OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 15 May 2019 … · 2019-08-02 · OFFICIAL RECORD OF...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 15 May 2019

9715

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 15 May 2019

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT: THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P. PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, G.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 15 May 2019 9716

THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN


9717

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.


THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H. THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN MEMBERS ABSENT: THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG


9719

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, G.B.M., G.B.S., M.H., J.P. FINANCIAL SECRETARY THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS THE HONOURABLE JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY DR RAYMOND SO WAI-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING, AND SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL WONG WAI-LUN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT MR LIU CHUN-SAN, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT MR JOSEPH CHAN HO-LIM, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


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) PAPERS TO BE LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE COUNCIL The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure: Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments Legal Notice No.

Solicitor Advocates (Higher Rights of Audience

Certificates) Rules .............................................. 71 of 2019 Declaration of Increase in Pensions Notice 2019 .......... 72 of 2019 Widows and Orphans Pension (Increase) Notice 2019 .... 73 of 2019

Other Papers

Correctional Services Children's Education Trust Report by the Trustee, Financial statements and Report of the Director of Audit for the period from 1 September 2017 to 31 August 2018 The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 71 of February 2019 Report No. 17/18-19 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments


9721

ADDRESS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Address. The Chief Secretary for Administration will address the Council on "The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 71". The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 71 of February 2019 CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, laid on the table today is the Government Minute responding to Report No. 71 of the Public Accounts Committee ("PAC"). When presenting Report No. 71 to the Legislative Council on 20 February 2019, the Chairman of PAC offered comments on a chapter in the Director of Audit's Report No. 71, namely, "Centre for Food Safety: Management of food safety". I welcome the Report of PAC and am grateful for the time and effort that the Chairman and Members of PAC devoted to examining this subject. The Government accepts PAC's various recommendations and sets out in detail the specific responses of the relevant bureaux and departments in the Government Minute. I would like to highlight the key measures that the Government has taken in the above mentioned policy area and the progress achieved. The Government attaches great importance to safeguarding food safety. We agree that there are certain areas for improvement in the daily operation of the Centre for Food Safety ("CFS") of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, and accept the various recommendations raised by PAC. CFS will continue to discharge its food safety management responsibilities to ensure a stable and sound food safety regime and a high standard of food safety in Hong Kong. CFS has set up a task group, chaired by its Controller, to take forward the recommendations of the Audit Commission and PAC. The task group has commenced comprehensive reviews on CFS' operational manuals and guidelines, staff management and supervision arrangements, training requirements, and manpower and resource requirements. CFS has started to roll out concrete and effective short-, medium- and long-term measures to enhance its effectiveness by phases, including updating the guidelines where there are inadequacies or ambiguities, enhancing training and supervision of the frontline staff and strengthening staff's law enforcement mindset and the keeping of data and records.


In addition, CFS already put in place a dedicated team in end 2017 to look closely at its operational workflow, revamp its information technology ("IT") systems for higher efficiency, and enhance its mode of operation through IT to support the work of its frontline staff and reinforce its capability in food import control, surveillance, incident management, risk assessment and traceability. Phased improvements to the IT systems of CFS will start from end 2019. CFS is making efforts to enhance its risk assessment work. In particular, the second population-based food consumption survey ("FCS") would be expedited for completion by mid-2021. CFS will also start the planning for an FCS on the younger population and the second total diet study. CFS will carry out various risk assessment studies having regard to its competing priorities. CFS reviews the Food Surveillance Programme ("FSP") on an annual basis and from time to time during the year as and when necessary. Under a risk-based approach, CFS has started to reallocate resources for testing relatively low-risk food hazards to testing of other food hazards. It has also increased the proportion of online food samples for microbiological testing. Regarding the collection of food samples under FSP and the delivery of food samples to laboratories for testing, CFS has promulgated new operational guidelines to frontline staff and taken measures to enhance staff supervision and training to ensure their compliance with the guidelines. As regards the management of food incidents and complaints, to minimize the lead time from taking food samples arising from food incidents or complaints to publicizing the testing results of unsatisfactory samples, and to monitor the follow-up actions on food complaints more effectively, CFS has revised the relevant guidelines to enhance the sampling procedures and put in place the compilation of weekly complaint management information for review by its Food Complaint Risk Analysis Panel led by a directorate officer at regular intervals. CFS has also stepped up the monitoring of food recall exercises carried out by food traders, including publishing updated guidelines to specify clearly that food traders must dispose of the recalled foods under the supervision of CFS' staff. A template for food traders to submit regular progress reports and provide the required information has also been formulated. CFS will continue to provide food safety information and advice to the public through various channels. In view of the increasing popularity of social media, CFS has further strengthened the use of its Facebook page and enriched its multimedia materials on the Internet to enhance communication with the public on food safety risks.


9723

President, I would like to thank the Chairman and all Members of PAC again for their effort and guidance. Relevant bureaux and departments will strictly adhere to their responses in the Government Minute and implement improvement measures as soon as possible to ensure the proper use of public funds. Thank you, President. WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS Manpower development of and professional recognition for the information technology industry 1. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, some practitioners of the information technology ("IT") industry (including the communications industry) have relayed that the ever-evolving technological development makes it necessary for them to pursue continuing education through multiple pathways in order to stay competitive. They hope that their professional status can enjoy a higher recognition and their advancement paths can be clearer. In 2015, the Task Force on Information and Communications Technology Professional Development and Recognition ("the Task Force") established under the Digital 21 Strategy Advisory Committee published a report ("the report"), putting forward recommendations on the establishment of a unified framework for IT professional recognition ("the unified framework"). However, the Task Force opined that as members of the industry had not reached a consensus on the implementation details, it would be difficult to implement the unified framework right away. Regarding the manpower development of and the enhancement of practitioners' professional status in the IT industry, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) with regard to the five recommendations made by the Task Force in the report for facilitating various stakeholders in reaching a consensus on the establishment of the unified framework, of the work progress made by the Government in following up such recommendations;

(2) whether it will, in the light of the recommendations of the report,

formulate afresh a long-term plan for the manpower development of the IT industry, with a view to enhancing the recognition for and


professional status of the practitioners; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will follow up the matters relating to the establishment of

the unified framework, including:

(i) enhancing the proposed framework put forward by the Task Force by drawing reference from international practices and consulting afresh the practitioners in the industry in this regard; if so, of the work schedule (including the target time for completion of the relevant work);

(ii) exploring ways to introduce flexibility to the unified

framework to dovetail with the changes in the market's demand for IT professional skills and to encompass novel modes of continuing education so as to ensure that the framework can keep abreast of the time; and

(iii) consulting the business sector afresh on the unified

framework, and launching mitigation measures to assist small and medium enterprises in coping with the issue of increase in operating costs that might arise from the unified framework?

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, a consolidated reply to the three-part-question is set out below. The Task Force on Information and Communications Technology ("ICT") Professional Development and Recognition ("Task Force") under the then Digital 21 Strategy Advisory Committee was set up by the Government in 2012 to conduct research on establishing a unified professional recognition framework for local ICT professionals ("the Proposed Framework"). In its report released in September 2015, the Task Force pointed out that as the industry and public had not reached a general consensus on the relevant issues of the Proposed Framework, including the credibility and transparency of the awarding body of the Proposed Framework, impact of the Proposed Framework on the operating costs of small and medium-sized enterprises, whether the introduction of the Proposed Framework would dampen innovation and creativity, and raise the entry barrier for pursuing a career in ICT, etc., it would be very difficult to implement the Proposed Framework. Nowadays, with the rapid development of ICT, the


9725

qualification requirements of ICT practitioners in the industry keep evolving with the emergence of new technologies. This adds to the difficulty in setting up a unified professional recognition framework. As such, the Government currently does not have any plan to further follow up on the establishment of a unified professional recognition framework nor to consult stakeholders again on this subject. In the past few years, the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer ("OGCIO") together with relevant government departments and organizations have implemented numerous measures to nurture ICT talent in the industry with reference to recommendations of the report and the latest development of information technology ("IT") and the Internet economy, details of which are elaborated below:

(a) setting up the "Student IT Corner" website to provide students and parents with IT-related information;

(b) setting up the "IT Career Role Models Platform" to provide students

with information on IT positions and career prospects in different industries;

(c) organizing the annual "Hong Kong ICT Awards" and establishing

the award categories of "Startup Award" and "Student Innovation Award" to recognize local start-ups and outstanding ICT inventions and applications made by students;

(d) implementing the "Enriched IT Programme in Secondary Schools" to

provide funding support for secondary schools to organize various types of IT activities to create more opportunities for students to learn about IT outside the school curriculum with an aim to fostering an IT learning atmosphere in schools and cultivating students' interest in IT;

(e) OGCIO collaborates with the industry and professional bodies to

organize conferences, thematic seminars and workshops to promote professional accreditation in information security and enhance IT practitioners' knowledge and skills in information security;

(f) Cyberport organizes the Digital Tech Internship Programme to

subsidize and arrange local university students to take up internships in renowned overseas, Mainland and local enterprises or start-ups;


(g) the School of Professional and Continuing Education of The University of Hong Kong ("HKU SPACE") launched in 2018 the first part-time Diploma in e-Sports Science programme at Level 3 under the Qualifications Framework. The Open University of Hong Kong and HKU SPACE will launch an e-sports-related Bachelor programme and a full-time Higher Diploma programme in September 2019 respectively;

(h) the Innovation and Technology Commission launched the

"Reindustrialization and Technology Training Programme" in August 2018 to subsidize local enterprises on a 2:1 matching basis for their staff to receive technology training covering different technology areas including IT; and

(i) planning to launch the "IT Innovation Lab in Secondary Schools"

initiative to provide a maximum funding of $1 million to each publicly-funded secondary school in Hong Kong in the three school years from 2019-2020 to 2021-2022 for procuring IT equipment and organizing IT-related extra-curricular activities.

The Caring and Sharing Scheme 2. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, the Government announced in March last year the Caring and Sharing Scheme, under which each eligible member of the public would be granted a sum of up to $4,000. The Working Family Allowance Office ("WFAO"), which is responsible for implementing the Scheme, has anticipated that an administrative cost of $300 million will be incurred and the recruitment of more than 700 non-civil service contract staff members is needed for handling the relevant work. It has been reported that while WFAO received a total of over 3.2 million applications when applications closed at the end of last month, it approved only 70 000 applications or so (i.e. 2.2% of the total number of applications) by the beginning of this month. It is estimated that WFAO will take 357 more days to complete the processing of all the applications. Quite a number of members of the public have criticized that this Scheme for cash handout has been administered with surprisingly low efficiency, and is a waste of public money and time. Besides, some of the contract staff members have found it hard to stand the work pressure involved (as each person is required to input the information of more than 200 applications


9727

each day), resulting in an upsurge of resignations, which may possibly cause the time needed for completing the processing of the applications to be lengthened. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has set a deadline for completing the processing of all the

applications; if so, of the deadline, and whether it has assessed if additional staff members have to be recruited, so as to ensure that all applications will be processed by the deadline; if so, of the details; if not, whether it will conduct an assessment immediately;

(2) as there has been an upsurge of resignations of contract staff,

whether it has gained an understanding of the causes, and considered recruiting additional staff so as to share the heavy workload and boost staff morale; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) as it has been reported that some people called upon, on the

Internet, those persons who had been admitted to Hong Kong from the Mainland to study or work (commonly known as "drifters in Hong Kong") to submit their applications regardless of whether they were eligible or not, thereby pushing up the number of applications significantly, whether it has compiled statistics on the percentage of those applications submitted by this kind of ineligible persons in the total number of applications;

(4) as the Caring and Sharing Scheme, originally intended for sharing

the fruit of Hong Kong's economic success with the public, has attracted fierce criticisms from the public, whether the Government has learnt a lesson, and assessed if it has overestimated the administrative efficiency of government departments and the competence of its officials; whether the civil service college, upon its commissioning in future, will cite the implementation of this Scheme as a negative example; and

(5) as it is learnt that earlier on, Mr TANG Lung-wai, a Hong Kong

permanent resident who has been sent to jail in the Philippines, submitted an application through his family members, of the current progress for vetting and approval of his application; whether the Government will approve his application expeditiously, so as to alleviate his imminent financial hardship?


SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President, the Caring and Sharing Scheme, announced by the Government last year, is implemented by the Working Family Allowance Office ("WFAO") of the Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency. The application period of the Scheme is from 1 February to 30 April 2019. WFAO received a total of around 3.44 million applications. In respect of the applications received, WFAO will conduct data matching with relevant government departments, vet the applications against the eligibility criteria and disburse payments to successful applicants. As at 10 May, WFAO has issued acknowledgements to 3.39 million applications and instructed banks to disburse payments and encash cash cheques for about 112 000 successful applications. In consultation with relevant bureaux and departments, my reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) and (2) WFAO aims to complete the processing of all applications by the

end of this year. As at 10 May, about 700 staff were recruited for the implementation

of the Scheme. A total of some 30 staff have resigned so far and the reasons for their resignation are not known. WFAO has not required its staff to fulfil a daily quota of work. WFAO will flexibly deploy its manpower to vet the applications and disburse payments with a view to completing the task properly and expeditiously, as well as review its manpower and staffing requirements from time to time. Additional staff will be recruited as and when necessary.

