may have different status. For instance, an unemployment CSSA case may include able-bodied adult recipients who are engaging in full-time employment and those who are unemployed. BILLS First Reading of Bills DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bills: First Reading. ARBITRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015 CLEARING AND SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015 CLERK (in Cantonese): Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015

Clearing and Settlement Systems (Amendment) Bill 2015.

Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure. Second Reading of Bills DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bills: Second Reading.


5723

ARBITRATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015 SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015 (the Bill) be read the Second time. The main objective of the Bill is to amend the current Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 609) (the Ordinance) so as to remove possible legal uncertainties that might arise from the opt-in mechanism provided for domestic arbitration in Part 11 of the Ordinance. The current Arbitration Ordinance came into operation on 1 June 2011. The Ordinance has unified the separate domestic and international arbitration regimes under the now repealed Arbitration Ordinance (Cap. 341), and at the same time provides for an opt-in mechanism for domestic arbitration. In response to requests made by the arbitration sector, a limited exception to the said unified regime is provided in Part 11 of the existing Ordinance, and sections 1 to 7 of Schedule 2 thereto. Firstly, the rights formerly granted to parties to domestic arbitration for seeking the assistance of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) on certain matters shall be retained by way of opt-in provisions contained in sections 2 to 7 of Schedule 2 to the Ordinance. Secondly, if section 1 of Schedule 2 applies, "any dispute arising between the parties to an Arbitration agreement is to be submitted to a sole arbitrator for arbitration". In such circumstances, the provisions relating to the determination of the number of arbitrators under section 23 of the Ordinance will not apply. Under section 100 of the Ordinance, all of the provisions (that is, the aforesaid sections 1 to 7) in Schedule 2 automatically apply to parties to two specified types of domestic arbitration agreements. This automatic opt-in mechanism is subject to section 102. Section 102(b)(ii) specifically provides that section 100 does not apply if the arbitration agreement concerned has provided expressly that "any of the provisions in Schedule 2 applies or does not apply". Recently, the arbitration sector, through the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, pointed out that there could possibly be legal uncertainties arising from the above automatic opt-in mechanism. Their concern is, if parties opting for domestic arbitration specify the number of arbitrators in their arbitration agreements (be it one or more than one), that could possibly be


considered as having the effect of rendering section 1 of Schedule 2 (that is, the provision that "any dispute arising between the parties to an arbitration agreement is to be submitted to a sole arbitrator for arbitration") applicable or inapplicable. That could possibly cause the arbitration agreement to be caught by section 102(b)(ii), resulting in the disapplication of section 100 and thereby giving rise to doubts as to whether parties to a domestic arbitration agreement which specifies the number of arbitrators would still be able to seek CFI's assistance on matters set out in sections 2 to 7 of Schedule 2. The arbitration sector requests that the matter be put beyond doubt, so that parties opting for domestic arbitration should be free to decide on the number of arbitrators, whilst retaining their right to seek CFI's assistance on the matters set out in sections 2 to 7 of Schedule 2 to the Ordinance. After considering in detail the requests made by the arbitration sector, the Department of Justice proposes that the Ordinance be amended to put the matter beyond doubt, so that parties opting for domestic arbitration should be free to decide on the number of arbitrators, whilst retaining the right to seek CFI's assistance on the matters set out in sections 2 to 7 of Schedule 2. There have been four new state parties to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the New York Convention) since the Arbitration Ordinance was amended in 2013. In addition, the official name of an existing state party has been changed and the application of the New York Convention has been extended to one of the territories of another existing state party. Therefore, we will also seek to amend the Arbitration (Parties to New York Convention) Order by way of the Bill in order to update the list of the parties to the Convention. The SAR Government has consulted the legal and arbitration sectors on the aforesaid proposed amendments to the Bill. They support the proposals and their comments and responses have been taken into account by the SAR Government in the drafting of the Bill. In addition, the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services of the Legislative Council has also indicated support for the proposed amendments. Deputy President, in order to further enhance the position of Hong Kong as a centre for international legal services and dispute resolution in the Asia Pacific region, the Department of Justice has been reviewing the Hong Kong arbitration regime from time to time, and will consider improvement to the Ordinance as and


5725

when appropriate. We believe that the Bill, when enacted, will help improve the opt-in mechanism for domestic arbitration, thereby reinforcing the position of Hong Kong as a major international arbitration centre in Asia Pacific region. With these remarks, I implore Members to support the Bill. Thank you, Deputy President. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Arbitration (Amendment) Bill 2015 be read the Second time. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee. CLEARING AND SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS (AMENDMENT) BILL 2015 SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move the Second Reading of the Clearing and Settlement Systems (Amendment) Bill 2015 (the Bill). The main object of the Bill is to amend the Clearing and Settlement Systems Ordinance (CSSO) to establish a regulatory regime for stored value facilities and retail payment systems in Hong Kong. The global retail payment market has been developing rapidly. Technological advancements and increasing acceptance of new technologies by the public have led to the emergence of new forms of retail payment products and services. The current regulatory regime for stored value cards under the Banking Ordinance (BO) only applies to device-based multi-purpose stored value products. In addition, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) currently oversees large-value clearing and settlement systems by virtue of the CSSO. Nonetheless, the current regulatory regime in the BO or CSSO does not cover non-device-based payment facilities, which are normally issued outside the banking sector, and store value on network-based accounts, mobile network accounts or computer servers. Nor does such legislation cover payment systems


related to retail activities. To ensure the safety and soundness of the aforesaid products and systems, we propose bringing them into the regulatory net of the HKMA under the CSSO. I now briefly introduce the major areas of the Bill: Stored Value Facilities The primary regulatory concern of stored value facilities stems from the need to protect users' float maintained by stored value facilities issuers. To ensure the proper protection and management of the float, we propose introducing a mandatory licensing regime for stored value facilities, so that no person may issue stored value facilities in Hong Kong without a licence granted by the HKMA. The proposed licensing regime will cover both device-based and non-device-based multi-purpose stored value facilities, while single-purpose stored value facilities will remain not subject to regulation. In addition, to ring-fence the proposed regulatory regime to relevant payment facilities essential to financial stability, we propose that stored value facilities which do not involve payment of money by users or have limited usage be excluded from the regulatory regime. We also propose that, similar to the existing "multi-purpose cards" regime under the BO, the HKMA will retain the power to exempt an stored value facilities from the regulatory regime, having regard to the materiality of the risk posed by the relevant facility to the users and the payment or financial systems in Hong Kong, and the HKMA may attach conditions to the exemption. The proposed licensing criteria for multi-purpose stored value facilities will include the following: the licensee must have a physical presence in Hong Kong; its principal business must be the issuance of stored value facilities; the licensee must meet a minimum ongoing capital requirement; the licensee will be required to have in place safeguarding measures that adequately protect the float, and to keep the float separate from other funds of the issuer; and the owner of the licence and members of its management must be fit and proper persons, and have in place prudential risk management procedures. In line with the existing "multi-purpose cards" regime under the BO, licensed banks will be deemed to be licensed to issue stored value facilities as a line of business. This, together with other lines of banking business in a licensed bank, will be subject to ongoing supervision by the HKMA on a consolidated basis.


5727

Retail Payment Systems Safe and efficient functioning of widely-used retail payment systems is essential to the smooth running of day-to-day economic activities in Hong Kong. Having regard to the existing regulatory regime for large-value clearing and settlement systems under the CSSO, we propose extending the existing regime to cover retail payment systems as appropriate. An retail payment system which operates in Hong Kong or processes retail payment transactions denominated in Hong Kong dollar or other currencies or other relevant media of exchange may be designated by the HKMA for the sake of imposing a set of prudential requirements over it, as long as the retail payment system meets the criteria stipulated in the Bill, including that if any disruptions to the retail payment system are likely to adversely affect Hong Kong's monetary or financial stability, the functioning of Hong Kong as an international financial centre, public confidence, or day-to-day commercial activities. To ensure their safety and robustness, designated retail payment system will be required to comply with the relevant operating rules and related risk management and control procedures, so as to ensure the safety and integrity of information held within the system, and so on. Supervisory and enforcement powers of the HKMA To enable the HKMA to perform its supervisory functions, we propose incorporating in the CSSO provisions enabling the HKMA to conduct effective ongoing supervision over licensees and operators, and to gather information, give directions, impose operating rules, make regulations, issue guidelines, and conduct investigations. We propose modelling on the existing criminal sanctions under the BO and the CSSO for devising related offence provisions under the proposed regulatory regime. In addition, we also propose empowering the HKMA to impose a range of civil sanctions, which will be proportionate to the nature and severity of the misconduct. To ensure that the exercise of the HKMA's powers is subject to checks and balances, we propose expanding the ambit of the existing Clearing and Settlement Systems Appeals Tribunal to cover appeals against relevant HKMA's decisions in relation to the Ordinance.


Phased implementation arrangement We propose implementing the provisions contained in the Bill in two phases after the passage of the Bill by the Legislative Council. Phase one mainly concerns the provisions relating to the application for and processing of stored value facilities licences, as well as the designation regime of retail payment systems, and we propose that the aforesaid provisions will come into operation upon gazettal of the amending Ordinance. Phase two mainly concerns the provisions relating to offences in relation to the proposed licensing regime for stored value facilities, and these provisions will come into operation one year after the commencement of Phase one. This is intended to cater for the time required for stored value facilities issuers to apply for a licence, as well as for the HKMA to process such licence applications. Public Consultation The Administration launched a three-month public consultation on the legislative proposal in May 2013. Comments received indicated overall support for the policy objectives and the key proposals. Most respondents generally consider that a well-regulated environment will help further develop retail payment products and services in Hong Kong, and enhance users' acceptance of and confidence in such products and services. In October 2014, we issued the Consultation Conclusions to address the suggestions and comments received. Deputy President, we briefed the Legislative Council Panel on Financial Affairs on the major elements of the proposed regulatory regime at its meeting on 7 April 2014. The Panel supported the Administration's plan to establish a regulatory framework for stored value facilities and retail payment systems in Hong Kong. I hope that the Legislative Council will support the expeditious passage of the Bill to establish a regulatory regime for stored value facilities and retail payment systems, so as to enhance the safety and soundness of such products and systems, thereby strengthening public confidence, fostering further development and innovation in the industry, and maintaining Hong Kong's status as an international financial centre. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.


5729

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Clearing and Settlement Systems (Amendment) Bill 2015 be read the Second time. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee. Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Bills DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now resume the Second Reading debate on the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014. STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014 Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 17 December 2014 DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? MR KENNETH LEUNG: I am commenting on the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014. Hong Kong remains a competitive economy mainly due to the fact that we have a low and simple tax regime. And a low and simple tax regime is always the cornerstone of Hong Kong's economic success in the past and should be so in the future as well. In addition, it is always important to stay alert to what our competitors are doing, what they have done or what they will be doing in the future, so that we are not losing our competitive edge. Looking at all the major financial markets, it has been the practice of major financial markets like the United States, Australia, Japan, Korea and Singapore for not imposing stamp duty on the transactions of exchange traded funds (ETFs) whether they are in shares or units. The United Kingdom has also recently removed all stamp duty on ETFs that are domiciled in the United Kingdom and this happened last April. Looking back, Deputy President, I have had the privilege of providing my professional service to the first ETF in this city, the Tracker Fund, back in 1999. I remember that there was a very hectic transaction and it took place all within a


matter of a month and a half. And I vividly remember that during that period where we did not have this type of stamp duty exemption legislation, we had to go through a lot of procedures in obtaining a stamp duty exemption for the Tracker Fund. And I think the Government is moving in the right direction to extend exemptions to ETFs. ETF has become a fashionable investment instrument mainly because of the fact that it can provide a risk divestment instrument for investors with relatively no or little investment experience. Against this background, I am ready to give my support to the current proposal of extending the stamp duty concession in respect of the trading of ETFs to cover ETFs with the value of Hong Kong stock exceeding 40% of the aggregate value of the underlying portfolio. In other words, the stamp duty for the transfer, buy and sell and any transfer involving a change of beneficial interest of all ETFs shares or units will be waived. Although, Deputy President, I believe that the market as a whole will want more concession from the Government in relation to the waiving of stamp duty in respect of ETFs. Now, looking at how ETFs have been doing in our neighbouring markets, I did note that in the Singapore Exchange, the average daily turnover in Hong Kong dollar terms for ETFs amounts to about HK$57.2 billion, whereas in Hong Kong, the comparative figure was only about HK$14.24 billion. As a legislator, I have been advocating the diversification our economic base and our economic activities. The same applies to the diversification of financial instruments. The more diversified our financial instruments are, the merrier, I think, the market participants and wider the choice we are giving to the investors in our region. And so I hope with the introduction of the exemption of stamp duty, the introduction of ETFs can be sped up, and more ETFs will be listed on the stock exchange. However, I have to remind Prof CHAN that granting exemption or giving tax incentive is one thing, the other thing I think most practitioners or market participants find are barriers to the entrance of the Hong Kong market is the time taken by the Securities and Futures Commission to approve the instrument. I am not saying that we should lower the threshold or we should relax the regulator regime, but rather I would like the speed and efficiency of the relevant regulator to be sped up. A conducive tax environment is an important and indispensable factor driving the growth of not only the ETF market but also the asset management industry as a whole. To keep us competitive against the other global financial


5731

centres, I would also urge the Government to continuously explore other tax-friendly initiatives in order to maintain Hong Kong's position as a premium asset management centre in Asia in a timely and effective manner. Thank you, Deputy President. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, given the rapid economic growth in Asia and coupled with continued financial market liberalization in the Mainland, Hong Kong, being the bridgehead for Mainland's outward investment, has the advantage in attracting more funds of various types to domicile here. As a matter of fact, there has been an increasing number of exchange traded funds (ETFs) listed in Hong Kong, surging from 69 in 2010 and to 121 on 30 September 2014, and the average daily turnover has grown steadily from $2.4 billion in 2010 to $3.7 billion in 2013. Despite the growing number and turnover of ETF transactions in Hong Kong, the trading of these funds in Hong Kong is faced with certain obstacles. For example, under the current legislation, for ETFs with their registers of holders maintained in Hong Kong that track indices comprising more than 40% in Hong Kong stocks, the buyer and the seller each needs to pay a stamp duty at 0.1% of the value of the transaction. In comparison, other jurisdictions including Australia, Japan, South Korea, Mainland China, Singapore and the United States do not impose such a stamp duty. Even the United Kingdom has also followed the practice and removed the stamp duty on ETFs that are domiciled in the United Kingdom since April last year. In the face of an increasingly competitive global financial market, Hong Kong's relative appeal is dwindling. According to statistics provided by the Government, Hong Kong's share in total ETF turnover among 14 exchanges in the Asia-Pacific region has dropped from around 30% in 2010 to around 17% in 2013. Deputy President, in deciding where to list an ETF, ETF issuers will generally take into account a number of factors, such as market conditions, business priorities, costs as well as legal and tax regimes. The implementation


of the stamp duty waiver of all ETFs through this Bill will certainly be conducive to attracting more ETFs to base in Hong Kong, thereby further broadening the variety and scope of the local fund business. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) fully supports the Bill for three main reasons. First, after the enactment of the Bill, Hong Kong can be, as far as its tax system is concerned, in line with other rivals in the market and compete at the same starting point. Second, this is not the first stamp duty waiver implemented. In 2010, the Government extended the stamp duty waiver to all ETFs that track indices comprising not more than 40% of Hong Kong stocks. Since then, a total of 92 new ETFs have been listed in Hong Kong. From this experience, we expect that the further extension of the waiver will encourage more ETF issuers to list ETFs in Hong Kong, thus driving up the daily turnover of these funds and benefiting the market. It will also be conducive to Hong Kong's development as an international financial centre. Third, after the stamp duty remission was implemented in 2010, the government revenue forgone was only about $0.6 billion to $0.8 billion per annum. As for this stamp duty waiver, it is estimated that the government revenue forgone after its implementation will merely be about $0.1 billion, which is not a large sum. To sum up, the DAB thinks that the proposal is conducive to boosting the competitiveness of Hong Kong as an international financial centre. It helps promote the development, management and trading of ETFs in Hong Kong, and also brings about a level playing field for all ETFs listed in Hong Kong. Hence, even though stamp duty revenue will decrease after the implementation of the Bill, the DAB thinks that it is well worth it. Apart from the development of funds, the DAB is also concerned about the possibility of abuse by market practitioners after the Bill is enacted, in particular, whether listed companies would repackage their own shares as ETFs to evade paying stamp duty. We notice that under the legislation, ETFs are categorized as collective investment schemes which must be recognized by the Securities and Futures Commission according to relevant regulations. As such, we urge the Commission to properly perform its gate-keeping role after the Bill is enacted. Lastly, the passing of the Bill is only a small step towards the development of asset management in Hong Kong. The DAB is more concerned about the measures the authorities will put in place to foster Hong Kong's position as a corporate wealth management centre. Other than studying the measures to


5733

attract enterprises to set up corporate treasury centres in Hong Kong, we urge the Government to consider further enhancing the mutual access with the Mainland securities and financial markets, developing high-end financial services, and enhancing the value-added power of our services, so as to further fostering Hong Kong's position as an Offshore Renminbi Centre and asset management centre. At the same time, we also urge the asset management sector in Hong Kong to co-operate with their counterparts in the Mainland to establish a Mainland-Hong Kong funds recognition system as soon as possible. With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the Second Reading of the Bill. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury to reply. This debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Members' support for the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014 (the Bill). Thanks to their support, the Bill can resume the Second Reading debate to put into effect the Government's Budget for 2014-2015 the implementation of the stamp duty waiver for the transfer of shares or units of all exchange traded funds (ETFs). (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) As I said when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the ETF sector is one of the key components of the asset management industry worldwide and it has been growing rapidly. A supportive tax environment is an important factor that an ETF issuer would take into account in its decision to domicile or list an ETF in a particular place. With further integration of the financial markets in


Asia, we have since 2010 extended the stamp duty remission to ETFs that track indices comprising not more than 40% in Hong Kong stocks. The number of ETFs listed in Hong Kong has increased substantially from 69 at end 2010 to 122 at end 2014, rendering Hong Kong the biggest ETF market in the Asia-Pacific region. However, the buyer and the seller of ETFs not granted the stamp duty remission each needs to pay a stamp duty. Among all major international financial markets, only Hong Kong still imposes stamp duty on ETFs. This not only adversely affects Hong Kong's position as a regional ETF hub in the region, but also undermines the competitiveness of ETFs that track indices comprising more than 40% of Hong Kong stocks. The Government proposes in this year's Budget to implement the stamp duty waiver for the transfer of shares or units of all ETFs, so that the transaction cost of ETFs that track indices comprising more than 40% of Hong Kong stocks can be reduced as well. This is conducive to developing Hong Kong's ETF market and levelling the playing field for all ETFs, irrespective of their portfolios. The stamp duty on the transfer of shares or units of ETFs is currently stipulated in the Stamp Duty Ordinance. The Bill amends the Stamp Duty Ordinance to waive all stamp duty payable. The proposal to waive stamp duty on the transfer of shares or units of all ETFs will come into effect on the day on which the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Ordinance is published in the Gazette. In other words, if the Legislative Council endorses the Bill in this meeting, the stamp duty waiver will come into effect on 13 February. President, the stamp duty waiver for the transfer of shares or units of all ETFs is conducive to the development of the ETF market in Hong Kong. It will also be conducive to fostering Hong Kong's position as an asset management centre and the development of our financial services sector as a whole, and will attract new businesses for the industry and a greater range of products for investors. I hope that the Legislative Council will endorse the Bill. Thank you, President.


5735

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014 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. (No hands raised) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed. CLERK (in Cantonese): Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014. Council went into Committee. Committee Stage CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee. STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014 CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014. CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 6. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak)


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now resumes. Council then resumed. Third Reading of Bills PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bill: Third Reading. STAMP DUTY (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014 SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014 has passed through the Committee without amendment. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.


5737

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014 be read the Third time and do pass. Does any Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed. CLERK (in Cantonese): Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2014. MOTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Motions. Proposed resolution under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance. Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to speak and move the motion.


PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ORDINANCE SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. The purpose of this motion is to increase the amounts of nine compensation items payable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (ECO). The ECO provides for the payment of statutory compensation to injured employees and family members of deceased employees for prescribed occupational diseases, injuries or deaths caused by accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. According to the established mechanism, the levels of compensation under the ECO together with those under the Pneumoconiosis and Mesothelioma (Compensation) Ordinance and the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) Ordinance are reviewed every two years. Adjustments, if required, are generally made by reference to the changes in the wage and price levels and other relevant factors in the review period. Earlier, we have conducted a review on the changes of the relevant indicators in the period from 2012 to 2013 pursuant to the established mechanism. The review findings revealed a cumulative growth of 10.56% in the Nominal Wage Index in the period under review, and a cumulative growth of 8.88% in the Consumer Price Index (A) in the same period. Based on the review findings, we propose to increase the amounts of five compensation items under the ECO by 10.56% in line with the wage movement. The proposed revisions include increasing the ceiling of monthly earnings for calculating the maximum amounts of compensation for death and for permanent total incapacity from $23,580 to $26,070. We also propose to increase the minimum levels of compensation for death from $340,040 to $375,950 and for permanent total incapacity from $386,110 to $426,880. In addition, we propose that the maximum amount of compensation for employees injured at work who require the attention of another person be revised upwards from $462,890 to $511,770. As for the surcharge on late payment of compensation, we propose to increase the minimum amount of surcharge imposed upon expiry of the payment period from $550 to $610 and the minimum amount of a further surcharge imposed three months after the expiry of the payment period from $1,100 to $1,220.


5739

At the same time, we also propose to increase the amounts of three compensation items by 8.88% in line with the price movement. The proposed changes include increasing the maximum amount of funeral expenses from $70,000 to $76,220, and increasing the maximum payments to be made by an employer towards the cost of supplying and fitting a prosthesis or surgical appliance from $33,460 to $36,430 and towards the cost of the repair and renewal of a prosthesis or surgical appliance from $101,390 to $110,390. Finally, we propose to raise the amount of minimum monthly earnings specified in the ECO for the purpose of calculating compensation from $3,490 to $3,690 so that it is not less than the rate of payment to a single and able-bodied adult under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme in 2013. The Labour Advisory Board has endorsed the above proposal, and Members of the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower have also expressed support to the proposal. We propose that the revised levels of compensation become effective from 5 March 2015. I hope that Members will support and pass the motion so that injured employees, employees suffering from prescribed occupational diseases under the ECO or family members of deceased employees can benefit as early as possible. Thank you, President. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that, with effect from 5 March 2015, the Employees' Compensation Ordinance (Cap. 282) be amended as set out in the Schedule.

Schedule

Amendments to Employees' Compensation Ordinance

1. Sixth Schedule amended (specified amount of

compensation) (1) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 6(1)(a) ―

Repeal "23,580" Substitute "26,070".


(2) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 6(1)(b) ― Repeal "23,580" Substitute "26,070".

(3) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 6(1)(c) ― Repeal "23,580" Substitute "26,070".

(4) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 6(2) ― Repeal "340,040" Substitute "375,950".


(6) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 6C(8)(a) ― Repeal "550" Substitute "610".

(7) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 6C(8)(b) ― Repeal "1,100" Substitute "1,220".

(8) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 6D(3)(a) ― Repeal "550" Substitute "610".

(9) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 6D(3)(b) ― Repeal "1,100" Substitute "1,220".


5741

(10) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 6E(9)(a) ― Repeal "550" Substitute "610".

(11) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 6E(9)(b) ― Repeal "1,100" Substitute "1,220".

(12) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 7(1)(a) ― Repeal "23,580" Substitute "26,070".


(14) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 7(1)(c) ― Repeal "23,580" Substitute "26,070".


(16) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 8(1)(a) ― Repeal "462,890" Substitute "511,770".




(19) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 16A(10)(a) ― Repeal "550" Substitute "610".

(20) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 16A(10)(b) ― Repeal "1,100" Substitute "1,220".

(21) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 36C ― Repeal "33,460" Substitute "36,430".

(22) Sixth Schedule, entry relating to section 36J ― Repeal "101,390" Substitute "110,390"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare be passed. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, the Employees' Compensation Ordinance provides for the payment of statutory compensation to injured employees and family members of deceased employees for prescribed occupational diseases, injuries or deaths caused by accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. The motion under discussion is mainly about the biennial adjustments made to the levels of compensation by reference to the changes in price levels and wage movement. The current review proposes to increase the amounts of compensation items by 5.73% and 10.56%. Since the


5743

current review is a regular one, the Democratic Party raises no objection to the proposed increase and is supportive of the proposals. In spite of this, I reckon that as the authorities merely conduct such a mechanical review once every two years, there is much room for review with regard to the existing mechanism. Take for example the minimum compensation for permanent total incapacity, the amount is only about $420,000 even after an adjustment of 10.56% is made. The Secretary will move two similar motions later on, and you will find that the actual amounts of compensation are still on the low side even after the proposed adjustments. Should the Bureau consider a fundamental review in this regard? Similar to the Minimum Wage Ordinance, the amounts of compensation items payable under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance are likewise reviewed biennially. As I said earlier, today's motion covered three pieces of legislation, including the Employees' Compensation Ordinance which we are discussing at the moment. As the Employees' Compensation Ordinance offers a more extensive coverage under which injured employees and family members of employees for occupational diseases caused by accidents arising out of and in the course of employment are eligible for compensation, the number of applicants involved is more than those under the other two ordinances. The aim of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance is to reasonably compensate injured employees caused by accidents arising out of and in the course of employment. Since the inflation rates over the past two years are relatively high, the amounts of compensation are also adjusted upward by 10%. However, owing to the low base of the existing compensation items, if a mechanical upward adjustment is made based on the inflation rate, the amounts will only be able to catch up with inflation; they are far from adequate to recompense those persons injured at work. We must understand that quite a number of people are now engaged in clerical work, and they are not totally free from industrial accidents though the chances are relatively slim. Among such persons who are injured at work, many of them may be grass-roots or manual employees whose livelihood will surely be affected if they sustain physical injuries. I urge the Government to conduct a review once every two years on an ongoing basis, but in doing so, it should not revise the amounts of compensation based solely on the changes in price levels and wage movement. The Government has advised that the Voluntary Rehabilitation Programme, which has been launched in collaboration with the Labour Department and the insurance sector since 2003, provides an alternative channel for employees


injured at work to receive timely and free medical and rehabilitation services in the private sector. In our view, it is incumbent for an internal working group of the Government to explore all possible means to provide better protection and treatment for high-risk industries. Speaking of high-risk industries, the Panel on Manpower mentioned two main industries, namely the construction industry and catering industry. Will the Government enhance the protection for these two industries which involve high risks? With these remarks, I so submit and support this motion. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, this motion is related to the Government's biennial review of the compensation levels under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance. We certainly support upward adjustments of the compensation levels; yet the fundamental problem is that an overall review of the legislation is needed as the Government has merely been making patchy amendments to this legislation over the years. My concern over work injury issues started back in 1978. In every review since then, the amendments made are patchy, and a comprehensive review has not been made. We are of the view that the Government should conduct a comprehensive review in the light that society has made great advancements nowadays. The problem arising from this motion is related to the so-called lagged-behind adjustment that has often occurred. As the Government reviews the compensation levels once every two years, the relevant adjustment indicators in 2012 was used as the basis for the current review. According to our previous discussion at the meeting of the Panel on Manpower, the Government made reference to the indices of 2009 and 2010 in the 2012 review to decide on the adjustment rate in 2012, yet it forgot that the minimum wage was adjusted in 2011. After striving with great efforts at the Panel on Manpower, the Government finally agreed to consider the impact of the minimum wage in that adjustment. The current review is again a biennial one with reference made to the indices of the previous years. Does our society have to be so mean? Should the review be based on lagged-behind indices every time? Why should we be so mean and calculating? Why can't we be more forward-looking? For example, by anticipating the future inflation rate and wage levels, we need not draw on some out-dated figures for each review. If we can do so, I trust the situation will be much improved.


5745

As for funeral expenses, we have actually expressed our dissatisfaction with the amount long ago. After striving repeatedly, the amount has finally been adjusted to the present rate of some $70,000, but it is still insufficient to cover the actual expenses. I think the Government should not be so mean and calculating. Why must it compensate the injured employees with the lowest level? These workers, who have contributed to the prosperity of Hong Kong, have injured in the course of employment; why can't society be more considerate to their situation and compensate them in a relatively more generous manner? In my opinion, the Government should comprehensively review the mechanism concerned. Our Government loves conducting reviews biennially: the minimum wage is reviewed every two years, and employees' compensation is reviewed every two years; all reviews will thus be lagging behind. I think it is now time for the Government to stop conducting lagged-behind reviews and consider seriously adopting an anticipative approach for the review. If the estimated amount is found insufficient two years later, an upward adjustment can be made; and if the estimated amount is higher than the amount required, the amount can be frozen. This would, after all, be better than the current practice of always using out-dated figures and always making lagged-behind adjustment. Thank you, President. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, on behalf of the Democratic and Progressive Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), I speak to support this motion. Undeniably, some commodity prices have relatively gone up over the past two years since the establishment of the minimum wage. For low-income workers, they always have difficulties in meeting domestic expenses. If they are incapacitated or if they sustain injuries or even lose their lives at work ― a situation which no one would like to see ― it will deal a very heavy blow to their family members and their livelihood. Our timely support and assistance are desperately needed. Among the 18 compensation items currently proposed by the Government for adjustment, 15 items are to be adjusted upward by 8.88% to 10.56% according to the established mechanism of a biennial review, the remaining three items are related to the compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities. The amounts will be increased from $3,220 to $4,650 per month at a rate of 44.41%, which is way higher than the inflation rate.