(3) One of the eligibility criteria under the Scheme is that applicants

must hold a Hong Kong Identity Card as at 31 December 2018. They include new arrivals, but exclude Hong Kong non-permanent residents who have been admitted to Hong Kong to work, study, or receive training and their dependants, and exclude individuals who have entered Hong Kong as visitors. Such information has been published as early as April last year and uploaded onto the website of the Scheme. Upon receipt of the applications, WFAO will conduct data matching with relevant government departments,


9729

including the Immigration Department, to verify the information and ascertain the applicants' eligibility. As it takes time for WFAO to process the applications received, the number of applications submitted by ineligible persons is not available at this stage.

(4) The Government apologizes for the public discontent on the

implementation of the Scheme. As WFAO needs to process and acknowledge a huge number of applications, which involves calculations of tax rebates, rates concessions, etc., it needs time to complete the relevant procedures. Since the launch of the Scheme, the Government has continued to roll out improvement measures to facilitate application submission and payment collection by members of the public.

Although the Scheme is a one-off measure, we will learn from this

experience to strive for improvement. The Civil Service Training and Development Institute will regularly

review the training needs of civil servants and provide appropriate training programmes to help them cope with different challenges in work.

(5) Hong Kong residents who are detained or serving sentences outside

Hong Kong are considered as meeting the requirement of ordinarily residing in Hong Kong under the Scheme as long as they have not emigrated. They are eligible for application if they meet other criteria under the Scheme. We will not discuss any cases in public but WFAO will follow up on and process the applications received as soon as possible.

Traffic noise nuisance caused to residents 3. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Chinese): President, quite a number of Tung Chung residents have relayed to me that there are often heavy vehicles travelling at a high speed on the North Lantau Highway (which has a speed limit of 110 kilometres per hour), causing serious noise nuisance to them. They therefore request the Government to retrofit noise barriers at the relevant road section. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


(1) of the respective names of the expressways in the territory which have currently (i) been installed with and (ii) not been installed with noise barriers, and set out in a table by name of expressway of the road sections which (iii) have been installed with noise barriers and (iv) will be retrofitted with noise barriers in the coming three years;

(2) whether it regularly measured, in the past three years, the traffic

noise levels at the Tung Chung section of the North Lantau Highway; if so, of the approach adopted for the measurement, and the traffic noise levels recorded at different hours; and

(3) whether it will consider retrofitting noise barriers at the Tung Chung

section of the North Lantau Highway or taking other measures, so as to alleviate the traffic noise nuisance caused to Tung Chung residents; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government is committed to mitigating traffic noise impact on members of the public through various means. They include (i) requiring carrying out of noise impact assessments to reduce potential noise problems when planning new developments (such as roads and residential developments); (ii) regulating by law the noise emission levels of vehicles for first registration; and (iii) where practicable and subject to resource availability, resurfacing with low-noise materials and/or retrofitting noise barriers/enclosures on existing roads generating excessive traffic noise. My replies to the questions raised by Mr Holden CHOW are as follows:

(1) (i) Names of expressways which have been installed with noise barriers:

Sha Tin Road (Lion Rock Tunnel Road to Tai Po Road-Sha Tin) Tolo Highway (Tai Po Road-Sha Tin to Lam Kam Interchange) Fanling Highway (Tolo Highway to San Tin Interchange) San Tin Highway (San Tin Interchange to Castle Peak Road-Tam Mei)


9731

Yuen Long Highway (Shap Pat Heung Interchange to Lam Tei Interchange) Tuen Mun Road (Wong Chu Road to Tsuen Wan Road) Sha Tin Wai Road (Flyover and Tate's Cairn Highway, Sha Tin Road to Tolo Highway) Kwun Tong Bypass Island Eastern Corridor North Lantau Highway (Lantau Link Toll Plaza to Tung Chung Eastern Interchange) Tsing Kwai Highway (West Kowloon Highway to Cheung Tsing Tunnel) Tsing Long Highway (North West Tsing Yi Interchange to San Tin Highway)

(ii) Names of expressways which have not been installed with

noise barriers:

Tsuen Wan Road (Tuen Mun Road to Kwai Chung Road) Tai Po Road-Sha Tin (Fo Tan Road to Tolo Highway) Lantau Link (North West Tsing Yi Interchange to Lantau Toll Plaza) Cheung Tsing Highway (Cheung Tsing Tunnel to North West Tsing Yi Interchange)

(iii) Sections of expressways which have been installed with noise

barriers:

Names of Expressways

Road sections installed with noise barriers/ noise enclosures

Sha Tin Road near Pok Hong Estate Tolo Highway from Classical Gardens to Kwong Fuk

Estate; and near Pak Shek Kok Fanling Highway from Pak Wo Road to Po Shek Wu Road;

and near Hong Lok Yuen


Names of Expressways

Road sections installed with noise barriers/ noise enclosures

San Tin Highway near Fairview Park Yuen Long Highway

from Shap Pat Heung Interchange to Lam Tei Interchange

Tuen Mun Road near Tsuen Wan; near Yau Kom Tau; near Sham Tseng; near Angler's Beach; near Tsing Lung Tau; and near Castle Peak Bay

Sha Tin Wai Road

near Shek Mun; and near Shatin Fishermen Village

Kwun Tong Bypass

near Laguna City; near Richland Garden; and near Choi Hung Estate

Island Eastern Corridor

near City Garden; and near Taikoo Shing

North Lantau Highway

near Caribbean Coast; and near Coastal Skyline

Tsing Kwai Highway

near Nam Cheong Estate; near Mei Foo Sun Chuen; and near Lai King Estate

Tsing Long Highway

near Ko Po San Tsuen

(iv) Regarding traffic noise impact of existing roads on

neighbouring residents, it is the Government's policy, where practicable and subject to availability of resources, to study the implementation of direct noise mitigation measures on existing roads generating traffic noise at neighbouring residents at levels exceeding 70 dB(A).(1) Such measures include retrofitting of noise barriers/enclosures, and road resurfacing with low noise materials. Following this policy, the noise barrier retrofitting projects on three existing roads (not expressways) are under construction. For other noise barrier retrofitting projects on expressways, they are currently still in planning stage.

(1) Road traffic noise level is specified in terms of L10(1 hour) which is the noise level

exceeded for 10% of a one-hour period and is generally measured at peak traffic flow. The traffic noise limit of 70 dB(A) for residential premises as stipulated in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines is adopted as the criterion for studying the implementation of noise mitigation measures under existing policy.


9733

(2) When planning the North Lantau Highway and the residential developments in Tung Chung New Town, the Government and developers have based on the maximum projected traffic flow within 15 years after development commencement to assess the traffic noise levels of the North Lantau Highway at nearby residential units and, in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, have proposed appropriate measures to mitigate traffic noise impacts. Therefore, there is no need to conduct regular measurements of traffic noise levels at the Tung Chung section of the North Lantau Highway.

To let the public know about the traffic noise situations of

roads in various districts over the territory (including the North Lantau Highway), the Environmental Protection Department has based on the statistical traffic data published by the Transport Department to estimate the traffic noise regularly. The spatial distributions have been uploaded to the website of the Environmental Protection Department for public reference. As the relevant road traffic noise levels were assessed based on the yearly averaged statistical traffic data, they could better reflect the overall situations than the traffic noise levels measured over certain periods of time.

(3) As mentioned above, the Government, when planning the

Tung Chung New Town, has followed the requirements of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines and the above principles to propose appropriate measures to mitigate traffic noise impacts. Apart from placing noise tolerant uses (such as shopping malls and parks) in between the residential developments (such as the current Coastal Skyline, Caribbean Coast and Seaview Crescent) and the North Lantau Highway in order to increase the buffer distances as far as possible, thereby reducing the potential traffic noise impacts on residential developments, the Government also proposed to pave the North Lantau Highway with low-noise material and to construct noise barriers along the road sections in front of the current Coastal Skyline and Caribbean Coast to reduce traffic noise impacts on these two residential developments.


Furthermore, in planning for the residential developments in the Tung Chung New Town, the developers have assessed the traffic noise levels at the residential units and adopted practicable designs and measures to further mitigate the traffic noise impacts, and properly address the traffic noise problems in accordance with the requirements of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines. Since the traffic noise mitigation measures proposed at the planning stages have been progressively implemented, there is no need to retrofit additional noise barriers or enclosures on the above road sections.

Assisting Hong Kong-owned manufacturing enterprises in upgrading and restructuring their plants 4. MR JIMMY NG (in Chinese): President, some members of the manufacturing industry have relayed to me that in recent years, they have planned to upgrade and restructure their plants located in the Mainland cities within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"), but they have encountered quite a number of difficulties in raising the funds needed. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows the details of the loans provided by the banks in Hong Kong, in each of the past five years, for Hong Kong-owned manufacturing enterprises in respect of their plants located in the Mainland cities within the Greater Bay Area, including (i) the number of cases, (ii) the number of enterprises, as well as (iii) the total, median and average amounts of loans, together with a tabulated breakdown by the (a) name of bank and (b) city where the plant was located; and

(2) whether it will introduce more targeted measures to assist such

Hong Kong-owned manufacturing enterprises in upgrading and restructuring their plants, as well as seizing the opportunities brought about by the development of the Greater Bay Area; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?


9735

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, our reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:

(1) HKMA does not have statistics on the loans provided by the banks in Hong Kong for Hong Kong-funded manufacturing enterprises in respect of their plants located in the Mainland cities within the Greater Bay Area.

(2) The Hong Kong SAR Government has been assisting enterprises in

upgrading and restructuring their operations through various means. The Government launched the Dedicated Fund on Branding,

Upgrading and Domestic Sales ("BUD Fund") in June 2012 to assist enterprises in enhancing competitiveness and furthering business and brand development in the Mainland. Enterprises can apply for the funding support of BUD Fund to carry out projects to develop brands, upgrade and restructure business operations and promote sales. Allowable project measures may include procuring or leasing of machinery/equipment, producing moulds or samples of new products, etc. Since the launch of the BUD Fund in 2012 and up to the end of March 2019, a total of 1 749 applications were approved under the Mainland Programme of the BUD Fund, involving a total funding amount of about $699.4 million.

To assist Hong Kong enterprises in capturing the opportunities

brought about by the development of the Greater Bay Area, we have implemented enhancement measures in August 2018, including doubling the cumulative funding ceiling for each enterprise for undertaking projects in the Mainland from $500,000 to $1 million. Enterprises responded positively to the enhancement measures. Since the implementation of the enhancement measures and up to the end of March 2019, a total of 857 applications were received under the Mainland Programme of BUD Fund, representing an increase of 100% as compared to the corresponding period in 2017-2018. Three hundred and eighteen of those applications have been approved, involving a funding amount of $183.5 million.


In addition, the HKMC Insurance Limited and Trade and Industry Department have implemented respectively the special concessionary measures under the SME Financing Guarantee Scheme and the SME Loan Guarantee Scheme to assist enterprises in securing loans for acquiring equipment and for general working capital, etc.

At the same time, the Hong Kong SAR Government has launched a

series of publicity efforts to increase understanding in the development of the Greater Bay Area amongst various sectors of society. The Hong Kong SAR Government has set up a dedicated website on the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (<www.bayarea.gov.hk>) and a WeChat official account (WeChat ID: HKCMAB) to provide latest information on the development of the Greater Bay Area, as well as regular updates on policies of Greater Bay Area cities and the work of the Hong Kong SAR Government, with a view to helping enterprises and members of the public understand and take advantage of the development opportunities brought about by the development of the Greater Bay Area.

We will continue with the above work, and review the various

support measures from time to time in order to provide adequate and timely support to enterprises.

Development of the Chinese medicine industry 5. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, to promote the development of the Chinese medicine ("CM"), the Government has allocated $500 million to establish a dedicated Chinese Medicine Development Fund. One of the aims of the Fund is to assist local CM traders in the production and registration of Chinese proprietary medicines. The Government also plans to amend the definition of "proprietary Chinese medicine" in the Chinese Medicine Ordinance (Cap. 549). Regarding the development of the CM industry, will the Government inform this Council:


9737

(1) whether it will amend Cap. 549 to require single CM granules that are supplied to CM practitioners for dispensing a prescription to undergo proprietary CM registration, so as to align the requirements for them with those for compound CM granules and other single CM granules that are sold publicly; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) given that some CM practitioners have pointed out that as various

CMs in a herbal formula, upon being boiled together, may produce new ingredients with therapeutic effects, single CM granules prescribed for the same formulae may not necessarily have the same therapeutic effects, whether the Government knows the reasons why the 18 Chinese Medicine Centres for Training and Research under the Hospital Authority have ceased to prescribe compound CM granules for patients since 1 April last year;

(3) given that the registration requirements of new CM involve

prolonged and costly clinical trials and medicinal tests, and the Hong Kong market is of a small scale, whether the Government with consider discussing with the Mainland authorities the setting up of a mutual recognition system of CM registration between the two places; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) whether it will consider conducting clinical medicinal tests in the

CM hospital upon its commissioning in future, with a view to promoting the development of the CM industry in Hong Kong; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the four parts of the question is as follows:

(1) Currently, products that fall within the definition of proprietary Chinese medicine ("pCm") in the Chinese Medicine Ordinance (Cap. 549) ("CMO") must be registered with the Chinese Medicines Board established under the Chinese Medicine Council of Hong Kong ("CMCHK") before they can be imported, locally manufactured and sold. pCm means any proprietary product:


(a) composed solely of the following as active ingredients:

(i) any Chinese herbal medicines ("Chms"); or (ii) any materials of herbal, animal or mineral origin

customarily used by the Chinese; or (iii) any medicines and materials referred to in

subparagraphs (i) and (ii) respectively; (b) formulated in a finished dose form; and (c) known or claimed to be used for the diagnosis, treatment,

prevention or alleviation of any disease or any symptom of a disease in human beings, or for the regulation of the functional states of the human body.