In addition, the authorities proposed to increase the financing limit for first-time hearing assistive devices applications from $12,000 to $15,000 at a rate of 25%. The proposed increase of the aggregate financing limit is likewise as high as 44.44% from $36,000 to $52,000. Although the proposed adjusted amounts might not necessarily meet all the needs or solved all the problems of those who are relatively poorer, the adjustment rate reflected that the Government has not merely adjusted the compensation levels in the light of the price index or wage movement, but has also considered the actual needs of the claimants. We welcome the Government's move of readily accepting good advice and taking on board different views. The DAB thus supports the motion. President, I so submit. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, these 10-odd adjustments have been discussed by the Labour Advisory Board and I am in support of them. As regards whether there is still room for improvement in the current adjustment, I certainly hope that the Administration will pay close attention to inflation and make timely proposals for adjustments in the future, in particular the practice of conducting reviews every two years. As price movement is normally rather substantial in two years' time, the practice of conducting reviews every two years may not be acceptable in the long run. I thus urge the authorities to take note of this point. Besides, I would like to raise one point. For those employees who suffer from injuries, losses or even death caused by accidents arising out of and in the course of employment, the provision of financial assistance is actually not enough. We need to make efforts in providing occupational safety training as a kind of preventive measure. Therefore, I hope the Administration would strengthen its effort in providing workers with training on occupational safety, so as to avoid undesirable accidents. This is of utmost importance in protecting the lives and safety of workers. Furthermore, should accidents happen, apart from financial support, I think it is most important to give workers moral support as well as other kinds of support. In view of the frequent occurrence of accidents and the large number of occupational injuries and deaths of construction workers, the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union, affiliated to the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU), has established the Construction Charity Fund


5747

with the support from the sector in recent years. Should an accident happen, condolence money can immediately be drawn from the Fund. In addition, FTU will also contact the sector for providing comprehensive support to family members of the injured and deceased employees, such as helping their children to continue their studies or helping their family members to secure new jobs to support the family. The Charity Fund established by the General Union has received enormous support from the sector in recent years. It links up family members of the injured and deceased employees to promote mutual care and support, so that apart from getting financial assistance, they can also build up a network of interpersonal support. In my view, the work of the General Unions requires substantial support from the Government. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to urge the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Labour Department to support the General Union in providing greater assistance to family members of the injured and deceased employees. Such kind of moral support cannot be replaced or bought by money. This is a very important point and I hope the Secretary can pay heed to it. Thank you, President. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, the Civic Party supports the amendments. As a matter of fact, the current amendment is appropriate as it will offer help to workers who were injured or even killed accidentally in the course of their work. I hope that the Government, in particular the Secretary, will take note of the point that grass-roots families, especially those with members who were injured or killed at work, have to face tremendous livelihood pressure. Civil service pay adjustment is reviewed on a yearly basis, and pay adjustment in the private sector is also reviewed once every year. Why is the Government so mean to workers who were injured or even killed at work by insisting on conducting biennial review? I consider this approach inappropriate. I once again urge the Government to accept our well-intentioned advice to review or revise the current practice by conducting an annual review, so as to respond to the actual needs in the community. Another point which has caught my attention is that in recent years, there is a rising trend of injuries or casualties in large-scale infrastructure projects. It is a well-known fact that the relatively low industrial casualties in general is


attributed to the fact that after the northward relocation of the manufacturing industries, not many trades in Hong Kong can really be called industries. Despite the extensive coverage of the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance, there are not many factories in Hong Kong, and genuine industrial undertakings are also limited. The construction industry, however, takes the brunt, outnumbering other trades in terms of the number of work injuries or fatal accidents. I believe the Secretary knows better than I about the situation. For example, a number of tragic incidents causing injuries and deaths have recently happened in the construction sites of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge as well as the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. I believe that the Government has no excuse to evade the responsibility, and family members of the injured or deceased workers do not really want to claim such compensations. Second, I also hope that the Government can improve the compensation mechanism. The prevailing mechanism has been put in place since the 1950s, and the compensation payable is based on the injury of the worker, whether his left hand or his right hand is injured, or whether one leg or both legs are hurt. If there is no visible injury, such as backache or bodily dysfunction, it is difficult to grant compensation to the worker concerned. For instance, if the injured worker has lost one finger, the amount of compensation that he can get as stipulated in the work injuries schedules will be meagre even though his job may require him to work with nimble fingers or with the whole hand. This out-dated practice has been abandoned by overseas countries long time ago. Secretary, this book, published by the American Medical Association, gives a clear description of every single disease as well as the injuries inflicted on each part of the body. While many places in the world have adopted this system, the Occupational Health Service of our Labour Department still maintains the same old practice that has been put in place some 50 years ago. I feel somewhat awkward and ashamed in explaining to my overseas counterparts how we assess the conditions of injured workers. I told them that the workers concerned are asked to identify, on a body chart, the parts of their body that have sustained injury. Such an approach is totally absurd. I found that apart from the Sino-British Joint Declaration and the Basic Law which are supposed to remain unchanged for 50 years, the compensation mechanism can likewise remain unchanged for 50 years.


5749

I wonder how much time is left for the Secretary in the remainder of his tenure but I do hope he will take the initiative to revamp the mechanism during his term of office. To the labour sector, occupational health specialists or persons responsible for rehabilitation services, the existing mechanism is a big laughing stock and the criteria adopted by the work injury schedules is utterly out-dated. Latest advances in medical and rehabilitation technologies can make it possible to assess how human body is affected by our work. The contents of books published by the British or American Medical Association a few years ago are totally different from those published most recently. Since more and more researches conducted in recent years are able to tell specifically the relationship between work and injury, not only can we make accurate assessments, but can also help employers take precautionary measures against work injuries. If, however, the Government continues to lag behind in its injury assessment, some employers may simply attach little or no importance to workers' safety as they may likely think that it is not fatal for workers to lose one finger or suffer from back injury, as such kind of injury is not as serious as the loss of limbs. Though the injuries indicated in the chart may be minor, workers who sustain such injuries may lose their earning capacity or professional skills. It is my aspiration that the Government would review the Employment Compensation Ordinance, not just the revised compensation items in the current review, but the entire compensation system, the basis as well as the criteria for compensation. With these remarks, I so submit and support this motion. Thank you, President. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, the current amendments to the three compensation ordinances are all related to the upward adjustments of the relevant amounts of compensation, to which I will certainly extend my welcome. I also know that these amendments are made under the established mechanism, so no great controversy is involved. That said, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about the problems encountered by the workers concerned and their aspirations, and I hope the Secretary can, after listening to my speech, seek to resolve the problems and offer assistance. My first point is specifically related to pneumoconiosis patients who were assessed before 1993 and followed up under the compensation system. The


number of such patients stands at around 430 and their average age is 73. They are dissatisfied with the pre-1993 compensation system. Probably as medical technologies were not so well developed back then, such patients were expected to have limited life expectancy, the authorities therefore offered them one-off compensation, calculated by multiplying the monthly compensation receivable by them by six years, that is 72 months. However, 21 years have passed and there are still 432 surviving patients today, but their monthly allowance is far lower than that received by patients confirmed after 1993. They are therefore facing great difficulties. Given that the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund is now overflowing with money, I very much hope that the authorities can draw up some special programmes to care for and compensate workers who worked in the mining, construction or jewelry industry of Hong Kong in the 1970s and 1980s. This is my first point. Second, some Members have just talked about the inadequacies of the Employees' Compensation Ordinance; I would like to give a more specific example to explain the inadequacies of the injury assessment system. If I am a Chinese chef, I have to toss the wok, not the spatula, as known to all. As pointed out by some people, the chef needs to exert his strength through his thumb and little finger so as to make the degree of heating more even. In a work injury case, if the worker is unable to exert strength through his fingers, he is assessed to have lost only 1% of his earning capacity. However, he can no longer take up his original job as a chef or he has lost his skill as a chef, he may then be relegated from a chef to a helper in the kitchen. His pay and occupational status are poles apart from the ones enjoyed by him previously, but the amount of compensation fails to reflect this difference. Finally, since Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction, the injured worker can seek what he believes to be a fair amount of compensation through lawsuits, but this in turn heightens the burden on courts or labour insurance, and ultimately, the Government may have to bear higher legal costs. For this reason, I urge the Secretary to reconsider the benchmark for assessing the percentage of incapacity from the perspective of the loss of earning capacity. This is the first category of cases. The second category of cases I would like to draw the Secretary's attention to is the failure on the part of employers to report work injuries. It has become increasingly common for employers to refuse to report work injuries or to deceive workers by lying that work injuries have been reported. Employers in both the construction industry and the catering industry are worried that if work injuries are reported, higher insurance premiums will be charged or the insurance


5751

company will refuse to offer coverage. For the construction industry, the employer is afraid of government sanction for failing to meet the highest safety standards. They thus intend to conceal incidents of work injuries, and this situation is deteriorating. There are several ways to conceal the fact. Firstly, the employer will indicate explicitly or implicitly that the worker injured at work will be dismissed. Secondly, the employer will tell the worker that his injury will be reported and he should take several days of rest, but in fact, the worker is actually deemed to be taking sick leave which is limited to only seven days. If the injured worker can recuperate without any after-effect, he will probably not pursue the case any further. But if the worker suffers from after-effect, and he has been deceived by his employer, assuming that he has been taking sick leave, he can no longer pursue for the permanent injury caused to him at work. Regarding employers defaulting on payments of employees' wages, such as the ATV incident, the Government will ultimately conduct criminal investigation into the matter and institute criminal prosecution against the employer. However, there are actually many cases of employers refusing to report work injuries or deceiving the worker into believing that the case has been reported, and ultimately, the worker will have to report work injuries personally. Regarding such cases, we seldom hear that the Labour Department will initiate any criminal investigation and prosecution. Will the Secretary give an account of the relevant situation and conduct a review on it? In addition, a schedule to the Employees' Compensation Ordinance sets out the relevant occupational diseases, but I note that this schedule has all along listed 52 occupational diseases, and no addition has been made over the years. For this reason, I very much hope that the Secretary can listen to the views of the labour sector or other stakeholders and study whether any review should be conducted in due course. Last but not least, while we very much hope that this motion can be passed, we nevertheless hope that the number of people benefiting from it will be getting smaller and smaller. It will be better if fewer people are afflicted by work injuries. I so submit. Thank you.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Labour and Welfare, please speak in reply. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank the six Honourable Members for their support of the current proposal of making adjustments to the levels of compensation according to the established mechanism. I fully subscribe to the views given by the several Members a while ago that it is important to address the issue at source, that is, reducing as much as possible the number of work injuries. We will therefore spare no efforts in promoting occupational safety and health. With regard to high-risk industries ― Mr SIN Chung-kai has just mentioned certain high-risk industries and Mr WONG Kwok-hing has also mentioned the construction industry ― the Labour Department will definitely make effort at source monitoring as even one industrial accident is too many. President, I would like to briefly respond to the questions raised by several Members earlier. I would like to explain briefly why our review is conducted biennially instead of annually. In fact, we have operational difficulty in conducting a review every year. Even if that is not totally impossible to conduct a review every year, certain difficulties will arise in actual operation. Why? In the past, the review is conducted once every two years since it takes time to collate data on the movement of Consumer Price Index (A), Nominal Wage Index and other relevant figures; the process is very long and that is inevitable. First of all, we have to consult the relevant organizations, such as the Occupational Deafness Compensation Board, the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board and we have to present to board members our detailed analysis. In addition, we have to hold discussions with the insurance sector on the financial implications as any revision to the levels of compensation will definitely drive up the labour insurance premium. It is thus necessary for us to maintain good communication with the sector. Certainly, legislative amendments can only be prepared after a consensus is forged among members of the Labour Advisory Board and support is secured from the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower. Certain amount of time is required to undergo the entire process. It takes considerable time from collating relevant statistics to completion of all the subsequent work. In this


5753

connection, I hope Members can understand that we do not purposely procrastinate by conducting the review once every two years. There are practical operational needs to do as and we also have to strike a balance between the interests of different parties. Secondly, some Members have just suggested that instead of making reference to changes in price and wage movement, a higher increase rate should be adopted as the current base is on the low side. However, I have to point out that as the employees' compensation system is based on a no-fault system, we have to strike a reasonable balance between the interests of the employers and the employees. This is the first point. The second point is that the Employees' Compensation Ordinance does not absolve employers from liabilities in civil proceedings. In other words, if an employee's injury is attributed to the negligence or fault on the part of the employer, the employee can also initiate civil proceedings under common law to claim damages apart from getting statutory compensation for workplace injury. The employee can seek further compensation through this avenue. As I have just mentioned, we must also take into consideration the large number of small and medium sized enterprises and micro-enterprises in Hong Kong, a hefty increase in the compensation amounts will definitely push up the labour insurance premiums. The factor of operating cost has to be taken into account in determining the compensation level. That is why we always talk about striking a balance between ensuring adequate protection for employees on the one hand and considering employers' affordability on the other. Yet, we will adopt an open attitude during the review and take on board all the views expressed. Should there be any room for improvement, we will definitely strive for it. Take for example the 18 amendments proposed in this exercise, we have employed the greatest degree of flexibility to strive for employees' interests as far as possible. The compensation for occupational deafness is a case in point, and so is the compensation for pneumoconiosis. It is our hope that employees will get adequate and the best protection. As regards funeral expenses, the amount of this compensation item was increased from $35,000 to $70,000 in 2012, and was further revised in line with the Consumer Price Index (A). We consider this appropriate. As a matter of fact, according to the information on funeral expenses which we have obtained recently, the amount of $70,000 is considered to be reasonable and thus, the current decision is made after taking into consideration the actual inflation. President, I would also like to express my gratitude to Mr WONG Kwok-hing for mentioning the charity fund earlier. He pointed out that due


regard should be paid to the needs of family members of work injury victims. In fact, the Labour Department will, as always, work in collaboration with the Social Welfare Department in rendering assistance to those family members. We will provide comprehensive support to family members with welfare needs on all fronts and we are particularly concerned about the overall support for rehabilitation services. Mr SIN Chung-kai mentioned the Voluntary Rehabilitation Programme just now, and the Labour Department is actually examining how to do a better job in offering insurance and rehabilitation support services to high-risk industries. In this regard, we have set up an inter-departmental working group to study on possible tasks to be taken in the future. We will give an account on this in due course. President, I so submit and hope the Honourable Members will support this motion. Thank you. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Proposed resolution under the Pneumoconiosis and Mesothelioma (Compensation) Ordinance. Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to speak and move the motion.


5755

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE PNEUMOCONIOSIS AND MESOTHELIOMA (COMPENSATION) ORDINANCE SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. The purpose of this motion is to increase the amount of five compensation items payable under the Pneumoconiosis and Mesothelioma (Compensation) Ordinance (PMCO). PMCO provides for the payment of compensation to persons or their family members in respect of incapacity or death resulting from pneumoconiosis and/or mesothelioma. According to the established mechanism, the levels of compensation under PMCO together with those under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance and the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) Ordinance are reviewed every two years. Adjustments, if required, are generally made by reference to the changes in the price level and other relevant factors in the review period. Following the established mechanism, we have conducted a review on the changes of the relevant indicators in the period from 2012 to 2013. The review findings indicated a cumulative growth of 8.88% in the Consumer Price Index (A) in the period under review. We propose to increase the levels of compensation for three items under PMCO by 8.88% in line with the price movement. The proposed revisions include increasing the amount of compensation for bereavement from $101,390 to $110,390. As the minimum amount of compensation for death is pegged to the amount of compensation for bereavement, the revision of the amount of compensation for bereavement will automatically adjust the minimum amount of compensation for death from $101,390 to $110,390. We also propose to increase the maximum amount of funeral expenses from $70,000 to $76,220. Furthermore, we propose to increase the monthly amount of compensation for care and attention from $4,520 to $4,930 to take into account the increase in the minimum allowable wage and food provision for a foreign domestic helper working in Hong Kong since the last revision of compensation level. As for the compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities (PSLA), we have made reference to the practice adopted in 1993 of taking into account the


average amount of compensation for PSLA awarded by the Court in the past personal injuries claims in setting the level of compensation for PSLA. According to the information provided by the Legal Aid Department on the scale of PSLA awards set by the Court in 2013, we propose to increase the monthly amount of compensation for PSLA under PMCO from $3,220 to $4,650, up by 44.41%. It would provide better financial relief to persons suffering from pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma. The Labour Advisory Board and the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board have endorsed the above proposal, while the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower has also expressed support to the proposal. We propose that the revised levels of compensation should take effect from 5 March 2015. I hope that Members will support and pass the motion so that persons suffering from pneumoconiosis and mesothelioma or their family members can benefit as soon as possible. Thank you, President. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that, with effect from 5 March 2015, the Pneumoconiosis and Mesothelioma (Compensation) Ordinance (Cap. 360) be amended as set out in the Schedule.

Schedule

Amendments to Pneumoconiosis and Mesothelioma (Compensation) Ordinance

1. First Schedule amended (amounts of compensation)

(1) First Schedule, Part IIA ― Repeal "$3,220" Substitute "$4,650".


5757

(2) First Schedule, Part IV ― Repeal "$4,520" Substitute "$4,930". (3) First Schedule, Part V ― Repeal "$101,390" Substitute "$110,390". (4) First Schedule, Part VI ― Repeal "$70,000" Substitute "$76,220"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare be passed. MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): This morning, a group of workers suffering from pneumoconiosis staged petitions at the demonstration areas of the Legislative Council. They have raised certain aspirations and passed to us some of their placards. I very much hope that the Secretary will listen to their views. As mentioned by the Secretary just now, the amount for funeral expenses was increased from $30,000-odd to $70,000-odd two years ago. I would, however, like to draw the Secretary's attention to the sky-high costs of columbarium niches nowadays. This is an issue which neither the Secretary nor Dr KO Wing-man can resolve. If the supply of public niches can be increased considerably, funeral expenses will be … otherwise, it is utterly impossible to meet the exorbitant costs. Those victims request an increase of funeral expenses to $100,000, and I hope the Secretary can give some thought to their request in the next review. But of course, we will "pocket" the Secretary's proposal first. As a matter of fact, those workers have also raised other views, one of which is rather special which may warrant a fundamental review at the policy level. Some workers


have pointed out that injured workers are treated differently depending on the first medical assessment made under the compensation mechanism. According to them, the amounts of compensation awarded to injured workers assessed before 1981, before 1993 and after 1993 were different; they hope the authorities would reveal the situation expeditiously and treat all workers equally. As I said in my earlier speech on the previous motion, the adjustment made under the current review was based on the basic inflation rate and wage movement. Obviously, apart from the compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities mentioned earlier, the adjustment made to the amounts of other compensation items are more or less aligned with the rate of inflation and the increase in wage or price levels. Certainly, the level of compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities has recorded a noticeable increase to $4,650 this time around, which is considered by many workers as a reasonable adjustment over the past 17 years. These workers wish to urge the authorities to adopt the same approach in its future reviews of the compensation levels by taking into account the Court's judgment on injury litigation cases and other relevant factors, such that the compensation levels can be adjusted adequately to meet the basic needs in daily lives. Separately, in respect of medical expenses, the authorities concerned explained that the ceiling of $200 was pegged to the charges of public hospitals. However, is the Secretary aware that the Hospital Authority has already contracted out quite a number of medical services and has already formulated related policies? Actually the Secretary should discuss with Secretary Dr KO Wing-man to examine if workers who seek treatment from private hospital can claim reimbursement of the medical expenses, that is, simply speaking, reimbursement on an accountable basis. We are well aware that charges of private hospitals are comparatively higher than public hospitals, but can the policy be more flexible so as to support those workers who have sought non-public medical services? If the policy remains unchanged, the level of charges will not be revised. I therefore hope that the Secretary will consider this point in any future review of the entire policy. Should opportunity arises, the Secretary may as well listen to workers to understand their matters of concern. Of course, workers do support this compensation arrangement as it will give them some material assistance. Regarding the few shortcomings mentioned not long ago, I hope the Secretary will give a brief response later on.


5759

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, representatives of the Association for the Rights of Industrial Accident Victims and a group of workers suffering from pneumoconiosis came to the Legislative Council this morning, and they are now observing the meeting at the public gallery. I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to them for coming to this Council today for they are indeed a group of workers who have suffered from work injuries or occupational diseases and yet have been forgotten by the community. They have sacrificed their health for the prosperity of Hong Kong. Some of them, whom I have known for more than a decade, had even sacrificed their lives. For what purpose did they sacrifice their lives? Hong Kong is now so prosperous, but these workers still have to come forth and fight for their own interests, how can we face up to them? Why does our society still turn a deaf ear to their demands? Perhaps the Secretary may say that he has attached great importance to their demands, and that workers welcome the upward adjustment of the compensation level for pain, suffering and loss of amenities by 44%. Despite such an increase, these workers still cannot help feeling disheartened as more than 17 years have elapsed since 1993 and the Government has now finally made a substantial adjustment to the compensation level. Evidently, the compensation level for suffering has lagged behind for many years. Today, workers have expressed their support for the adjustment, but in my view, they have given their support in tears. For years, the Government has turned a deaf year to their demands, and it is only up till today that the Government has finally listened and responded to their requests. These workers have been waiting for years for some entitlements that they should have enjoyed long ago. Regrettably, as these workers have been ignored or even forgotten by the Government and the community, they have thus waited for so many years. They come to this Council today to raise other demands. Has the Secretary listened to them? Do they have to wait for years again? To be honest, workers have been striving for years for higher amount of compensation for suffering, and some of them had passed away during the period. I wonder how many people can live until the day that workers can succeed in striving for what they are asking today. In view of the numerous unfair arrangements, a Member has brought out a very important issue earlier. First of all, workers are classified into three categories. Those who attended medical assessment after 1993 will be paid an ex-gratia grant every month over their whole life span. If the degree of loss of function of their body parts is assessed to be 5%, the worker concerned will be


granted a compensation of $1,000 plus a monthly compensation for suffering. For those workers who attended medical assessment between 1981 and 1993, even though they can apply for re-assessment, I was told by workers that no one has ever been re-assessed successfully. What is meant by a re-assessment mechanism? If a worker, after being re-assessed, has his degree of disability revised by 5% higher than the original assessment, he can receive an additional grant of $1,000. However, I am told by workers that no one has ever been re-assessed successfully. When will a successful reassessment be made then? We have to wait after an autopsy to find that the worker's lung was filled with pneumoconiosis and he was actually very sick. Hence, for those workers who attended medical assessment between 1981 and 1993, the re-assessment mechanism actually exists in name only. Regrettably, for the 90-odd workers who attended medical assessment before 1981, they even do not have a chance for re-assessment. Given that there are at present three categories of workers, can the Government set up a standardized compensation mechanism for them? For those workers who had previously been forced to accept certain amount of compensation, the Government should not classify them as those assessed between 1981 and 1993 and force them to stay in that category for the rest of their life. Why not give equal treatment to all workers so that they can make their ends meet? As I said earlier, the Hong Kong society really owes a great deal to these people. Why does the Government refuse to give them a monthly allowance of just $1,000 which I have just mentioned? The Government can make better use of that $1,000 to … As a matter of fact, as those workers are expected to get weaker and weaker, it is therefore inappropriate to force them to undergo breath tests to ascertain the function of their lungs, nor is it necessary to conduct any re-assessment. As those workers get older and older, their conditions will only deteriorate; even if the compensation level is adjusted automatically, it is not going too far. Why can't the Government do so? There is one more question that the Secretary has to answer. The Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund has a reserve of more than $1 billion while the annual expenditure is only about $100 million. Proposal was once made to remit the levies collected by the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund to the Construction Industry Council, which was subsequently endorsed by the Legislative Council. But still, the Fund remains to be "flooded" with money thereafter. While the Fund is "flooded" with money, workers are living a miserable life. What a marked contrast! Workers gasp for breath when climbing stairs, they have difficulty getting about, and worse still, they live under the threat of cancer,


5761

mesothelioma, and so on, with a strong sense of insecurity and anxiety. They do not ask for a luxurious life, all they ask is to lead a dignified life at ease, but they cannot get they want. Secretary, how many years do they still have to wait? Another 10 years? The group of workers who attended medical assessment in 1993 have been waiting for many years, how much longer will they have to wait, Secretary? Another issue is about the daily medical expenses of $200. As we all know, the treatment by Chinese medicine practitioners is not regarded as services provided by public hospitals. How can this amount be sufficient to cover consultation and medication fees? Why should the Government be so mean to the workers? They have sacrificed their health for the well-being of Hong Kong, why is the Government still reluctant to increase the ceiling of medical expenses? Even an increase from $200 to $500 is not excessive. I believe we all know how much privately-run clinics charge nowadays for consultation. The amount of $200 is definitely not enough to cover consultation and medication at Chinese medicine clinics. Why does the Government insist on not making any upward adjustment? On the other hand, some workers also ask for additional support. Very often, doctors may prescribe certain rehabilitation services for patients, but only a limited number of rehabilitation services will be subsidized by the Fund. Even though certain rehabilitation services may be of help to patients and are recommended by doctors, they are not covered by the Fund. For example, though a respirator called BiPAP can improve the lung functions of patients, it is not eligible for reimbursement as it is not covered by the Fund. Why does the Government fail to cater for the rehabilitation needs in this regard despite doctors' recommendation? Why does the Government do nothing to make any improvement? As far as pneumoconiosis is concerned, will the Government consider the issue from the plight of patients, rather than being unsympathetic by sticking to its long-standing policy? Why is it so difficult to make a change? How many more years do these patients have to wait? The Secretary really has to answer one last question: With the balance of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund standing at around $1 billion now, why not spend the money on workers suffering from pneumoconiosis? What is the point of keeping all the money in the drawer and not using them? I would also like to remind you all that there should be fewer workers suffering from pneumoconiosis in the future as we really do not want to see more and more


Hong Kong people afflicted with the disease. As long as precautionary measures are taken, the number of pneumoconiosis patients will decrease gradually and in fact, the figure is decreasing steadily. As the number of such patients is on a gradual decrease, why can't we be kind to them and treat them well instead of locking all the money in the drawer? For this reason, I hope the Secretary will face up to the workers' demands, and stop thinking that the upward adjustment of the compensation level for pain, suffering and loss of amenities by 44% is a bestowal of mercy and will help solve all their problems. It is imperative for the Government to face up to their demands from a holistic perspective. Thank you, President. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the motion. This motion has been discussed in the Labour Advisory Board (LAB) and supported by the relevant Panel of the Legislative Council. However, I think there is still room for improvement. For example, in relation to funeral expenses which many Members have spoken of earlier, although the rate of increase of 8.88% is in line with the general price movement, the actual increase of $6,000-plus lags far behind the current high costs of funeral expenses. Medical expenses, at a daily ceiling of $200, also need a big increase. Therefore, I very much hope that after the passage of the resolution today, the Secretary will follow up the issues with the LAB. According to the available information, 59 new cases of pneumoconiosis were recorded in 2012 and over the past 10 years, 88 new cases were recorded on average each year. Among the existing patients, 1 270 are newly diagnosed; their average age is 67 and they suffer 16% incapacity on average. I believe as these patients grow older, the amount of their suffering and the degree of their incapacity will also increase. There are 432 patients belonging to the old cases. The average age of these patients is 73 and they suffer 24% incapacity on average. The total number of patients is 1 702. Pneumoconiosis, including silicosis, mesothelioma and asbestosis, will affect the patient for the rest of their lives. Although this motion has proposed to increase the amounts of certain items of compensation and allowances, I think the Government should provide more care for this group of workers who have paid the high price of their health for the prosperity of Hong Kong and the benefit of the construction industry. In providing care, the Government should not only


5763

increase the amount of compensation, it should also take preventive measures which is very important. President, asbestos fibres are the main culprit causing pneumoconiosis. They are colourless and odourless and are commonly found in old buildings of the city. Workers usually develop this illness because of inadequate precaution, and inadequate precaution is a matter concerning whether workers are aware of the risks involved, as well as whether the Administration had closely monitored the industries and properly issued warnings to monitor the commencement of works. As regards issuing warnings, it is related to the right to information. If no information is available, how will workers of the construction industry stay alert and take serious precautions to protect themselves from developing this illness? President, according to the Government's reply to a Member's written question raised on 16 February 2011, the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and the Hong Kong Housing Society (HKHS) conducted an assessment on about 1 400 buildings in Hong Kong under the Operation Building Bright and found that about 1 100 buildings contain asbestos containing material. The result shows that asbestos containing material is commonly contained in old buildings and this phenomenon is a time bomb. Yet, according to the current practice, it is only after the HKHS and the URA have issued an approval which stated that the building contains asbestos containing material can works involving such material commence. Nevertheless, the authorities have not published a list of the buildings which contain such material. Under the circumstances, residents or frequent visitors of those buildings may be affected and workers engaging in demolition and repair works may also be harmed without knowing the facts. Therefore, I think it is important for the authorities to give the public the right to information and the right to monitor the situation. In this connection, I hope the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Labour Department will explore with the relevant government departments as to how to strengthen the monitoring work and whether they should publish a list of the buildings containing such material to inform the public and the construction industry, which in my view, is a preventive measure which should be taken on the front line. Furthermore, the Housing Department has built a lot of public housing estates in this city. If these buildings are aged 30 years or above, I suspect that some of them may contain asbestos containing material. For example, asbestos containing material is commonly contained in decorative partition walls in old public housing estates. In this connection, the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union had asked me to bring this problem to the


attention of the Legislative Council and point out the potential risks involved to the Administration in the discussion of this resolution. Unfortunately, the authorities have not informed the public of the aged public rental housing buildings involved and their conditions, and have not published a list of the buildings concerned. Should the Government inform the residents of these public housing estates of the hazards? Do workers engaging in repair works of these buildings have the right to information? I have on hand the Government's reply to a Member's question on Operation Building Bright given on 16 February 2011. The reply was given by the HKHS and the URA, but not the Housing Department (HD). As there is no mention of the HD in the entire reply at all, I suspect that the HD may be trying to evade the problem of potential asbestos hazards in old or aged public rental housing buildings under their supervision. I hope that the Secretary will follow the matter up expeditiously after hearing my request. I consider that the abovementioned point is particularly important in protecting workers in the construction industry from any further harm caused by asbestos fibres. Frankly speaking, the amount of compensation is not important at all because once workers develop pneumoconiosis, the illness will stay with them for the rest of their lives until they kick the bucket. They have paid the high price of their health and even their lives and their families will also suffer with them. That is why we have to protect people from pneumoconiosis because one case is too many. I hope that the Secretary will commence inter-departmental work in this regard with a view to reducing the number of new cases to zero as far as possible. Thank you, President. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the amendments. Many people do not know that when I was studying in the Faculty of Medicine in 1983, a group of doctors and I set up the Hong Kong Workers' Health Centre and we visited many pneumoconiosis patients, including those who lived in a village in Ma On Shan Quarry which no longer exists now. I have known many of the workers at the Pneumoconiosis Mutual Aid Association since 1980s, and many of them had passed away. When facing with this motion proposed by the Government today, I am grieved and feel like crying


5765

because the amount of compensation for pain and suffering has, for the first time in 17 years, been adjusted to a more reasonable rate. Please do not think that workers would like to receive such kind of compensation. President, pneumoconiosis (or silicosis) is a very painful illness. If you have met these workers, you will understand what I mean. Initially, their lungs could move like sponges, but after inhaling a lot of silica dust, fine dust and asbestos dust over the years, their lungs have become as hard as rocks, and they can hardly breathe even with the greatest efforts. Sometimes, these workers cannot even climb one flight of stairs and their sufferings are unimaginable to many people. A clear-minded person with mobility power cannot even climb one flight of stairs. Doctors are at their wits' end because no medicine can help and all they can do is to provide oxygen to the rock-like lungs. Imagine how it will be like for a person to carry an oxygen cylinder or oxygen concentrator wherever he goes. The suffering is immense and patients have to live in such hardship for the rest of their lives. In addition, President, very few people can get compensation for mesothelioma because it is a dreadful kind of cancer. The situation has improved slightly now, but in the past, when a person was diagnosed with mesothelioma, he would probably be in the terminal stage. It is useless to do any operation and the only thing that can be done is to give the patient compensation. President, many workers gathered downstairs at ten o'clock this morning. These survivors are really lucky because they can still come to demonstrate in the Legislative Council Complex. First of all, they have made a lot of effort to come here because every step they take is painstaking. Besides, they have survived without developing mesothelioma and silicosis or having complications that might be life-threatening. Nonetheless, we feel disheartened because even with the passage of the amendments today, there are still many unresolved problems for these workers. It is most regrettable that fate determines everything in life, including compensation. Why? The reason is that if a worker was medically assessed to be eligible for compensation before 1981, he could obtain ex gratia payment all through his life; if he is medically assessed to be eligible for compensation for the first time after 1993, he can get a monthly compensation for incapacity. However, if a worker was medically assessed to be eligible for compensation between 1981 and 1993, he is not eligible to obtain any of the two payments.


These workers died one after another and only about 400 of them are still alive today. President, the number will certainly be fewer next year because I am certain that some workers will pass away each year. The Government has $1.6 billion, but it has turned a blind eye to these problems. Since 1993, we have been asking the Government incessantly to extend the scope of compensation to cover this small number of people who have once made contributions to Hong Kong. President, unfortunately, walking on the street today, we can still see many workers not wearing suitable masks at construction sites. Perhaps these workers have not fulfilled their obligation and are negligent; perhaps the industrial safety officers employed have not made any contribution, and perhaps the employers have not discharged their responsibility. Without wearing suitable masks, workers who dig and drill the ground with pneumatic picks today may, some years later, be become frail and have to come here to claim compensation, as Mr SIN Chung-kai said. I think it is shameful of the Government because it does not lack money at all. According to the most recent figures, the Compensation Fund has only spent about $150 million and it has an annual income of not less than $140 million. Nevertheless, the Government has made a decision to provide unreasonable compensation and these facts have not changed its mind. Many people say that the Government has done a lot of work and asbestos is no longer used. Do people think that the use of asbestos was forbidden long ago? Sorry, it was not. It was only after repeated demands, numerous petitions and meetings with many public officials from 1980s to 1996 that the Government finally forbade the use of the most dreadful amosite and crocidolite in 1996. The Government was stubborn and refused to change even in the 1980s. The employers certainly should be accountable for the situation today because they employed the workers, but can the Government dodge its responsibility? How many of the provisions in the Factories and Industrial Undertakings (Amendment) Ordinance actually protect workers? In the 1990s when most countries in the world had forbidden the use of asbestos, our Government became aware that it had to take some actions. Today, there are still many old buildings in Hong Kong which were constructed before 1996 or even earlier when asbestos was used as a construction material. Every time when repair works are carried out under Operation Building Bright or when the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) demolishes buildings which contain asbestos containing material, high risks are involved.


5767

Therefore, I think it is very regrettable that the Government has continued to turn a blind eye today to the request of the suffering workers who are receiving compensation for pain and suffering for a more reasonable rate of compensation. Besides, it is shameful and ridiculous that the maximum rate of medical expenses allowance is set at $200. President, I believe the Secretary or other civil servants are very lucky to be provided with free medical services at government families clinics and so they do not understand the sufferings of these workers. Setting the maximum rate of medical expenses allowance at $200 cannot provide these workers with any basic medical treatment. However, the Government has been unwilling to make any changes all these years. Why can't it make a change in response to the needs of the workers? How much public money will these people spend and how many people are involved? Will they seek medical treatment every day? They may only seek medical treatment once a month or when necessary. Yet, the Government is so mean as to deny them of the support and treat them callously. How can that be justified? Another issue is funeral expenses. Perhaps the Secretary really does not know the market prices. These workers are in dire straits. As they have been ill for many years, they have spent most of their savings and a few thousand dollars of compensation for pain and suffering cannot support the whole family. Earlier, I met a worker downstairs. He unfortunately fell ill before 1993 and he told me how he raised his children with great difficulties. He thought that the Government has treated them unfairly. If one day he died like the other workers, his family will only be paid the new rates of funeral expenses and compensation for death. The Government has definitely treated them unfairly. President, we can in no way negative the amendments today. If they are not passed, I believe the sick workers will only suffer more. However, the Government should not think that the passage of the amendments today indicates that it has done the right thing. The Government does not lack money and knowledge and it is not ignorant of the seriousness of the matter … most important of all, it was late in starting to control the use of asbestos and in taking effective industrial safety measures, including amending the Ordinance in question and establishing the Occupational Safety and Health Council. Therefore, the Government has an unshirkable responsibility. The Labour Department has been derelict in its duties for years in turning a blind eye to the problem of injuries at work and occupational diseases and it can hardly absolve itself from the blame. Therefore, while we will pass the Government's amendments today, we also ask the Government expressly to amend the


provisions expeditiously which provide unreasonable compensation. I hope that in no more than a year, the Government can come back to the Legislative Council with new amendments, so that reasonable arrangements can be made in relation to the daily medical expenses for workers who were medically assessed to be eligible for compensation from 1981 to 1993, funeral expenses, and so on. I so submit. Thank you, President. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, I was very angry upon reading the blog of Secretary Matthew CHEUNG entitled, "Compensations for injuries at work and occupational diseases expected to increase". Yet, as some Members said earlier, we cannot withhold our support for this motion. The Secretary's blog said (and I quote), "Based on the number of approved applications for compensation for pneumoconiosis, mesothelioma and occupational deafness, we estimated that about 10 000 employees injured at work, patients of occupational diseases and family members of deceased employees or persons will benefit." (End of quote) Why did the Secretary use the Chinese expression "受惠" (benefit)? What kind of benefit is it? Last week, when a Member described the Fisheries Development Loan Fund as "撫恤金" (pension for the family of the deceased), I immediately corrected him by saying that the term is only used in cases of death and some Members described the Fund as a kind of compassionate payment. It is surprising that a legislator cannot express himself clearly. In the case of the Secretary, I will not say that he cannot express himself clearly; I will say he is mean. How can he say that these people will "benefit"? Who on earth wants to get these compensations? No one wants to be injured at work and no one wants to be a victim. Yet, the Secretary used the word "benefit". These payments are not welfare benefits, but compensations given to injured workers. Injured workers should get these payments, and the amounts are meagre. Speaking of "benefit", as an accountability Secretary, he is paid $290,000 a month and he has even received a pay rise recently, he is the one who "benefits"! How come we are supporting these good-for-nothing guys! As the saying goes, "the wool comes off the sheep's back". The funding for the compensations comes from the levies collected when employers pay premiums for employees compensation insurance taken out in accordance with


5769

the provisions in the Employees' Compensation Ordinance. The levy rate was 1% in 1991 and has now been adjusted to 3.1%. As at the end of March 2013, the principal amounts outstanding recorded by the Employees' Compensation Insurance Levies Management Board was about $93 million and the amounts of compensations have thus been increased. Either the Government or the employers pay the money and the employers will transfer the costs of paying the premiums to the employees, how can Matthew CHEUNG use the word "benefit"? I remember the first question I asked the Secretary in this Council was about how the Social Welfare Department (SWD) treated the elderly, how the SWD had "bestowed blessings" to "benefit" the elderly. There was a long introduction on "A young idler, an old beggar", and that if people did not plan for their retirement and spent all their money when they were young, they would fall into the "safety net" when they were old and had to be cared for by the SWD. That was my version of interpretation, not the original version, but it carried such implication. The elderly persons of Hong Kong are in dire straits and what favours has the Secretary given them? Can the Secretary use another word other than "benefit"? The word is really disagreeable and offensive. The Secretary also said in his blog (and I quote), "Therefore, we attach great importance to our work in education and law enforcement regarding occupational safety and health. With the promotional efforts made by the Labour Department and the Occupational Safety and Health Council, the awareness of occupational safety among employers and employees has been greatly enhanced in recent years". (End of quote) May I ask how much importance has been attached by the authorities to such work? How many workers were killed at the construction sites of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge? Many workers have no choice but to work in unprotected environment in restaurants and construction sites or under hazardous conditions in other industries to make a living. How effective is the work of the Labour and Welfare Bureau in monitoring the work environment and related measures? The Secretary has often given empty talks. I would say that the progress is slow. How can the increase of various compensation amounts by several hundred dollars be described as a kind of "benefit"? That is not only despicable, but mean. Are the compensations paid out of the Secretary's own pocket? The money should be paid to the injured workers. When meagre and belated compensations are awarded, how can workers be "benefited"?


I hope that when the Secretary responds later ― if he responds ― he will apologize for using the Chinese expression "受惠 " or withdraw such an expression. In part (b) of the Sixth Schedule in the paper I have with me, the rate of increase of minimum monthly earnings is set at 5.7%, which is lower than all the other items. Why can't it be increased to 10.56%, taking into account the cumulative rate of increase of the Nominal Wage Index? In parts (f), (g), (h) and (i) of the Sixth Schedule, the standard rate of increase of 8.88% applies to all the items of funeral expenses, cost for supplying and fitting of a prosthesis or surgical appliance and cost of repair and renewal of a prosthesis or surgical appliance. That is unreasonable. The inflation rates of items such as surgical appliance are not the same. If the inflation rate of a certain appliance is 50%, what is the use of increasing the amount for that item by 8.88%? In setting the rates of increase, it is definitely necessary to make reference to market prices. According to the most recent figures provided by the Census and Statistics Department, more than 200 000 people in Hong Kong are self-employed. Their rights against injuries at work are not protected under the Employees Compensation Ordinance, and once they have an accident at work, they will be financially stranded immediately. In order to shirk the responsibility of taking out insurance for their employees, many unscrupulous employers will exploit the legal loophole by asking employees to sign a different kind of contract by coercion or persuasion, thus turning them into self-employed persons. As these cases of "fake self-employment" happen quite often in Hong Kong, the labour rights of these employees are not protected. Casual work is another type of work which we have heard of. Casual workers may lose their protection if their employers have, intentionally or unintentionally, not taken out insurance for them in accordance with the labour laws. If these workers are injured at work, they will be at a loss for they have to pay for the huge amount of medical expenses and their livelihood will be at stake for they live from hand to mouth. In order to stay in the job, they may remain silent about their injuries and endure the sufferings quietly. In cases of self-employment and casual work, even if the injured workers will come forward to sue their employers who have breached the laws, they can only obtain compensation after a long legal process. In case the employers cannot afford to pay compensation, the injured workers may initiate winding-up


5771

or bankruptcy proceedings against the employers. President, let me digress a little and talk about the example of the Asia Television Limited (ATV). What has the Secretary for Labour and Welfare done? He had issued summonses against ATV, but the broadcaster did not make payments before the said deadlines and the magistrate expressed dissatisfaction in court. Although this is not the first time that ATV has defaulted on payment of employees' wages and has not paid the licence fee, the Government still allows ATV to make a spectacle of itself. However, some problems have nothing to do with the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, for example, the problem of licensing involves "689" only. Buddy, ATV has been defaulted on payment of employees' wages more than once, but the authorities have only issued summonses against it. President, from a single example one can see the full picture, thus, considering how the authorities handled the case of ATV defaulting on payment of wages, we can understand the attitude of the authorities towards such problems. President, I am afraid I have not digressed, just that after taking a look of the Secretary triggers many thoughts in my mind. If an employee has successfully initiate winding-up or bankruptcy proceedings against his employer, he can get some compensation from the Employees Compensation Assistance Fund of the Government, but many injured or sick workers cannot make ends meet during this long waiting period. In recent years, some employers have inadvertently or intentionally breached the laws in failing to take out insurance for their employees, thus depriving the employees of their entitled labour rights. We have seen many such cases, but what has the Government done to protect the workers? What functions, if any, has the Secretary for Labour and Welfare performed? The Government should review with building contractors the time needed to construct buildings and ensure that the work environment of restaurants and industrial premises are safe for workers. In addition, workers should be given sufficient breaks during their work to avoid accidents caused by excessively long working hours. What I have just said is different from the Secretary's mutterings in his blog. When reading such articles, I really feel … Take for example the last paragraph. I only quote the remarks of Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. He said, "Certainly, no one wants to get these compensations for injuries at work or occupational diseases. Therefore, we attach great importance to our work in education and law enforcement regarding occupational safety and health. With the promotional efforts made by the Labour Department and the Occupational Safety and Health Council, the awareness of occupational safety among


employers and employees has been greatly enhanced in recent years, but we should not lower our guard and we have to take proper precautions!" What is the Secretary saying? Has he taken any specific steps to do the work mentioned and has the work been very effective? The answers to both parts of the question are in the negative. He sounds as if he was very capable, but when it comes to making compensation arrangements, it takes him a long time to provide only meagre amounts of compensation. Secretary, what is the progress of the inspections of work premises by the authorities? What have the authorities done in relation to high-risk work premises such as construction sites? How much resources have been put into the work? What are the results? Can you give us any reply? If a contractor violates the law stipulated in the occupational safety legislation at a construction site during the construction period, should the authorities issue a suspension notice? Do they have to prosecute the contractor immediately? How many cases have they prosecuted? Does the Secretary have the figures? How effective is the work? The Secretary is talking nonsense because the authorities often let the contractors get off the hook, and he is only running around in circles with the legislative provisions. President, there is certainly no dispute about this motion. Many Members say that having amendments is better than having no amendments and so we surely have to support them. Although I support the amendments, I must take this opportunity and use my speaking time of 10-odd minutes to seriously point out that the Secretary for Labour and Welfare is derelict of his duty in handling the problem. I am not being pedantic with the Secretary's choice of words, but as I said clearly earlier, he must withdraw the Chinese expression "受惠". What favours will be given to the workers? Does he know the meaning of the characters? If he does not, he can ask the President to teach him. How can it be described as "受惠"? Whose favours will the workers receive? Why do they have to accept favours? They should be paid compensation, shouldn't they? The Secretary can ask Mr WONG Kwok-hing since he was speaking so loudly. What favours will the workers receive? Therefore, I hope the Secretary will withdraw the expression "受惠" because that is very important. Thank you, President.


5773

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I thank Members for their speeches. I entirely agree that occupational safety and health is important. In fact, the Labour Department has spared no effort in our work on publicity, education, enforcement and promotion in upgrading and improving the standard of occupational safety and health in Hong Kong on all fronts. Earlier, we have reported our up-to-date achievements to the Panel on Manpower and we will release a mid-term report later. The standard of occupational safety and health has obviously improved in Hong Kong, in particular, the number of industrial accidents has been decreasing year by year. Certainly, we should not lower our guard. When large-scale works projects speed up their works and when repair works are carried out under Operation Building Bright, and so on, we have to be particularly careful. If an accident occurs at a construction site, we must take resolute actions. In fact, when an industrial accident occurs in a large-scale works project, we would immediately issue a suspension notice, which is the most effective means of enforcement. We would in no way condone irresponsible employers because there is absolutely no room for negotiation when it comes to occupational health, we would not tolerate any breaches of the law. As I often say, one industrial accident is already too many. Let me give a concise response to Members' views now. Today we discuss the compensation for pneumoconiosis. I entirely agree that workers suffering from pneumoconiosis are worthy of our sympathy. I have also met those workers and have closely liaised with the relevant organization, that is, the organization which has raised a complaint today, as well as the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union which has a good working relationship with us. Earlier, I visited some workers and trade unions. In this review, we have strived to make as much improvement as possible and we have not merely adopted all practices under the established mechanism. For example, in the past, the amounts of compensation for pain, suffering and loss of amenities were adjusted according to changes in the Consumer Price Index (A). We have not followed this mechanism this time, instead, we have taken reference from the


guidelines for calculating compensation laid down by the Court in 2013 and increased the amount greatly by more than 40%. That shows that we have indeed tried our very best to raise the amount of compensation which the workers are entitled to. Some Members mentioned that the maximum amount of medical expenses is set at $200, or a total of $280 including the daily maintenance fee. Actually, these amounts have to be linked to the charges of the Hospital Authority, thus, we are bound by the restrictions. Nevertheless, I will be happy to review the situation with the Labour Advisory Board in the next cycle and explore any room for improvement where appropriate, but this problem is rather complicated. If we have to depart from the mechanism under which the public sector operates, which standards should we adopt? These questions have to be considered thoroughly. However, I agree that we should try our best to explore if there is any room for improvement. Mr WONG Kwok-hing and a few Members have raised questions concerning asbestos. In fact, I have told Members that the authorities have set down clear code of practice in this respect. The Environmental Protection Department and the Labour Department will, in inspecting the removal of corrugated asbestos cement sheets, ensure that the relevant persons have followed the rules. The authorities are aware that it is an operation which involves high risks to health. Of course, Mr WONG Kwok-hing mentioned earlier that the Hong Kong Housing Authority and the Housing Department have not taken part in the matter, but I will follow the matter up appropriately and consider if we can make any improvement. I agree that if we can raise the compensation level for workers who are injured or ill in any way, we should do so. President, I so submit and hope that Members will support my motion today. Thank you. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Secretary for Labour and Welfare be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands)


5775

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Proposed resolution under the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) Ordinance. Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to speak and move the motion. PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL DEAFNESS (COMPENSATION) ORDINANCE SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. The purpose of this motion is to increase the amounts of four compensation items stipulated in the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) Ordinance (ODCO). The ODCO provides compensation to persons who suffer from noise-induced deafness by reason of employment in the specified noisy occupations (hereafter referred to as occupational deafness persons). According to the established mechanism, the maximum and minimum sums for calculating the amount of compensation for permanent incapacity under the ODCO together with the levels of compensation under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance and the Pneumoconiosis and Mesothelioma (Compensation) Ordinance are reviewed every two years. Adjustments, if required, to the relevant sums under the ODCO are generally made by reference to the wage movement as reflected by the Nominal Wage Index in the review period.


Moreover, with a view to enhancing protection for occupational deafness persons under the financing scheme for hearing assistive devices under ODCO, we will, starting from this review exercise, review the first-time financing limit and aggregate financing limit every two years with reference to the experience of the Occupational Deafness Compensation Board (ODCB) in administering the scheme. The review findings revealed a cumulative growth of 10.56% in Nominal Wage Index in the period from 2012 to 2013. According to the established mechanism, we propose to increase the maximum and minimum sums for calculating the amount of compensation for permanent incapacity under ODCO by 10.56% in line with the wage movement. Specifically, the proposed revisions include increasing the maximum sum for calculating the amount of compensation for permanent incapacity for employees aged under 40 from $2,263,680 to $2,502,720; for employees aged 40 to under 56 from $1,697,760 to $1,877,040, and for employees aged 56 or above from $1,131,840 to $1,251,360. As for the minimum sum for calculating the amount of compensation for permanent incapacity, we propose to increase the amount from $386,110 to $426,880. We have also reviewed the first-time financing limit and the aggregate financing limit for hearing assistive devices stipulated under ODCO, having regard to the experience of ODCB in administering the scheme. From the implementation of the revised hearing assistive devices financing limits on 16 April 2010 up to 31 December 2013, the ODCB recorded 43 hearing assistive devices applications with a claim amount exceeding $12,000, of which 76.7% (that is, 33 applications) involved a claim amount ranging from $12,001 to $15,000. We also understand from the ODCB that new models of hearing aids are now available in the market with more functions designed to suit the needs of individual occupational deafness persons, the prices of which are commonly in the range of $14,000 to $16,000. In view of this, we suggest adjusting upwards the first-time financing limit by 25% from $12,000 to $15,000 so as to allow occupational deafness persons to have a wider choice of hearing assistive devices to cater for their individual needs. Furthermore, we understand that some occupational deafness persons have already exhausted the aggregate financing limit of $36,000 or are likely to exhaust the aggregate financing limit in around one to two years. Taking into account the estimated average annual hearing assistive devices expenses of an occupational deafness person as well as the biennial review time frame, we


5777

suggest raising the aggregate financing limit by 44.44% from $36,000 to $52,000, such that those occupational deafness persons who have exhausted the aggregate financing limit can benefit again, while those approaching the limit will also continue to benefit. The Labour Advisory Board and the ODCB have endorsed the above proposal, while Members of the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower have also expressed support to the proposal. We propose that the revised levels of compensation and financing limits take effect from 5 March 2015. I hope that Members will support and pass the motion so that occupational deafness persons can receive the compensation deserved by them as early as possible. Thank you, President. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that, with effect from 5 March 2015, the Occupational Deafness (Compensation) Ordinance (Cap. 469) be amended as set out in the Schedule.

Schedule

Amendments to Occupational Deafness (Compensation) Ordinance

1. Schedule 5 amended (amount of compensation)

(1) Schedule 5, section 1(a)(ii) ― Repeal "$386,110" Substitute "$426,880". (2) Schedule 5, section 1(b) ― Repeal "$2,263,680" Substitute "$2,502,720".


(3) Schedule 5, section 1(b) ― Repeal "$1,697,760" Substitute "$1,877,040". (4) Schedule 5, section 1(b) ― Repeal "$1,131,840" Substitute "$1,251,360".

2. Schedule 7 amended (limits of direct payment of expenses

and reimbursement of expenses) (1) Schedule 7, section 1 ― Repeal "$12,000" Substitute "$15,000". (2) Schedule 7, section 2 ― Repeal "$36,000" Substitute "$52,000"."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare be passed. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, the amounts of compensation for persons suffering from occupational deafness will be adjusted this time around, but one item has been ignored. The Secretary likes to say that he will explore all possible room for improvement, as if he is very brilliant and powerful. However, the compensation for occupational deafness persons does not cover any compensation for pain. Why does the Secretary not try to explore if there is any room for improvement in this regard? Frankly speaking, I believe the Secretary is merely paying lip service in saying that he would try by all means to make improvement. Just now, I have just raised many views on pneumoconiosis, including standardizing the amounts of compensation for the three groups of pneumoconiosis patients confirmed before 1981, before 1993 and


5779

after 1993. Has the Secretary tried by all means to make improvement in this regard? In addition, the Government has all along failed to raise the amounts of compensation and improve the livelihood of the people concerned despite the fact that the Fund is overflowing with money. Nowadays, pneumoconiosis patients are leading a difficult life as commodity prices are soaring. While the Secretary indicates that the amount of compensation in one area has remained unchanged for some 17 years and he will explore all possible room to make improvement, no improvement has been made to other areas of compensation, particularly the compensation for occupational deafness persons, which does not even cover the compensation for pain. In addition, each occupational deafness person can receive financial aid for purchasing hearing assistive devices, but the relevant ceiling is still $52,000, with no significant increase. With advancement in technologies nowadays, hearing assistive devices are getting more and more expensive. If we can assist occupational deafness persons in restoring hearing, great changes will be brought to their lives. Disappointingly, the ceiling in this regard has not been relaxed. How much room has the Secretary explored in this regard? I know that the Secretary will again say that action will be taken in the future, but I am afraid the situation in the future will only be like that of today, with minor improvement made at one time. Why can't an overall improvement be made at one time? MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of this motion. I have particularly noted that after the discussions of the Labour Advisory Board and the relevant Panel, the aggregate financing limit for hearing assistive devices will increase by 44.44%, which is a relatively high rate of increase. I would like to extend my welcome to it. Nowadays, owing to technological development, hearing aids have been changing with each passing day. In complaint cases handled by the Complaints Division of the Legislative Council, deputations and individuals told us that hearing assistive devices need to be adjusted with users' ages. Furthermore, maintenance fees are high. As such, though the resolution proposes to increase the aggregate financing limit by 44.44%, I still hope that following the implementation of the resolution, the Government and the Panel would closely monitor market prices and maintenance fees, and conduct regular reviews, because the replacement and maintenance fees for hearing assistive devices are very high. Thank you, President.


MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, I also support this motion. As pointed out by the two Members who spoke just now, owing to technological advancement, adjustments are thus made to the financing limit for hearing assistive devices. Deafness is a very serious problem. The maximum amount of compensation for the permanent loss of earning capacity will be adjusted upward by 10.56% this time around. The relevant table clearly indicates that the financing amount for persons aged under 40 will be adjusted upward, and the financing amount for persons aged 40 to under 56 will also be adjusted upward, but this financing amount is the maximum amount rather than the minimum amount. Supposing that a person aged under 40 suffers from deafness, the maximum amount receivable by him until death is computed by multiplying the ceiling of monthly earnings by 96. Objectively speaking, I think there is room for review regarding the relevant amount. There are changes with regard of the nature of occupations nowadays. Previously, persons suffering from occupational deafness were mainly construction workers, but nowadays new occupations are involved and wages are also different. Is there any room for review to adjust the relevant multiplying factors or the actual amounts? I hope the relevant committee can conduct a study and a comprehensive review, because the adjustments made this time are regular revision made in accordance with the movement of the Nominal Wage Index or the inflation rate. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, thanks to the three Members for their speeches. I would like to make a brief reply. First, as I have stated time and again, we have significantly increased the aggregate financing limit for hearing assistive devices by 44.44% from $36,000 to $52,000. This is a significant rate of increase. Second, I would like to respond to Mr LEE Cheuk-yan as to why we cannot offer the compensation for pain. I have previously offered an explanation at the Panel on Manpower. Let me reiterate the relevant background. In 2012, the Occupational Deafness Compensation Board (ODCB) established a research committee for the purpose of exploring this issue. The


5781

committee comprised various experts, including a specialist in Otorhinolaryngology, an audiologist, employer and employee representatives, as well as staff members of the ODCB and the Labour Department. The committee reached a consensus that there were insufficient justifications for the introduction of the compensation for pain. There were several reasons. First, as far as tinnitus was concerned, it was difficult to adopt objective criteria to evaluate subjective symptoms, and under the established employee compensation mechanism in Hong Kong, one-off compensation was provided to employees according to the degree of their permanent loss of earning capacity. This is the first reason. The second reason relates to the allocation of resources. As I have said just now, the committee held the view that a balance must be stricken between employers' affordability of labour insurance premium and employee protection. Since there were no objective criteria in assessing tinnitus, the committee opined that the relevant rehabilitation programmes should be improved, and greater efforts should be made on the relief treatment methods for tinnitus. Only by doing so could patients be further assisted. This was basically a consensus reached by the committee after thorough studies, and it was the view of experts, representatives of employees and employers rather than the one-sided view of the Government. Mr SIN Chung-kai talked about using age to classify the categories of compensation. In fact, we have a well-established mechanism, under which the amounts of compensation for three age groups, that is, people under 40, 40 to under 56 and 56 or above, are computed by multiplying the ceiling of monthly earnings by 96 months, 72 months and 48 months respectively. The fundamental reason is that elder employees will have fewer remaining working months than younger ones, and the amounts of compensation are therefore computed using different multiplying factors. I understand Members' starting point. I absolutely agree that in future reviews we should make all-out efforts to assist workers injured at work and every room for improvement should be explored. The next review will be more comprehensive. Regarding the many views provided to us by Members, I will discuss with members of the relevant board or committee, and examine how to do better. President, most importantly, I hope Members will support us and pass the motion today. Thank you.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands? (Members raised their hands) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands. (No hands raised) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed. MEMBERS' MOTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. Mr Andrew LEUNG will move a motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to take note of two items of subsidiary legislation in relation to the Waste Disposal Ordinance, which were included in Report No. 11/14-15 of the House Committee laid on the Table of this Council. According to the relevant debating procedure, I will first call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion, and then call upon the chairman of the subcommittee formed to scrutinize the relevant items of subsidiary legislation, Ms Cyd HO, to speak, to be followed by other Members. Each Member (including the mover of the motion) may only speak once and may speak for up to 15 minutes. Finally, I will call upon the public officer to speak. The debate will come to a close after the public officer has spoken, and the motion will not be put to vote. Members who wish to speak on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion.


5783

MOTION UNDER RULE 49E(2) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee, I move the motion, as printed on the Agenda, under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to allow Members to have a debate on the following two items of subsidiary legislation, which were included in Report No. 11/14-15 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments:

― Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal Facility) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 (Commencement) Notice 2014; and

― Waste Disposal (Refuse Transfer Station) (Amendment) Regulation

2013 (Commencement) Notice. President, I so submit. Mr Andrew LEUNG moved the following motion:

"That this Council takes note of Report No. 11/14-15 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 4 February 2015 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:

Item Number Title of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument

(1) Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal Facility)

(Amendment) Regulation 2013 (Commencement) Notice 2014 (L.N. 154/2014)

(2) Waste Disposal (Refuse Transfer Station) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 (Commencement) Notice (L.N. 155/2014)."

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


MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal Facility) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 (Commencement) Notice 2014 and Waste Disposal (Refuse Transfer Station) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 (Commencement) Notice, I now report to the Legislative Council on the scrutiny work of the Subcommittee. To solve the environmental problems of the South East New Territories (SENT) Landfill, the Administration submitted the Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal Facility) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 and the Waste Disposal (Refuse Transfer Station) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 to the Legislative Council on 4 December 2013. The two Amendment Regulations aim to implement a package of legislative measures to ensure that municipal solid waste diverted from the SENT Landfill will be properly handled by the network of refuse transfer stations, and that any potential traffic and environmental impact can be minimized. To bring into effect the relevant provisions of the Amendment Regulations, the Administration submitted two Commencement Notices to the Legislative Council on 17 December 2014, stipulating that with effect from 1 April 2015, refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) entering a specified landfill or refuse transfer station must be equipped with metal tailgate covers and waste water sump tanks which comply with standards, and the Director of Environmental Protection will have the power to examine such RCVs to check whether they meet the relevant requirements. In addition, with effect from 1 March 2015, Shatin Transfer Station will be opened up for use by private waste collectors, and the new levels of fees for waste disposal at the three refuse transfer stations in Sha Tin, Hong Kong Island East and Hong Kong Island West, as prescribed in the Waste Disposal (Refuse Transfer Station) (Amendment) Regulation 2013, will come into force on the same date. The Subcommittee has held one meeting to scrutinize the two Commencement Notices. Members of the Subcommittee have no objection to the contents of the Commencement Notices, and note that the Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal Facility) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 specifies the SENT Landfill as a designated waste disposal facility which accepts only construction waste of a particular type, but the Administration has yet to specify the commencement date of this measure. Members of the Subcommittee request the Administration to expeditiously implement the requirement that the SENT


5785

Landfill accepts only construction waste, and to ensure that the waste collection trade will be allowed sufficient lead time to adjust to using other refuse transfer stations for the disposal of various types of municipal solid waste, re-route their RCVs, and negotiate with service users for amending waste collection service contracts. The Administration has indicated that, depending on the progress of the relevant complementary measures, the requirement that the SENT Landfill accepts only construction waste will hopefully come into effect by the end of 2015. The Administration has also undertaken to specify the commencement date of the aforesaid requirement before the end of the Legislative Session as far as possible, and to gazette a notice of that commencement date and lay it on the table of the Legislative Council for Members' perusal after reporting to the Panel on Environmental Affairs on the progress of the work concerned. President, the foregoing is my report on the work of the Subcommittee, and the following are my personal opinions. These two Commencement Notices are part of the entire waste management package, and are also measures formulated to address the grievances of the residents in the vicinity of the SENT Landfill in Tseung Kwan O. While the funding for the extension of the SENT Landfill has been voted through in the Legislative Council, the whole landfill is indeed a very serious mistake in town planning. This is because there are many people living in its vicinity, and the closest distance between these residents and the landfill is just slightly over half a kilometre. During the collection of domestic solid waste in the past, the odour of RCVs and leachate dripping from the food waste collected had indeed made the entire environment very disgusting, causing huge nuisance to the local residents. The Government has now put forward two measures to reduce the nuisance caused to the residents. The first one is the improvement to RCVs. Apart from the $18 million allocated by the Financial Secretary as a subsidy to assist the trade in retrofitting their RCVs with tailgate covers and waste water sump tanks, legislation has now been drawn up to impose regulation. We agree to the Government's approach of providing a subsidy before regulating by legislation, as waste management and environmental protection should not be a responsibility borne by some people, but should be a responsibility shared by all people. In our view, there is nothing wrong with providing the trade with some financial


incentives to retrofit RCVs, which is in any case better than the inaction of the previous Government, which had been too stingy to grant $18 million and had kept a tight grip on the purse strings for four years. At present, 80% to 90% of the retrofitting works have been completed. So, regarding the regulatory legislation to be enacted in early 2015 to empower the Director of Environmental Protection to examine such RCVs and provide for liability arising from non-compliant RCVs, this timetable is appropriate. The retrofitting of RCVs benefits not only Tseung Kwan O residents, but actually all Hong Kong people. Yet, from the perspective of Tseung Kwan O residents, even if municipal solid waste from households will not be sent there anymore, the landfill will still be a place for collecting construction waste; many residents are worried that the dust and suspended particulates of such construction waste will, similarly, have a significant impact on their health. For this reason, during its deliberation, the Subcommittee has raised another question which the Secretary and the Administration have not answered, and that is: when can the Administration announce a date for the ultimate closure of the Tseung Kwan O landfill? Among the extensions of the three existing landfills, the area of extension of the Tseung Kwan O landfill is the smallest, so small that the landfill will be exhausted again in less than seven years. Therefore, we really do not understand why the Government has to leave a loose end and refuses to announce a date for the ultimate closure of the landfill. What are the political considerations behind? Is the Government worried that if it announces the closure of the landfill, it will again be faced with enormous political resistance when it looks for another site? However, as the Government always says, waste disposal is a collective responsibility that the whole community has to bear. In the past, we had quite a number of landfills, such as Jordan Valley Landfill and Sai Tso Wan Landfill, and now we have this landfill in Tseung Kwan O; the local residents have in fact shouldered their responsibility, and they have shouldered for a long time. Why can't the Government find another landfill site? More importantly, the Government should step up its efforts to promote waste reduction at source, as well as waste recovery and recycling.