In general, Chinese medicine ("CM") granules must be registered

with the Chinese Medicines Board before they can be imported, locally manufactured and sold. However, CMO and its subsidiary legislation also exempt some pCms from registration, such as pCms compounded by CM practitioners ("CMPs") for individual patients and pCms manufactured by local manufacturers entrusted by CMPs. CMPs must fulfil their professional responsibility to ensure the safety, quality and efficacy of the compound pCms concerned. On the other hand, single CM granules, when supplied to CMPs for dispensing a prescription to replace any medicinal decoction pieces, fall into the category of Chms specified in Schedule 1 or 2 of CMO, and are subject to the licensing system for CM traders under CMO.

The Department of Health ("DH") has put in place a stringent

regulatory system for Chms and pCms. All registered pCms and Chms listed in the Schedules to CMO are within the scope of DH's market surveillance system. DH conducts regular inspections on licensed CM traders, takes samples of registered pCms (including CM granules) and Chms from wholesalers and retailers for testing as well as investigations and tests proactively. Therefore, pCms that CMPs purchased from pCm wholesalers/manufacturers and Chms that CMPs purchased from Chm wholesalers are regulated and monitored under the existing system.


9739

To provide safe and efficacious CMs for patients, CMPs should source supply from reputable licensed Chms wholesalers, and should not purchase Chms of unknown composition or source. If a CMP has conducted himself in a way which has fallen short of the reasonable standards of conduct expected among his professional colleagues in the course of operating business, it may constitute a professional misconduct, and will be dealt with seriously by the CMPs Board and the Disciplinary Committee of CMPs established under CMCHK.

(2) The Hospital Authority ("HA") has established an open and

transparent tendering mechanism to procure CM products that meet the statutory requirements and the relevant quality standards from the market for patients' use. HA will accept tenders for CM products and consider their tender prices on the conditions that the tenderers concerned as well as their products meet the statutory, safety and quality requirements as stated in the invitation to tender.

In addition, CMPs are required to conform with the CM theories and

clinical situations of the patients concerned in prescribing suitable CM products. At present, processed Chms and CM granules are available in the 18 CM Centres for Training and Research for CMPs to facilitate their provision of appropriate CM services for patients.

As far as the tendering of CM granules for prescription is concerned,

both single CM granules and compound CM granules are among the tender items. The former is a mandatory supply item whereas the latter is optional. Regarding the contract mentioned in the question that has been effective since 1 April 2018, the tenderer selected by HA under the above mentioned tendering mechanism has met the requirements specified in the tender. Compound granular products that are not provided by the successful tenderer are optional supply items.

HA will review tenders for CM products on a regular basis, and will

make timely adjustments in response to the market development and clinical service needs.


(3) Hong Kong and the Mainland implement different registration systems for regulating CM products under their respective legal and statutory regulatory framework. Currently, there is no direct mutual recognition arrangement for product registration between the two places. To further promote and encourage CM development in Hong Kong, the Government will explore with the Mainland on how to facilitate the use of Hong Kong registered pCms in the Mainland. The Government will also encourage, fund and support research, registration and development of CM in Hong Kong through the $500 million CM Development Fund.

(4) Leading and promoting scientific research and development of CM

(including pCms) in Hong Kong is one of the main objectives of the future CM Hospital ("CMH"). CMH will collaborate with the local universities (including the three universities with Schools of CM) and also local or educational institutions in other places to promote and conduct evidence-based clinical scientific research (CM and Integrated Chinese-Western Medicine), in-depth studies on CM theories and research on the clinical application of pCms. Facilities including a Clinical Trial & Research Centre will be set up in the planned CMH for conducting clinical trials at different stages. Supported by clinical services as well as CM and scientific research talent of CMH, the centre will serve as a development platform for research on new pCms and enhancing the treatment efficacy of registered pCms.

Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme 6. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, since 1 January this year, the Government has implemented the Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme ("the Subsidy Scheme") to provide members of the public with subsidies for public transport expenses. The amount of monthly subsidy is set at 25% of the actual public transport expenses after deducting the first $400, subject to a maximum amount of $300. Members of the public may collect the subsidy of the previous month on and after the 16th of each month, and the time limit for collection of the subsidy is three months. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:


9741

(1) of the number of members of the public who collected the subsidies (with a breakdown by the group to which the subsidy amount belongs (each group spanning $100) and their percentages), and the total amount of subsidies involved, in each month since the implementation of the Subsidy Scheme, and the average amount of subsidy received by each person each month;

(2) of the respective numbers of persons who have hitherto not collected

the subsidies for January and February, as well as the respective amounts of subsidies involved;

(3) whether it will include all red minibus and Kaito routes in the

Subsidy Scheme; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and (4) given that according to the results of a questionnaire survey

conducted earlier, half of the respondents received a monthly subsidy of about $100 only (i.e. one-third of the maximum subsidy amount), whether the Government will study if the current threshold of $400 for subsidy collection is too high and the subsidy rate is too low, and whether it will consider relaxing them with a view to increasing the number of beneficiaries and the amount of subsidy they may collect; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government implemented the non-means-tested Public Transport Fare Subsidy Scheme ("the Scheme") on 1 January 2019 to relieve the fare burden of commuters who travel on local public transport services for daily commuting and whose public transport expenses are relatively high. My reply to the various parts of Mr CHAN Hak-kan's question is as follows:

(1) Based on the actual public transport expenses of commuters under

the Scheme, the amounts of subsidy for January, February and March 2019 are about $185.7 million, $120.9 million and $181.8 million respectively. It is believed that the smaller amount of subsidy in February as compared to that in January is attributable to the Lunar New Year holidays as well as fewer calendar days and working days in February. The distribution of the subsidy amount


for beneficiaries from January to March is at Annex. The number of beneficiaries in the first three months is around 2.35 million, 1.94 million and 2.36 million respectively, and the average amounts of subsidy for each beneficiary in the first three months are around $79, $62 and $77 respectively.

(2) As at 12 May, there are about 330 000 commuters who have not yet

collected their subsidy for January, involving a subsidy amount of around $15 million. Separately, there are about 320 000 commuters who have not yet collected their subsidy for February, involving an amount of $12 million.

Having regard to that during the initial stage of the implementation

of the Scheme, some members of the public may not be fully familiar with the Scheme's operation and therefore may have missed the subsidy collection period, the Government will introduce a three-month temporary special arrangement to allow those who have not collected their subsidies for January to March 2019 within the subsidy collection period to apply within one month from the day following the expiry of the subsidy collection period for claiming the expired subsidies through the Scheme hotline (2969 5500). Generally speaking, the Scheme hotline staff will be able to confirm at once whether there is uncollected subsidy and the relevant subsidy amount. Upon confirmation of the application, such members of the public can credit the expired and uncollected subsidy to their Octopus through various subsidy collection channels from the 16th day of the month following the date of the application. The expired subsidy is valid for collection within three months.

(3) The Scheme covers the Mass Transit Railway, franchised buses,

green minibuses, ferries and trams, as well as designated routes of red minibuses, Kaitos, non-franchised buses providing residents' services ("RS") and employees' services ("ES") approved by the Transport Department ("TD").

Operators of RS, ES, red minibuses and Kaitos must observe the

basic requirements (such as that the operator must be a legal entity holding a business registration; the vehicles/vessels concerned must


9743

be installed with the Octopus payment system; and details of the routes participating in the Scheme must be registered with TD, etc.) before submitting applications to TD. The operators must also undertake to comply with a set of prescribed operational requirements. For the proper use of public funds and risk management, TD will carefully scrutinize each application to ensure that the operator complies with the above operational requirements and TD can take appropriate monitoring measures effectively before approval is given to include the routes concerned under the Scheme.

The Government welcomes and encourages operators of the above

four modes of public transport services to join the Scheme. In fact, TD has been maintaining close communication with operators who are interested in joining the Scheme through meetings and telephone communication, answering their enquiries in detail and providing them with assistance where necessary. TD will continue to receive and process applications for joining the Scheme from operators of the above four modes of public transport services, so as to benefit more passengers.

To facilitate more operators joining the Scheme, the Octopus Cards

Limited has been offering special concessions to operators which apply for joining the Scheme for the first time and use the Octopus payment system. They can procure the Octopus processors and other relevant devices and services at discounted prices. If the operators choose the rental option of Octopus processors, the Octopus Cards Limited has offered rent-free concession for the first year.

(4) The Government will continue to closely monitor the Scheme's

implementation to ensure its continuous and smooth operation, and will commence the first review of the Scheme around a year after the Scheme's implementation (i.e. early 2020) to examine its effectiveness, impacts on the travelling patterns of commuters and the overall strategic arrangement of public transport services, as well as its financial implications having regard to actual data.


Annex

Distribution of the Amount of Public Transport Fare Subsidy from January to March 2019

January 2019

Subsidy Amount Number of Beneficiaries (%) $0.1 to $100.0 1 667 000 (70.8%) $100.1 to $200.0 514 000 (21.8%) $200.1 to $300.0 173 000 (7.4%) Total 2 354 000 (100%) February 2019

Subsidy Amount Number of Beneficiaries (%) $0.1 to $100.0 1 553 000 (80.4%) $100.1 to $200.0 314 000 (16.2%) $200.1 to $300.0 66 000 (3.4%) Total 1 933 000 (100%) March 2019

Subsidy Amount Number of Beneficiaries (%) $0.1 to $100.0 1 691 000 (71.7%) $100.1 to $200.0 518 000 (22.0%) $200.1 to $300.0 149 000 (6.3%) Total 2 358 000 (100%) Land supply options recommended by the Task Force on Land Supply 7. MR ABRAHAM SHEK: President, the Government has fully accepted the eight land supply options that should be accorded priority studies and implementation as recommended by the Task Force on Land Supply. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the specific implementation plan (including the timetable) in respect of each of those eight recommended land supply options?


9745

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT: President, the Government announced its full acceptance of the recommendations tendered by the Task Force on Land Supply ("TFLS") on land supply strategy and eight land supply options worthy of priority studies and implementation in a detailed response on 20 February 2019. As stated in the paper submitted to the Legislative Council (DEVB(PL-CR) 13/2006) on even date, the Government will implement a number of specific measures to take forward the eight land supply options recommended by TFLS. Details of the latest implementation plan and timetable are set out at Annex.

Annex

Implementation Plan and Timetable for the Eight Land Supply Options Land Supply Option Implementation Plan and Timetable Expediting brownfield development

The Government will continue to take forward development of 340 hectares of brownfields through planned New Development Area ("NDA") projects in Kwu Tung North/Fanling North ("KTN/FLN"), Hung Shui Kiu ("HSK") and Yuen Long South ("YLS"). For the New Territories ("NT") North involving 200 hectares of brownfields, the Government will commence the planning and engineering study for Phase One of NT North covering the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node (with 65 hectares of brownfields) in the third quarter of 2019. For the remaining 760 hectares of brownfield sites that are not at the moment covered by the said current or proposed NDAs, the Planning Department will commence a study in mid-2019 to assess their development potential and prioritize those sites identified with greater development potential for follow-up study by relevant departments.

Unleashing development potential of private agricultural land in NT

The Government is in the process of drawing up specific criteria and other implementation details of the Land Sharing Pilot Scheme ("LSPS"), with a view to unlocking privately owned agricultural lots in NT for both public and private housing development in the short-to-medium term. Details include the basic requirements which must be fulfilled by the applications, work flow in vetting


Land Supply Option Implementation Plan and Timetable applications including alignment with existing statutory procedures and land administration regime, as well as the relevant advisory set-up for LSPS and its operational arrangements (including the mechanism for declaration of interest and disclosure arrangement). The Government will later brief the relevant panel of the Legislative Council and professional sectors on the proposed arrangements and listen to their views, and submit the proposed arrangements to the Chief Executive in Council for approval in due course, with a view to inviting applications in the second half of 2019.

Development of the 32 hectares of land east of Fan Kam Road of Fanling Golf Course for the purpose of housing development

The Government will commence a detailed technical study in the second half of 2019 to ascertain the highest flat yield attainable on the 32 hectares of land within the short-to-medium term; assess the scope of infrastructural works required to support such development; identify environmental, ecological and other constraints and formulate mitigation measures to contain any identified impacts to within acceptable limits; and come up with an implementation plan with timing and costs. The Government aims to complete the detailed technical study by early 2021.