5787

I know that the Secretary can definitely enumerate many initiatives if he wishes to do so. But, no matter how many initiatives there are, we still want to get the answer to this question: when can the Tseung Kwan O landfill be closed ultimately? If the Secretary fails to specify a date for its closure, Tseung Kwan O residents will not be satisfied. On waste recovery and recycling, I must reiterate the Labour Party's view that the Administration must allocate sufficient resources, $2 billion in recurrent expenditure a year at least, for creating green job opportunities. Unfortunately, the Administration has yet to make any specific commitment. The view taken by the Secretary is fundamentally different from ours. The Secretary is always of the opinion that waste separation should be done by the general public at home with their doors closed, while we are of the view that the Government should invest in the establishment of waste separation stations in public places, and hire grass-roots workers to do the separation. Better still, it should develop related technologies to enable waste separation to develop in the direction of high-tech environmental protection, thereby creating middle-level management job opportunities. The forthcoming implementation of domestic waste charging may lead to an increase of $1 billion to $1.8 billion in government revenue each year. Yet, the Administration has long failed to undertake to allocate such revenue or more resources for creating green job opportunities. We find this very regrettable, and will remain committed to monitoring the situation. Thank you, President. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) greatly welcomes the Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal Facility) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 (Commencement) Notice 2014 and the Waste Disposal (Refuse Transfer Station) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 (Commencement) Notice made by the Government. I am very glad that the Government has already implemented by legislation or is taking forward all the improvement measures proposed by the DAB in relation to the South East New Territories (SENT) Landfill, such as increasing the use of marine transport for delivery of fill materials to Area 137; retrofitting all


refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) in Hong Kong for conversion to fully-enclosed RCVs; the SENT Landfill ceasing to accept municipal solid waste; enhancing the monitoring and control of fly-tipping in the vicinity of the SENT Landfill; setting up air quality monitoring stations, and so on. After the approval of the SENT Landfill extension project, my team and I have continued to garner the opinions of Tseung Kwan O residents, particularly those living in LOHAS Park. We and the residents are very concerned about the implementation of the aforesaid improvement measures and further amelioration of the living environment of the local community. Today, I would like to raise the following eight points of view in the hope that the Government can respond to them proactively. First, regarding increasing the use of marine transport, the Government has pointed out that since the commencement of operation of the barging pier at Kai Tak in the fourth quarter of last year, the daily traffic volume on Wan Po Road has been reduced by 100 vehicle trips, and as the number of deliveries by marine transport will continue to increase this year, it is expected that such daily traffic volume will be further reduced by 100 vehicle trips, making a total reduction of 200 vehicle trips, this year. But, in any event, there are still thousands of heavy vehicles travelling to the landfill and the fill bank at Area 137 via Wan Po Road every day. I hope that the Government can further increase the use of marine transport, identify suitable sites for constructing barging piers, and increase the proportion of deliveries by marine transport, so as to relieve the traffic pressure on Wan Po Road. The second point is about the date on which the SENT Landfill will cease to accept municipal solid waste. We very much hope that the Government can announce, as soon as possible, the exact date on which the landfill will cease to accept municipal solid waste. The residents also hope that this can be implemented expeditiously without further delay, because as long as the landfill continues to accept domestic waste, they will still be distressed by the odour problem. The third point concerns the problem of fly-tipping in the vicinity of the SENT Landfill. With the installation of a closed-circuit television system by the Government, the problem of fly-tipping has been alleviated, but has yet to be completely resolved. The main reason is that forbidding the entry of overloaded RCVs into the landfill has led to fly-tipping outside the landfill by some drivers.


5789

To solve this problem, the Government should consider allowing those overloaded RCVs to enter the landfill first, and imposing certain penalties on them subsequently. The fourth point is about issues relating to RCVs and tipper lorries. According to the information provided by the Government, at present only less than 20 RCVs in Hong Kong have yet to be retrofitted with metal tailgate covers and waste water sump tanks, and the retrofitting works of all RCVs across the territory should be completed before 1 April, that is, the commencement date of the legislation concerned. I am greatly appreciative of the Government's efforts to improve RCVs. Such retrofitting is beneficial to all Hong Kong people, as it serves as a solution to the problems arising from leachate dripping from RCVs in the past. However, the Government should monitor whether the tailgate covers of retrofitted RCVs are really closed while they are travelling on roads. This is because, as we can see at present, the tailgate covers of some retrofitted RCVs are not closed while they are travelling on roads, which means that they may not be fully enclosed in the course of transportation. The Government must step up its enforcement actions. Apart from RCVs, tipper lorries are also a cause for concern. The falling of debris from tipper lorries entering or leaving the landfill also has a serious impact on the residents and motorists in the vicinity. The debris so fallen does not only cause environmental pollution, but also poses hazards to road safety. Quite a number of motorists have relayed to me that they need to replace one or two windscreens each year because of such fallen debris. After resolving the issue pertaining to RCVs, the Government should proceed to tackle the issue concerning tipper lorries as well. Fifth, regarding waste diversion, I hope that the Government will maintain close communication with the trade in future to fully understand the situations of waste diversion and distribution in the trade, because the diversion in question will have a certain impact on the trade, and will involve many administrative and re-routing arrangements. The Government is duty-bound to co-ordinate and iron out the difficulties facing the trade during such diversion, so that there will not be any confusion within the trade when the SENT Landfill officially ceases to accept municipal solid waste. Furthermore, as other refuse transfer stations (RTSs) will need to receive municipal solid waste diverted from the SENT Landfill, it is believed that the burden on these RTSs will increase. The Government must


step up its monitoring of the RTSs and allocate more resources to improve them, so as to ensure that the need to receive municipal solid waste diverted from the SENT Landfill will not add to the burden on the districts near the RTSs in terms of environment, ancillary transport facilities, and so on. The sixth point is about the cleansing of Wan Po Road. At present, even though the Environmental Protection Department and other relevant departments carry out a number of cleansing operations every day, the results are in fact unsatisfactory. The residents liken the cleansing operations to "sweeping rubbish from the left to the right, and then sweeping it back from the right to the left", which is just ineffective. The Government should enhance its supervision to ensure the effectiveness of such measures. Seventh, the overloading of dump trucks and the falling of debris from them on Wan Po Road are very serious problems. We very much hope that the Government can also beef up surveillance on the road, and various government departments can make concerted efforts to step up prosecution and enforcement, so as to protect the safety of road users. The eighth point, or the last point, is that the residents very much hope that the Government can give the SENT Landfill a new name which reflects its new function, thereby changing the public's bad impression of Tseung Kwan O. President, I hope that this is the last extension of the Tseung Kwan O landfill, and that the government departments concerned will not, just because of the approval of the "three landfills and one incinerator" proposal, slack off on their work on waste reduction at source or other waste management facilities, or on further improvement measures in respect of the Tseung Kwan O landfill. We hope that in the future, the Government will bring a better living environment to Tseung Kwan O residents, particularly those living in LOHAS Park, who are most affected by the SENT Landfill. President, I so submit. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Ms Cyd HO, Chairman of the Subcommittee, for doing a lot of follow-up work. I must also once again tell the authorities on behalf of Tseung Kwan O residents


5791

that they are very angry. Why do they ask us to oppose the extension of the Tseung Kwan O landfill? The Secretary and his colleagues should pay more visits to the district to listen to the residents' opinions. As for the two notices currently under discussion, I will vote in favour of them. I really hope that the retrofitting of all refuse collection vehicles (RCVs) can be completed before April or thereabouts, so that during the transport of waste by RCVs to the landfill, there will not be so much waste falling onto the road. I believe the Secretary has also heard of a case in which an entire mattress was fallen onto the road. That was indeed very horrifying. Anyone who has talked to people living in LOHAS Park and Beaumount should know that they are really furious. The Administration once said that they would close the landfill, but there is still no timetable for implementing such a plan. Just now the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) seemed to be saying that it was not necessary to close the landfill. The Government's approach of banning the entry of malodorous waste into the landfill is certainly better than doing nothing. I also hope that residents of other districts can understand that the authorities are not giving preferential treatment to Tseung Kwan O residents. The truth is that the siting of the landfill in close proximity to residential areas by the Administration is basically a mistake in planning. President, after so many years, the Administration actually still does not know where the stench comes from. The Sai Kung District Council has also discussed the issue for a long time, and has subsequently even used an "electronic nose" for detection. Why do we need to use an "electronic nose" when we have so many "human noses"? This is common knowledge, and the Government has also kept alluding to the odour problem. The existence of the stench is an undeniable fact, but the Administration just does not admit that it comes from the landfill. As I have often said, no matter whether the stench comes from the landfill or elsewhere, if the surroundings are always so smelly, it is simply intolerable for people who live in the district. The Administration must tackle this problem. Even though the District Council has subsequently resorted to the use of an "electronic nose" for detection, at present the stench can still be smelt, President ― not by you, but by people living in the vicinity of the landfill. Secretary, this problem is really very severe.


Besides, the name of Wan Po Road1 is really laughable. Why not rename it, if the DAB supports to do so? What does such a dusty road have to do with environmental protection? While the Administration has earlier undertaken to carry out a certain number of cleansing operations on the road every day, there is now no way to hold them to their words. I hope that the Secretary can go there and take a good look. There are hundreds or even thousands of trucks travelling past that area every day, making it dirty and filthy. I am afraid that even cleansing it every minute would be useless. Secretary, even though we support the Administration's proposal today, your work has not ended yet. What Ms HO said just now is correct. The Administration had previously talked about the ultimate closure of the landfill, but then nothing has been done to achieve it. Will the landfill be there ad infinitum? The Administration must give an answer to the public. By no means can the authorities be so untrustworthy. I agree with Ms HO that the retrofitting of RCVs, once completed, will benefit not only residents in the vicinity of the Tseung Kwan O landfill, but also the public at large, because in the future, waste will not fall out of RCVs easily, nor will there be leachate dripping from RCVs onto the streets and roads, thereby making them dirty and filthy. Actually, such work should have been done long ago. As a Member of this Council for so many years, I recall that 10-odd years ago, whenever the Government was urged to require that such vehicles ― not only RCVs but even trucks and other vehicles ― should be covered so that spanners or other items would not fall out onto the ground easily, the Administration was unwilling to do so for reasons unknown. Now, although the Government requires the retrofitting of RCVs only, it is taking a step forward after all. I hope that the Government can really get this done properly. As to the issue of delivery of construction waste, the Government said that there would be another notice published in the Gazette later on. I hope that the Government can really do so, otherwise there is bound to be another huge impact. Tseung Kwan O residents hope for a truthful account from the Administration as to when their agony will come to an end. This is certainly a mistake in planning. Some people argue that Tseung Kwan O residents chose to move to that district despite knowing such a situation. Nevertheless, it was only after they heard the

1 "Wan Po" in Chinese means "environmental protection".


5793

Administration say that the landfill would be closed that they made such a choice. Therefore, it is a score that has to be settled. The current-term Government must not say that it is an outstanding obligation of its predecessor. Every Government has to address such problems. President, while I support this motion today, the authorities must visit the district and study ways to reduce the use of RCVs, so that Wan Po Road will no longer be so dusty as to affect the air of the surroundings and cause the odour and pollution problems, with a view to improving the quality of life of the residents; and must tell them truthfully when their nightmare will come to an end. I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already spoken. I now call upon the Secretary for the Environment to speak. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, I have to thank the several Members for their opinions on the commencement dates of the two Amendment Regulations pertaining to the Waste Diversion Plan for the South East New Territories (SENT) Landfill. With the efforts from various sides, we are prepared to implement the Amendment Regulations, which have been passed, including opening up Shatin Transfer Station for use by private waste collectors, reducing the fees charged by individual refuse transfer stations, implementing new equipment standards for refuse collection vehicles (RCVs), and so on. As regards the RCV retrofitting subsidy scheme, for which Members have shown their concern and support, let me report the relevant progress: nearly 96% of RCVs have now been retrofitted. We believe that upon the implementation of these measures, we will be able to ensure that municipal solid waste diverted from the SENT Landfill will be properly handled, as well as to minimize any traffic and environmental impact.


I have to thank the Subcommittee chaired by Ms Cyd HO for completing the scrutiny work expeditiously and giving us valuable opinions. I am very glad to know that the Subcommittee has, upon deliberation, supported the commencement dates of the two Amendment Regulations pertaining to the Waste Diversion Plan for the SENT Landfill. As to the concerns expressed by a number of Members about the work on waste management, which includes waste reduction at source, clean recycling, and ways to reduce the environmental impact of waste handling procedures, we will also take follow-up action as appropriate. President, I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The debate has now come to a close. In accordance with Rule 49E(9) of the Rules of Procedure, I will not put any question on the motion. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Debates on motions with no legislative effect. The motion debate on "Seeking the invalidation of the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and reactivating the constitutional reform process". Members who wish to speak in the motion debate will please press the "Request to speak" button. I now call upon Ms Cyd HO to speak and move the motion. SEEKING THE INVALIDATION OF THE DECISION OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL PEOPLE'S CONGRESS AND REACTIVATING THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM PROCESS MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, before I move the motion, I request a headcount in accordance with Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.


5795

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): Ms Cyd HO, please continue with your speech. MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed. There was a black political joke in 1997 which is still applicable today: the Chinese Government is not afraid of election as long as it can predict the results. However, in real life today, we do not find the joke amusing at all. At present, the constitutional reform package put forward by the SAR Government in accordance with the decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on 31 August 2014 (31 August Decision) is actually heading towards the direction of knowing the election results in advance. By adopting the nomination-turned-screening process, it can be ensured that people who can stand for election will not criticize the Central Government. The 31 August Decision is manipulative at every level, striving to control the election results and nullify the mechanism of "one person, one vote". As the nominating committee shall follow the current composition of the Election Committee, the delimitation of the four sectors, the number of members of the nominating committee and the electorate base can hardly reflect Hong Kong people's genuine preference. For example, the first sector is the industrial, commercial and financial sectors. In fact, only some 27 000 votes are involved and most of them are corporate votes, ordinary people can by no means participate in the voting. The fourth sector is composed of politicians, including Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress, representatives of Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, as well as Legislative Council Members from functional constituencies, all ordinary people are thus excluded. The 31 August Decision states that each candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all members of the nominating


committee before he can run for the election. Under such a screening process, all candidates have to kowtow to the coterie first, and the "one person, one vote" mechanism only serves as window dressing for the coterie election. The voting procedure cannot reflect the people's preference, as in the case of bid-rigging for building maintenance works that we have been discussing lately. Several companies collude to offer similar prices for similar scope of works. One company bids for the works of Building A and another bids for the works of Building B, but no matter which company the residents choose, their interest will be compromised one way or another as the companies all charge very high maintenance costs. President, it is common sense that we should not buy counterfeit goods or eat counterfeit food. We also want to participate in election, but we will not accept political bid-rigging; neither do we wish to see people having no genuine choice under such kind of political bid-rigging. Prof Larry DIAMOND of Stanford University, where Mrs Regina IP once attended, said about six months ago that the Central Government could deny Hong Kong's right to democracy but it could not call a fake election democratic. The democrats wish to achieve two goals by vetoing the fake election held according to the 31 August Decision: first, to implement a democratic election that offers voters a true choice rather than an election involving political bid-rigging; second, to stop the Government from further confounding right and wrong, distorting the facts to achieve its goal and duping the people. A society which dares to say no to those who call a stag a horse, denounce lies and refuse to be brainwashed is more conductive to the future of Hong Kong. To avoid society being further divided, the democratic camp has two proposals. First, as stated in the motion, we urge the Government to withdraw the 31 August Decision and reopen the discussion. Second, the Government should expeditiously submit the constitutional reform package to the Legislative Council and let the Legislative Council take all the blame and veto it. This will also achieve the same result of allowing us to start afresh as soon as possible, but the Government insists on holding the second round consultation. However, oddly, in the second round consultation, we can see from the news report that the consultation is not conducted under the framework of the 31 August Decision. Under the framework of the 31 August Decision, we can discuss how and when the three candidates will be reduced to two; the details of the voting procedure, that is, whether a block vote system or a simple majority system will be adopted, as well as how the formation of the nominating


5797

committee can be improved. However, whenever we read the news, we only learn that the Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Administration are not attending to their proper duties. They keep berating the democratic camp for hindering them from achieving the goal. Are they actually setting a trap to incite the public and instigate political disputes? I have not seen them engage in consultation seriously. No matter how much we are against the 31 August Decision, it is after all a framework. They claim that they have to consult the public. Now they even consider three candidates too many and want to reduce the number to two, have they presented any justifications? What choice have they given to the people of Hong Kong? Are they afraid that their tricks will be unveiled? Are they afraid that people will realize that this is a screening process and hence they dare not say it out but instead keep using these platforms to berate the pan-democrats? The Government should not waste money and time in this way. It is not attending to its proper duty. All it wants is to shift the blame on the pan-democrats. The Government has deployed unprecedented manpower and resources, as well as the propaganda machine to brainwash the public, trying to deal a blow to the democrats. This is a blatant attempt to turn the so-called second stage consultation into an electioneering machine. LEUNG Chun-ying also urges the public not to vote for the democrats, with the aim of eliminating as far as possible the number of seats held by the democratic camp in the Legislative Council in 2016. By then, administrative hegemony will become more serious and no one can rein the Government in. Normally, different political parties would engage in heated arguments during the election campaign but once the campaign is over, they would only debate government policies and would not mention the election during their term of office. LEUNG Chun-ying also said after the election that we no longer had a "LEUNG Camp"; only the "Hong Kong Camp" existed. But what is the reality now? The reality is that the LEUNG Chun-ying Government is aggressive and abuses power. It continues to create divisions in society at all costs, without even caring that Hong Kong has to pay the price for LEUNG Chun-ying's ambition. As a matter of fact, many pro-establishment Members and even some moderate pan-democratic Members have put forward many proposals to narrow the gap between the two sides. For example, Mr Ronny TONG, the only one with political wisdom, has proposed to abolish all functional constituencies in 2020; and Prof Albert CHEN Hung-yee, who is strongly supported by the Central Authorities to engage in politics, has also proposed to introduce a mechanism


which allows the public to use blank votes to vote out certain candidates, which in effect is to veto the nomination of the nominating committee. This politically minded scholar has also proposed to hold a consultative referendum before the voting by the Legislative Council. Some students, even the Scholarism, have also compromised and proposed to allow over 3 million eligible voters to form the nominating committee. We, who are used to making compromises, have of course suggested some alternatives, such as forming "nine new functional constituencies" and have all eligible voters elect a certain number of members of the nominating committee according to the ratio of the population in each constituency. All we want is to take the democratic development forward. If the Government wishes to lobby the people to press us, the democrats, to support its constitutional reform package, can it turn all traditional functional constituencies into super District Council indirect election seats in 2016? Such feasible moves need not seek the decision of the NPCSC, and can be implemented through local legislation and local measures. The Government, however, has not given serious consideration to these proposals, but has instead wasted money and time to set traps and brainwash the community, dealing a blow to the democrats. Let me quote the words of the Chief Secretary for Administration, "There are certainly more solutions than problems." The proposals I mentioned earlier are all feasible options put forward by people of the pro-establishment camp and by some very moderate democrats which can narrow the gap between the two sides, but the Government has totally ignored them. In response, the Government shuts all doors and adamantly refuses to negotiate or give heed to public views. It refuses to yield an inch but blames the pan-democrats for not making any concession. The Government always encourages young people to think outside the box, but when it engages in political struggles, it drives the matter to a dead corner. Actually, with such an attitude, it seems that the Government does not want the constitutional reform to be passed. As it completely refuses to consider any proposals that can narrow the gap, how sincere is it in taking the constitutional reform forward? President, I have mentioned just now many possible ways to narrow the gap. May I ask the Secretary to take up the responsibility and respond, telling the people of Hong Kong why, despite the availability of a number of options to take the democratic process forward, the authorities do not do their best to narrow the differences and expand the room for democracy for the sake of the well-being


5799

of the people of Hong Kong? I now pass the ball to him, hoping that he will not dodge and allow this discussion to disappear later on and then continue to berate the pan-democrats. Government officials criticize the democratic camp for being unwilling to make compromise and refusing to communicate. In the political spectrum, we are not the ones who make blistering criticism against the Government. A Member, named WONG Yuk-man, makes blistering criticism against the Government, will speak later on. He opposes all procedures and all practices within the system. He will side with the Government to revile us later. If government officials do not pragmatically hold rational and sensible discussions with the community to narrow the gap, society will be pulled further and further apart. Does the Government wish to see this happen? Thank you, President. Ms Cyd HO moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That, as some members of the public are of the view that the decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ('NPCSC') on 31 August last year on Hong Kong's constitutional development ('the 31 August Decision') throttles the room for implementing genuine universal suffrage and allows the nominating committee to screen persons seeking nomination as Chief Executive candidates in accordance with the will of Beijing, thereby rendering the election unable to precisely reflect people's genuine preference and reducing all voters in Hong Kong to voting tools, this Council will definitely veto the constitutional reform package constrained by the 31 August Decision of NPCSC; in this connection, this Council urges the Chief Executive to request the Central Government to seek the invalidation of the aforesaid decision of NPCSC by the National People's Congress, and to reactivate the statutory process for constitutional reform, with a view to expeditiously implementing the selection of the Chief Executive and the election of all Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage."


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Cyd HO be passed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alan LEONG will move an amendment to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the amendment. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr Alan LEONG to speak and move an amendment to the motion. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): 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): Mr Alan LEONG, please speak. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, regarding Ms Cyd HO's original motion today, I have kept all of its wording. One sentence therein is particularly important, and that is: "this Council will definitely veto the constitutional reform package constrained by the 31 August Decision of NPCSC". In fact, the pan-democratic camp did tell the Constitutional Reform Trio long ago that no time should be wasted, and that they should tell the Central Authorities at an early stage that pan-democratic Members will definitely veto any electoral package designed under the constraints of the 31 August Decision. However, it appears that the SAR Government still insists on conducting the second round consultation, and now it remains unknown when it will submit the relevant resolution to this Council. Yet, I think the sentence that I specially read out just now from Ms Cyd HO's motion today can have the effect of putting on record our stance.


5801

President, since the release of the White Paper in June last year, the Central Authorities have made it clear that they will no longer restrain themselves from exercising their power, whereas restraining the absolute power of the people's democratic dictatorship is precisely the only premise on which the success of "one country, two systems" is based. However, they have now actually turned a blind eye to the provision of Article 22 of the Basic Law, which stipulates that "no department of the Central People's Government and no province, autonomous region, or municipality directly under the Central Government may interfere in the affairs which the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region administers on its own in accordance with this Law". They can now telephone Members of the Legislative Council at will to teach Members how to vote. This apart, I certainly have to talk about the 31 August Decision. Anyone who has read the 31 August Decision should realize that, as judged by many Hong Kong people, the Central Government actually regrets having laid down Article 45 and Article 68 of the Basic Law. It simply does not want Hong Kong to have universal suffrage, be it "genuine universal suffrage" or "fake universal suffrage". Why do I say so? It is because the three hurdles imposed by the 31 August Decision are, in fact, harsher than any proposals put forth by any local political groups, including the most conservative ones. From this, we can tell whether the Central Government is sincere about allowing Hong Kong people to have universal suffrage. Subsequently, Mr ZHANG Rongshun told Hong Kong people to receive "re-enlightenment", because the principles of "one country, two systems", "a high degree of autonomy" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", which we had all along believed in, turned out to be different from what we had understood them to be. After that, the Central Government unilaterally announced that, among other things, the Sino-British Joint Declaration had lapsed on 1 July 1997. President, in view of all these, no wonder many Hong Kong people have the impression that, as I mentioned just now, the Central Authorities simply have no intention to give Hong Kong people universal suffrage, be it "genuine universal suffrage" or "fake universal suffrage". On the contrary, the Central Authorities have left no stone unturned in scapegoating people who oppose the package constrained by the 31 August Decision. As far as we from the pan-democratic camp in the Legislative Council are concerned, the Central Authorities' wishful thinking is to make us press the red button, and then proceed to scapegoat us until we are completely crushed by all the blame taken.


Article 45 of the Basic Law states clearly that ultimately, the Chief Executive has to be selected by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures. If we "pocket it first", the Central Government will have every reason to proclaim to the international community that it has already "handed in its homework", as the ultimate arrangement stipulated in Article 45 has been accepted by Hong Kong people. In such a scenario where all the tension is gone, would it still be under pressure to "hand in its homework"? Moreover, under the "pocket-it-first" arrangement, the Chief Executive to be elected in 2017 will have a false mandate, and by virtue of this false mandate, he or she will be able to propose the enactment of legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law, introduce the State Security Law into Annex III to the Basic Law, and create more cases like LIU Xiaobo's in Hong Kong. Many people have asked a question that they think we are unable to answer, and that is: having a vote is certainly better than having no vote; why do you get in the way of Hong Kong people taking this vote? The answer is that we have to avoid giving this false mandate, and prevent the Central Government from being able to tell the international community that it has already "handed in its homework". Isn't this a sufficient reason? President, if we "pocket it first" now, not only will we fail our elders and betters who have strived for democracy in Hong Kong over the past 30-odd years, but worse still, we will also fail the next two generations of young people who are striving for true democracy and genuine universal suffrage and aspiring to be the real bosses here. Leaving ourselves a way out is certainly better than falling into a bottomless abyss, in which case our loss will outweigh our gain and there will be no turning back forever. Some people may ask what the pan-democrats have done. Actually, we have done a lot of things. We have released two relevant reports, attended the three Deliberation Days, and participated in the Walk for Universal Suffrage for seven days in a row. We have also floated dozens of constitutional reform proposals which we think are compatible with the Basic Law; we took part in the Occupy movement for 79 days, and set up countless street booths in the community to explain our aspirations and the reasons why we refuse to "pocket it first". At least our sincerity is commendable, so one should never write off our efforts by simply asking what the pan-democrats have done.


5803

Nonetheless, the Central Government actually disregards the sincerity of Hong Kong people and insists on the 31 August Decision, thereby enabling the nominating committee to, in effect, screen candidates for the office of Chief Executive on the pretext of nomination. On the face of it, the purpose of this screening process is to select candidates who "love the country and love Hong Kong", but in reality, it is aimed at picking candidates who sing the same tune as and take sides with vested interests groups. Even if there are 100 candidates shortlisted in the end, as they have been baptized by the nominating committee, they will merely take orders from the same pack of vested interests groups to perform the same set of political missions. In that case, Hong Kong people will be like frogs being boiled in lukewarm water, and our only choice will be whether to be cooked over a gentle heat or high heat. Under such an electoral system, the votes in the hands of the people will serve to burnish the image of the Chief Executive returned by "fake universal suffrage", and enable him or her to legitimately perform political missions assigned by the Central Authorities and implement policies favourable to vested interests groups. Who still dares to say that it would be better to have "fake universal suffrage" than not to have it? President, we can see that LEUNG Chun-ying, as a puppet of the Central Government, has no scruples about advancing straw man arguments and taking things out of context. He has said nothing about the nomination mechanism, but only treated "one person, one vote" as the be-all and end-all of universal suffrage, saying that "fake universal suffrage" is a kind of election tailor-made to dovetail with the country's state of affairs. What is more, they have made a series of pseudo-propositions. First, they argued that genuine universal suffrage would not be suitable for Hong Kong by reason of so-called "national security", and then they even used Undergrad, a student magazine of the University of Hong Kong, as a target for creating the falsehood of "Hong Kong independence". They have suggested the enactment of legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law and the introduction of the State Security Law, portraying Hong Kong as a place on the verge of gaining independence, and thus concluding that it is inappropriate to implement universal suffrage here. Whenever we are to discuss "Hong Kong people deciding their own fate", we are accused of advocating Hong Kong independence; whenever we are to strive for universal suffrage, which is enshrined in the Basic Law, we are accused of colluding with foreign forces. President, if some people still believe in the


possibility of further enhancements after "pocketing it first", they should listen carefully to what Secretary Raymond TAM has said. According to him, the most important of the three hurdles is that only those who have been nominated by more than half of all the members of the nominating committee can become candidates, and this requirement is irrefutable. If that is the case, how can there be any room for enhancement? Can the inclusion of LAU Kong-wah in a list of candidates consisting of LEUNG Chun-ying, Eddie NG and Paul CHAN be considered an enhancement? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEONG, please move your amendment. MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Cyd HO's motion be amended. Mr Alan LEONG moved the following amendment: (Translation)

"To delete "," after "voting tools" and substitute with "; Hong Kong people have, through the Umbrella Movement, clearly expressed their objection to the constitutional reform package formulated within the framework of the 31 August Decision, but the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has turned a deaf ear to the people's objection and shifted his fault and responsibility for failing to strive for genuine universal suffrage for Hong Kong people onto the pan-democratic camp;"; to delete "; in this connection, this Council" after "the 31 August Decision of NPCSC" and substitute with ", and"; to add "not to re-attempt to pass off 'fake universal suffrage' as the genuine;" after "urges the Chief Executive"; to delete ", and" after "by the National People's Congress" and substitute with ";"; to add "; and to pursue with the Central Government for the fair right to vote and the fair right to stand for election by universal suffrage" after "for constitutional reform"; and to add "in Hong Kong" immediately before the full stop."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Alan LEONG to Ms Cyd HO's motion, be passed.


5805

UNDER SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, Article 45 of the Basic Law stipulates as follows: "The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People's Government. The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures. The specific method for selecting the Chief Executive is prescribed in Annex I 'Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region'." (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair) Pursuant to the Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of Article 7 of Annex I and Article III of Annex II to the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (the Interpretation) promulgated on 6 April 2004, the "Five-step" constitutional process must be followed in amending Annex I to the Basic Law regarding the method for selecting the Chief Executive. According to this constitutional process, the Chief Executive shall make a report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) as regards whether there is a need to make an amendment to the method for selecting the Chief Executive; and the NPCSC shall, in accordance with the provision of Article 45 of the Basic Law, make a determination in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by Universal Suffrage and on the Method for Forming the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the Year 2016 (the Decision) adopted by the NPCSC on 31 August 2014 was made in strict compliance with the Basic Law and the Interpretation


adopted by the NPCSC in 2004, in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress, and it is the second step of the "Five-step" constitutional process. The Decision formally determines that universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election through "one person, one vote" may be implemented in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region starting from 2017, and sets out a clear framework on the method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. The SAR Government understands that constitutional development is an extremely controversial issue, and is fully aware of the divergent views expressed by different groups and individuals in the community. However, as pointed out clearly by the Chief Secretary for Administration when making a statement in this Council on the 7th of last month to kick-start the second round consultation on constitutional reform, constitutional development must be built on the basis of the Basic Law and the Decision of the NPCSC, otherwise it would only be futile and impractical, and the aim of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election would only become a "castle in the air". In respect of the requests of certain groups and persons for, inter alia, "revocation of the Decision of the NPCSC" and "reactivation of the 'Five-step Process'", they are impractical and impossible, whether in terms of constitutional process, politics or time, and will only defeat the objective of implementing universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election in 2017. Deputy President, implementing universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election through "one person, one vote" by all the 5 million eligible voters in Hong Kong in 2017 is definitely an arduous task, which can by no means be accomplished by the SAR Government alone. It is necessary for all Honourable Members in this Chamber, the general public and the community at large to make concerted efforts, find common ground and forge consensus. On 7 January 2015, the SAR Government published the Consultation Document on the Method for Selecting the Chief Executive by Universal Suffrage to officially launch a two-month public consultation on the method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. We hope that all sectors of the community can forge consensus through rational and pragmatic discussions within the framework of the Basic Law and the Decision of the NPCSC, so as to jointly establish a system of universal suffrage that is suitable for Hong Kong.


5807

After the conclusion of the public consultation, the SAR Government will consolidate and summarize the views received as soon as possible, with a view to submitting a resolution to the Legislative Council to amend Annex I to the Basic Law regarding the method for selecting the Chief Executive in the second quarter of this year, that is, the third step of the "Five-step Process" of constitutional development, and striving to obtain the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the Members of the Legislative Council, so as to meet the public expectation of implementing universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election as scheduled. Deputy President, "expeditiously implementing the selection of the Chief Executive and the election of all Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage" is the aspiration of the general public. The Decision of the NPCSC clearly provides that starting from 2017, the selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage. Pursuant to the Decision, it is only after the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage that the election of all the Members of the Legislative Council may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage. From the practical perspective of legislative procedures, if we are to implement universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election in 2017, time does not allow the so-called "reactivation of the 'Five-step Process'". It is an indisputable fact that according to the Decision, if the specific method of universal suffrage for selecting the Chief Executive is not adopted in accordance with legal procedures, the method used for selecting the Chief Executive in 2012 shall continue to apply to the selection of the Chief Executive in 2017, in which case constitutional development will only remain at a standstill. I believe that the public will not find this palatable. Therefore, the SAR Government opposes both Ms Cyd HO's motion and Mr Alan LEONG's amendment. I will give a further response after listening to the speeches of Honourable Members. Deputy President, I so submit. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Prior to the 31 August Decision, I attended a constitutional reform seminar in Shenzhen on 21 August and had an in-depth conversation with Mr LI Fei, Chairman of the Basic Law Committee, about the definition of universal suffrage. Mr LI Fei cited the example of Olympic high jumpers, saying that they were required to meet a "minimum standard" ― probably 1.7 m for men ― before they could take part in the competition. He used this as an analogy to suggest that there must be screening


in universal suffrage, and that not everyone would be able to stand as a candidate. Thus, Mr LI Fei considered it inevitable that there would be certain restrictions on the nomination threshold for the Chief Executive election. When we discuss the definition of universal suffrage, I admit that as far as the design of an electoral system is concerned, there is no such thing as a uniform international standard. Undoubtedly, every government can design a suitable electoral system in the light of its own political, economic, cultural and actual situations. However, when it comes to assessing whether an electoral system is a universal suffrage system, there are indeed international requirements prescribing certain basic features that an electoral system must have before it can be called a universal suffrage system, and I shall refer to such features as the minimum international standard for universal suffrage. As Chairman LI Fei said on that day, the Olympic Committee has actually set a minimum international standard; in other words, he also admits that there is an international standard. Deputy President, Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of the United Nations states that every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity, without unreasonable restrictions, to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; and have the right to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has also pointed out that in order for the rights stipulated in Article 25 of the ICCPR to be implemented, the political stance of a candidate should not be a hindrance to his or her candidacy, and his or her right to stand for election should not be unreasonably restricted. If the electoral procedures require a candidate to obtain nomination from a certain number of supporters, as in the case of the current nomination threshold of the nominating committee, such a requirement must also be reasonable, and these procedures should not be used as a means to hinder candidacy. Whenever someone contends that universal suffrage must comply with the aforesaid standard prescribed in the ICCPR of the United Nations, there are bound to be some other people who argue that there is no international standard for universal suffrage, and that the term "international standard" is nowhere to be found in the provisions of the Basic Law relating to universal suffrage. But then again, Deputy President, the Basic Law has not provided that we may not talk about international standard. As a matter of fact, by enacting the Hong Kong


5809

Bill of Rights Ordinance in 1991, Hong Kong already incorporated the ICCPR into the local laws. Article 39 of the Basic Law also stipulates that the provisions of the ICCPR as applied to Hong Kong shall remain in force. It is evident that this basic, minimum international standard has become part of the laws of Hong Kong through local legislation. Deputy President, what I am talking about is merely a minimum international standard. Officials of the Central Authorities are now saying that the so-called "one person, one vote" amounts to universal suffrage. Actually, the concept of universal suffrage is also an international concept. As there has never been a universal suffrage system in China, why does it have to be "one person, one vote"? Isn't this an international standard? In addition, I would like to reiterate that I have grave doubts as to whether the 31 August Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) is consistent with the requirements of the Basic Law. It is clearly stated in Article 7 of Annex I "Method for the Selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" to the Basic Law and stipulated in the Interpretation adopted by the NPCSC in 2004 that "If there is a need to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executives for the terms subsequent to the year 2007, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval". Hence, regardless of what framework is adopted, the constitutional reform package ought to be reported by the SAR Government to the NPCSC for approval, and it is inappropriate for the NPCSC to lay down a framework. Can the Government explain whether "reporting to the NPCSC for approval" is different from "laying down a framework by the NPCSC"? If they are different, is this Decision of the NPCSC a contravention of the Basic Law? It is clear that in the second step of the "Five-step Process" of constitutional reform, the NPCSC only has the power to make a determination, and has no power to decide on the requirements of the electoral package for the Chief Executive of Hong Kong. But now, in the 31 August Decision, the NPCSC has actually imposed three barriers in respect of the method for selecting the Chief Executive, including the nomination threshold of support of more than half of the members of the nominating committee, and the stipulation that the number of Chief Executive candidates must be two or three. Moreover, in my view, this Decision is definitely a breach of the spirit of the Basic Law, both in terms of


legal principles and the basis of the Basic Law. The NPCSC certainly has the authority to make the Decision, which has its legal status in accordance with the laws of the Mainland, but it is definitely a contravention of the Basic Law. In May 1984, ZHAO Ziyang, the then Premier and former General Secretary of the Communist Party of China, said, "In the future, to implement a democratic political system in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, that is, what you described as 'ruling Hong Kong democratically', will only be a matter of course." This is what Premier ZHAO Ziyang stated in a letter of reply to the Hong Kong University Students' Union back then. The implementation of democratic universal suffrage after the return of sovereignty is a solemn promise made by the Central Government to Hong Kong people before the reunification, and it was also an important condition on which many Hong Kong people were willing to accept the reunification. Therefore, Deputy President, we are not asking for too much today in demanding the reactivation of the constitutional reform process. In fact, we are only requesting the Central People's Government to deliver what it promised many years ago. (The buzzer sounded) With these remarks, Deputy President, I support Ms Cyd HO's motion and Mr Alan LEONG's amendment. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): The key sentence in the last part of Ms Cyd HO's original motion is: "this Council urges the Chief Executive to request the Central Government to seek the invalidation of the aforesaid decision of NPCSC by the National People's Congress, and to reactivate the statutory process for constitutional reform, with a view to expeditiously implementing the selection of the Chief Executive and the election of all Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage". The content of Mr Alan LEONG's amendment is not much different from the spirit of the original motion. They are really debasing themselves and begging for democracy in their arguments and propositions, somewhat displaying the symptoms of Stockholm syndrome. On 16 October 2014, at the climax of the Umbrella Revolution, Ms Cyd HO demanded an answer from Secretary for Security LAI Tung-kwok as to who made the decision to fire tear gas on 28 September, and questioned whether no one in the Government could play the check-and-balance role to stop LEUNG Chun-ying in his continued frenzy. On 3 November, Mr Alan LEONG, as the convener of the "lunch box meetings" of the pan-democrats, stated that LEUNG


5811

Chun-ying had lost the political recognition and moral power to govern Hong Kong, that it would be futile to discuss policy implementation with him. The only issue that should be discussed was when he would step down. Their speech was impassioned and righteous. Today, however, Ms Cyd HO and Mr Alan LEONG have changed from being awe-inspiring to being subservient. They have actually proposed in this Chamber to urge LEUNG Chun-ying, the "lunatic" who usurped the reins of power and threw Hong Kong into disorder, to request the Central People's Government to retract the 31 August Decision of the NPCSC. Not only have they forgotten all the brave words uttered by them during the Umbrella Revolution, but they have even reiterated their stance of acknowledging the legitimacy of the Communist Party of China and its puppet, namely the Hong Kong communist regime, and begged the totalitarian to bestow democracy on Hong Kong. Ms Cyd HO was the first convener of the political group The Frontier, the core members of which included Ms Emily LAU, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung back then. One of the four guiding principles upheld by The Frontier was the progressive proposition of "devising the constitution by all people". In those days, as a current affairs commentator, I heaped praise on this proposition because it was in line with the spirit of "direct democracy for the people" and "sovereignty residing in the people", and it struck home the fact that the Basic Law was drafted behind closed doors with no mandate from the people. I have repeatedly brought up the idea of "devising the constitution by all people" in this Council with the aim to inherit and pass on the progressive spirit of the aforesaid four pioneers. However, earlier, they abstained from voting on my motion on "devising the constitution by all people". I was very angry at that time. "Devising the constitution by all people" is a progressive proposition. If a person does not even have the motivation to initiate reforms, how is he or she different from a beast? He or she might as well abstain from being a human being as well. On 15 January 2015, when asking a question at the Question and Answer Session of the Legislative Council, Mr Alan LEONG accused LEUNG Chun-ying of "providing false military intelligence to deceive his lord and offend his superiors" in criticizing Undergrad. In reply, LEUNG Chun-ying asked Mr Alan LEONG whether he supported the proposition of Hong Kong


independence advocated by Undergrad of the Hong Kong University Students' Union, and Mr Alan LEONG answered cautiously and fearfully, "I request that my opposition to Hong Kong independence be put on record." In the editorial of the latest issue of Undergrad of the Hong Kong University Students' Union, Ming CHAN, Assistant Editor-in-chief of Undergrad, responded to LEUNG Chun-ying's denunciation, and criticized what Mr Alan LEONG said without naming him: (I quote) "Pro-establishment people such as LEUNG Chun-ying and Andrew FUNG took the opportunity to press others to state whether they supported Hong Kong independence; some pan-democrats hastened to protect themselves by swiftly drawing the line at 'Hong Kong independence'. In doing so, they lost the thinking ability expected of them and gave inappropriate responses. Before answering a question, one has to clarify the key words of the question. This is a thinking-and-debating skill that even secondary school students can master. Hasty dissociation is an unwise move to take in the face of such Cultural Revolution-style questioning by LEUNG Chun-ying or Andrew FUNG. It is better to counter their questions by asking them to define what exactly Hong Kong independence is." Ming CHAN also cited examples to point out that some "leftist newspapers" had labelled civil nomination as Hong Kong independence, and the pan-democrats and some newspapers on friendly terms with them had dissociated themselves from localism for fear of being labelled as advocates of Hong Kong independence; as a result, the pan-democrats were caught in a quandary, since any subsequent proposals for genuine universal suffrage would be labelled as pro-Hong Kong independence. On the occasion that LEUNG Chun-ying talked about Hong Kong independence of his own accord, Members could have asked him face to face whether civil nomination implied Hong Kong independence, but they missed such a good opportunity to do so. If LEUNG Chun-ying replied in the affirmative, that is, what he referred to as Hong Kong independence turned out to be nothing more than civil nomination, then why should we fear Hong Kong independence? Although Mr Alan LEONG has been dealing with politics in the legislature for over 10 years, when it comes to strength of character and insight, he really bears no comparison with Ming CHAN, who is young enough to be his son. If I were him, I would definitely be most ashamed of myself. The latest issue of Undergrad also carries an article entitled "Local Revolution in Resolute Defence of the Clan" written by a young person under the pseudonym of "LEUNG Chun-yeung", whose style of writing, presentation of


5813

arguments and courage are all amazingly impressive and highly commendable. The following excerpt from the article forcefully castigates the pan-democrats for abjectly throwing themselves on the mercy of their brilliant lord: (I quote) "When negotiating with bandits, one must be fearless of charging ahead with all the chips in hand, as being a gentleman in such circumstances will definitely lose out. Whoever gives up defence is not putting up a fight, and whoever avoids fighting back is not going to win. This is common sense for game players." "Hong Kong people … in the face of tyranny, must take a tough line and hold the field adamantly, as cowardice will only lead to doom and eternal suffering. Civil disobedience is a means to pursue righteousness for all, while the people's fight against tyranny is to defend the interests of the clan. The former is about moral beliefs, while the latter is about the actual interests of the people and the land. In 'asking the tiger for its skin', we are by no means fighting over beliefs; rather, we are fighting a battle with no retreat to protect the clan of Hong Kong people and defend our home." We should be proud that there is such a high calibre youngster in Hong Kong. MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak to oppose Ms Cyd HO's original motion and Mr Alan LEONG's amendment. Both Members have made a Freudian slip in their respective speeches, showing that they are truly anti-democratic dictators. Why do I say that? Members can watch the video records themselves. These two Members said that the pan-democratic Members opposed the Government's constitutional reform package and told the Government that it would be useless to conduct the second round of consultation. Under Secretary, do you hear clearly what they have said? They are asking you not to conduct any consultation, and instead, you should submit the constitutional reform package to the Legislative Council straight away for them to veto. In that case, I will have to ask the public to make a judgment. Given that the pan-democratic Members have proposed to vote on the package without consulting the public, are they genuine democrats or bogus democrats? The behaviour of these two Members tells us exactly that they apply double standards: they say one thing and do another and they are truly bogus democrats. If they deny these allegations, I would ask them to apologize to all Hong Kong people later or ask Members from their respective political parties to withdraw on their behalf what they have said.


Deputy President, in their original motion and amendment, both Members talk about the view of the public and the view of Hong Kong people, but they have adopted and used such views selectively. They are really trying to mislead the public by passing the part as the whole. Deputy President, I will give some examples to explain what the mainstream views of the public in Hong Kong are at present. We have the public views as reflected by 1.83 million signatures collected in opposition of the Occupy movement and in support of implementing universal suffrage. I am sure the pan-democratic Members will not admit such views. However, will they acknowledge the public views shown by various opinion surveys? Let me give an example. On 18 December last year, the Hong Kong Public Opinion and Political Development Task Force established by the Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey at the School of Journalism and Communication, Chinese University of Hong Kong conducted an opinion survey on the Occupy movement and universal suffrage. The results show that 42.3% of the respondents did not support the Occupy movement while 33.9% supported it. Why do the pan-democratic Members not admit the public opinion on this point? On 11 January this year, Ming Pao Daily News published the results of an opinion survey on the method for selecting the Chief Executive. In response to question 2 of the survey, 56% of the respondents indicated that they accepted the proposal of allowing the people to elect the Chief Executive through "one person, one vote" and 34% opposed to it and preferred an impasse in constitutional development. That is an opinion survey conducted by an independent newspaper. Why have the pan-democratic Members not taken any notice of it? A few days ago, on 27 January, the Central Policy Unit released the results of an opinion survey conducted after the Occupy movement. The survey investigated the support given to the constitutional reform and the results showed that more than 50% of the respondents supported the constitutional reform package while more than 30% opposed, and the remaining 10% indicated that they were undecided. These three surveys have shown us the mainstream views of the public in Hong Kong one after the other and the surveys were conducted by different organizations. Why have the pan-democratic Members turned a blind eye to them?


5815

Let us forget about public views for the moment and consider the so-called demonstration organized by the Civil Human Rights Front on 1 February. The organizer initially claimed that there were 50 000 participants, but it finally reduced the number to 10 000-plus and the Police said 6 000 to 8 000 people participated in it. To be honest, these numbers show that the pan-democrats have failed to summon the support of the people. If they completely deny it, they should really reflect on themselves. The Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong released in the press today the results of a survey on the Rating of Top Ten Legislative Councillors. Seven out of the top ten Members are from the pan-democratic camp and their ratings have plunged drastically. That is an undeniable fact. I very much hope that people can understand clearly what the mainstream views of the public in Hong Kong are. The so-called views of the people as described in the original motion and the amendment are taken out of context for the Members to have the best of both worlds. In addition, the two Members have made a terrible blunder in the original motion and the amendment in that they have called a stag a horse, distorted the facts and confused right and wrong in requesting the Chief Executive to urge the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) to invalidate its decision. Frankly speaking, this request is completely unconstitutional and entirely against the relevant provisions of the Basic Law. In terms of lawfulness, reasonableness and fairness, it is something which cannot be done and should not be done because the legislature of Hong Kong is one of a regional nature. How can we oppose the relevant decision of the NPCSC? That is misleading Hong Kong people. We have to consider the matter in light of the relationship between the central and the regional authorities. Besides, such is also the relationship between the higher legislature and its subordinate. The request for the invalidation of the decision made by the NPCSC on 31 August and to reactivate the constitutional reform process is, frankly speaking, something which definitely cannot be done and should not be done as it is unconstitutional and unlawful. Yet, these two Members just want to lead Hong Kong people onto an unconstitutional and unlawful road of no return. Finally, I will make a joke of these Members. They are often enraged by LEUNG Chun-ying and they say they want him to step down. However, I think their current approach will actually indirectly support LEUNG Chun-ying's


re-election as Chief Executive. If we continue to adopt the method of selecting the Chief Executive by 1 200 people, I think he will surely be re-elected Chief Executive. If all the 5 million voters of Hong Kong can elect the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying may not be re-elected. Therefore, what the pan-democratic camp is doing now may actually indirectly support LEUNG Chun-ying's re-election as Chief Executive. From this perspective, are these people true democrats or bogus democrats? I think the question is worth examining. MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the most serious political mistake made by the Central Government since the reunification is to adopt the decision made on 31 August by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) (the 31 August Decision). I will briefly repeat the three reasons for record in history. First, the decision runs contrary to the principles and essence of amending the Basic Law. In fact, the change from the "Three-step Process" to the "Five-step Process" already lacks justification and it is an "unauthorized construction", so to speak. Even according to the second of the five steps, the Central Government can only make a determination on the Chief Executive's report and it has no authority to construct an additional framework in the second step which would, in effect, renders the legislature of Hong Kong to lose its power to legislate on formulating an electoral system through passing a motion. Second, the Central Government has repeatedly stressed that by setting down the timetable for implementing universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020, it has given us a solemn promise. The Central Government knows that Hong Kong is an international city and the Central Government knows that Hong Kong is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Therefore, the Central Government knows that we are asking for an election with genuine competition, an election which is meaningful. However, the 31 August Decision has actually enabled the Central Authorities to control which Chief Executive candidates can enter the stage of "members recommendation". To use the very appropriate analogy drawn by Ms Cyd HO, that is political bid-rigging and I would say that is political bid-rigging manipulated by the Communist Party of China, to be exact.


5817

Although the Central Authorities know clearly that Hong Kong people and the pan-democrats will not accept any proposal which allows political bid-rigging or any "fake universal suffrage" proposal, they have aggressively put forward such a proposal to the Legislative Council. This approach is tantamount to withdrawing the timetable for implementing universal suffrage and breaking their promise. Third, the proposal has ignored the real situation of Hong Kong and the wishes of Hong Kong people as expressed by their demand for implementing genuine universal suffrage over the years. The aggressive approach of putting forward the proposal would deprive Hong Kong people of their right to universal suffrage and damage the long-term peace and stability of Hong Kong. If our society is unstable, how can it achieve economic development? Besides, it will also be difficult to administer Hong Kong effectively. Members will understand that if things develop in this way, the constitutional reform package will be vetoed and Hong Kong people will lose all confidence in the Central Government regarding constitutional reform development. What would become of our future then? I believe political instability will have a negative and undesirable impact on the future development of Hong Kong as well as China. Our view is that the NPCSC has the responsibility and power to correct its own mistake. We hope that at the coming NPCSC meeting to be held in March, the Central Authorities will review and invalidate the 31 August Decision which is a serious political mistake in history. Deputy President, many people have told us that the 31 August Decision cannot be changed and Hong Kong people may as well "pocket it first". As we know clearly, asking Hong Kong people to "swallow" a fake universal suffrage proposal is equivalent to asking us to call a stag a horse and treat the sham as the genuine. If we accept such a proposal, people will say that there is universal suffrage in Hong Kong already and how then can we complain anymore? What then can we ask for? If that is the situation, how can we trust that things will become better in the future? How can we trust that the electoral system will improve in the future? If a promise is broken today, how can we trust any more promises which are merely empty talks? Carrie LAM has said recently that if we "pocket it first", several million instead of 1 200 people will be able to vote and that will be a better situation. I can tell Members that by voting under such an electoral system, 5 million people


will be victimized and cheated because that will be a North Korean-style or Iranian style electoral system through "fake universal suffrage". Thus, my response to Carrie LAM is that it will be even more tragic for 5 million instead of 1 200 people to be victimized and cheated. How can we accept a proposal of "fake universal suffrage" and allow more people to be insulted? Mr WONG Kwok-hing reprimanded us strongly in this Chamber for saying that we did not want any consultation. In fact, any consultation conducted under the framework of the 31 August Decision will be a "bogus consultation" and we may as well do away with it because it insults people's wisdom. I do not know if Mr WONG Kwok-hing can understand it. Deputy President, a system with genuine universal suffrage is the goal which we will continue to fight for. I hope that we can strive for genuine universal suffrage in various peaceful and rational ways which can consolidate the views and the power of the people. Many people are still saying that we should look at the results of the opinion surveys and that many people think we should "pocket it first". I do not believe the results of those surveys can reflect public opinion scientifically, but I think a referendum is the most scientific and objective method to reflect public opinion. The Government has questioned why I do not propose to conduct a referendum before voting on the constitutional reform package. I will now challenge the Government in return. If the Government will "pay up" in this deal and acknowledge the results of the referendum to be conducted, I will resign immediately. By that, I am referring to a referendum which is most scientific, most objective and has the strongest legal basis. I am challenging the Government. If it will "pay up", I will resign immediately. MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) has set down the framework for constitutional reform for almost half a year and during this time, social incidents such as the Occupy movement happened and the Central Authorities has stayed firm as a rock. Yet, people even propose today to invalidate the decision of the NPCSC and reactivate the constitutional reform process. I think the opposition camp is probably living beyond the real world and they should immediately come back to reality. The speeches made by the opposition camp show that they do not understand the Central Authorities. Some Members say that the Central Authorities will make concessions in the final stage because they have done so in


5819

the past. They also say that if the constitutional reform package cannot be passed, it will be difficult to administer Hong Kong. These views are but self-deceiving and they may mislead the public. In fact, some people consider that the Central Authorities have been too lenient over these 17 years after the reunification, and so the distance between Hong Kong and the Mainland has widened to an extent which makes some people speak only of "two systems" and disregard "one country". These people think that the lenient policy obviously does not work. Apparently, the Central Authorities have recently tightened their policy on Hong Kong. Even in the face of such an important incident as the Occupy movement, the Central Authorities have not changed its mind. Why should it make any concessions now? Regarding the point on difficulties in administration, I believe administering Hong Kong will not be more difficult than administering 1.3 billion people. Even if it is difficult to administer Hong Kong in the future, the ones who suffer will be Hong Kong people only. As such, how can people use this point as a bargaining chip? The decision made by the Central Authorities may not be agreeable to some Members. Some Members have spoken about international standards at great length earlier. Up to this moment, these Members still fail to understand that the Central Authorities do not trust the opposition camp and so we have to take things forward step by step. It is surprising that they do not even understand this point. Besides, we need to understand that Hong Kong cannot consider itself to have equal standing with the Central Authorities and ask for a negotiation between two equal parties. If people do not understand this reality, they will be seeking to negotiate in the wrong way which will surely drive them into a dead end. I believe that only when the Central Authorities trust Hong Kong will there be an election method better than the one provided in the 31 August Decision. In addition, we have to consider an important issue. If the constitutional reform package is vetoed this time, we cannot expect any change in constitutional reform in the next 10 years. The year 2027 is only 20 years away from 2047, which is the end point of the status quo for 50 years. As we are not sure now if the principle of "one country, two systems" will still be adopted beyond that point, what bargaining power will Hong Kong have in negotiating for universal suffrage? What are the public views of Hong Kong at present? On 11 January, Ming Pao Daily News published the results of a public opinion survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong. The results showed that 56% of the respondents considered that the Legislative Council should endorse the constitutional reform package. The results also showed that if the Government


would undertake that the system for electing the Chief Executive would be more democratic in 2022, 64% of the respondents would give their support for the package. The opposition camp likes to talk about public opinion surveys, but when the public views are so clear now, a Member has said earlier that such surveys are not necessarily scientific. We cannot really ignore the results, can we? I believe that when the Government proceeds with the relevant work, people will see the picture more clearly and more people will support the approach for Hong Kong to "implement the proposal first". The trend as shown by the opinion survey is that the rate of support for the proposal may be as high as two thirds or more in the future. Besides, it is reported in the media that a representative of a foreign government has tried to persuade the opposition camp not to veto the constitutional reform package. When the whole world supports the package, why does the opposition camp oppose it stubbornly? Some members of the public have asked me this question: Since millions of people support the passage of the package, on what ground are some Members disregarding their wishes? I very much hope that Members of the opposition camp will not insist on their own way. They must respect the wishes of the people and do the right thing to be expected of directly elected legislators. The rational democrats should think independently and they should bear in mind that they are not servants or slaves of the radical democrats. More importantly, they should not become the yes-men of the radical camp or the camp of student movements and agree to be led around by the nose for fear of losing the votes of participants of student movements and young people. Students and young people lack working experience, and therefore we cannot blame them for making mistakes. However, if the rational democrats make mistakes, no one will show any mercy. The rational democrats should engage a reputable organization to conduct an opinion survey to find out the views of the people and take them as the basis of their voting on the proposal. I also hope that the Occupy Central incident will help the opposition camp realize that the present predicament is not going to benefit anyone and the opposition camp will be driven into a dead to benefit a few radicals only. If the opposition camp can think thoroughly, they will realize their influence on their supporters. If they make good use of their influence, they can probably affect the results of the election of the Chief Executive. Among the three Chief Executive candidates, the one they support will have a far better chance to win and so they can probably become the "king makers". The elected Chief Executive will be indebted to their support and the political power of the opposition camp will then be greatly increased.


5821

Therefore, under the present circumstances, passing the constitutional reform package will bring great benefits to the opposition camp. On the contrary, if they insist on vetoing it, they may win some applause from the academia and young people, but they may have to bear the dire consequences of opposing the mainstream public views. That may even become the turning point which marks the defeat of the opposition camp. In the end, only a few radicals will benefit and so I hope that Members can consider the matter carefully. "Implementing the proposal first" at this stage and seeking the agreement of the Central Authorities to improve the election method gradually is surely the way forward for constitutional reform in Hong Kong. I so submit. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today, I speak in support of Ms Cyd HO's motion on "Seeking the invalidation of the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and reactivating the constitutional reform process". The decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on 31 August (the 31 August Decision) has driven Hong Kong's constitutional reform into the deadlock which no one can break. According to the Annex to the Basic Law, the constitutional reform package must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all Legislative Council Members. Yet, the pan-democratic Members have clearly indicated that basically, if the 31 August Decision is not invalidated or amended, they will certainly exercise their power to veto the package. Therefore, in order to take forward the constitutional reform, I hope all public officers and the pro-establishment Members will support this motion. The problem was created by the 31 August Decision. Why do we find the 31 August Decision unacceptable? The reason is that it will certainly result in election with screening, turning the nominating process into a de facto primary election and allowing the nominating committee to select two or three candidates for members of the public to choose. Besides, the nomination threshold for the Chief Executive candidate is very high. The present proposal is based on the current structure of the Election Committee for the election of the incumbent Chief Executive which is composed of four sectors with 1 200 members in total. The nomination threshold is, however, higher. Each


candidate must have the endorsement of more than half, instead of one eighth, of all the members of the nominating committee. That is basically a model with screening, people whom "Grandpa" dislikes cannot stand for election. Even if some people can get "members recommendation", it is not possible for them to stand for election. Deputy President, we do not want to choose from candidates whose nomination is completely controlled and who are screened and selected by "Grandpa". We do not want this kind of democracy. Hong Kong has been striving for democracy for 30 years and yet, the Central Authorities have given us this kind of election, how can we accept it? Recently, I often visited local districts. No matter I was in Hung Hom or in the market of Sham Shui Po, people said to me, "Don't change your stance; don't 'pocket it first'!" They do not want this kind of election. If the Central Authorities want to play a gate-keeping role, the Basic Law already stipulates that after the Chief Executive-elect has been selected by universal suffrage, the Central Authorities have the power to appoint the Chief Executive and that is a substantive power of appointment. While the Central Authorities can play a gate-keeping role in the final stage, they have now laid down the restrictions at the nomination stage before the implementation of universal suffrage to screen out all those whom they dislike. Since the Central Authorities have imposed checks at the initial stage as well as the final stage, they have, in disguise, screened out people whom "Grandpa" dislikes. Even if the person concerned is well-supported by the people, he does not stand a chance to become the Chief Executive. As the 31 August Decision is so unreasonable, we have to cast an opposing vote. The eligibility of Chief Executive candidates or the eligibility of the Chief Executive is clearly stipulated in the Basic Law. Article 44 stipulates that the Chief Executive shall be a Chinese citizen of not less than 40 years of age who is a permanent resident of the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong with no right of abode in any foreign country and has ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than 20 years. Although the provision is so clearly written, the Central Authorities have incessantly imposed additional conditions. Though nothing has been mentioned in the Basic Law, the State Council suddenly issued a White Paper in June last year, stating that under the policy of "one country, two systems", all those who administrate Hong Kong, including the Chief Executive, members of the Legislative Council, principal officials and members of the judiciary, should love the country and love Hong Kong in order to hold their respective offices. Article 44 of the Basic Law does


5823

not contain such conditions; they are suddenly imposed by the Central Authorities. Has the Central Authorities consulted Hong Kong people? Of course, in our view, people who are willing to serve the public, stand for elections and take up the abovementioned important positions would certainly love the country and love Hong Kong; but then the pro-establishment Members will say, "Since these people love the country and love Hong Kong, you don't have to worry, do you?" The question lies in who is going to interpret the meaning of "love the country and love Hong Kong"? This Tuesday, I asked my students during a lecture about their views concerning the requirement that candidates for the office of the Chief Executive should "love the country and Hong Kong". They asked how the requirement of "love the country and love Hong Kong" should be defined. No two students in the whole class have the same definition. Therefore, we are very doubtful about this criterion. Furthermore, the Central Authorities always impose additional requirements, but we hope that no additional requirement will be imposed and everything should be done in accordance with the Basic Law. We do not have any problem with accepting the Basic Law, but the Central Authorities have imposed additional requirements and many unreasonable restrictions have been imposed. In addition, Deputy President, I deeply regret that officials of the SAR Government have resorted to fair means or foul in trying to get the constitutional reform package passed. They have mobilized the "propaganda machine", as if they are selling counterfeit drugs. Upon seeing the manner in which the officials have delivered their speeches, I think they have really done a disservice to the students. Why are things said by officials totally different from what we learned at school? Recently, the Honourable LAU Kong-wah ― he is no longer a Member of the Legislative Council, he is a former Member of the Legislative Council and an incumbent official ― said that there was actually no international standard regarding universal suffrage. Having the right to vote is genuine; not having the right to vote is fake in every sense. Certainly, the political systems of different democratic countries are different in their technical and detailed arrangement, but we cannot say that there is no international standard of democracy. If the Central Authorities have eliminated people whom they dislike in the nomination stage, and voters can only elect candidates approved by the Central Authorities, is it a democratic election? I believe no one will say that the election is democratic as it is a manipulated election.