Expediting studies on the 1 000-hectares artificial islands in the Central Waters

The Government consulted the Legislative Council Panel on Development in March 2019 on the funding application for the studies related to artificial islands in the Central Waters and obtained its support. The Government will submit funding application to the Finance Committee ("FC"), with a view to commencing the studies in the second half of 2019.

Expediting studies on near-shore reclamation projects including Lung Kwu Tan, Sunny Bay and Siu Ho Wan

Regarding Lung Kwu Tan, in order to holistically replan the land uses of the entire coastal area of Tuen Mun West to enhance its integrated development, the Government will take forward the study on Lung Kwu Tan reclamation and that on the replanning of the River Trade Terminal site and its coastal area in one go. The Government plans to


9747

Land Supply Option Implementation Plan and Timetable submit funding application to the Legislative Council in the second half of 2019. Subject to FC's funding approval, the study is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2020. Regarding Sunny Bay, the Government plans to submit funding application to the Legislative Council in the second half of 2019 to conduct the planning and engineering study. Subject to FC's funding approval, the study is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2020. The reclamation at Siu Ho Wan is a road project mainly for the construction of Road P1 running parallel to the North Lantau Highway. The Government plans to submit funding application to the Legislative Council in the second half of 2019 to conduct an engineering study on Road P1 (Tai Ho―Sunny Bay Section). Subject to FC's funding approval, the study is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2020.

Continuing cavern and underground space development and studies

Regarding cavern development, the Government is pursuing relocation of the following four Government facilities to caverns as pilot projects: i. Sha Tin Sewage Treatment Works ("STSTW"):

Investigation and design works are being completed in phases starting from 2017-2018. Stage 1 site preparation and main tunnel construction works commenced in February 2019. The Government will commence in due course a planning and engineering study for the existing STSTW site of about 28 hectares to be vacated, including public consultation on future land uses of the site.

ii. Diamond Hill Fresh Water and Salt Water Service

Reservoirs ("DHSRs"): The investigation study, design and associated site investigation works commenced in end 2018. The Government will


Land Supply Option Implementation Plan and Timetable conduct a planning and engineering study within

2019 to look into the future land uses of the existing DHSRs site of about 4 hectares to be vacated and conduct public consultation in due course.

iii. Sai Kung Sewage Treatment Works and Sham Tseng

Sewage Treatment Works: Relevant feasibility studies are ongoing. The Government will make reference to the public views on these two relocation projects and the preliminary development schemes for their vacated sites that total about 3 hectares, as well as the results of the relevant technical assessments, to explore the feasibility of the projects.

Besides, the Government commenced in March 2019 a planning and engineering feasibility study for Strategic Cavern Areas at Lantau, Tsing Yi or other suitable locations to facilitate future cavern developments. Regarding underground space development ("USD"), the Government is undertaking studies on USD in four selected strategic urbans areas, viz. Tsim Sha Tsui West, Admiralty/Wan Chai, Causeway Bay and Happy Valley. In light of the relevant technical assessments and the public views received in the Stage 1 public engagement completed in February 2017, the Government is formulating suitable conceptual USD schemes for areas with development potential. We will consult the public and stakeholders on the findings together with the conceptual schemes in the upcoming Stage 2 public engagement exercise. The Government's target is to complete the study substantially in mid-2020.

Pressing ahead with the NDA projects

The Government will continue to press ahead with the implementation of the plans for the KTN/FLN and HSK NDAs, as well as the YLS Development. The Chief Executive in Council has authorized the land resumption and infrastructural works for the first phase of KTN/FLN NDA (with the whole NDA involving 71 800 housing


9749

Land Supply Option Implementation Plan and Timetable units). With FC's approval for the relevant funding applications on 3 May 2019, the land resumption and infrastructural works for the first phase of KTN/FLN NDA will commence in the second half of 2019, enabling first population intake for private housing in 2023-2024 and first population intake for public housing in 2026-2027. The Government will submit funding application to the Legislative Council for the main works of the first phase as well as the detailed design of the second phase of the HSK NDA (with the whole NDA involving 61 000 housing units) in the second half of 2019. The first population intake is currently targeted for 2024. Besides, the recommended outline development plan for the YLS Development (involving 28 500 housing units) was promulgated in August 2017. The relevant study is anticipated to complete in mid-2019. Statutory planning for YLS will start in the third quarter of 2019. As mentioned above, the Government is also proactively studying the early implementation of the development in NT North. The first task is to commence the planning and engineering study for the San Tin/Lok Ma Chau Development Node in the third quarter of 2019. The timing for triggering the detailed studies on the remaining NT North NDAs covering Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling/Hung Lung Hang and Man Kam To will be determined later.

Commencing studies on the River Trade Terminal site and the coastal areas of Tuen Mun

As mentioned above, the Government will carry out planning and engineering study on Lung Kwu Tan reclamation and replanning of the entire coastal area of Tuen Mun West (including the River Trade Terminal site and area in the vicinity). The Government plans to submit funding application to the Legislative Council in the second half of 2019. Subject to FC's funding approval, the study is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2020.


The Government's greening efforts 8. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, in recent years, the Government has been committed to promoting district greening to enhance the liveability of Hong Kong. Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030, published in 2016 by the Development Bureau, mentioned that the Government had developed the Greening Master Plans ("GMPs") for the urban areas and completed the recommended greening works, and it had been progressively extending the GMP initiative to the districts in the New Territories, including Tsuen Wan, Kwai Tsing, Islands District, Tai Po and North District. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the current greenery coverage and green space per capita in Hong Kong;

(2) of the total number of trees and shrubs planted in the urban and

rural areas in each of the past five years by the various government departments (with a breakdown by District Council district); the carbon dioxide in tonnes that could be absorbed by those trees and shrubs each year and its percentage in the total carbon emission of Hong Kong;

(3) of the total expenditure and a breakdown of such expenditure

incurred in each of the past five years by the various government departments on the management and maintenance of the trees and shrubs in the urban and rural areas;

(4) of the respective numbers of greening works implemented in each of

the past five years by the various government departments for the buildings under their management, and set out in a table the details of such works (including (i) the name of the building, (ii) the District Council district in which the building was located, (iii) the type of the works (e.g. roof greening, vertical greening, sky garden, terrace planting, etc.), (iv) the greening area, (v) the expenditure on the works, (vi) the annual expenditure on maintenance and (vii) the annual expenditure on repairs); and


9751

(5) of the latest implementation progress of the GMPs for the New Territories; when the relevant greening works are expected to commence and complete; whether the authorities have provided guidelines on the planning, design and implementation of such works; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, urban greening will not only beautify the environment, but will also help to moderate temperature and improve air quality. The Government has been incorporating quality landscape and greening in public works projects to make Hong Kong more liveable. Apart from the implementation of the Greening Master Plans ("GMPs"), public works projects are required to incorporate greening elements in planning and development stages. For example, new government building projects should have greening measures on 20% to 30% of the site area (including roof greening and vertical greening), new at-grade road projects should allow for space for quality greening and landscape works, and soft landscape provisions should be integrated in the highway structure projects to enhance our street environment. The reply to Mr Kenneth LEUNG's five-part question is as follows:

(1) Around 78% of Hong Kong's total land area is vegetated,

i.e. covered under woodlands, shrublands and grasslands. The Government has not done any calculation on green space per capita.

(2) The total number of trees and shrubs planted by the Government in

the urban and rural areas in the past five years is shown at Annex 1. Statistics on planting are not kept on District Council district basis. As calculated by the Environmental Protection Department in 2018 in accordance with the methodologies specified in the guidelines published by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the total greenhouse gas ("GHG") uptake by carbon pools of woodlands, shrublands and grasslands in Hong Kong in


2016 was 454 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which accounted for about 1% of the total GHG emissions in Hong Kong. The Government has not compiled GHG uptake by the plants planted in the past five years.

(3) Managing and maintaining the trees and shrubs on Government land

and at government facilities is part and parcel of the regular duties of various departments, which are discharged with their overall resources. There is no separate expenditure breakdown for the management and maintenance of trees and shrubs.

(4) The greening works implemented on the government buildings in the

past five years are set out at Annex 2. Greening works is an integral part of a building project. The expenditure on maintenance and repairs of the greening works is also part of the overall expenditure on building maintenance and repairs. Separate breakdown is not available.

(5) The greening works under GMPs for the New Territories ("NT")

Southeast (Sha Tin and Sai Kung Districts) and NT Northwest (Tuen Mun and Yuen Long Districts) were completed in October 2017. The Civil Engineering and Development Department is finalizing the GMPs in NT Southwest (Tsuen Wan, Kwai Tsing and Islands Districts) and NT Northeast (Tai Po and North Districts), and will seek funding approval from the Legislative Council Finance Committee in 2019, with a view to commencing the works in 2020, which will take about three years.

In planning and designing GMPs, departments have followed the

technical circulars and guidelines promulgated by the Development Bureau, including adoption of the "Right Tree Right Place" principle, use of the "Street Tree Selection Guide" in selecting suitable plant species which echo GMP greening themes of the districts and enhancing vegetation diversity.


9753

Annex 1

Total Number of Trees and Shrubs Planted in the Urban and Rural Areas in the Past Five Years

(2014 to 2018)

Year Urban Area Rural Area Total

Trees Shrubs Trees Shrubs Trees Shrubs 2014 101 119 4 240 497 681 559 983 603 782 678 5 224 100 2015 32 891 3 453 875 414 364 807 479 447 255 4 261 354 2016 21 548 4 098 474 433 721 1 103 279 455 269 5 201 753 2017 63 649 4 596 051 398 105 1 605 775 461 754 6 201 826 2018 7 010 4 328 208 408 310 917 052 415 320 5 245 260

Annex 2

Greening Works Implemented on Government Buildings

2014

District Building Name Work Type

Greening Area (sq m)

Expenditure ($M)

Southern Stanley Prison―Dog Kennel Complex

Roof Greening

270 0.36

Eastern Clementi Secondary School Roof Greening

918 1.70

Sham Shui Po

Government Dockyard at Stonecutters Island

Roof Greening

200 0.27

Stonecutters Island Sewage Treatment Works

Roof Greening

498 0.72

Cheung Sha Wan Estate Roof Greening

430 1.10

Kowloon City

Construction of an Annex Building at the Ko Shan Theatre

Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

1 294 3.6


2014



Expenditure ($M)

Construction of Local Open Space at Chung Yee Street, Kowloon City District

Vertical Greening

165 0.04

Kai Tak Development―Stage 2 Infrastructure Works at North Apron Area―Kai Tak No. 5 Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

350 0.51

Kowloon Bay Sewage Interception Station and Pumping Station

Roof Greening

1 934 *

Wong Tai Sin

Lung Cheung Government Secondary School

Roof Greening

600 0.70

Wong Tai Sin Government Primary School

Roof Greening

80 0.40

Mei Tung Estate Roof Greening

470 *

Sai Kung District Open Space, Sports Centre and Library in Area 74, Tseung Kwan O


2 356 6.33

Indoor Velodrome-cum-Sports Centre

Podium Greening

2 152 *

North Sheung Shui Government Secondary School

Roof Greening

140 0.19

Fanling Government Secondary School

Roof Greening

370 0.56

Tai Po Shuen Wan Stormwater Pumping Station

Roof Greening

580 0.79

Yuen Long

Open Space in Area 117, Tin Shui Wai

Roof Greening

630 0.33

Ping Shan Tin Shui Wai Leisure and Cultural Building

Roof Greening and Podium Greening

986 *


9755

2014



Expenditure ($M)

Tuen Mun

Pillar Point Sewage Treatment Works

Roof Greening

1 921 3.61

Kwai Tsing

Kwai Luen Estate Roof Greening

442 0.70

Note: * Expenditure on maintenance and repairs of greening works is subsumed under the total

expenditure on maintenance and repairs for buildings. Breakdown is not available.

2015



Expenditure ($M)

Southern Hong Kong Southern District Government Primary School―Hall building

Roof Greening

210 0.64

Central and Western

Relocation of Part of the Offices of the Department of Justice to the Main and East Wings of the Former Central Government Offices

Roof Greening

962 4.49

Wan Chai

Wan Chai Development Phase II, Engineering Works―Wan Chai Ferry Pier


57 0.113

Eastern Relocation of the Printing Workshop of Government Logistics Department

Vertical Greening

5 0.12

Community Green Stations (HK East)

Vertical Greening

400 0.14

Redevelopment of Victoria Park Swimming Pool Complex (Phase 2 Works―Site B)

Vertical Greening

178 0.05

North Point Government Primary School―New Block

Roof Greening

85 0.20


2015



Expenditure ($M)

Yau Tsim Mong

Mong Kok Fire Station Roof Greening

740 1.62

Tai Kok Tsui Municipal Services Building

Roof Greening

20 0.05

Tai Kok Tsui Municipal Service Building

Roof Greening

9 2.30

Sham Shui Po

Cheung Shun Street Public Toilet

Vertical Greening

19 0.01

Yee Kuk Street Refuse Collection Point

Roof Greening

82 0.15

Sham Shui Po Nos. 1 and 2 Sewage Screening Plants

Roof Greening

1 200 0.28

Stonecutters Island Sewage Treatment Works (Sludge Dewatering Building)

Roof Greening

986 0.20

Kowloon City

Trade and Industry Tower Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

1 874 4.49

Ma Tau Chung Fire Station Roof Greening

99 0.63

Kwei Chow Street Sitting-out-Area―Toilet Block

Roof Greening

55 0.10

A 30-classroom primary school at Site 1A-4, Kai Tak Development, Kowloon


913 0.25

A 30-classroom primary school at Site 1A-3, Kai Tak Development, Kowloon


548 0.76

Kai Tak No. 4 Dry Weather Flow Interceptor

Roof Greening

32 0.17


9757

2015



Expenditure ($M)

Kwun Tong

Redevelopment of Kwun Tong Swimming Pool Complex and Kwun Tong Recreation Ground

Vertical Greening

186 0.15

Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate Phase 2


630 0.8

Redevelopment of Kwun Tong Swimming Pool Complex and Kwun Tong Recreation Ground

Roof Greening

160 *

District open space adjoining Lower Ngau Tau Kok public housing redevelopment

Roof Greening

290 *

Sai Kung Tseung Kwan O Preliminary Treatment Works

Roof Greening

900 3.17

Tiu Keng Leng Sports Centre Roof Greening, Vertical Greening and Podium Greening

1 493 *

Sha Tin Community Green Stations (NT East)

Vertical Greening

82 0.03

Shui Chuen O Estate Phase 1 Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

1 600 1.501

Shui Chuen O Estate Phase 2 Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

4 767 2.4


2015



Expenditure ($M)

North Sheung Shui Fire Station Roof Greening

305 0.44

North District Government Offices

Roof Greening

350 0.77

Construction of an ambulance depot at Choi Shun Street, Sheung Shui


520 0.77

Cheung Lung Wai Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

1 545 3.17

Yuen Long

Hung Fuk Estate Phase 3 Roof Greening

1 600 2.88

Tuen Mun

Custom and Excise Training School

Roof Greening

150 0.30

Disciplined services quarters in Fu Tei, Tuen Mun


215 0.38

Pillar Point Sewage Treatment Works

Roof Greening

237 0.44

T․PARK Roof Greening

12 154 *

Islands Hei Ling Chau Correctional Institution, 18C Workshop

Roof Greening

120 0.72




9759

2016



Expenditure ($M)

Central and Western

Macau Ferry Terminal―outer pier

Roof Greening

990 1.86

Wai Chai Hennessy Road Government Primary School (Causeway Bay)

Vertical Greening

40 0.06

Happy Valley Underground Stormwater Storage Scheme

Roof Greening

1 010 1.30

Happy Valley Recreation Ground

Roof Greening

843 *

Eastern Reprovisioning of Cape Collinson Crematorium

Roof Greening

1 110 2.90

Shau Kei Wan Preliminary Treatment Works

Roof Greening

50 *

Wa Ha Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

2 393 1.8

Yau Tsim Mong

Mong Kok District Police Headquarters and Mong Kok Police Station

Roof Greening

570 1.25

Reprovisioning of Yau Ma Tei Police Station


1 170 2.82

Reprovisioning of Yaumatei Specialist Clinic at Queen Elizabeth Hospital


1 087 1.69

Hung Hom Bay Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

290 *


2016



Expenditure ($M)

Sham Shui Po

West Kowloon Law Courts Building


1 912 5

Kowloon Technical School Vertical Greening

155 1.80

Stonecutters Island Sewage Treatment Works (Main Pumping Station)

Roof Greening

1 190 2.00

So Uk Estate Phase 1 Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

2 525 2.45

Kowloon City

Ma Tau Chung Government Primary School

Vertical Greening

13 0.20

Kwei Chow Street/Yut Yat Street Sitting-out Area

Roof Greening

31 0.40

Wong Tai Sin

Po Kong Village Road Sports Centre

Roof Greening

100 *

Kwun Tong

Kwun Tong Intermediate Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

105 *

Lei Yue Mun Estate Phase 3 Roof Greening

600 1.20

Sai Kung Redevelopment of Fire Services Training School


9 520 14.92

Tiu Keng Leng Public Library Roof Greening

1 070 *

Sha Tin Sports centre, community hall and district library in Area 14B, Sha Tin


1 965 4.29


9761

2016



Expenditure ($M)

Lok Wo Sha Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

85 *

Chinese University Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

40 *

Shatin Main Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

180 *

Sports centre, community hall and district library in Area 14B, Sha Tin

Roof Greening, Vertical Greening and Podium Greening

2 565 *

North Fanling Government Secondary School


118 0.17

Ping Kong Sewage Pumping Station (Sewerage in Ping Kong, Fu Tei Pai and Tai Wo


105 *

Tai Po Tai Wo Village Sewage Pumping Station (Sewerage in Ping Kong, Fu Tei Pai and Tai Wo)


190 *

Tong Min Tsuen Sewage Pumping Station (Lam Tsuen Valley Sewerage Stage 1) Lam Tsuen Valley Sewage Pumping Station (Lam Tsuen Valley Sewerage Stage 1) Tin Liu Ha Sewage Pumping Station (Lam Tsuen Valley Sewerage Stage 1)

Roof Greening

440 2.57


2016



Expenditure ($M)

Po Heung Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

320 0.33

Yuen Long

Tin Shui Wai Hospital Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

3 660 14.79

Public Library and Indoor Recreation Centre in Area 3, Yuen Long

Roof Greening

1 600 2.99

Lau Fau Shan Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

60 *

Long Ching Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

800 1.1

Tuen Mun

Redevelopment of Tai Lam Centre for Women

Roof Greening

1 467 2.02

Tuen Mun Government Secondary School

Vertical Greening

10 0.05

Tuen Mun Western Trunk Sewer Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

620 *

Tsuen Wan

Tsuen Wan District Headquarters and Divisional Police Station

Vertical Greening

10 0.06

Kwai Tsing

Indoor Recreation Centre in Area 4, Tsing Yi


1 694 0.71


9763

2016



Expenditure ($M)

Sports Centre in Tsing Yi Roof Greening and Podium Greening

1 265 *



2017



Expenditure ($M)

Central and Western

Signature Project Scheme (Central and Western District)―Harbourfront enhancement and revitalization at the Western Wholesale Food Market

Vertical Greening

312 0.28

Central Preliminary Treatment Works

Roof Greening

1 200 0.30

Wan Chai

Wan Chai East Preliminary Treatment Works

Roof Greening

950 0.30

Eastern North Point Preliminary Treatment Works

Roof Greening

790 0.25

Sham Shui Po

Stonecutters Island Sewage Treatment Works (Sludge Dewatering Facility)

Roof Greening

1 074 0.95

Kowloon City

Establishment of the Centre of Excellence in Paediatrics


5 479 16.23


2017



Expenditure ($M)

Two special schools at Sung On Street, To Kwa Wan


781 1.96

King Tai Court Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

949 2.19

Kwun Tong

New EMSD Headquarters Vertical Greening

400 2.20

A school for social development for girls


1 033 0.99

Jordan Valley Park Vertical Greening

33 *

Sha Tin Shui Chuen O Estate Roof Greening

1 800 1.80

Mei Ying Court Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

623 0.9

Mei Pak Court Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

846 *

North A 36-classroom primary school in Area 36, Fanling

Roof Greening

329 2.65

Shek Chung Au Sewage Pumping Station


240 *


9765

2017



Expenditure ($M)

Tai Po Ma Po Mei Sewage Pumping Station (Lam Tsuen Valley Sewerage, Stage 2)


258 0.9

Pak Ngau Shek Sewage Pumping Station (Lam Tsuen Valley Sewerage, Stage 2) She Shan Tsuen Sewage Pumping Station (Lam Tsuen Valley Sewerage, Stage 2) Tai Po Waterfront Park Vertical

Greening 48 0.05

Yuen Long

Long Sin Estate Roof Greening

823 1.23

Improvement to the green roof at Dragon Park

Roof Greening

224 0.70

Tuen Mun

Customs and Excise Training School Dormitory

Roof Greening

88 0.15

Sewerage Pumping Station in Area 54, Tuen Mun


793 1.25

Yan Tin Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

3 044 2.3

Tsuen Wan

Tsuen Wan Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

280 0.16

Sheung Chui Court Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

1 469 0.12


2017



Expenditure ($M)

Kwai Tsing

Portable Emission Measurement System Laboratory for Environmental Protection Department at Tam Kon Shan Road, Tsing Yi

Roof Greening

48 0.12

Ching Tsun Court Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

415 0.64



2018



Expenditure ($M)

Central and Western

Central―Wan Chai Bypass and Island Eastern Corridor Link West Ventilation Building

Roof Greening

1 379 3.38

Wan Chai

Harbour Road Sports Centre Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

661 *

Wan Chai Swimming Pool Vertical Greening

20 *

Eastern Lin Tsui Estate Vertical Greening

45 0.10

Sham Shui Po

Open space at Hing Wah Street West, Sham Shui Po


1 214 0.2

Tai Nan Street Public Toilet Vertical Greening

48 0.43


9767

2018



Expenditure ($M)

A 12-classroom special school for children with mild intellectual disability near Hoi Lai Estate


169 0.23

Stonecutters Island Sewage Treatment Works (Polymer Storage Building)

Roof Greening

630 0.75

Pak Tin Community Centre Roof Greening

250 *

Toilet block of Hing Wah Street West Playground

Roof Greening

96 0.03

Kowloon City

Reconstruction and Upgrading of Kai Tak Nullah―Desilting Compounds

Roof Greening

3 460 3.70

Kai Tak Development―Stage 4 infrastructure works at north apron area of Kai Tak Airport―Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

1 298 0.80

Kai Long Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

651 *

Beacon Hill Fresh Water Pumping Station

Roof Greening

203 *

Wong Tai Sin

Construction of staff quarters for Immigration Department at Heng Lam Street, Kowloon

Roof Greening

100 0.13

Enhancement of leisure facilities of Morse Park

Vertical Greening

50 0.02

Kwun Tong

Hoi Ying Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

608 *


2018



Expenditure ($M)

On Tai Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

1 030 *

Hoi Lok Court Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

608 *

Sai Kung Rank and file quarters for Customs and Excise Department at Yau Yue Wan Village Road, Tseung Kwan O

Roof Greening

168 0.71

Sha Tin Ma On Shan Development―Lok Wo Sha Sewage Pumping Station

Roof Greening

150 0.60

Ka Shun Court Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

357 0.1

North Fanling Government Secondary School

Vertical Greening

20 0.12

Tai Po Nam Wa Po Village Sewage Pumping Station (Tolo Harbour Sewerage of Unsewered Areas Stage 2―Phase 1 and Sewerage in Nam Wa Po and Wai Tau)


188 0.91

Yuen Long

Yuen Long Police Station Vertical Greening

7 0.07

New Territories West Regional Office and Water Resources Education Centre of Water Supplies Department


751 1.93


9769

2018



Expenditure ($M)

Yuen Long Vehicle Depot Roof Greening

260 0.34

Yuen Long Leisure and Cultural Building


1 694 *

Tuen Mun

WEEE․PARK Roof Greening, Vertical Greening and Podium Greening

9 200 *

Ping Yan Court Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

1 345 *

Yan Tin Estate Roof Greening

1 825 2.00

Tsuen Wan

O․PARK Roof Greening, Vertical Greening and Podium Greening

1 260 8.99

Tsuen Wan Sports Centre Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

1 013 *


2018



Expenditure ($M)

Kwai Tsing

Redevelopment of Kwai Chung Hospital―phase 1


580 1.45

Kwai Tsui Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

274 *

Islands Mung Tung Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

3 783 6.6

Ngan Wai Court and Ngan Ho Court


1 263 *

Ying Tung Estate Roof Greening and Vertical Greening

1 357 0.9

Improvement Works at Silvermine Bay Beach, Block A, Mui Wo

Roof Greening

136 0.15

Improvement Works at Silvermine Bay Beach, Block C, Mui Wo

Roof Greening

58 0.08




9771

Provision of training on innovation and technology for working people 9. MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that some experts have pointed out that the development of artificial intelligence ("AI") (including robotics) has made progress in leaps and bounds in recent years, and it is estimated that AI will be competent for performing 50% of the jobs of human beings in 10 years from now. As such, working people need to receive retraining to meet the manpower needs of the new era. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the Human Resources Planning Commission, chaired by the Chief Secretary for Administration, has initially examined and discussed the impacts of automation on human resources and the labour market, whether the Government will conduct an in-depth study on the subject and submit a report; if so, of the timetable; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) given that in Singapore, a trades union has, since 2017, partnered

with a tertiary institution there to provide classroom and online courses on financial technologies ("Fintech") for local professionals, managers and executives, whether the Government will draw reference from such an initiative and help the local banking practitioners keep abreast of the latest Fintech knowledge; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) given that the Government introduced the "Reindustrialization and

Technology Training Programme" in August last year to encourage enterprises to arrange technology training for their staff, whether applications from the financial industries (including the banking sector) have been received since the Programme was launched; if so, of the number of such applications approved; if not, whether the Government has identified the causes for not receiving any application from such industries; and

(4) as it has been reported that a multinational computer technology

enterprise opened an AI school in Paris last year to provide a free-of-charge seven-month technology training course and a one-year internship to enable the local working people to change their career paths, whether the Government will draw reference from such an initiative and invite multinational computer technology


enterprises to organize in Hong Kong free training courses on automation, AI or Fintech, etc. for local working people; if so, of the timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, Artificial Intelligence ("AI") has been made available for over 60 years and experienced numerous ups and downs in history. The development of AI and robotics have gradually brought about changes to the operational modes and job requirements of various industries. However, in every wave of AI, people could always create more and better opportunities and new job positions amid changes. To maintain and enhance competitiveness in the complex and evolving environment in future, the local labour force should continuously absorb and update their knowledge and skills, in order to grasp the opportunities brought by technology development. Having consulted relevant Government bureaux and departments, our reply to the four parts of Mr CHAN's question is as follows:

(1) According to the Human Resources Planning and Poverty Co-ordination Unit, the analysis of the Human Resources Planning Commission aims at examining the impact of automation technologies, including AI, robotics and machine learning, etc., on the human resources and labour market of Hong Kong from a macro perspective. The analysis shows that the impact of automation differs for different industries and sectors depending on the constituent job tasks, operational modes and business needs as well as the pace of adoption and application of technology in different industries or corporations. As the framework of the analysis was broad-based, it could not examine the impact of automation on specific industries. Relevant industries and bureaux/departments would take into account the situation of specific industries and consider looking into the impact of automation on those industries with a view to formulating appropriate business and manpower strategies.