Secretary Raymond TAM once said that instant democracy is impractical and a hasty promotion of democracy would cause social disturbances, and so on. Deputy President, we have been talking about promoting democracy for 30 years; it has been more than 10 years since the reunification and how many years will it take from the reunification in 1997 to the implementation of universal suffrage in 2017? It has taken 20 years, and is this pace too hasty? At present, it seems that social disturbance is not attributed to the presence of democracy, but the absence of democracy and the inability to invalidate the 31 August Decision, resulting in great dissatisfaction of the people of Hong Kong. Yet, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM said that the Government is in the right because it has acted in accordance with the Basic Law and the Decision of the NPCSC. The problem is, the people are in the right and the Chief Secretary is not. What we are seeking now are democracy and universal suffrage, which are very humble requests. Apart from giving the people the right to vote, the Government should not unreasonably deprive them of the right to be elected. Even before the Communist Party of China ruled the country, the Xinhua Daily pointed out on 2 February 1944 that the people's right to be elected should be safeguarded. Therefore, Deputy President, I so submit and support this motion. MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of Ms Cyd HO's motion on seeking the invalidation of the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) from the Beijing Authorities and I also support Mr Alan LEONG's amendment. Deputy President, I disagree with almost every point raised by Mr CHAN Kin-por in his speech, but I do agree with him on one point. He said that no one in Hong Kong would benefit if the constitutional reform package was vetoed. That is a hard fact. I have repeatedly asked the SAR Government, the pro-establishment camp and the royalists to tell Beijing this cruel fact. The reason is that if the constitutional reform package is vetoed, Hong Kong is doomed and governance by the SAR Government will not be possible. These remarks were made by a leader of the pro-establishment camp some years ago. The consequences will be very serious indeed. We can discuss this subject today because the Democratic Party supported the 2012 constitutional reform package. Back then, Beijing revoked its decision. At first, it did not accept Mr WU Chi-wai's proposal of "one person, two votes".


5825

Donald TSANG held a press conference and said there was no room for negotiation and QIAO Xiaoyang said the same thing in Beijing in the afternoon on the same day. Subsequently, Beijing made a U-turn. Elsie LEUNG came forward and said that there was no problem with the Democratic Party's proposal. Everyone thus made a U-turn embarrassingly and passed the package which, according to Beijing, complied with the principle of gradual and orderly progress stipulated in Article 45 of the Basic Law. Therefore, the Chief Executive can be elected by universal suffrage in 2017 and people assume that Members of the Legislative Council can be elected by universal suffrage in 2020. These are the Beijing's solemn promises to Hong Kong people, but we definitely have reasons to believe that Beijing probably regrets making this commitment and it has never intended to give Hong Kong people universal suffrage, so that they can genuinely choose the candidate they like, unlike what Mr CHAN Kin-por or Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan from the Liberal Party have just said. In the City Forum held the other day, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan said that although the pan-democrats could not stand for election, they could become "king-makers" for if they persuaded the supporters to vote for a certain candidate, that candidate would win. We have been striving for universal suffrage for decades; our aim is not to persuade people to vote for someone else, we really hope to have the right to elect a person we like to be the Chief Executive. Why can't we do so? On that day, I also asked Ms Starry LEE, who will soon become the Chairperson of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, to tell all the audience watching the TVB programme why electing the Chief Executive by universal suffrage would threaten national security. She tried hard to answer the question but failed. At that juncture, a student asked her whether she was speaking as a representative of Beijing or a representative of Hong Kong people. The problem is, we cannot understand why we are not allowed to have universal suffrage and why national security is cited as the reason. We certainly understand why the Central Authorities will not allow us to have universal suffrage. Asking the Communist Party of China for universal suffrage is tantamount to asking a tiger for its skin. However, as the Central Authorities have given us the solemn promise, they have to honour it and that is why the NPCSC made the 31 August Decision.


As pointed out by a Member, the many proposals put forward by the people have not been mentioned in the report submitted by the authorities. After reading through the report, we cannot find any proposals put forward by the people. Such an approach is a complete insult to Hong Kong people as well as to the SAR Government. After conducting consultation for five months, the authorities have not included any proposal in the report except their own proposal. Deputy President, how could the SAR Government act like that? Public officials are paid high salaries, but recently, they often say that the constitutional reform package can hardly be passed and the chance of getting the package passed is zero. How can they make such a remark? When the authorities submit any motion or bill or the Appropriation Bill to the Legislative Council, public officials have the responsibility to get it passed, but they have now shifted the responsibility onto us. It is true that we have to veto the constitutional reform package, but public officials have the responsibility to get it passed. What should be done if such an important proposal cannot be passed, Deputy President? Certainly, the public officials concerned should bear the responsibility and step down. It was right for Mr James TIEN to ask LEUNG Chun-ying whether he should resign if the constitutional reform package could not be passed. Actually, the "constitutional reform trio" should resign and the Under Secretary should also bear the responsibility and step down. LEUNG Chun-ying often blames us, but we have clearly indicated that we are against him. Even before the introduction of the constitutional reform package, we have indicated our opposing stance because we want an election which gives people genuine choices. Yet, the Government is trying to persuade us to "pocket" the reform package first. In the City Forum held the other day, Mr FUNG Ho-keung, a good friend of the President of the Legislative Council, made a ridiculous remark. He said that the President of the Legislative Council remarked that many foreign consuls have advised us to "pocket it first". How can that be possible? At one time they criticized us for collaborating with foreign powers and listening to them; but when the foreign powers have said something appealing to them, they wanted us to take their advice. That cannot be right, can it? That is like tossing a coin and saying "heads I win, tails you lose"; they will win either way. I think the


5827

Government cannot persuade people by sophistry. We are now in a disadvantaged position because many media organizations have been biased towards the Government and have become its official mouthpieces, which is sorrowful for Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the Democratic Party and the pan-democratic camp will spare no effort in conveying this message to the public that they would definitely support us in not accepting the constitutional reform package. A lady called a radio station the other day and said that she did not accept the "pocket-it-first" proposal, but her mother did. She asked her mother not to accept it and her mother asked why. She said that if an election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage is to be held in the future and 5 million people have the right to vote, what should they do if LEUNG Chun-ying and CHIANG Lai-wan are the only candidates? She repeatedly persuaded her mother not to accept the constitutional reform package. We have to proactively tell people the truth and reveal the authorities' lie. In addition, we have to tell people that the Central Government promised to give us universal suffrage of its own accord; we have not coerced the Central Government. In the past, our demands for universal suffrage were refused by the Central Authorities; this time, the Central Authorities give the green light, but the universal suffrage given to us is fake. Therefore, Hong Kong people should have a clear view. Since we have been striving for genuine universal suffrage for so long, we must keep striving until we succeed. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have known Ms Cyd HO for more than 20 years and today, I would like to share with her some of my views and opinions on her motion. Deputy President, I believe it is fate that makes two people meet. Ms Cyd HO and I were once engaged in the same trade and we are now colleagues. Although our political views and stands are poles apart, I believe we both hope for a better China, a better Hong Kong and a better life for Hong Kong people. How are we different then? We are different in that I know how to love the country and Ms HO does not. Deputy President, I very much hope that Ms Cyd HO can understand one point. Hong Kong has all along been a realistic society, either during the colonial period or under the operation of "one country, two systems" since the


reunification. We politicians should understand that politics is a very realistic business. Before taking any action, a politician must consider the reality and take the actual political situation and environment into account. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) We must understand that very often, the actual situation and environment may be different from what we have expected. Differences and discrepancies may occur. However, since we are living in a real society, we have to live and work with discrepancies under the real-life situation. We have to seek common grounds and accommodate differences, so as to forge consensus. We cannot merely resort to lodging complaints, evading problems, being uncooperative, staging boycotts and confrontations, thereby destructing good and bad alike. Such approaches not only do not help, but also aggravate the situation, resulting in getting just the opposite results. President, it has been 17 years since the reunification and I dare say that Hong Kong has been poorly and ineffectively governed, which I believe, has fallen far short of the expectations of both the Central Government and Hong Kong people. I think there are two main reasons for the poor governance of Hong Kong. First, it is true that we do not have any outstanding political talent who can lead Hong Kong onto the path of continuous development, and hence the objectives of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" cannot really be achieved. Second, the pan-democratic camp has incessantly confronted with the Government and worse still, some foreign powers have constantly intervened with Hong Kong's internal affairs, causing difficulties in policy implementation, which in turn created serious social dissensions and confrontations as well as deep-rooted tensions across different sectors of the society. As a result, the economic development of Hong Kong has become stagnant and the Government is stuck with numerous unresolved livelihood problems. I am sure that the Central Government is very disappointed and worried about the current situation of Hong Kong. President, as I understand it, the Central Government is fully committed to implementing the selection of the Chief Executive through universal suffrage in 2017. It also hopes that the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" will continue to be followed in Hong


5829

Kong. Yet, in the face of the current disturbing political situation of Hong Kong, as well as the intense social grievances and dissatisfaction, how can the Central Government feel relieved to give the SAR Government a free hand to promote constitutional reform? Therefore, in the process of promoting constitutional reform, the Central Government certainly has its own consideration and misgivings. The Central Government will surely not allow any chance of selecting, by universal suffrage, someone who does not love the country and love Hong Kong, and who is incompetent to be the Chief Executive to govern Hong Kong, thereby causing chaos in Hong Kong. In particular, when our country is now rising to power rapidly through peaceful means, it has to face many challenges and confrontations from foreign powers, the Central Government must protect its national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity, thus, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) made the 31 August Decision. I strongly believe that the NPCSC would not have made the Decision without any justifications; instead, the Decision is made after careful consideration. President, I hope that Ms Cyd HO and all pan-democratic Members can have an appropriate, comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the implications and considerations of the 31 August Decision. In the final analysis, the Decision is made for the overall well-being and fundamental interests of Hong Kong, as well as from the perspectives of national security, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country. Today, my good friend Ms Cyd HO, whom I have known for years, seeks to invalidate the 31 August Decision. Obviously, HO has not considered what I have just said and she is plunging our constitutional reform development into uncertainty and insecurity. Is it worth the while for Hong Kong people and those who love the country and love Hong Kong to take such a big risk and should they do so? For me, the answers to both questions are definitely in the negative. I hope that Ms Cyd HO and all pan-democratic Members will rein in at the brink of the precipice, carefully weigh the pros and cons of the proposal, discard their self-centered mentality and drop the unreasonable and ridiculous demand as to seek the invalidation of the 31 August Decision. Otherwise, the constitutional reform development of Hong Kong will fall short of success in the last stage. President, since the commencement of the second round of consultation on constitutional development, government officials and the "constitutional reform trio" in particular, have been expressing pessimistic feelings and throwing cold water on the passage of the constitutional reform package. Remarks such as "the


constitutional reform package may not be passed" and "the chance of its passage is remote" are most discouraging. Government officials should definitely not admit defeat before fighting the battle. Making these frustrating and discouraging remarks frequently is like telling the public that it is useless to discuss constitutional reform any further because there is no hope in passing the package. This approach will not only deal a hard blow to Hong Kong people's morale and make them lose hope, but will also make them lose confidence in the Government. I very much hope that all government officials can be mobilized to go to the districts and encourage everyone to discuss the matter. I believe that if the Government can make more efforts, there will surely be a chance to pass the constitutional reform package. President, I so submit. MR DENNIS KWOK: The present motion is concerned with the 31 August Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) and whether it sets the framework for genuine universal suffrage for the 2017 Chief Executive election. One of the most comprehensive and, perhaps, well-researched documents analysing the relevant constitutional and legal requirements in respect of the Chief Executive election is no doubt the submission of the Hong Kong Bar Association (Bar Association) during the first round of the Government's consultation. The immediate past Chairman of the Bar Association has said that, "Since the Association has expressed its views in the submission, there is no need to repeat them again after the 31 August Decision." I beg to differ. As any good parent would know, it is sometimes necessary to repeat oneself, sometimes many times over in order to drive home a point. If one is to compare the Bar Association's submission and the 31 August Decision side by side, it exposes the NPCSC Decision as unconstitutional, flying in the face of the Basic Law. It also sheds light on why we said any proposal may, within the framework under the 31 August Decision, falls far short of being genuine universal suffrage. The first thing to note is that nowhere in the Decision did the NPCSC mention anything about Article 39 of the Basic Law, which provides that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) shall be applicable in Hong Kong. The Bar Association extrapolates from this requirement that Chief Executive elections should not contain any discriminatory distinctions or unreasonable restrictions, and must ensure that every HKSAR permanent resident


5831

shall have the right and opportunity to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of electors. The Bar Association adds further that these rights are to be enjoyed without any distinctions mentioned in Article 2 of the ICCPR which includes race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. This requirement that there would be no discriminatory or unreasonable restrictions on the right to stand in Chief Executive election is, of course, the international standard that we have emphasized to the SAR Government as well as to the Central People's Government over and over again in the past two years. So, what did the NPCSC Decision actually do? It imposes unreasonable restrictions on the next Chief Executive election proposal. It did so by setting down very strict rules to be followed by the nominating committee designed to act, in effect, as a barrier to candidacy, something which the Bar Association again specifically warned that it cannot do. It is perhaps helpful to go through each of these rules laid down in the NPCSC Decision to see how they measure up to what the Bar Association said are the basic constitutional requirements set down in the Basic Law. First, a broadly representative nominating committee shall be formed. The provisions for the number of members, composition and formation method of the nominating committee shall be made in accordance with the number of members, composition and formation method of the election committee for the fourth Chief Executive election. In other words, the nominating committee would be comprised of the same four functional sectors comprising the current election committee. In relation to this, the Bar Association said (I quote), "… if disproportionate or undue weight is proposed to be given on the basis of property holding or functions or any other established ground of discrimination to a certain part of the Hong Kong community in the sectorial composition, constitutionally contentious issues could be raised from the perspective of equality or parity … A nominating committee that is questionable in terms of fair distribution or reflection of the electorate among its members also presents the difficulty in ensuring the availability of a 'free choice of candidates' to the electorate following nomination." The next rule of operation fixed by the NPCSC Decision concerns the nomination procedures. The nominating committee shall nominate two to three candidates for the office of the Chief Executive in accordance with democratic procedures. Each candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all


the members of the nominating committee, so said the NPCSC Decision. However, in paragraph 68 of the Bar Association's submission, it states that (I quote), "… the suggestion that the 'democratic procedures' referred to in Article 45(2) of the Basic Law simply or necessarily connotes decision-making by a simple majority or some form of majority vote in a meeting of the nominating committee acting collectively or as an organization to select as nominated candidates a certain number of persons (such as between two to four), runs a serious risk of limiting the free choice of voters among the variety of alternatives and undermines the requirement that Chief Executive elections shall be genuine periodic elections that guarantee the free expression of the will of the electors without unreasonable restrictions." An additional legal point is that the NPCSC, in making its 31 August Decision, has clearly violated the procedure of its very own official interpretation of the Basic Law. According to its interpretation of Article 7 of Annex I and Article 3 of Annex II to the Basic Law in 2004, the so-called "five-step Constitutional Reform Process" consists, first, of Chief Executive making a report, and then second, of the NPCSC making a determination in light of the actual circumstances of the HKSAR; only then would the Hong Kong Government introduce a bill providing the details of how the method of selecting shall be amended. The word "determination" or in Chinese "確定" obviously means that there is a simple "yes" or "no" as to whether the Annex can be amended, and not to dictate the details or the actual framework of the election process which the Hong Kong people on its own has the right to decide. President, I stand to support my learned Member, Ms Cyd HO's motion for today's Council and I ask that the NPCSC Decision be declared unconstitutional and should be taken back by the NPCSC. Thank you, President. (The buzzer sounded) MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, the second round consultation on constitutional reform has been conducted for nearly a month in the blink of an eye, but the pan-democrats are reluctant to discuss the issue. All they have been saying repeatedly is to seek the invalidation of the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC Decision) and reactivate the constitutional reform process. I think Members are aware that the "Five-step Process" of the constitutional reform is closely intertwined. Since the launching of the public consultation in early 2014, we have now proceeded to the third step.


5833

This "Five-step Process" is indeed an interactive process of application and approval between the SAR Government and the Central Government. Given that the Central Government has given the green light to Hong Kong's constitutional reform and we have already gone that far, it is impossible to start afresh again merely because some people dislike it or consider that it is not their cup of tea. President, many people hope that Legislative Council Members can do more real work. Instead of staging shows, wasting time and engaging in filibustering in this Council, we should focus on discussing proposals that are feasible and comply with the Basic Law and the NPCSC Decision. Last week, Chief Secretary Carrie LAM and Secretary Raymond TAM met with Members of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong to discuss the constitutional reform. Although these two government officials are pretty pessimistic about the relevant proposal being endorsed by the Legislative Council, we still hope that the Government will expeditiously hold talks with Members from the pan-democratic camp on the constitutional reform. As we can see, there is only one step left to universal suffrage and it all depends on the flash of thought of the pan-democrats. The pan-democrats have revealed their decision to cast opposition votes before the second round consultation kicked off, on the ground that the NPCSC Decision does not comply with their so-called international standard. They vowed to boycott the second round consultation on the one hand, and demanded a dialogue with the Chief Executive in the absence of any precondition on the other. They said they were always ready to have a dialogue with the Chief Executive subject to the precondition that the 31 August Decision must be overturned. Actually, it is the pan-democrats who have set the precondition for dialogue. Both the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration have reiterated time and again the willingness of the Government to have dialogue with the pan-democrats, provided that it is held in the context of the Basic Law and the relevant NPCSC Decision. This is not a precondition set by the Chief Executive, but a decision made by the NPCSC in accordance with the law. If the discussion does not comply with the provisions of the Basic Law and goes unconstrained, it would be a waste of time.


According to the pan-democrats, the dialogue will only be considered sincere if the Chief Executive overturns the 31 August Decision. And yet, this is not only an impossible task, but also a defiance of the national law. However, many lawyers, barristers and professionals in the pan-democratic camp are prone to defy the law, as evident from their instigation of members of the public to take part in the Occupy movement and disrupt public order. Furthermore, the pan-democrats often mention the international standard. President, ever since the State introduced the unprecedented concept of "one country, two systems" 30 years ago, there are no international standards that Hong Kong's systems can be modeled on. The election system varies with different countries, and despite the fact that the International Human Rights Treaties of the United Nations have been put in place, not all countries apply the Treaties to their election systems. The election systems of different countries cannot be judged as good or bad, genuine or fake; the only criteria is its appropriateness or otherwise. We cannot say that only the system desired by the pan-democrats is genuine as the standard is not determined by external forces or by the pan-democrats. President, I remember the oath read by me when I swore in as a Member of the Legislative Council, "… uphold the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China". Since the Basic Law was enacted pursuant to the Constitution of the State, we must therefore bear allegiance to the State and its Constitution, but not the so-called international standard. Implementing universal suffrage through "one person, one vote" is a big step towards democracy, and we all know that this is not the ultimate proposal as the election system can be further refined in a gradual and orderly manner in accordance with the Basic Law in the future. The democratic camp has sought to implement universal suffrage for many years, and we are about to reach the goal of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage through "one person, one vote" in 2017. Does the democratic camp seek to secure a vote for all members of the public, or force all Hong Kong people to continue to be spectators? Are they facilitators of Hong Kong's democratic political system, or sinners to be condemned for depriving people of their rights and slowing the pace of democracy?


5835

If Members from the democratic camp continue to boycott the consultation and categorically vow to oppose the reform package, this is tantamount to stifling people's hope of selecting their own Chief Executive by universal suffrage. The community at large will become political victims in their struggle against the Central Government and the SAR Government. Here, I urge the pan-democratic Members to make a glamorous turn while opportunity for dialogue is still open, otherwise opportunities will come and go, and they will regret later when the hope of universal suffrage is dashed. President, I so submit. MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, what is meant by behaving pretentiously? I think Members from the opposition camp have given full play to this concept. Although this motion urges the Chief Executive to "expeditiously implementing the selection of the Chief Executive and the election of all Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage", it is precisely these opposition Members who make the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage impossible by ultimately vetoing the constitutional reform package. The constitutional reform package put forward by the Government has enabled 5 million eligible voters to select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage with "one person, one vote", so as to replace the current selection by the Election Committee composed of 1 200 members. And yet, in response to our constitutional development, Mr Alan LEONG declared that "the 23 pan-democratic Members are determined to veto the constitutional reform package" and Mr LEE Cheuk-yan vowed boldly that "the constitutional reform package will be vetoed disregarding public views". Given their determination to veto the reform package and pay no heed to public views, can Hong Kong realize the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage? As we all know, so long as the selection of Chief Executive by universal suffrage fails to be implemented, we cannot have the election of all Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage either. Therefore, if the motion seeks to expeditiously implement universal suffrage, we might have to categorically ask those opposition Members, who are behaving pretentiously, what they really want. The motion also accuses the 31 August Decision of throttling the room for implementing genuine universal suffrage and duping Hong Kong people, saying that all voters in Hong Kong will be reduced to voting tools in such a fake


universal suffrage. When members of the public are about to cast votes to select the head of the SAR, opposition Members like Ms Cyd HO has vilified them as voting tools. This is a great insult to Hong Kong people, and I think they owe Hong Kong people an open apology. Opposition Members may abstain from voting on the election day of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017, but they cannot deprive 5 million eligible Hong Kong voters of the opportunity to implement universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election with "one person, one vote". I wish to remind Hong Kong people that if they want to find out who has taken away their votes, they should bear in mind those Members who have vetoed the Government's constitutional reform package to select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. The Chairman of the Alibaba Group, Jack MA, recently came to Hong Kong to share with local young people of his dream and experience in setting up business. While stressing the importance of insisting on one's right of way, he reminded young people that "everyone must act in a measured manner" and some discipline is necessary. I strongly agree with this and consider that a measured way to take forward Hong Kong's constitutional reform is to act in accordance with the Basic Law and the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC). This is because elections conducted in the HKSAR are local elections carried out under the principle of "one country, two systems"; they must therefore comply with the State Constitution and the Basic Law and must be conducive to upholding state sovereignty, security and development interests while maintaining Hong Kong's long-term prosperity and stability. When I visited local districts on Tuesday to conduct consultation on the constitutional reform, a kaifong made the following incisive remarks on this issue. "If you intend to hire a maid to take care of an elderly person at home, will you hire someone who has openly declared that he will harm your family members?" This is common sense. If a Chief Executive candidate does not love the country and love Hong Kong and has vowed to oppose the Central Authorities, how can we select him? How can we not impose any restriction in this regard? The NPCSC is the State's highest authority and its decision on the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage pursuant to its constitutional powers has supreme legal status. Hence, this has formed the irrefutable constitutional basis for universal suffrage. Given that NPCSC's decision on constitutional


5837

reform is irrefutable and is absolutely impossible to amend or invalidate, if the opposition Members still ignore this political reality and press ahead for its invalidation, they are absolutely not being persevere, but being selfish and pertinaciously stupid. Lastly, my advice to the opposition Members, if they really want to implement universal suffrage, they should recognize the fact that the Central Authorities have the absolute power to decide for Hong Kong's constitutional reform. The Democratic Party had adopted a more pragmatic approach in the past, thereby enabling some progress to be made in the previous round of constitutional reform. Now that the reform has just one last step to go, and the successful implementation of universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election will hinge on the flash of thought of the opposition Members. I hope that they would stop playing tricks or imposing threats; instead, they should engage in rational discussion and seize the opportunity before it is too late. Thank you, President. MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the second round of consultation on the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 will end in one month or so. At a time when the majority of Hong Kong people are earnestly looking forward to selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage with "one person, one vote" in 2017, Ms Cyd HO moved a motion on "seeking the invalidation of the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and reactivating the constitutional reform process". I am afraid this will not only go against the objective of forging a consensus on constitutional reform, but will also depart from the goal of selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage with "one person, one vote". In the end, the community at large will be deprived of the opportunity to select their own Chief Executive. Ms Cyd HO's motion has completely ignored the highest authority conferred upon the National People's Congress (NPC) by the State Constitution, which specifically provides that the NPC is the highest organ of state power, with the Standing Committee of the NPC (NPCSC) being its permanent body. In undertaking its constitutional responsibility, the NPCSC made a decision regarding the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Thus, the


idea of "seeking the invalidation of the decision of the NPCSC" has completely ignored the constitutional status of the NPCSC and even trivialized its authority, which is extremely ridiculous. Ms Cyd HO's motion has deliberately impeded our constitutional development. It is not easy for Hong Kong's democratic development to come to this stage. During the British colonial period, Hong Kong had not even had a taste of democracy in form, but did the pan-democratic Members dare to stir up trouble, verbally abuse the then Governors, resort to arbitrary filibustering or contravene the Rules of Procedure? It was only after the Central Authorities included the goal of universal suffrage into the Basic Law immediately before the reunification that Hong Kong people started to enjoy genuine democracy after the reunification in 1997. From "zero democracy" before 1997 to the present proposal for all Hong Kong people to select the Chief Executive on the basis of "one person, one vote" in 2017, this is absolutely a great leap forward in democracy. If pan-democratic Members really want to safeguard and promote Hong Kong's democracy, they should treasure the achievement of democratization that we have today and actively take part in the consultation on constitutional reform; they should not keep boycotting and hurling abuses. As Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM has reiterated, if the constitutional reform package is vetoed, Hong Kong people will lose the chance to select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, and the election of Legislative Council Members by universal suffrage will also be postponed indefinitely. There is no doubt that pan-democratic Members are "killers of universal suffrage" and a sinner of Hong Kong's democratic development. President, I hope pan-democratic Members would understand, while the Sino-British Joint Declaration only stipulates that the Chief Executive "shall be selected by election or through consultations", Article 45 of the Basic Law provides that "The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the HKSAR and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." This implies that the right to select the Chief Executive is conferred upon us by the Central Authorities. If the Central Authorities do not


5839

want to see the implementation of universal suffrage in Hong Kong, why would they bother to make such clear provisions in the Basic Law back then? Therefore, the accusation made by the pan-democratic Members that the Central Authorities will only give us "fake universal suffrage" whereas they are striving for "genuine universal suffrage" is completely misleading and unjustified. Their proposal is at best an election strategy or a trick to dupe Hong Kong people. Furthermore, Ms HO's motion has antagonized the people. According to the findings of many public opinion polls, about 60% of the respondents prefer to "pocket" the constitutional reform package first, which reflects that more people wish to see the implementation of the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017. Though pan-democratic Members, including Ms Cyd HO, often take pride in saying that they safeguard democracy and represent the interests of Hong Kong people, they have ignored the views of the majority and insisted to veto the constitutional reform package. Is the fight for democratic elections a disguise to cover up their underlying wish to stand against China and bring chaos to Hong Kong? President, the Occupy movement arising from the constitutional reform has just ended, and Hong Kong has been seriously torn apart after this 79-day movement. I believe anyone who loves Hong Kong and call Hong Kong his home would not wish to see Hong Kong continue to degenerate in these political conflicts. No matter what this constitutional reform will lead to in the end, Hong Kong should not and cannot be turned into a city with restless conflicts and dissension. I hope the pan-democratic camp will stop before it is too late, and stop bringing chaos to Hong Kong for personal political objectives. President, with these remarks, I oppose Ms Cyd HO's motion and all amendments on behalf of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, how did the 31 August Decision come about? The sequence of events is very important. I recall that in early 2013, after Benny TAI made the astonishing remarks about illegally occupying Central to paralyse the Police, I debated with him many times. An article of the Ming Pao Daily in March 2013 quoted my words, "If Benny TAI continues to make such remarks, the Central Authorities will definitely become


more conservative and constitutional development will definitely regress for five to 10 years." At that time, they mobilized others to direct severe criticism against me because they did not believe my words. What had exactly happened in Hong Kong between January 2013 and 31 August 2014 such that the relation between the Central Government and the HKSAR has entered the ice age? First of all, the pan-democrats wrongly estimated the situation right from the start and made an excessive demand that has exceeded the scope of the Basic Law. They demanded civil nomination and international standard, which are not stipulated in the Basic Law. The Sino-British Joint Declaration has no provision on universal suffrage. The main objective of the Declaration is to preserve the capitalist system of Hong Kong and maintain its stability and prosperity for 50 years. Universal suffrage is mentioned in Article 45 of the Basic Law, but no timetable is given. It only says that the ultimate aim is to select the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. What does it mean by "ultimate"? At that time, many people said that universal suffrage could be implemented in 1997 the earliest, or it could be implemented in 2047 the latest or even at a later stage. After many rounds of debates, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) put forth a timetable in 2007 and gave the green light to the selection of the Chief Executive and the election of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020 the earliest. In 2007, the NPCSC did not provide a road map; the 31 August Decision in 2014 provides the only relatively clear road map about our constitutional development so far, but the pan-democrats want to have it invalidated. If Members understand the thoughts of experts on constitutional reform under the "one country, two systems" principle, they should know that these experts consider that the Central Authorities have demonstrated the greatest sincerity to implement universal suffrage in Hong Kong. We cannot blame those who do not understand but for those who understand but pretend not to, I must berate them. What is the present situation? The pan-democrats regard every well-intentioned act of the Central Authorities as evil; and similarly, we cannot expect that the Central Authorities will listen to the views of the pan-democrats for they regard all proposals put forward by the pan-democrats as ill-intentioned. What the pan-democrats strive for and the method and direction they adopt are all wrong. What have the pan-democrats done? They first launched the Occupy Central movement and then a referendum. They have been misguiding the


5841

public into believing that they can strive for universal suffrage by taking such actions. The whole judgment is wrong. I knew from the start how they had misled the public. Benny TAI said at the outset in a high-profile manner that he would mobilize 10 000 persons to stage a demonstration and if four police officers were deployed to carry one person away, 28 000 police officers were required and hence the Police would be paralysed. However, Ms Claudia MO said she had never heard of such remarks. She said that such actions were no different to robbing, looting, killing and arson which would paralyse the Police and society; and they should not be taken. I also do not understand for such mistakes are silly. However, she really seemed not to have heard of the intended act of Benny TAI. How many people who support the pan-democrats in silence have been deceived and how many young people have been misled by the pan-democrats into participating in the annoying Occupy Central movement? Moreover, before the commencement of the constitutional reform, the threatening Occupy Central movement had disrupted the atmosphere for communication. I can say for sure that the atmosphere in March 2013 when we discussed with Mainland experts the constitutional reform was totally different from the atmosphere leading to the 31 August Decision. We do not expect the Central Authorities to stand so firm. The acts of the pan-democrats have caused the Central Authorities to adopt a conservative approach, and those who do not trust the pan-democrats have eventually gained recognition. The pan-democrats have dug a hole and jumped in one after another. They even organized a referendum and were complacent that several hundred thousand people had participated. In the end, the relationship between the Central Government and Hong Kong turned sour and has entered the ice age. The illegal Occupy movement had disrupted people's daily lives and caused great discontent. They now even organized the so-called "shopping movement". Finally, in the eyes of the Central Authorities, the universal suffrage advocates by the pan-democrats is detrimental to Hong Kong. The pan-democrats have no one to blame but themselves. The pan-democrats have all along demonized the nominating committee. I think the idea of the nominating committee is good and is conducive to Hong Kong's development. Many say that the nominating committee is to protect the interest of the Central Authorities. However, if you carefully examine the composition of the nominating committee, you will find its merits. From 1985 to 1990, people from various trades and industries in Hong Kong strived for the formation of the nominating committee as they were afraid that the socialist


system would be practiced in Hong Kong. To strike a balance among the interests of all sectors, it was proposed that the nominating committee should be composed of representatives from the business, professional sectors, district and political sectors, so as to ensure that Hong Kong would continue to practice the capitalist system and low tax policy, and the interests of the labour and religious sectors would also be taken into account. That was the proposal for the composition of the nominating committee then. Since Article 45 of the Basic Law already protects the Central Government by providing it with the veto power while the public have the right to vote on a "one person, one vote" basis, the nominating committee can in fact provide the best protection to various industries and trades in Hong Kong by maintaining their status quo. In this way, the candidate to the post of the Chief Executive will have the competence to handle political and economic affairs; he can strike a balance among the interests of various sectors and well handle the relationship between the Central Government and the HKSAR Government; he also understands the operation of capitalism and maintains a low tax regime and the stability of Hong Kong. In my view, the pan-democratic Members should have the courage to admit that they have made mistakes in their judgment and had wrongly supported Occupy Central. They should admit to their voters their mistakes. Otherwise, supporters of the pan-democrats will think that they have trusted the wrong persons who have achieved nothing despite the destructions made. Therefore, I wish to end my speech by quoting Mary PARKER, "The world will be regenerated by the people who courageously seek by whatever way the methods by which people can agree." President, I so submit. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, recently President XI Jinping put forward the principles of "ruling the country in accordance with the Constitution" and "ruling the country in accordance with the law". I wish to explain, from a legal perspective, why the 31 August Decision is in fact a contravention of the Interpretation adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) in 2004, a contravention of the Law on Legislation of the People's Republic of China (the Legislation Law) and a contravention of the Basic Law, and why it has no legal basis and must be invalidated or amended before the SAR Government can start afresh to push ahead with implementing universal suffrage for the Chief Executive Election in 2017 in accordance with the Basic Law.