(2) According to the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, the

Government has all along been encouraging and assisting local financial practitioners to enhance their knowledge of Fintech, including cooperating with the industry to provide Fintech-related training courses. Local tertiary institutions, industry associations


9773

(such as the Hong Kong Institute of Bankers), and technology training providers (such as the Vocational Training Council) provide full-time or part-time professional training courses in the areas of Fintech and related topics (such as cybersecurity, anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing) at various levels, which aim to help local financial practitioners grasp the latest Fintech knowledge. The Government and the industry have also offered various training programmes to enhance the digital literacy of practitioners of the financial services industry. For example, under the Pilot Programme to Enhance Talent Training for the Insurance Sector and the Asset and Wealth Management Sector, industry associations can apply for subsidy to conduct training courses to enhance wider adoption of innovative technology among practitioners. In addition, the University of Hong Kong, together with Cyberport and other industry players, have launched Asia's first Fintech Massive Open Online Course in 2018 for practitioners of, amongst others, the financial services industry to enrol. Since 2017, the Institute of Financial Technologists of Asia has also launched a globally recognized certification programme in finance and technology designed for practising and aspiring financial technologists.

Along with the rapid Fintech development in Hong Kong over the

past few years, the number of related courses has been increasing. We will continue to keep abreast of the latest market developments and continue to engage in close dialogue with the finance industry, the Fintech industry, institutions and organizations to promote Fintech talent development in Hong Kong.

(3) Since its launch in August 2018, the Reindustrialization and

Technology Training Programme has approved seven training grant applications submitted by finance-related enterprises, subsidizing 29 staff of local enterprises to receive technology training under four public courses and one tailor-made course.

(4) The Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation

collaborates with international and Mainland technology enterprises from time to time to organize free seminars and workshops on AI, robotics technology and Fintech for local I&T enterprises with a view to providing further training opportunities to the industry.


In 2018, Cyberport invited representatives of multinational technology and finance companies to conduct a number of free workshops and seminars on AI, blockchain and Fintech for start-ups and small-to-medium-sized enterprises. These events were attended by nearly 200 people. A few internationally technology companies which have or will set up offices at Cyberport under the Easy Landing Scheme will also provide training, exchange and collaboration opportunities for Cyberport community members.

In addition, the Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology

Research Institute, in collaboration with the Hong Kong Institute of Bankers and the Council of Registered Ethical Security Testers International ("CREST", a cybersecurity certification body in the United Kingdom), has been conducting CREST-certified professional cybersecurity training programmes for the banking sector since 2016.

Implementation of the revised Well-off Tenants Policies 10. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") has implemented, since October 2017, the revised Well-off Tenants Policies ("the revised WTP") to safeguard the rational allocation of public rental housing ("PRH") resources. Under the revised WTP, PRH tenants with a household income exceeding five times of PRH income limits ("PRHILs") or with assets exceeding 100 times of PRHILs are required to vacate their PRH units. Tenants who are exempted include those whose household members are all aged 60 or above ("all-elderly households"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of cases in which approval was given by HA in each of the past three years for the deletion of family members from the PRH tenancy, with a breakdown by reason for the deletion;

(2) of the number of all-elderly households and its percentage in the

total number of PRH tenants, in each of the past three years; (3) of the number of cases in which HA conducted in each of the past

three years random checks on the income and asset declarations made by PRH tenants, and the respective numbers of those cases in which HA conducted an in-depth investigation and identified false declarations; and


9775

(4) of the number of PRH units recovered by HA to date under the revised WTP?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to Mr KWOK Wai-keung's question is as follows:

(1) In the past three years (i.e. 2016, 2017 and 2018), the number of approved cases for deletion of family members in the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA")'s public rental housing ("PRH") and their reasons are at Annex 1.

(2) In the past three years, the number and percentage of All Elderly

Members ("AEM") households in HA's PRH are listed at Annex 2. (3) In the past three years, HA conducted random checking and in-depth

assessment on about 5 000, 5 000 and 6 000 cases respectively on the income and assets declarations of PRH residents. There was an average of around 600 suspected false declaration cases every year.

(4) Since the implementation of the Housing Subsidy Policy and Policy

on Safeguarding Rational Allocation of Public Housing Resources (generally referred as "Well-off Tenants Policies") from the declaration cycle in October 2017 till the end of March 2019, HA has issued about 580 Notice-to-Quits to households who possessed private domestic property in Hong Kong/had their income or assets exceeding the relevant prescribed limit/declined to declare. Among them, 134 households have already returned their PRH units.

However, the number of units eventually recovered by HA may be

more than the figure mentioned above. This is because under HA's existing mechanism, if households have difficulties to move out of their PRH units on or before a specified date, they may apply to HA for a "Fixed Term Licence" to temporarily stay in their existing PRH units. The "Fixed Term Licence" takes effect from the date of termination of the Tenancy Agreement and is valid for a maximum of 12 months. Households meeting the eligibility for continuous renting of PRH units under the "Well-off Tenants Policies" during the validity period of the "Fixed Term Licence" may apply for the


grant of tenancy and pay a rent at an appropriate level. If the application is approved, the households are not required to move out of their PRH units, otherwise they are required to move out before the expiry date specified in the "Fixed Term Licence" and return their PRH units to HA.

Annex 1

Number and Reasons of Approved Cases for Deletion of Family Members in HA's PRH in the Past Three Years

Year

Reason

Total No longer Residing in the

PRH Flat

Deceased Members

Having Enjoyed Other Subsided

Housing Benefits

Admission to Elderly Home

2016 18 430 13 810 890 660 33 790 2017 25 530 13 850 1 090 660 41 130 2018 25 530 14 340 890 730 41 490 Note: The number of cases is rounded to the nearest ten.

Annex 2

Number and Percentage of AEM(1) Households in HA's PRH

Year (as at Mar 2019) Number of Households Percentage of Total PRH Households

2016 137 700 19% 2017 145 500 19% 2018 152 100 20%

Note: The number of households is rounded to the nearest hundred. (1) AEM household means all members of the household are aged 60 or above.


9777

Impacts of marine works on fishermen and the related ex-gratia allowance 11. MR STEVEN HO (in Chinese): President, a number of major reclamation projects such as "Lantau Tomorrow Vision" and the "near-shore reclamation outside Victoria Harbour" are being or will soon be implemented, with a projected total reclamation area of as large as 3 000 hectares. Some fishermen have indicated that the reclamation works will result in a substantial reduction in fishing grounds and fish culture zones, pollute water and affect their livelihood. They have pointed out that although fishermen affected by marine works in Hong Kong may apply for an ex-gratia allowance ("EGA"), there are deficiencies in the mechanism for calculating the allowance, including that: (i) the amount of EGA payable to fishermen in respect of marine works resulting in a permanent loss of fishing grounds, which is equivalent to only 11 years' value of fish catch, is far less than their actual loss, (ii) mariculturists may apply for EGA only in respect of marine works carried out within five kilometres of their fish culture zones, but marine works may affect the water quality of waters more than five kilometres away, and (iii) the scope of EGA does not cover marine works proposed by individuals or those seeking to maintain existing facilities. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the total area of fishing grounds in Hong Kong waters in each of the past three years and as projected in each of the next five years;

(2) of the details of the marine works carried out in Hong Kong since

the reunification of Hong Kong, including (i) the dates, (ii) the project names, (iii) whether they were proposed by the Government or individuals, (iv) the types of the works (reclamation/sand dredging/mud disposal/maintenance works), (v) the areas of the works, (vi) whether the loss of the fishing grounds/farms concerned was permanent or temporary, and (vii) whether eligible fishermen were granted EGA (set out in a table);

(3) given that both marine works proposed by individuals and those

seeking to maintain existing facilities will have a permanent or temporary impact on the fisheries industry and the livelihood of fishermen, whether the Government will consider requiring the proponents of such works to grant EGA to the fishermen affected by the works concerned;


(4) given that the mechanism for granting EGA has been implemented for seven years and has all along been criticized by fishermen, and that a number of major reclamation projects will soon be implemented, whether the Government will introduce a better development policy and relief measures for the fisheries industry, and examine reforming the mechanism for granting EGA, so as to mitigate the impacts of marine works on fishermen;

(5) of the marine mud disposal volume, as well as the names of the

major marine mud disposal works, in each of the past three years; (6) of the details of the various locations for disposal of contaminated

marine mud (including (i) the remaining capacity, (ii) the environmental monitoring results, and (iii) an overview of the operation) (set out in a table); and

(7) given that the frequent marine works in recent years have resulted in

a continuous reduction in the area of fishing grounds, and that reclamation works have caused the land area to increase continuously but the sea area to decrease continuously, whether the Government will consider exploring new technologies for mud disposal, and changing the locations for disposal of marine mud from offshore points to designated onshore locations, so as to reduce the impacts of marine mud disposal on the ocean and the fisheries industry; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the relevant Policy Bureaux, I provide a consolidated reply to the various parts of Mr Steven HO's question as follows:

(1) According to the data released by the Lands Department ("LandsD") in 2019, the total sea area of Hong Kong is 1 648.37 sq km.(1) Hong Kong waters are generally available for fishing with fishing vessels, except in the core areas of marine parks, marine reserve, fish culture zones, typhoon shelters, principal fairways, restricted areas of

(1) Please refer to the web page of the Survey and Mapping Office, LandsD:

<https://www.landsd.gov.hk/mapping/en/publications/total.htm>


9779

the airport, public bathing beaches and works areas of reclamation projects. These areas are under the purview of different government departments: the Marine Department for principal fairways, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") for public bathing beaches, various works departments for reclamation projects, and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") for marine parks, marine reserve and fish culture zones. The above mentioned areas# (in hectares) over the past three years (2016 to 2018) are set out below:

2016 2017 2018 Typhoon Shelters and Principal Fairways^ 2 379 2 379 3 869 Public Bathing Beaches* 92 92 92 Core Areas of Marine Parks, Marine Reserve 27 107 107 Fish Culture Zones 209 209 209

Notes: # Some of the airport restricted areas prohibit entry of all vessels, while

some others of vessels of certain sizes. Hence, the areas where fishing operations are prohibited could not be generally stated. Besides, the timing of carrying out public and private marine works could vary from one year to another, and could lead to temporary prohibition of fishing at different times. We therefore do not have the figures on their impact on fishing grounds.

^ Including the area joining Ma Wan Fairway, Kap Shui Mun Fairway and

Ha Pang Fairway. * The water surface area within the shark prevention nets installed in the 38

public bathing beaches administered by LCSD.

The area of Hong Kong waters available for fishing is affected by various factors, including but not limited to marine works projects and planning of fairways, which may result in temporary or permanent loss of certain fishing grounds. The total area of fishing grounds in Hong Kong waters for the coming five years could not be precisely estimated.

(2) Major marine works projects since 1997 are tabulated in

chronological order below:


Name of Project Period Government/

Private Projects

Reclamation Area

(Hectare) Tung Chung Development Phase 3A

1999- 2003

Government 26

Container Terminal 9 Development

2000- 2005

Private 67

Disneyland―Penny's Bay Reclamation Stages 1 & 2

2000- 2009

Government 280

Central Reclamation Phase III

2003- 2012

Government 18

Wan Chai Development Phase II

2009- 2018

Government 5

Hong Kong-Zhuhai- Macao Bridge related projects―Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities

2010- 2018

Government 150

Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link

2013- (Construction in progress)

Government 17

The Three-Runway System


Private 650

Tung Chung New Town Extension


Government 130

The Government has been handling matters relating to the

disbursement of ex-gratia allowances ("EGA") in relation to marine works projects to eligible fishermen according to the established mechanism, under which the nature of the loss of fishing grounds as well as the amount of EGA payable are mainly assessed by AFCD. Upon vetting of the eligibility of registered fishermen for receiving EGA by an interdepartmental working group, LandsD will then disburse the relevant EGA. EGA has been disbursed to eligible


9781

persons affected for a majority of the projects, and would be disbursed to eligible persons affected for the remaining projects in due course according to the established mechanism.