5843

First, the 31 August Decision is illegal. The 31 August Decision has added three specific framework decisions in respect of the method for selecting the Chief Executive, and such a framework is obviously beyond the legal basis of the Interpretation adopted by the NPCSC in 2004. In 2004, the NPCSC discussed Annex I to the Basic Law regarding the method for making amendments in relation to the Chief Executive election. As stated in the draft proposal formally submitted to the NPCSC, a question had been raised as to whether the power to decide "whether there is a need to amend" and "how to amend" the method for selecting the Chief Executive should rest with the Central Authorities. But, in order to implement "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy" and to comply with the provisions of Annex I to the Basic Law, the NPCSC eventually adopted the Interpretation, which stipulates that as regards whether there is a need to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executives for the terms subsequent to the year 2007, the Chief Executive shall make a report to the NPCSC, which shall then make a determination; and that any amendments to the method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be introduced by the SAR Government into the Legislative Council, and must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the Members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, after which they shall be reported to the NPCSC for approval. This is the "Five-step Process" of constitutional reform. In other words, the Central Authorities' power to decide "whether there is a need to amend" is embodied in the second step of the "Five-step Process" of constitutional reform, that is, the NPCSC's determination, whereas the Central Authorities' power to decide "how to amend" is embodied in the fifth step, that is, the NPCSC's approval. The 31 August Decision has imposed three barriers to, first of all, set a hard and fast framework in the second step for the method for selecting the Chief Executive, and this obviously goes beyond the legal basis of the Interpretation adopted by the NPCSC in 2004. No amendment framework had ever been laid down by the NPCSC in its past decisions. For instance, the increase of the number of members of the nominating committee from 800 to 1 200 was not stipulated in the NPCSC's decision made in 2007. Second, the 31 August Decision is a contravention of the Legislation Law. Article 8 of the Legislation Law stipulates that a series of matters may only be governed through the enactment of laws. Article 8(3) thereof specifies that the special administrative region system is one of those matters; that is, any system of


the SAR may only be governed through the enactment of laws. Article 9 of the Legislation Law provides that where no law has been enacted in respect of any of the matters specified in Article 8, the National People's Congress and its Standing Committee shall have the power to make a decision to authorize the State Council to formulate, according to actual needs, administrative regulations first on some of those matters, except for such matters as, inter alia, mandatory measures and penalties relating to citizens' political rights, and the judicial system. The method for selecting the Chief Executive is a system of the SAR, and is also a matter concerning citizens' political rights in the SAR, so it falls within the scope of Article 8 and the exception under Article 9 of the Legislation Law. That is to say, prior to the performance of the statutory procedures prescribed in the Basic Law, the NPCSC simply has no statutory authority to make a decision on the method for selecting the Chief Executive, nor can it authorize the making of administrative regulations on that. Third, the Basic Law provides that the method for selecting the Chief Executive shall seek to implement universal suffrage in the light of "the actual situation in Hong Kong" and in accordance with the principle of "gradual and orderly progress". However, the framework of the 31 August Decision requires that the nominating committee shall be formed in accordance with the existing method for forming the Election Committee, and that there shall only be two or three candidates, each of them must have the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee. This amendment method has led to a standstill, if not a big retrogression, as the nomination threshold has been changed from one eighth of the total membership to the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee. This is a downright violation of the aforesaid principle stipulated in Article 45 of the Basic Law. The framework of the 31 August Decision is an illegality. It is not legally binding, and may not impose any administrative regulations that are binding on the SAR Government. As a matter of fact, as early as October and November last year, I already raised the aforesaid points of view in some newspapers articles written by me. But, unfortunately, the SAR Government has not incorporated in its report on public sentiment any articles discussing whether the 31 August Decision is illegal, including a series of more detailed articles published by other people such as Mr LEW Mon-hung, a former member of the National Committee of the


5845

Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and has thus failed to submit a comprehensive report to the Central Government for reference and follow-up. I hope that the Chief Secretary or the Secretary can, when making a response, undertake to relay, by way of submission, the views expressed by Members today to the Central Government to seek its follow-up. In particular, Mr LEW Mon-hung has publicly indicated his wish to have an open debate with the SAR Government on whether the 31 August Decision is illegal. In my view, this is a meaningful approach as far as the general public is concerned. So I hope that the SAR Government can have an open debate with Mr LEW Mon-hung or, say, the recently founded Progressive Lawyers Group, on the proposition that "the 31 August Decision is an illegal decision", so that members of the public can have a better understanding of the viewpoints of both sides. At the end of the day, can the Decision of the NPCSC be amended? It absolutely can be amended, and it is lawful to do so. Under Article 62(11) of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, one of the functions of the National People's Congress is "to alter or annul inappropriate decisions of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress", and the NPCSC is one of the organs which have the power to submit a motion to that effect. The Third Session of the Twelfth National People's Congress will soon be convened. The Democratic Party hopes that the SAR Government can, before the Session commences, seek the annulment or alteration of the 31 August Decision by the Central Authorities in accordance with the law, so that the SAR Government can reactivate the constitutional reform process to push ahead with and honour the pledge of implementing universal suffrage for the Chief Executive election in 2017 according to the law. Lastly, can the 31 August Decision be amended in a political sense? This really depends on whether the Central Authorities are determined to genuinely implement universal suffrage for the Chief Executive Election in 2017, or whether it considers it more important to tenaciously uphold the 31 August Decision and the NPCSC's prestige. I believe that if the Central Authorities really hope for the implementation of universal suffrage in 2017, nothing is unshakable. This is an important political decision, and I hope that the Central Authorities can have the wisdom to make such a decision.


MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, first of all I have to thank Ms Cyd HO for proposing this motion today but this is already the second motion relating to constitutional reform proposed in the last three months. The last motion was proposed by me. If I remember correctly, some of the amendments to the last motion were similar to the contents of today's motion. Since the motion was negatived last time, there is zero chance that today's motion will be passed. Ms Cyd HO thinks that we should have the chance to reiterate our stance against the Government's position and the 31 August Decision. I agree that it is necessary. Some would see this as a "ghost-busting" motion which aims at finding out who cannot declare their positions again. Honestly, regarding the declaration of position, since 31 August the pan-democrats have signed numerous joint statements and joint letters, and appeared on radio and television programmes every other day to express our thoughts and feelings. Mr Charles Peter MOK is still smiling. I wonder why he can still smile as he was bitterly criticized a few days ago merely because he had made a comment about selling fruits. President, certainly I am also a victim as I find myself quite innocent. I was the first person in Hong Kong to say openly in front of the television that I would veto the 31 August Decision. Why was I the first person? That was because a commentary was broadcast live on television at that time and immediately after the commentary, I declared my position. However, no matter what you say, when others determine that you will change your tack, nothing can be done about it. President, you may have noticed that the bet on me on the Internet has been frozen. Hence, whatever I say, it will have no effect. I was not to speak today but my assistant told me that if I did not do so, not only would the bet on me be frozen but I would have to pay money too. (Laughter) Hence, I must speak today. I have to make it clear that my position on the constitutional reform is somewhat different to that of my comrades, my pan-democratic colleagues. I admit that when I said I would veto the constitutional reform package on 31 August, I was very sad and angry. However, later I remembered that the pan-democratic Members in this Council have in their hands the power to veto it. As that is our only true and proper political power under the constitutional system, why do we not use it? Concerning vetoing the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) and reactivating the


5847

five-step mechanism for constitutional reform, we have spoken a great deal but our focus is only on one matter, which is to veto the constitutional reform package. After it is vetoed, the 31 August Decision will not have any political or constitutional effect other than perhaps some historic value. Why do we not make good use of this veto power of ours? A few months back, not last week, I already proposed to use this veto power to pursue our goal of abolishing the functional constituencies. For this goal, we have striven hard for the people of Hong Kong for over two decades. Strangely, however, I think that this can only happen in Hong Kong. When the media have found this a "hot" topic, the SAR Government, the Chief Executive and the pro-establishment camp suddenly jump out and ask in surprise, "Do you really mean to abolish the functional constituencies?" It sounds as if that were the first time they heard it. How strange it is! The people of Hong Kong have fought for the abolition of the functional constituencies for over 20 years now. The Basic Law clearly stipulates that all Members of the Legislative Council are to be elected by universal suffrage: all, not half. The NPCSC said plainly on 29 December 2007 that after the Chief Executive was selected by universal suffrage, the Legislative Council would be formed by universal suffrage. The Central Authorities say that the constitutional reform package for 2017 is already the package for universal suffrage. We do not agree but that does not matter. Let us just treat it as genuine. From the perspective of the Central Authorities, they say it is the package for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. Then after the Chief Executive is selected by universal suffrage, why can we not form the Legislative Council by universal suffrage? And then I asked them to say one more time, making it clear that the Legislative Council would be formed by universal suffrage and the functional constituencies would be abolished, but they said no and it could not be done so as the functional constituencies had their value and they would be around forever. Then, why do they ask us to "pocket it first"? With neither the Legislative Council nor the Chief Executive being formed or selected by universal suffrage, they ask us to "pocket the package first". What kind of logic is that? How convincing does it sound? If we trust each other, there may still be a slim chance that we would "pocket it first" but there is no mutual trust between us, right? Of course, many democratic Members berate me for paving my way to change tack. That does not matter. I hear these


words every day. Some people ask me if I am too simple-minded to believe the communists. I say I am sorry. If they say I am too naïve, then as the people of Hong Kong have fought for the abolition of the functional constituencies for over two decades, have they been naïve all this time too? Also, if believing the Central Authorities is too naïve but we have been living in the political environment of "one country, two systems" every day, are we all too naïve? If we believe that the Basic Law protects our basic rights, are we too naïve again? Now some people write about arming themselves to fight against the communists. Are they even more naïve? Hence, I think as far as politics is concerned, there is no such thing as being naïve or not but it is like desperately treating a dead horse as it is alive. In the face of a dilemma, politicians are duty-bound to seek a way to get out of the dead end. No matter how absurd or incredible my proposal looks, I think it is the only thing that may somehow appear to the democrats that it is something worth considering. However, if right from the very start the Government says no and that the functional constituencies will have to remain in the Legislative Council forever, then please withdraw the package and do not ask us to "pocket it first". There is no need for it to submit the relevant motion to the Legislative Council either for in so doing, the Government is merely insulting the pan-democrats, insulting all people in Hong Kong and insulating our efforts in fighting for the abolition of the functional constituencies in the past 20-odd years. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, this is the third time a public consultation on constitutional reform is launched since the reunification and it can be described as the most difficult and most controversial. The Occupy Central Trio started brewing Occupy Central in early 2013. After the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) made the Decision on 31 August last year, the Hong Kong Federation of Students, Scholarism and the Occupy Central Trio launched an Umbrella Movement which lasted 79 days, causing inestimable damages to Hong Kong. I hope that Honourable colleagues would read clearly Article 45 of the Basic Law, which stipulates, "The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by


5849

universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures." After pondering over the provision, I think that "gradual and orderly progress" is worth bearing in mind. The road to democracy has always been a long one and no country has ever made a quantum jump in history; there must be gradual changes. In addition, under "one country, two systems", Hong Kong must get the approval of the Central Authorities before it can have universal suffrage. Opposition Members have the right to disagree with me but they know very well that they must accept this fact. In short, without the approval of the Central Authorities, it is difficult for Hong Kong to implement universal suffrage. Otherwise, why was the decision of the NPCSC made in 2007? Pan-democrat Members ask for autonomy rather than independence but the Central Government thinks that Hong Kong people can only exercise autonomy within the framework it has set. If Hong Kong people go a different way, they are challenging the authority of the Central Government, which is tantamount to asking for independence. I find from my conversations with people in the district that many people understand this condition and this fact, and they also know the concerns of the Central Authorities about Hong Kong. I personally think that opposition Members in Hong Kong disagree with the views of the Central Authorities but it does not mean the Central Authorities will thus change their minds. Will the Central Authorities change the NPCSC decision because of the Occupy movement? I am certain that they will not. Many Pan-democrat Members know that very well or they have to suffer in silence. The Central Authorities' trust in Hong Kong can be described as the relationship between a father and his daughter. This also reminds me of the time when my wife gave birth to my first daughter, that is, when I became a father. When my daughter was eight to nine years old and she wanted to play with her friend in the latter's home, my wife and I drove her there, and we drove her home when she had finished playing. A year or so later, she wanted to go to the Ocean Park and we drove her there, and we also drove her home after she had enjoyed herself. Another year or so later, we only had to drive her to the MTR station and she would take the MTR to her friend's home. Yet another year or so later, we did not need to do anything and she would leave home after telling us that she was going out.


To a certain extent, this is a gradual and orderly progress which involves the mutual trust between parents and children. Similarly, what will be the consequence if either the Beijing or Hong Kong party refuses to communicate? For example, when Beijing invited pan-democrat Members to a discussion in Beijing with all other Members last April, some pan-democrat Members distributed publicity leaflets and some other pan-democrat Members basically did not want to have discussions. They simply talked about civic nomination, international standards, and so on. How can mutual trust be built? President, concerning the constitutional development of Hong Kong, I have brought here a simple chart today. As you know, I am an engineer and I like reading charts a lot. 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012 and the upcoming 2017 are shown on the chart. We can see the democratic development within five years from 1997 to 2012, and that the number of Election Committee members increased from 400 to 800 in 2002. In 2007, the number of Election Committee members increased from 800 to 1 600. As pan-democrat Members voted down the proposal at the time, the constitutional reform was just marking time. Within this 10-year period, the number of Election Committee members remained at 800, and the number of Election Committee members was no longer 1 600 in 2012 but reverted to 1 200. We hope that the straight line as shown in the chart will go one in the future. Will Hong Kong people accept this pace of democratic development? I hope that we can make progress along the red line as shown in the chart and a breakthrough will be made in 2017 with dramatic changes. In that case, I think we can continue with this read line in 2020. If this is the pace of democratic development in Hong Kong, I believe this is something to be proud of and this is the pattern to be followed in respect of democratic development. We do not want a very long line, with no changes made within eight to 10 years. Chief Secretary Carrie LAM repeatedly mentioned that she was not optimistic about this constitutional reform because pan-democrat Members feared that they might have to pocket this constitutional reform package for their whole life if they accepted it; thus, they were unwilling to compromise. Some pan-democrat Members have even indicated that they would resign after voting down the constitutional reform package and launch a referendum. Nevertheless, this will not help resolve disputes and I do not know what significance this move will have. It seems that they are doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. I really cannot figure that out, probably because of my lack of political experience.


5851

Last month, the RTHK and the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong conducted an opinion poll on the constitutional reform. The results showed that for the community as a whole, 43% of the respondents supported taking forward the constitutional reform and 32% of the respondents opposed it. The difference between the two figures was significant. It has recently been revealed that universal suffrage in 2022 may become better as the number of Nomination Committee members may be increased to 1 600 or 2 000 and a youth sector may be added. There may also be three to four Chief Executive candidates. I believe the SAR Government should be committed to putting forward these demands when making a submission to the Central Authorities. This will definitely help enhance public support for the constitutional reform, and some pan-democrat Members will then be forced to have second thoughts. President, I so submit. MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr James TO has tried to analyse just now whether the decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on 31 August is unconstitutional and illegal. He is a lawyer and he certainly knows very well that many legal disputes are involved. However, the NPC is the highest authority body under the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and I believe there is no judicial review mechanism. Therefore, I dare not say whether the decision made by the NPC is illegal and unconstitutional. However, the NPC is certainly the highest authority body and it can definitely amend the Constitution and make laws, and it can also explain the contents of the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Mr Kenneth LEUNG has just said that there is not any international standards or international standards have not been specified, and the NPC has the right to interpret the laws and set a standard but I am not sure if this is the international standard. These disputes will hardly come to anything. The reality is that the second round consultation has begun but the Government and pan-democrat Members who have the votes have virtually not discussed matters together. I know they have recently had breakfast together. Should they also have lunch or dinner together to have more discussions so as to reach certain conclusions?


Mr Ronny TONG has mentioned "treating a dead horse as a live horse" and I believe his remark has room for discussion. I have deep respect for pan-democrat friends such as TIK Chi-yuen as they are willing to have conversations. Though I do not know what the outcome will be, I have always told the Under Secretary that it is not very effective to consult 10 major business associations or eight major business associations for they certainly support him. The Under Secretary should have discussions with the opposite camp. If he is not willing to do so, how does he know that there is not much room for discussion? If both camps are willing to compromise, they may be able to get things done. On the second round consultation, there is a very loose "members recommendation" mechanism featuring one tenth, one eighth or one twelfth. In any case, I believe some pan-democrat candidates can reach the stage of "members recommendation". On one occasion, I attended a luncheon with Mr Alan LEONG but I will not elaborate what happened then. Just now, Dr LAM Tai-fai said that Hong Kong did not have political talents. I am sorry but Mr Alan LEONG told me that they had a lot of political talents, and he would like to bet on this. He told me that he could find outstanding political talents to run in the election. If the pan-democratic camp can really find outstanding political talents, including their teams, as Ms Emily LAU said earlier, LEUNG Chun-ying and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan might be the other candidates. If she considers these two candidates so incompetent, and they can find an outstanding political talent at that time, in the absence of alternatives, the 1 200 members may allow that person to reach the stage of "committee nomination". I will also vote for him if he is so very outstanding. The pan-democratic camp has the chance to reach the stage of "committee nomination". Will they have zero chance to reach the stage of "committee nomination"? I do not think so. It is stated in the consultation document that the Central Authorities may not appoint the elected person, that is, the Central Authorities may veto the elected person. If all the candidates are from the pro-establishment camp, it is not necessary for the Central Authorities to veto or determine not to appoint the elected person. Will there be zero chance then? I do not believe so but there may be difficulties. If some outstanding talents can run in the election, as Mr Alan LEONG has said, these candidates should compete against one another in the election.


5853

Many people initially asked if this is the terminus. At present, however, we know that there is no terminus for political or democratic development, and this is absolutely an en route stop. I do not know if this is regarded as a foreign force. I have attended the dinner hosted for the Rt Hon Hugo SWIRE, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the United Kingdom. According to him, although the United Kingdom had experienced hundreds of years of democratic development, changes were still made continuously. Therefore, there will never be a terminus of democratic development. If this is an en route stop, does it mean that further improvements should be made after this stop so that all of us would be more satisfied? I believe this should be done. So, adamant remarks should not be made as it is not a good thing to do so. Secretary Raymond TAM has recently said that the 50% threshold does not leave any room for discussion. I am not sure about that but I do not know if Secretary Raymond TAM would still be in office in 2022. At that time, will the NPC consider making more lenient provisions if all is well after this barrier has been cleared? Why is it expected that the NPC will make tighter provisions? There are political changes all the time, and the provisions to be made by the NPC at that time may be surprisingly lenient. I think adamant remarks should not be made. Finally, I would like to say that Mr Albert HO challenged the Government just now, and he said that he would immediately resign if the Government dared to make an undertaking. Why need he ask the Government to make an undertaking? If he wants to resign, he should resign immediately. If he wants a referendum, he should let us see the results of a referendum and make a decision. Anyway, he is ready to resign. President, I believe it is not very practical to reactivate the constitutional reform process. We might as well have practical discussions in order to achieve certain results. President, the Liberal Party does not support the original motion and the amendment. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan has said just now if the pan-democratic camp really has outstanding political talent, he will also vote for that person. However, I am really worried that he may only wish to vote for him but he eventually cannot vote that way because "Grandpa" would eventually ask him not to vote for that person. Can he refuse to follow?


Let me give an example. Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying was actually not the chosen one because the chosen one was Henry TANG, right? Finally, right before the candidates had "members recommendation", "Grandpa" said that Henry TANG should not be voted for and then everyone voted for LEUNG Chun-ying. Many people voted for LEUNG Chun-ying reluctantly. Given such an explicit example in the last election, we should not make presumptuous comments at the moment for things may become very different at the time when votes are cast. He has said just now there are political changes all the time and he may use this as an excuse then. They are making loud and clear comments but only they know what will eventually happen. President, Dr LAM Tai-fai has emphasized that he had befriended Ms Cyd HO for nearly 20 years, hoping that she would change her mind and support the proposal to "shut the door". In addition, he also talked about the political reality. He said the Central Government's purposes are to protect national security, resist foreign forces and safeguard "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy", and he hopes that all of us would accept the reality. President, regardless of the purposes of the Central Government, the most important point is whether the decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on 31 August will establish and re-affirm the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". If Honourable colleagues are familiar with the Basic Law, they should know that Article 7 of Annex I clearly stipulates, "If there is a need to amend the method for selecting the Chief Executives for the terms subsequent to the year 2007, such amendments must be made with the endorsement of a two-thirds majority of all the members of the Legislative Council and the consent of the Chief Executive, and they shall be reported to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for approval." Throughout the process, the NPCSC will be the final gatekeeper and approval authority. We all know that the NPCSC amended this Annex and interpreted the Basic Law in June 2004, changing the original "Three-step Process" of constitutional development to a "Five-step Process" and adding to the second step a requirement that the SAR Government should report the shortlisted Chief Executive Chief Executive candidates to the NPCSC. President, it does not


5855

matter for them to add this requirement but there is another requirement that the amendments to the method for selecting the Chief Executives shall be "determined" by the NPCSC. An Honourable colleague has discussed this issue just now. The amendments shall be "determined" by the NPCSC but the NPCSC will not make any changes or suggestions, just like the case of the proposal under the 31 August Decision to "shut the door". President, even the "Five-step Process" of constitutional development after the interpretation of the Basic Law states very clearly that the NPCSC is the final gatekeeper. Unfortunately, the 31 August Decision is definitely not the same since the word "determination" has been deliberately changed to "decision", and the number of candidates to reach the stage of "committee nomination" has been changed to two to three, and each candidate must have the endorsement of more than half of all the members of the nominating committee. Indeed, the stipulation of these rules and requirements has deviated very much from the meaning of "determination". The Central Government and the SAR Government have always indicated that Hong Kong will be administered according to the law, that is, the Basic Law. Unfortunately, it is obvious that the Basic Law has not been genuinely followed. I think there is only one reason why the Basic Law has not been followed. Everyone knows that some people have proposed civic nomination, which may help achieve "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy." However, the Central Authorities are scared by "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy", and therefore they have to "shut the door" and specify a nominating committee which consists of 1 200 members to limit the number of members who can reach the stage of "committee nomination". It is euphemistically known as "one person, one vote" but it turns out that there is no choice. These members will eventually be submissive and obey what the Central Authorities say. Will "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" be realized? Hence, I would like to tell Dr LAM Tai-fai that we are asking for the invalidation of the 31 August Decision not merely because we want a democratic system. The most important reason is that we would like to safeguard "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy." We should not safeguard national interests and


national security and resist foreign forces before safeguarding "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy." On the contrary, if the 31 August Decision is invalidated, allowing us to experience a democratic system (The buzzer sounded) … "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" can be implemented. MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, this motion today is actually one of the moves made by pan-democrat Members to repeatedly challenge and negate the decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on 31 August (the 31 August Decision). Let us put aside this demand's fundamental lack of legitimacy and rationality, it has been almost six months since they made this demand after the announcement of the 31 August Decision but we have not seen any results or the extensive support of the general public. However, they are still persevering and trying to lead the community towards this direction by all means. In that case, President, I would like to take this opportunity to express my views, hoping that all of us would clearly recognize that there is actually a "blind alley" in this direction. We should understand that Chief Executive and Legislative Council in Hong Kong can be returned by universal suffrage because the People's Republic of China (PRC) specified in Article 45 and Article 68 of the Basic Law the "one country, two systems" principle. The PRC is a unitary state and the Central Authorities undoubtedly have a constitutional role in this universal suffrage process. The NPC is the highest authority body in the PRC while the NPCSC is the permanent body of the highest authority body in the PRC. Hence its interpretations of and decisions on our constitutional reform has legal effects constitutionally. Because of the interpretation of the Basic Law by the NPCSC in 2004, the "Five-step Process" of constitutional development was established, and the decision on issues relating to universal suffrage was adopted by the NPCSC in 2007, which established the timetable for universal suffrage in Hong Kong. In other words, the fifth Chief Executive can be returned by universal suffrage in 2017, and all members of the Legislative Council can also be returned by universal suffrage. In this connection, the Government has conducted two rounds of consultation on the method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. The 31 August Decision made by the NPCSC last year set a


5857

clear framework for the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. If the NPC's decision is voted down, the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 will also be voted down. I hope Honourable colleagues would think twice. As stated in the 31 August Decision, starting from 2017, the selection of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may be implemented by universal suffrage. If the 31 August Decision is not implemented, the NPCSC will naturally ask why it is not. While we cannot confirm that the NPCSC will not amend the Decision in the future, the 31 August Decision is the principle for the gradual development of a democratic system on the basis of the actual situation in Hong Kong, and the Decision is made after the views and suggestions of the community have been fully considered. I believe that unless there are very significant changes in the future, if the 31 August Decision is not implemented in 2017, it will still apply to the next Chief Executive election in 2022. In other words, "the invalidation of the decision of the NPCSC" will not be "reactivating the constitutional reform process", and such expressions in the motion are misleading. As such, Hong Kong will have been marking time for five years by then. Even if we wanted to start again on the road of political development, the starting point would remain the same. Why should these five years be wasted for nothing? The motion is harping on the old tune of the pan-democratic camp, alleging that the 31 August Decision allows the nominating committee to screen candidates but that is not genuine universal suffrage. In fact, the so-called "genuine universal suffrage" advocated by the pan-democrats just aim at ensuring that pan-democrat members can stand for election. However, the political system of a region will never and should not be designed for certain people, and it should not aim at ensuring that certain people will be nominated. Instead, it should be based on the long-term development and interests of the community as a whole. If the decision of the NPC is invalidated today regardless of the constitutional system and the aspirations of other members of the community, and if a proposal on the election which yields to the pan-democratic camp is drafted, will another proposal be designed in 2020 when another group of people make the request that they will safely reach the stage of "members recommendation" and "committee nomination"? President, the results of a number of recent polls show that most people hope that the constitutional reform can take a historic step forward under the


31 August Decision, and the election of the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" can be implemented as soon as possible. Evidently, we all want our political system to be put on track and move forward steadily. So, we should now proactively foster social consensus on the constitutional reform package to be reached on a constitutional basis. Yet, this motion and the amendment proposed by the pan-democrat Members run contrary to public opinion. It is using "genuine universal suffrage" as the pseudo-proposition, attempting in vain to open up another path outside the constitutional system, which will only make Hong Kong people go astray and idle their time away. Thus, I cannot support this motion and the amendment. President, I so submit. MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) has made a decision on the constitutional reform for more than five months. Despite the fact that policy-making officials from both the Central Government and the SAR Government have stated the bottom line of the Central Government through different channels, Ms Cyd HO still moved this motion on "seeking the invalidation of the decision of the NPCSC and reactivating the constitutional reform process". I have a question about this motion: I wonder if Ms HO has failed to understand the Basic Law and the status of the NPCSC under the constitutions of the State and Hong Kong, or she has not fully grasped the spirit of the 31 August Decision. The NPCSC has a very important function under the constitutions of the State and Hong Kong. As evident from the relevant provisions of Hong Kong's Basic Law, the NPCSC has the powers to return the laws enacted by the HKSAR Government; to add national laws to the list of laws in Annex III to the Basic Law; to decide that the HKSAR is in a state of emergency; to report for record the principal judges, and to propose bills for the interpretation and amendment to Hong Kong's Basic Law. According to the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the NPCSC has the functions and powers to interpret the Constitution, supervise the enforcement of the Constitution, as well as enact and interpret laws. State organs including the State Council of the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Central Military Commission, the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate of the PRC are also placed under its supervision. Therefore, the 31 August Decision made by the NPCSC shares the same status as other national laws, just like the Basic Law. Therefore, it cannot


5859

be arbitrarily amended without special reasons. Since the selection of the Chief Executive is an important political issue under the "one country, two systems" principle and in the implementation of the Basic Law, the NPCSC Decision on this important political issue carries a significant meaning and is a very solemn matter. Therefore, any attempt by the opposition camp to force the NPCSC into changing its decision would doom to fail. The suggestion that the 31 August Decision throttles the room for implementing genuine universal suffrage can also be said to be a fallacy. Implementing the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage is indeed a historical progress in Hong Kong's democratic development and a major reform of the political system of the HKSAR. Since the 31 August Decision will set the tune for the further development of Hong Kong's democratic political system, it should not only be lawful, reasonable and fair, but also meticulous as there is no room for mistake. If the reform of Hong Kong's political system continues to progress under the framework of the Basic Law, the constitutional reform will certainly make a great leap forward in accordance with the proposal currently suggested for consultation. All other proposals that depart from reality and contravene the 31 August Decision and the Basic Law, vainly hoping to achieve everything in one go, will only end up in tatters. President, the SAR Government has conducted extensive consultation over the past year or so. During the first round of consultation on the constitutional reform package, the "constitutional reform trio" and the relevant government officials had attended a total of 226 consultations and district events. They had also met with Legislative Council Members from different political parties and affiliations time and again to directly exchange views on the constitutional reform, as well as visited the districts to listen to public views. During the consultation period, the Government received a total of some 120 000 submissions from different organizations and individuals, and all of them had been published. During the Occupy Central movement, the SAR Government had exercised the greatest forbearance and understanding, and acted with restraint. It had also expressed goodwill to the opposition party by, inter alia, arranging a dialogue between the "constitutional reform trio" and the Hong Kong Federation of Students, which aimed at forging consensus and alleviating the impact of the Occupy Central movement on the community. The SAR Government also hopes that the constitutional reform package can be passed smoothly so as to improve Hong Kong's political and economic environment, and the Central Government can feel relieved in allowing us to carry out the


constitutional reform beyond 2017. The SAR Government has not, as described in the motion, "throttled the room for implementing genuine universal suffrage". Rather, it has sought the way out for constitutional reform in the light of the political reality in Hong Kong. President, the opposition camp has attempted to compel the Central and SAR Governments to make concessions through waging public opinion war and the radical Occupy Central movement, and even the intervention of external forces. Nonetheless, the result was proven to be counterproductive. The Central Government has become all the more concerned about the risk associated with Hong Kong's constitutional reform, and is more alert to the intervention of external forces. Worse still, it has even considered not to relax the scope for Hong Kong to make decisions on its constitutional reform. We can thus see that the opposition camp has actually sacrificed the well-being of 7 million people, and Hong Kong will eventually be "killed". I hope the opposition camp will reflect on what it has done, and stop engaging in confrontation or doing meaningless things. Instead of adopting an antagonistic attitude, the opposition camp should have the broadness of mind and goodwill to extend olive branches and liaise with the Central and SAR Governments on its own initiative, with a view to forging consensus, breaking the current deadlock as well as taking concerted effort to work for the well-being of Hong Kong and the successful implementation of the constitutional reform. President, with these remarks, I oppose the original motion. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, today, I have been listening very attentively to the numerous lame arguments given by colleagues from the pro-establishment and royalist camps; I am sorry to say that I feel disgusting. It is fine if a person admits that he is lying, and likewise, I consider it acceptable if someone says that the universal suffrage approved by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) is fake, not genuine. However, it would be very disgusting to pass off fake universal suffrage election as genuine and accuse people speaking the truth of making a very big mistake. Democracy has never been a bestowal and is nothing new. While Hong Kong people's campaign for "88 direct election" is not that amazing, the Chinese people's demand for universal suffrage is not new either. As clearly stated in