(3) and (4) The Government has been progressively implementing the

suggestions made in the report of the Committee on Sustainable Fisheries over the past few years, such as implementing the trawl ban, introducing a registration system for local fishing vessels, setting up the Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund ("SFDF"), providing loans under the Fisheries Development Loan Fund and offering training courses for fishermen, with a view to promoting the sustainable development of the fisheries sector and assisting fishermen in developing or switching to sustainable fisheries and related operations. AFCD is also preparing for the designation of new fish culture zones, facilitating the adoption of modern technology or open sea model for mariculture (e.g. using deep sea mariculture cages), expanding the room for mariculture and promoting advanced mariculture technology. In addition, so far around $78 million of funding commitment has been approved under SFDF to promote the sustainable development and enhance the competitiveness of the sector.

According to the existing mechanism under the Environmental

Impact Assessment Ordinance ("Ordinance") (Cap. 499), where a marine works project is a designated project specified by the Ordinance, project proponents, be they government departments or private entities, must carry out statutory environmental impact assessment, including assessing thoroughly the project's impact on fisheries. In addition, proponents are required to take appropriate mitigation measures such as limiting the project or the works process to within specified boundary or season, controlling the pace of construction works, installing silt curtain, recovering or increasing the affected fishery resources and habitats, etc. to minimize the impact. Where necessary, proponents also need to consider adopting further mitigation measures, including increasing fishery resources and habitats outside the boundary of the project.


As mentioned in part (2) above, there is an established mechanism for disbursing EGA to fishermen. Recognizing that fishermen affected by marine works may suffer a reduction in income and may incur extra expenses in relocating their activities to fishing grounds elsewhere, the Government may grant EGA to the fishermen if they meet certain eligibility criteria (e.g. the homeport of their vessels must be associated with the affected fishing grounds). The policy intent is to reduce the impact of public marine works on fishermen through administrative measures and to help these fishermen re-establish their operations. EGA payable to fishermen affected by public marine works is calculated on the basis of the notional value of fish catch from the area with permanent loss of habitual fishing grounds as a result of marine works (mainly due to reclamation operations), or the notional value of fish catch from the area with temporary loss of habitual fishing grounds as a result of sand dredging or mud disposal operations. The Government reviewed the mechanism in 2012, and the proposals to adjust upward the basis for calculating EGA and extend the applicability of the proximity criterion for granting EGA to mariculturists were approved by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council(2) in the same year. EGA payable in respect of marine works resulting in a permanent loss of fishing grounds was raised from an equivalent of the notional value of fish catch in the affected area for 7 years to that for 11 years whereas EGA payable in respect of marine works resulting in a temporary loss of fishing grounds was raised from an equivalent of the notional value of fish catch in the affected area for three years to that for five years. Mariculturists affected may be granted EGA when either the extended proximity criterion or the established suspended solids criterion is met. We have been monitoring the operating environment of fishermen. There is currently a lack of justifications to review the mechanism.

(5) Since the introduction of new non-dredged method by the

Government in the reclamation projects, the quantity of sediment to be disposed of in Hong Kong has significantly reduced. The quantity of sediment (including both contaminated sediment and

(2) Vide FCR(2012-13)16 and FCR(2012-13)17


9783

uncontaminated sediment) disposed of in 2016, 2017 and 2018 were 1 million cu m, 1.3 million cu m and 0.70 million cu m respectively. Major projects with sediment disposal over this period included the Shatin to Central Link by the MTR Corporation, the Tseung Kwan O―Lam Tin Tunnel project and the general maintenance dredging work at piers and fairways.

(6) The operating situation of contaminated sediment disposal facilities

is set out below:

Location Remaining Capacity

Environmental Monitoring Results

Operating Situation

South of The Brothers

Filled up by 22 March 2016

Results of the environmental monitoring show that there is no unacceptable impact on sediment, water quality and ecology.

The facility is closed.

East of Sha Chau

Around 4.4 million cu m

Results of the environmental monitoring works show that there is no unacceptable impact on sediment, water quality and ecology.

The current contaminated mud pit under operation is expected to be filled up by 2019. The remaining two contaminated mud pits will come into operation in stages.

(7) Since 1992, Hong Kong has been using the contaminated mud pits

formed under the seabed for the disposal of contaminated sediment. Environmental monitoring work carried out over the past years indicated that the operation of the mud pits did not bring about any unacceptable impacts on sediment, water quality and ecology in the vicinity. In order to reduce the sediment disposal demand, the Government has been encouraging the reduction in the generation of


sediment in the design and construction of marine works, such as the adoption of non-dredged methods in reclamation projects to reduce the excavation and disposal of sediment. As mentioned above, the demand for marine disposal of sediment in recent years has significantly reduced.

Inbound Mainland tour groups 12. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that inbound Mainland tour groups ("IMTGs") carrying out activities like shopping and dining in the Kowloon City district have caused serious nuisances to local residents, and that a pedestrian was knocked down and killed in an accident that occurred in To Kwa Wan last month. Regarding IMTGs, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of traffic accidents involving tourist coaches that occurred in the Kowloon City district in each of the past five years, and the resultant casualties;

(2) of the number of law enforcement operations carried out by the

Police in the Kowloon City district, in (a) each year and (b) each month of the past five years, against tourist coach drivers who contravened traffic regulations, together with a breakdown by the type of (i) contraventions and (ii) actions taken (e.g. ordering to leave and issuance of fixed penalty notices); the respective locations of the 10 major black spots of the various contraventions;

(3) of (i) the number of IMTGs and, among them, (ii) the number of

those conducting activities in the Kowloon City district, on average each day in each month of the past five years; whether it has assessed the impacts of such activities on residents in the Kowloon City district;

(4) whether it will, targeting at issues concerning contraventions of

traffic regulations by tourist coach drivers, raise the relevant penalties and study new measures for traffic improvements; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;


9785

(5) given that the Government is urging the trade to divert IMTGs joining Victoria Harbour cruises to embark and disembark at piers other than the Kowloon City Ferry Pier, of the progress of the work and the feedback of travel agents, as well as the expected completion time; of the progress so far of the discussions among the Government, operator of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal ("KTCT") and members of the tourism industry on making use of KTCT for diverting tour groups; and

(6) whether it will set limits on (i) the number of same-day Mainland

visitors, (ii) the number of IMTGs, and (iii) the area of activities of IMTGs, in order to mitigate the impacts of the relevant tourism activities on residents of various districts; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government attaches great importance to the sustainable and healthy development of the tourism industry. Whilst ensuring that the industry brings about benefits to society, we also continuously seek to minimize as far as possible the impact of tourist activities on the local community. The Government has been in close liaison with the travel trade, the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong ("TIC"), district personalities and Legislative Council Members in driving the implementation of various targeted mitigation measures to tackle the impact by visitors to Hong Kong on the local community. In response to the question raised by Ms Claudia MO, with relevant bureaux and departments consulted, my reply is as follows.

(1) The traffic accident statistics kept by the Transport Department ("TD") do not have a breakdown by tourist coaches, so only relevant figures on non-franchised single-deck buses (including tourist coaches) can be provided. During the past five years, the numbers of traffic accidents involving non-franchised single-deck buses that occurred within the area under the Kowloon City District Council's purview and the resultant casualties are set out in Annex 1.


(2) The tourist hotspots in To Kwa Wan and Hung Hom (including areas in the vicinity of To Kwa Wan Road, San Ma Tau Street and Mei King Street, areas around Chi Kiang Street, Sung On Street and Bailey Street, as well as areas near Sze Chuen Street) have been listed by the Police as priority locations for actions against illegal parking. Appropriate enforcement actions are taken in respect of the illegal parking situation of tourist coaches. The Kowloon City Police District deploys staff to carry out crowd management and traffic enforcement actions in such tourist hotspots on a daily basis.

Between May 2017 and April 2019, the Police issued a total of 4 192

fixed penalty notices to tourist coaches relating to traffic contraventions in the Kowloon City Police District (including To Kwa Wan and Hung Hom districts). The relevant monthly and yearly figures are set out in Annex 2. The Police have not kept any breakdown of the types of contraventions and enforcement actions, as well as information about black spots of the various contraventions and figures of fixed penalty notices before May 2017.

(3) At present, TIC is responsible for trade regulation and has issued

clear guidelines requiring that travel agents in Hong Kong must, prior to receiving any Mainland inbound tour group, register with TIC and provide information about the tour group in advance. In this regard, TIC reports to the Government on the situation of Mainland inbound tour groups visiting Hong Kong from time to time. It also participates in the inter-departmental meetings convened by the Government before peak periods of visitor arrivals, such that relevant government departments and attraction operators can better grasp the estimated number of tour groups visiting Hong Kong during the holidays and make corresponding arrangements. The daily average of Mainland inbound tour groups that travel agents registered with TIC in each month during the past five years is set out in Annex 3.

(4) In view of the traffic situation in To Kwa Wan and Hung Hom, TD

has been endeavouring to identify suitable locations in the two districts for providing additional on-street pick-up/set-down points and parking spaces for use by tourist coaches where road safety is


9787

not compromised and traffic conditions permit, as well as granting short-term tenancy ("STT") car parks for parking of tourist coaches. Currently, there are a total of 96 on-street metered parking spaces and 110 lay-bys for pick-up or set-down purposes provided by TD in To Kwa Wan and Hung Hom, as well as 73 parking spaces in STT car parks, for use by tourist coaches. TD has also designated "No-stopping Restriction Zones" in suitable road sections in the districts, which limit the pick-up and set-down activities of coaches in restricted hours, so as to maintain smooth traffic flow. Moreover, the Government has offered a discounted fee of $6 per half an hour between 9:00 am and 8:00 pm in the temporary car park at the junction of Bailey Street and Sung Ping Street in a bid to encourage parking of tourist coaches at the car park.

As regards traffic enforcement, the Police have been closely

monitoring the situation of illegal parking or picking up/setting down passengers by tourist coaches in the above mentioned districts, taking stern enforcement actions against those which have caused serious obstruction to traffic and posed a safety risk. Starting from January 2019, the Kowloon City Police District has been implementing special traffic control measures around Chi Kiang Street, Sung On Street and Bailey Street, as well as around To Kwa Wan Road, San Ma Tau Street and Mei King Street during daily peak periods of tourist coach movements. Under the control measures, tourist coach drivers have to follow the instructions of the police officers on the spot and drive to designated locations for pick-up and set-down.

To further strengthen the control of the flow of tourist coaches and

enhance road safety, the Government plans to establish additional designated passenger pick-up/set-down areas for tourist coaches in the districts. Consideration is being given to using the temporary car park at the junction of Bailey Street and Sung Ping Street as a pick-up/set-down area; providing 10 additional on-street metered tourist coach parking spaces at the junction of Hung Hom Road and Bailey Street; and providing 4 additional lay-bys at appropriate sections of Chi Kiang Street. To dovetail with these measures, the Government plans to expand the "No-stopping Restriction Zone" for


coaches at appropriate road sections on the periphery of tourist hotspots within the districts so as to restrict the pick-up/set-down areas for tourist coaches on public roads, thereby encouraging tourist coaches to use the designated pick-up/set-down areas mentioned above.

Besides, the Police have started to take enforcement actions by

means of mobile video recording at tourist hotspots in To Kwa Wan and Hung Hom. They use hand-held video cameras to record instances of traffic contravention on an irregular basis in order to combat obstruction to traffic flow and strengthen the deterrent effect. The Police also plan to launch a pilot scheme on Electronic Fixed Penalty Notices within 2019-2020. The frontline law enforcement officers will then be able to access data on vehicles parked illegally via their mobile smart devices and print out fixed penalty notices without delay, with enhanced efficiency in enforcement.

As regards the recent traffic accident involving a tourist coach, the

Police are still investigating the case. Subject to the results of the Police's investigation, TD will review the conditions of the road section concerned and take appropriate follow-up measures.

(5) The Government has been liaising with the trade on the feasibility of

channelling some harbour cruises to the public landing steps near the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal ("KTCT") (namely the Runway Park Pier at Kai Tak), and conducted several site visits to the pier. The trade has indicated that they would consider using the pier and made some suggestions about the enhancement of ancillary facilities. The Government welcomes the trade's positive attitude and looks forward to their early confirmation of the detailed arrangements. The Tourism Commission is actively coordinating with the relevant departments with a view to completing the follow-up on pertinent suggestions about the enhancement of ancillary facilities as soon as possible.

Insofar as KTCT is concerned, the cruise terminal is managed by a

terminal operator under commercial principles. The ancillary commercial area of KTCT is equipped with catering and other


9789

supporting facilities, and all shops have currently been leased out. The Government is open to the proposal of channelling some inbound tour groups to KTCT and has been coordinating with different stakeholders, including arranging for the trade several visits to KTCT and meeting with the terminal operator and shop owners. Nonetheless, the proposal is contingent upon the willingness of the trade and shop owners, and boils down to their commercial decision. Should the trade be interested in using the facilities in KTCT, they are welcome to approach the terminal operator and shop owners for further discussion.