5861

Dr SUN Yat-sen's Three Principles of the People, we must fight for a democratic political system. After the Communist Party of China (CPC) took over the reins, former national leaders, including MAO Zedong, often said that there was no future for China if it did not have democracy. Hundreds of millions of people have thus been duped. Ever since the CPC took power, it has adopted one-party rule. All guaranteed rights including civil liberties and those specifically stipulated in the Constitution, such as the right of assembly, the right to strike, freedom of speech and the right to vote, have disappeared. It is precisely because people are so accustomed to reading articles containing false information and listening to lies that the lies told by the NPCSC or colleagues from the pro-establishment camp have become insignificant at all. Looking back at the history of the CPC, it is packed with lies. If lies are so common for a race or a nation that people can no longer distinguish lies from truth, there will be no future for this race. There will be no future for Chinese people. As reported day after day, China has launched an anti-corruption fight and Politburo Standing Committee Member, ZHOU Yongkang, and LING Jihua had been investigated and prosecuted as a result. Both of them used to be so powerful and wealthy. They were high up in the echelon two years ago, but were put behind bars two years later. What fed them? It is definitely the system. A system that does not have people's monitoring and a government that does not have people's mandate is nothing more than a bogus regime. Notwithstanding that, this bogus regime has been exerting pressure on Hong Kong. Fortunately, Hong Kong people's moral integrity has kept their heads up high in the face of immense pressure from public opinion and red capital. More than 1 million people took part in the Umbrella Revolution, and among them are young people who have disregarded their safety and future. In return, State Vice-President LI Yuanchao gave them a shocking response, saying that "the best is yet to come". This is tantamount to holding a dagger behind our back and the reason is simply to threaten Hong Kong people. Knowing that Hong Kong people are sick, they would be more than happy to place the last straw on us. In response to Hong Kong people's request for the implementation of universal suffrage in 2017, there are two options: First, to remain the status quo by maintaining the 1 200 small-circle election, and as we can see, the elected Chief Executive would be no different from LEUNG Chun-ying, Donald TSANG or TUNG Chee-hwa. Second, to accept the fake universal suffrage. There is nonetheless one good thing about the fake universal suffrage, and that is, it allows "one person, one vote". After all, fake universal suffrage is still universal suffrage. If we do not "pocket it first", we may not


even have this option in the future. The situation is like Hong Kong falling ill while waiting for the implementation of universal suffrage and it had to receive medical treatment, but the unscrupulous doctor gave it fake medicine and poison, such that it died immediately or died after anesthesia. As pointed out in an article, it does not matter if the people of a race or a country daydreams or suffers from a mental disorder, the saddest thing is they consciously refuse to wake up from their insanity or dream. This is precisely the case of Chinese people, who have refused to wake up. They have even turned a blind eye to the corrupt system and regime, pretending that they have not seen them. Hong Kong people are now forced to swallow those drugs, but we definitely cannot do so because we will surely die at once. Even though LEUNG Chun-ying was elected by only 1 200 people, he has become so unscrupulous and reckless that he has shamelessly lied to the Legislative Council after disgracefully accepted a sum of money. What will happen if fake universal suffrage is really implemented in the future and, to our surprise, more than 1 million people vote for him? With fake universal suffrage, fake public opinion and fake mandate, he will definitely brainwash us, enact legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law and impose the national security law. The dagger has been placed outside the door to threaten our lives. Can those 1 million young people really threaten them? Of course not. What actually threaten the unarmed Hong Kong people are the national security law and the legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law. Luckily, President, as I have said, Hong Kong people have moral integrity and they will not back off in the face of an authoritative and autocratic regime. I think Ms Audrey EU's remark is still applicable, "I would rather stay put than take the wrong step forward". I so submit. Thank you, President. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. I think a quorum is not present in the Chamber. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.


5863

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, please speak. MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, today, we would like to clearly explain why we must veto the constitutional reform package proposed under the 31 August Decision made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) and cannot "pocket it first". One of the reasons is very simple. After listening to the speeches made by Members from the pro-establishment camp, I think their argument is pretty simple, and that is, "given that powers are in the hand of the Central Authorities and the one country is invincible, it serves them right for not obeying". They argued that one country is invincible and the two systems are unimportant. It is most imperative to obey the Central Authorities, only by doing so will bring us luck. If people believe those words, I would have nothing to say. Nor can I convince them. I nonetheless believe the majority of Hong Kong people do not think so. Why does Hong Kong exist? Hong Kong exists because many people did not have faith in the Communist Party and fled to Hong Kong, including our ancestors. They received education in Hong Kong, experienced the importance of rule of law and freedom and learnt the local core values, the basis on which Hong Kong is unique and has not become another Chinese city. If people believe the saying of the pro-establishment camp that "the one country is invincible" and Hong Kong needs not have democracy as all we have to do is to press the button as China wishes … Funny enough, "selecting the Chief Executive by 'one person, one vote'" has been the slogan chanted by the pan-democratic camp for more than a decade, but then all of a sudden, the pro-establishment camp started to chant the same slogan this year and displayed the relevant banners. Why would this happen? Because "Grandpa" has approved such an election. Why didn't they chant this slogan with us in the past? They chanted this slogan today because the election is merely "fake universal suffrage". Notwithstanding that, they immediately indicated their support for the fake universal suffrage and "one person, one vote". After all, it is as simple as to follow the will of the Central Authorities. And yet, they should not force Hong Kong people to do so. We are well aware that the first reason to oppose the 31 August Decision is the rule of law.


The 31 August Decision made by the NPCSC has violated the "Three-step Process" stipulated in the Basic Law and the interpretation made by the NPCSC in 2004 in respect of the Basic Law. In fact, Hong Kong people are very pitiable because the Basic Law has offered very limited protection to the principle of "one country, two systems", especially in the area of democratic development. The insufficient protection is then worsened by NPCSC's subsequent interpretation and its decision to impose additional requirements. According to the interpretation made in 2004, the NPCSC had simply highlighted that it would decide whether there is a need for amendment, but now the NPCSC has given direction on how amendment should be made. In other words, the decision has changed from "whether there is a need for amendment" to "how to amend". Regarding the NPCSC Decision, Members may notice that additional requirements had been imposed in the past, and more requirements have now been imposed again. If such imposition is always justified in the name of the Constitution, what is the point of our rule of law then? Honestly speaking, our Constitution, the Basic Law, is deceptive and we do not mind being duped for so many years, but it has gone too far by imposing additional requirements. Thus, the first reason why we cannot accept the NPCSC Decision is the rule of law. Regarding the second reason, I think Hong Kong people hate to let falsehood be passed off as truth. They hate to talk black into white and they hate to be the lackey of ZHAO Gao. ZHAO Gao once pointed to an animal that was apparently a deer and called it a horse, and everyone around him echoed "yes, yes". Are Hong Kong people supposed to do the same by regarding falsehood as truth? The nominating committee has screened out people whom the Central Authorities do not like and candidates appointed by the Communist Party of China (CPC) can then get "committee nomination" to stand for election. This is undoubtedly fake universal suffrage and the so-called "one vote" has reduced members of the public to voting machines. Mr IP Kwok-him just now demanded an apology from Ms Cyd HO, accusing her of insulting Hong Kong people's wisdom. I nonetheless think that he is the one who insulted Hong Kong people because he has turned Hong Kong people into voting machines. Ms Cyd HO is not the first person to use the term "voting machines". This term was first used by the CPC in Xinhua Daily in 1944, which said that in the absence of the rights to vote and to stand for election, the fake universal suffrage would only turn people into voting machines. If Hong Kong people believe in truth and think that it should be protected while confronting falsehood, we must veto the fake universal suffrage.


5865

As for the third reason, we do not want to give fake mandate. At present, we always blame "689" for getting only 689 votes in many cases, but the story will be completely different in the future because those 1 200 people will select a number of "689s" for people to select. In other words, "689" may become "689 000". The elected candidate who obtains 689 000 votes may say that he has people's mandate and can therefore enact legislation under Article 23 of the Basic Law. He may even introduce the national security law into Hong Kong as suggested by NG Chau-pei. With people's mandate, he can do whatever he wants for he is elected. Isn't this more scary? Another reason why we cannot "pocket it first" is that Hong Kong people have been duped into thinking that the election system can be refined in the future. But, this is again a lie. Is refinement really possible? As we all know, the reason why we are not given genuine universal suffrage this time is due to national security consideration. So, can we disregard national security consideration five years later? Will such problem disappear 10 years later? When will such problem disappear? When the CPC ends the one-party rule and evolve towards democracy, we will no longer have any national security problem. So long as there is one-party rule and the CPC does not have trust in Hong Kong people, it will insist on the existence of national security problem. If it keeps using national security issue as an excuse, how can we say for sure the issue will disappear five years later? Will the national security issue disappear or will the elections be refined? Either will give the same outcome. This is basically attributable to the differences between the two systems. We therefore hope that members of the public would understand why we cannot "pocket it first". Thank you, President. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, this year is the "Year of Constitutional Reform", which is equivalent to the "Year of Politics". In this "Year of Politics", it is very normal that people argue about issues relating to constitutional reform. That was the case in 2005 and 2010, and this year will not be an exception. Many pan-democratic colleagues have already expressed their views. I will attempt to find out where the problem lies from two perspectives. Just now Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan from the Liberal Party suggested that we can have breakfast, lunch or dinner together and have a nice discussion. Perhaps we may eventually find some common ground during our discussion. Mr WONG Kwok-hing talked about public view. Since over 50% of the people


support the idea of "pocketing the constitutional reform package first", he queried why the pan-democrats are against it. I wish to analyses these two questions and dig out where the problem lies. As we know, Hong Kong's constitutional reform process was activated by the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), followed by the so-called "Five-step Process" of constitutional development. The five steps are, first, submission of a report on the constitutional reform by the Chief Executive to the Central Authorities; second, approval by the Central Authorities; third, endorsement by the Legislative Council; fourth, consent given by the Chief Executive; and fifth, approval by the Central Authorities. Obviously, three main stakeholders are involved in this "Five-step Process", namely, the Chief Executive, the Legislative Council and the Central Authorities. Among these three, the Central Authorities and the Chief Executive seem to have greater power because they have the right of initiation and they can make proposals, determine new systems or make amendments; while the Legislative Council only has the voting right but not the right of initiation. Members can either accept or reject the constitutional reform package in their entirety. Under such circumstances, each of the three stakeholders must respect the other two in order to complete the task. The "Five-step Process" can only be completed if all three stakeholders endorse the package. As pan-democratic Members in this Council, we have a role to play in the third step, that is, endorsement by the Legislative Council. If the pan-democrats do not even hold one third of the votes, they will have no say in respect of the constitutional reform. But we do hold one third of the votes and we have the veto right in the third step, which is provided by the system as well as the NPCSC's decision. This is our right as well as our obligation. What we endorse must be a genuine package desired by Hong Kong people for the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage. What have we, the pan-democratic Members, done and why do people condemn us? Have the Government and the pro-establishment camp turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to what we have done in the past? President, I believe you also know that on 12 April last year, the pan-democratic Members went to Shanghai. Some Members have mentioned this incident just now and berated us for handing out leaflets there. However, as everyone knows, it was the first time that pan-democratic Members could have a formal and open discussion with Central Government officials on constitutional reform. It was a very sensitive moment, and it was not too surprising that pan-democratic Members took some


5867

specific actions at such a sensitive moment. On the whole, pan-democratic Members agreed to stay in Shanghai to reflect public views on the constitutional reform. We had achieved our goal in that visit and discussion. The second occasion was on 18 August last year. Through the arrangement of Chief Secretary Carrie LAM, pan-democratic Members met with ZHANG Xiaoming, head of Beijing's Liaison Office, in four groups. I was in the fourth group and there were six pan-democratic Members in my group. We were originally scheduled to discuss with Mr ZHANG for an hour, but eventually the discussion lasted for one hour 45 minutes, and we spent half of the time discussing national security. To us, that was a new topic. Through the discussion, we could learn more about the Central Government's views and the importance it attached to the issue of national security. At least, in the past, I did not realize the significance of this new issue. In my view, this new issue exists every day, every year and every century. What should we handle this issue? The third occasion was on 21 August when we went to Shenzhen. Despite the short notice, 15 pan-democratic Members went to Shenzhen on behalf of all 23 pan-democratic Members. During the discussion, we spent every minute we had trying to convince the Central Authorities not to impose harsh requirements as those stipulated in the 31 August Decision and allow some room for discussion. Do you think we have not made efforts? Do you think we are not willing to talk to the Central Government? Do you think we have not put forth feasible proposals? It is the Central Government who does not want to discuss with us. Mr WONG Kwok-hing said that public view should be considered, but did the report written by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, the Chief Executive, reflect public views? As the constitutional reform package decided by the NPCSC is different from those put forward by other people, including the one mentioned in Chief Secretary Carrie LAM's report, had the NPCSC taken public views into account in making the decision? On that day, the pro-establishment Members did not utter a word. Why do they fiercely berate the pan-democratic Members now? Is that because we are the pan-democrats while they speak for the Central Government? Mr WONG queried why we do not "pocket it first" since over 50% of the people support the "pocket-it-first" idea. Please also note that over 40% of the people oppose the "pocket-it-first" idea. Pan-democratic Members can only represent the number of people who are represented by some 30% of


seats in this Council. I think that is not enough. In order to truly reflect that 30% to 40% of the public oppose this constitutional reform package, the number of opposing Members should be 28 or 29. President, Carrie LAM said that the package can be improved in the future. Can this be written down in the provisions? Today Carrie LAM makes this statement, but tomorrow Secretary Raymond TAM may say, "Sorry, there is no room for negotiation." One official says that improvement can be made, but another official says that nothing can be changed. Is this be taken as an improvement? This is a conditional improvement, an improvement made without an element of genuine democracy. President, the ball is not in the hands of the pan-democrats but in the hands of the SAR Government and the Central Government. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, when we talk about democracy here, we cannot ignore the history of Hong Kong in the relevant context. Under the British colonial rule, Hong Kong was governed under a highly centralized political system. Back then, the governors of Hong Kong were appointed by Britain and they alone assumed both the executive and legislative powers. In every minute under the colonial rule, the people of Hong Kong never enjoyed the right to democracy. It was not until the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1985 in preparation for Hong Kong's return to China after 140 years of colonial rule that the British Hong Kong Government proposed to launch the first indirect election to the Legislative Council. Before Hong Kong's return to the Motherland in 1997, no one in Hong Kong could ever officially propose to select the Chief Executive or the Governor of Hong Kong through "one person one vote", on the contrary … (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung raised his hand in indication in his seat) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, what is your point? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It seems that a quorum is not present, right?


5869

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NG, please wait a moment. Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NG Leung-sing, please continue with your speech. MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, looking back into history, we see that 30 years ago the Central People's Government agreed to state in the Sino-British Joint Declaration that the Chief Executive was to be selected by election or through consultations held locally in Hong Kong. Later the Central Government incorporated "universal suffrage" in the Basic Law, turning its pledge to the people of Hong Kong on universal suffrage into an enforceable constitutional provision. It is now less than 20 years after the return to China and we can embark on the legislative process for the selection of our Chief Executive by universal suffrage this year. There is no question in the Central Government's sincerity to implement universal suffrage through "one person, one vote" in Hong Kong. If the Members holding the deciding votes vote against the legislation, they will veto the Government's proposal for universal suffrage and all people in Hong Kong will know who are responsible for putting the universal suffrage in Hong Kong to death. The global foundation for universal suffrage is the universality and equality of the votes. According to the studies and records of International IDEA Sweden, there is only the difference between "having universal suffrage" and "not having universal suffrage" but there is nothing as the so-called "genuine universal suffrage" or "false universal suffrage". Only those proposals that are to the opposition's liking will be called "genuine universal suffrage"; otherwise they will be dubbed "false universal suffrage". Democracy means allowing the people to be their own master and the minority is subordinate to the majority. Opinion polls conducted before and after the Occupy movements have shown that over half of the people are in favour of accepting the Government's proposal first. The survey conducted on 11 January by the Public Opinion Programme, the University of Hong Kong (HKU) commissioned by Ming Pao found that 56% people accepted the proposal


put forward by the Government. Again this shows that the majority of the people agree to select the Chief Executive through "one person, one vote". Besides, it also revealed that if the Government promised to further democratize the Chief Executive election in 2022, as many as 64% of the people supported the idea of "pocketing the package first". On 31 January, in the survey conducted on the live broadcast programme "Voices from the Hall" co-hosted by Radio Television Hong Kong and the Public Opinion Programme, HKU, people were asked whether they "supported the Legislative Council's endorsement of the constitutional reform package". It was found that more respondents supported the endorsement of the package than those opposed it. Today's popularity ranking of Members is another proof that most people wish to select the Chief Executive through "one person, one vote" in 2017. Will those Members waving the banner of democracy act as they preach and support democracy with their actions? Whether it is true democracy or bogus democracy, we will soon find out. President, as Chinese people living in the Hong Kong SAR, we should all abide by the Basic Law and our words and deed should also conform to the Chinese Constitution. In accordance with the Chinese constitution, the National People's Congress (NPC) of the People's Republic of China is the highest organ of state power and the Standing Committee of NPC is NPC's permanent body. Under Article 31 of the Constitution, the NPC is empowered to establish the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. It promulgated the Basic Law to prescribe the relevant systems currently instituted in the SAR. Anyone with some common sense politically would know that the Hong Kong SAR is a special administrative region under the unitary state structure of China and it comes directly under the Central People's Government. All functions and powers of the Legislative Council are vested by the NPC through the Basic Law. What status and power has the Legislative Council to question the NPC Standing Committee's decision? On the other hand, Legislative Council Members have openly pledged allegiance to uphold the Hong Kong Basic Law when they assumed office but now they are acting against their words. This is a breach of their oath and they should be condemned. Therefore, any attempt to seek the invalidation of the NPC Standing Committee's decision is incompatible with the law, the reasonableness or fairness without any procedural nor legal basis. I can only describe such actions as downright illegal. With these remarks, I oppose the original motion and amendments.


5871

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, Ms Cyd HO proposes a motion on "Seeking the invalidation of the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and reactivating the constitutional reform process". This can only be viewed as a political statement as what she proposes is downright impracticable. As everyone knows, the implementation of selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in 2017 is the common wish of the Central Government, the Hong Kong SAR Government and the majority of Hong Kong people. The Chief Executive officially initiated the five-step mechanism of the constitutional procedures in July 2014 by submitting a report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) on the amendment to the selection method of the Chief Executive. The NPCSC decided on 31 August that starting from 2017, the election of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong may be implemented by universal suffrage and at the same time it set down a clear framework for the specific package. This is what we usually call the 31 August Decision of the NPCSC (31 August Decision). After the announcement of the 31 August Decision, a series of incidents in society have happened and the views of the public are increasingly polarized. Some people wish to see Hong Kong society foster a consensus as soon as possible and the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage will be implemented in 2017 under the law. They firmly hope that the constitutional reform will not be marking time. Some other people are adamantly against the 31 August Decision. They ask the authorities to first accept a proposal premising on civil nomination, which is not compliant with the Basic Law; while some even demand that the whole process be terminated and started afresh. Some people holding such views later initiated the illegal occupation movement which lasted 79 days. Such moves do not help take the constitutional development forward. Instead, they will only undermine the mutual respect and trust among people holding different views. Those occupiers of the streets openly assaulted the rule of law and seriously disrupted social order. At the same time, pan-democratic Members have also launched an all-out non-cooperation movement and filibustering, resulting in a substantial backlog of outstanding subjects relating to public works, the economy and people's livelihood. Against the background of such a dire political situation in Hong Kong, the SAR Government launched the second round of public consultation on the


selection method of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage in January this year according to the "Five-step Process". It is a shame that pan-democratic Members not only boycott the consultation but even threat to veto any proposals on constitutional reform formulated according to the 31 August Decision. The proposals in the original motion and the amendment are an indication that the opposition Members are afraid of the legitimacy of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong once he is selected by universal suffrage and hence they try every means and find every excuse to oppose the proposal on universal suffrage put forward by the SAR Government. The motion claims that the people of Hong Kong have clearly expressed their opposition to the constitutional reform package formulated under the 31 August Decision framework as the package throttles the room for implementing genuine universal suffrage and allows the nominating committee to screen persons seeking nomination as Chief Executive candidates in accordance with the will of Beijing, thereby reducing all voters in Hong Kong to voting tools. I think that such political slogans will not help take the universal suffrage forward. Besides, claims such as genuine universal suffrage or international standards are paradox. There is no such thing as genuine or false universal suffrage. If the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage can be implemented successfully in Hong Kong in 2017, 5 million eligible voters will be able to select the Chief Executive through "one person, one vote", which is a tremendous step forward compared with the selection of the Chief Executive by the 1 200-strong Election Committee. There have never been any so-called generally applicable international standards for universal suffrage. In the case of Hong Kong, the process must also be in accordance with the constitutional position of Hong Kong, the Basic Law, as well as the actual situation in Hong Kong, and the process should be implemented in a gradual and orderly manner to achieve the aim of universal suffrage. President, the 31 August Decision is a solemn guideline and it has its constitutional status. To lightly request for its amendment or invalidation is apparently unrealistic. Any changes to the selection method of the Chief Executive of Hong Kong have to undergo the entire "Five-step Process" which should not be aborted halfway or reactivated lightly. Besides, there is not enough time to start the process afresh. I hope that the pan-democratic Members will put aside their prejudice and listen more to the people's views.


5873

President, what views do the people have about this issue? According to the survey conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong commissioned by Ming Pao, 56% of the respondents thought that the Legislative Council should endorse the constitutional reform package. Recently, I have attended the seminars held by some organizations of the commercial and industrial sector and also the professional sector. I find that most members of these sectors hope that the Chief Executive can be selected by universal suffrage in 2017 and they also expect Legislative Council Members to support the passage of the constitutional reform package. Many professionals say that at present society is tangled up in unnecessary rows over the constitutional reform or remains at the stage of chanting empty slogans and some people even make unrealistic demands. That does not help take forward the constitutional reform. On the contrary, Members should seize this opportunity and focus on the discussion on finding feasible common ground and seeking a consensus on matters such as whether the number of nominations needed by each candidate can be lowered to 100 if future candidates for the Chief Executive are required to obtain named nominations from the Nomination Committee; whether the number of nominations obtained by each candidate should be capped, at 200 for example, to give a larger number of interested persons the chance to run in the election; and how the Government can provide a suitable platform to allow all eligible runners to explain their political platforms and ideals to enhance the transparency of the election. To have a successful selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage, the discussion on the specific selection method such as these is essential. President, I myself and my colleagues from the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong all support the endorsement of the constitutional reform package formulated within the framework of the Basic Law and the Decision of the NPCSC and we call upon all sectors to focus on the discussion of the specific method for selecting the Chief Executive by universal suffrage with all their mind and strength. We oppose the original motion and the amendment. We hope that Legislative Council Members of various political parties and groups will eventually vote for the constitutional reform package according to the wishes of the general public in Hong Kong to give the people the chance to select the Chief Executive by means of "one person, one vote" in 2017. President, I so submit.


MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, at the beginning of the Occupy movement, some members of the community thought that they might take advantage of Occupy Central to threaten the Central Government and the SAR Government, and to strive for political concessions. Therefore they made unrealistic demands which did not comply with political ethics and the Basic Law, such as the invalidation of the decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) and civic nomination. However, having learnt lessons from the Occupy movement which lasted more than two months, more and more people questioned the effectiveness of such a protest strategy. Recent polls showed that over 50% of Hong Kong people want our constitutional development to move forward, and they consider that the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage should first be implemented and then optimized. The proportion of people holding this view is gradually becoming larger. In that case, I am sorry that Ms Cyd HO has still asked for the invalidation of the decision of the NPCSC since invalidating the decision of the NPCSC and reactivating the constitutional reform consultation process are totally unrealistic. Our democratic development cannot be promoted and will not be successful. Knowing that the road is blocked, Ms HO and some Members of this Council still hold on to their views and continue to stand on the moral high ground shouting political slogans. This will only lead universal suffrage to a dead end, and cause Hong Kong people to miss the opportunity to elect the Chief Executive by "one person, one vote" universal suffrage. President, the local and international communities are well aware of the position and the principles of the Central Government insofar as our constitutional reform is concerned. The fact that China allows universal suffrage in the governance of Hong Kong is already a major event in the history of China. This is the first time in more than 60 years that universal suffrage will be implemented under the governance of the People's Republic of China. Indeed, Hong Kong plays a pilot role in the implementation of democracy in China. According to the Chinese Government, the core values include democracy but the security factor has to be considered as well. It is because the Central Government has always maintained that the West has the motives to overthrow the communist regime, and they will take advantage of the freedom and rule of law in Hong Kong to establish anti-China groups and forces. With this concern, the Central Government will not allow universal suffrage to be manipulated, resulting in chaos. It will also disallow a person confronting the Central


5875

Authorities to be elected as the Chief Executive. Therefore, the Central Government made the 31 August Decision so that persons hostile to or confronting the Central Authorities cannot be nominated. China expects Hong Kong to have gradual and orderly democratic development to maintain social balance, and that improvements will be made through continuous implementation, lest Hong Kong should be manipulated by the West or chaos similar to that in Egypt, Ukraine or Thailand might be created. President, the opposition faction in Hong Kong will not consider the historical significance of the implementation of universal suffrage in Hong Kong, and they will not care about China's security concerns. They lack basic respect for the Central authorities and they do not learn to communicate with the Central authorities. They only keep rebuking, demonizing the Central Government and protesting. Naturally, they cannot achieve desirable effects. President, Hong Kong people who are smart and pragmatic understand that if we want our constitutional development to move forward, we must think about and understand the concerns of the Central Authorities, and we must learn to communicate with the Central Authorities; otherwise, universal suffrage would only remain forever at the stage of chanting slogans. President, even at the first stage of the constitutional reform, the opposition faction were unco-operative. Not many opposition Members proactively and positively lobbied the Central authorities and strived for the implementation of a win-win proposal. Instead, they always believed that they were absolutely right and the Central Government and the Hong Kong Government were absolutely wrong. They kept reiterating their positions and they wasted valuable opportunities for communication again and again. Before commencement of the second round consultation, some Members said that they would boycott and oppose it. While the decision of the Central Authorities cannot be shaken by the illegal Occupy Central and civil disobedience, some Members are now blindly boycotting and opposing, and they launched the "non-cooperation movement" to paralyse the Legislative Council and governance, regardless of people's livelihood. Can these desperate repudiating actions really help fight for democracy in Hong Kong? They should not deceive the public anymore! These highly destructive actions will only damage the mutual trust between the Central Authorities and Hong Kong constantly, making the Central Authorities more worried and squeezing the political space in Hong Kong.


President, there is no wonder that when interviewed earlier on her birthday, Mrs Elsie TU, who has always supported democracy, denounced the democratic camp as bogus democrats. She said that those who called themselves democrats were not a bit democratic, and she criticized the democratic camp for their persistent opposition to the Central Authorities in the hope that Hong Kong would not return to the Motherland and the British Government would keep governing Hong Kong. President, the first on-street movement striving for the so-called "genuine universal suffrage" after Occupy Central was held last Sunday but the number of participants was much smaller than expected. In fact, the overall public opinion is clear enough. Members of the public think that extreme confrontation has no future, and more and more people understand that the Decision of the NPCSC can hardly be changed in the short run. In addition, more and more people will think about and choose whether they want the democratic development to mark time or move forward. Do they want to watch television at home in 2017 or vote at polling stations? Members who have the rights to veto can choose not to vote in 2017 but I urge them not to deprive 5 million people of the right to vote. President, if the road to the election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage is blocked, when will there be a chance to reactivate the "five-step process of constitutional development". Promoting our democratic development still has unknown factors and it may take five or 10 years. Politics itself is the art of compromise, and refusing to yield an inch and resorting to total destruction is the most stupid action to take. President, I so submit. SUSPENSION OF MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now declare the meeting suspended until 2.30 pm tomorrow. Suspended accordingly at 9.56 pm.


A1

Appendix I

WRITTEN ANSWER

Written answer by the Secretary for Food and Health to Dr Helena WONG's supplementary question to Urgent Question As regards the prevention and control of infectious diseases, Hong Kong has maintained close contact with the health authorities of the Mainland through the established reporting mechanism, and has exchanges with Guangdong Province regarding the latest influenza surveillance data. According to past experience, the winter influenza season in the southern provinces of the Mainland usually comes later than that of Hong Kong. In the eighth week of 2015, the influenza activity in southern provinces of the Mainland remained at a high level. About three fourths of the viruses detected were influenza B and one fourth were influenza A (H3N2). The influenza activity in the northern provinces has decreased significantly, where both influenza A (H3N2) and influenza B viruses were prevalent. The Centre for Health Protection (CHP) of the Department of Health has also been closely monitoring human cases of avian influenza A in the Mainland. Since 2013 (up to 8 March 2015), 599 human cases of avian influenza A (H7N9) have been reported by the Mainland health authorities in Guangdong (181 cases), Zhejiang (156 cases), Jiangsu (70 cases), Fujian (58 cases), Shanghai (45 cases), Hunan (24 cases), Anhui (24 cases), Xinjiang (10 cases), Jiangxi (nine cases), Shandong (six cases), Beijing (five cases), Henan (four cases), Guangxi (three cases), Jilin (two cases), Guizhou (one case) and Hebei (one case). At least 221 out of the 599 cases were fatal. As regards other human cases of avian influenza A virus, over the past three years, the CHP received notification from the National Health and Family Planning Commission (NHFPC) of one case of H5N1, three cases of H5N6 (including two fatal cases) and three cases of H10N8 (including two fatal cases) (see table below):

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 4 February 2015 A2

WRITTEN ANSWER — Continued Avian influenza A virus Provinces with cases reported Date of report

H5N1 Jiangsu 28 January 2015 H5N6 Yunnan 9 February 2015 H5N6 Guangdong 23 December 2014 H5N6 Sichuan 6 May 2014 H10N8 Jiangxi 13 February 2014 H10N8 Jiangxi 25 January 2014 H10N8 Jiangxi 17 December 2013

We will remain vigilant and work closely with the NHFPC and health authorities of the Mainland to monitor the latest developments.

Documents

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 4 February …€¦ · official record of proceedings wednesday, 4 february 2015 the council met at eleven o'clock members present: the president