(6) The tourist receiving capability of a tourism destination depends on

many different factors, including the travel modes of visitors from various source markets, the attractions and facilities of the travel destination, the types of tourism products available in the market, etc. Furthermore, there is no universally accepted way to set a cap on tourist receiving capability (including numbers of tourists and areas of their activities). The Government will continue to be proactive in enhancing Hong Kong's various ancillary tourism facilities so as to balance the impact of the tourism industry on the economy and people's livelihood.

Annex 1 Numbers of Traffic Accidents Involving Non-franchised Single-decker Buses that

Occurred in the Area under Kowloon City District Council and the Resultant Casualties from 2014 to 2018

Year Number of Traffic Accidents Number of Casualties

Death Serious Injury Slight Injury 2014 48 0 3 69 2015 38 0 8 50 2016 42 1 5 63 2017 38 5 3 50 2018 29 0 1 39


Annex 2

Monthly Figures of the Fixed Penalty Notices issued by the Police to Tourist Coaches Relating to Traffic Contraventions in the

Kowloon City Police District (including To Kwa Wan and Hung Hom Districts) between May 2017 and April 2019

May 2017 to April 2018

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Total 131 143 172 169 191 162 187 142 182 127 171 153 1 930

May 2018 to April 2019

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Total 162 218 196 202 187 180 203 215 191 130 175 203 2 262

Note: The figures include the fixed penalty notices relating to traffic contraventions issued by the Police to tourist coaches in accordance with the Fixed Penalty (Traffic Contraventions) Ordinance (Cap. 237) and the Fixed Penalty (Criminal Proceedings) Ordinance (Cap. 240).

Annex 3

Daily Average of Mainland Inbound Tour Groups (by Month) Registered with TIC by Travel Agents from 2014 to 2018

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2014 283 409 511 477 406 399 475 481 388 373 439 437 2015 373 277 302 399 392 291 319 398 298 343 310 210 2016 120 109 154 216 168 153 200 186 148 162 164 151 2017 106 103 140 181 229 196 287 262 227 232 285 234 2018 195 102 144 197 175 153 205 234 165 192 336 304

Note: The figures are provided by TIC. TIC does not maintain statistics about Mainland inbound tour groups visiting the Kowloon City District.


9791

Statistics on work injuries 13. MR HO KAI-MING (in Chinese): President, regarding the statistics on injuries caused to employees by accidents arising out of and in the course of employment ("work injuries"), will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of employees who were incapacitated by work injuries for a period of (i) three to seven days, (ii) eight to 14 days, (iii) 15 to 30 days, (iv) 31 days to three months, (v) more than three months to six months, (vi) more than six months to one year, (vii) more than one year to two years, and (viii) more than two years, in each year since 2014;

(2) of the respective numbers of employees injured at work who were

assessed, by the Employees' Compensation Assessment Boards in each year since 2014, to have suffered from the following percentages of permanent loss of earning capacity: (i) 5% or below, (ii) 6% to 10%, (iii) 11% to 20%、(iv) 21% to 30%, (v) 31% to 50%, (vi) 51% to 70%, and (vii) 71% or above; and

(3) given that employers and employees may, in respect of work injury

cases which entail a period of sick leave exceeding seven days, agree on applying to the Labour Department for making settlement by "Paper Medical Clearance", of the year since which this approach has been adopted; the number of work injury cases which were settled in this way in each of the past five years?

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

(1) From 2014 to 2018, the number of compensation claims settled in each year involving incapacitation of employees for more than three days as a result of work injuries (including compensation claims reported to the Labour Department ("LD") under the Employees' Compensation Ordinance ("ECO") in or before the respective settlement year) with a breakdown by the number of working days lost is provided below:


Number of working days lost* Number of

settled compensation claims 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Below 8 days 12 300 12 407 12 161 11 572 11 963 8 to below 15 days 6 702 6 508 5 962 5 543 5 572 15 to below 30 days 4 404 4 169 3 951 3 752 3 898 30 to below 90 days 4 701 4 740 4 612 4 384 4 476 90 to below 180 days 2 783 2 902 2 787 2 741 2 788 180 to below 360 days 2 196 2 334 2 366 2 296 2 548 360 to below 720 days 1 765 1 795 1 956 1 801 1 881 720 days or above 2 3 1 2 1 Total 34 853 34 858 33 796 32 091 33 127

Note: * The number of working days lost includes both the number of sick leave

days granted and taken and the period of absence from duty certified to be necessary by the Employees' Compensation Assessment Board under ECO.

If the work injury sick leave of an employee does not exceed three

days and no permanent incapacity is involved, the employer should make direct payment of compensation to the employee in accordance with ECO. LD does not keep statistics on the number of working days lost for this type of cases.

(2) From 2014 to 2018, the number of compensation claims settled in

each year involving incapacitation of employees for more than three days as a result of work injuries (including compensation claims reported to LD under ECO in or before the respective settlement year) with a breakdown by the percentage of permanent loss of earning capacity of employees is provided below:

Percentage of permanent loss of earning capacity

Number of settled compensation claims 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Assessment not required 19 475 19 484 18 710 18 447 18 907 0% to 5% 14 223 14 221 14 074 12 703 13 274 Above 5% to 10% 744 769 673 649 678 Above 10% to 20% 243 224 207 168 163 Above 20% to 30% 73 66 50 48 41


9793

Percentage of permanent loss of earning capacity

Number of settled compensation claims 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Above 30% to 50% 53 51 41 42 46 Above 50% to 70% 25 19 17 19 6 Above 70% 17 24 24 15 12 Total 34 853 34 858 33 796 32 091 33 127

(3) LD has been providing the "Paper Medical Clearance" option since

1998. In work injury cases where the sick leave has already ended and the injury does not lead to any permanent incapacity, employers and employees may thereby agree to complete the follow-up procedures for sick leave in writing and LD will issue the "Certificate of Compensation Assessment" direct for settling the claims. LD does not keep statistics on the work injury cases settled by "Paper Medical Clearance". LD will further enhance the follow-up procedures for sick leave by proactively inviting employers and employees of work injury cases which meet the above criteria to settle their claims by "Paper Medical Clearance", with a view to speeding up the case processing.

Promotion of low-emission light buses 14. MR JEREMY TAM (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") light buses currently produced by a single manufacturer will cease to be produced in 2021. Thereafter, members of the trade who wish to replace their existing light buses may need to purchase diesel ones. Some environmental groups have pointed out that diesel light buses have a higher level of emission of air pollutants (e.g. respirable suspended particulates) than LPG light buses, posing hazards to public health. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) how do the levels of emission of various types of air pollutants (including (i) nitrogen oxides, (ii) respirable suspended particulates, (iii) fine suspended particulates, (iv) hydrocarbons and (v) carbon monoxide) from LPG light buses compare with those from diesel light buses, assuming that both meet the latest emission standards (provide the data on these two types of vehicles obtained respectively in laboratory and from detection on the road by using roadside remote sensing equipment);


(2) of the number of light buses acquired with the subsidy of the Pilot Green Transport Fund ("the Fund") since the establishment of the Fund in 2011, and the following information in respect of each of the light buses: (i) the type of energy used, (ii) model, (iii) price, (iv) the amount of subsidy, (v) the route serviced, (vi) the name of operator, (vii) performance (including the time a light bus can travel after a full charge, horsepower and average fuel economy), and (viii) the levels of emissions of various types of air pollutants;

(3) whether it has studied if the light buses mentioned in (2) are better

than diesel and LPG light buses in terms of performance and reduction of pollutant emissions; if it has studied and the outcome is in the affirmative, whether the Government will raise the amount of subsidies provided under the Fund to encourage the trade to acquire light buses fuelled by those types of energy; and

(4) as it has been reported that the land leases of the 12 dedicated LPG

filling station sites in Hong Kong will expire between 2021 and 2022, whether the Government has plans, in granting renewal of the land leases concerned, to add a provision requiring the lessees to provide charging equipment for electric light buses at the stations?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government launched a scheme in 2002 to encourage owners of diesel light buses to switch to light buses running on cleaner power/fuels like liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") and electricity. The scheme on an encouraged basis ended in 2005. As the Government has not mandated the type of power/fuels used by light buses, light bus owners may, based on their operational needs, choose LPG, diesel, electric or petrol vehicles. As at the end of 2018, nearly 60% of registered light buses were fuelled by LPG, the remaining 40% by diesel, and less than 1% electric. At present, the LPG light buses in the local market come from the same brand. The supplier indicated earlier that its manufacturer will cease the production of LPG light buses by the end of 2020, and the Euro VI diesel light buses under the same brand will be supplied by then to meet the local demand for light buses. Owing to technology advancement in emission reduction in recent


9795

years, Euro VI diesel light buses emit 80% less nitrogen oxides ("NOx") and 50% less respirable suspended particulates ("RSP") than their Euro V diesel counterparts and nearly 90% less NOx and 50% less RSP than their Euro IV diesel counterparts. My specific responses to the question raised by Mr Jeremy TAM are as follows:

(1) For light buses of design weight more than 3.5 tonnes that have obtained exhaust emission type approval from the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") certifying their compliance with Euro V standards (or equivalent) or Euro VI standards, their laboratory-tested exhaust emission values are tabulated at Annex 1.

Annex 1 shows that advancement in emission reduction technology

for Euro VI diesel light buses has largely reduced their NOx and RSP emissions as compared with their Euro V diesel counterparts and even more emission reduction as compared with their old Euro IV diesel counterparts. Annex 1 also reveals a significant reduction in the gap between Euro VI diesel light buses and existing LPG light buses in terms of NOx emissions while the emissions from the LPG light buses which have been used for many years will increase with time. Therefore, when the existing old light buses switch to Euro VI diesel light buses in the future, the overall emission performance will not deteriorate.

Regarding roadside remote sensing equipment, the existing

technology is used for monitoring in-use petrol or LPG vehicles that have excessive exhaust emissions but it is not yet applicable to diesel vehicles. Owing to the differences in various road conditions, the emission data collected from general vehicles running on road is also technically not suitable for comparison with pollutant emissions collected from laboratory testing.(1)

(1) For laboratory-based tests, vehicle engines are run under specified conditions for tens of

minutes during which their average pollutant emissions are measured. For roadside remote sensing equipment, measurements are made just within a few seconds when vehicles pass by the equipment to identify those with excessive exhaust emissions. Thus, the data collected by the two methods should not be directly compared.


(2) and (3) Currently, there are only two electric light bus models and one

hybrid light bus model available in the local market. All have been/are on trial under the Pilot Green Transport Fund ("PGTF") and their details are set out at Annex 2.

To avoid hindering approved applicants from receiving competitive

tenders, we do not disclose the product price and subsidy amount for individually approved case.

Electric Light Buses Electric light buses ("e-LBs") have no tailpipe emissions. Results

of existing trials have reflected that high production cost, limited service life and long charging time of batteries, hilly terrain in Hong Kong and the need to provide long hours of air-conditioning during driving in summer, etc. are the key constraints for electric commercial vehicles ("e-CVs"), including e-LBs, to become popular as the aforesaid factors reduce the driving range of e-CVs batteries. Although the fuel cost of e-LBs on trial under PGTF is about 70% lower than that of diesel light buses, e-LBs, after a full charge taking four hours, has a driving range lower than the daily mileage of a typical public light bus ("PLB"). Therefore, most of the existing e-LBs on trial are yet to be able to cope with the requirements of the local transport sector in respect of requirements on the driving range and charging time of PLBs.

In this connection, EPD has engaged a consultant to develop a set of

technical specifications and requirements of e-PLB and its charging facilities suitable for use in Hong Kong in order to help promote suppliers to design and manufacture suitable e-PLBs and charging facilities for local use.

Hybrid Light Buses Hybrid vehicles could operate without charging their batteries by an

external power source and their operation is similar to that of general conventional vehicles. Higher fuel economy is the merit of hybrid vehicles over their conventional counterparts, thereby reducing


9797

operating cost and air pollutant emissions. However, the actual fuel economy of a hybrid vehicle depends on the route in operation. A route requiring frequent start-stop will harness better the hybrid drive-train. If a route is dominated by highway driving, a hybrid vehicle may not outperform its conventional counterpart in fuel economy.

Under PGTF, five diesel-electric hybrid light buses of the same

model (i.e. EQ6700L5SHEVY) have been on trial by applicants who also use conventional diesel light buses. The trial results showed that these hybrid light buses incurred a fuel cost saving of no more than 4% compared to conventional diesel light buses. The lower than anticipated fuel economy of these hybrid light buses might be due to inadequate cooling for their batteries. The manufacturer of this hybrid light bus model has launched a new model of diesel-electric hybrid light buses (i.e. GM6700GAREEV) to replace the old model, and they are on trial under PGTF by applicants who also use conventional LPG light buses. An independent third party consultant has been engaged by EPD to assess the trial data of the new model and the results of the trial will be announced upon completion of the assessment.

As regards NOx and RSP emission levels of hybrid light buses, their

laboratory-tested exhaust emission values are comparable to those of Euro V diesel light buses.

In addition, the 2018 Policy Address has announced that PGTF will

be subject to review. The Government is conducting the review and aims to complete it in 2019. After drawing up relevant proposals, the Government will consult the transport sectors, stakeholders, the Advisory Council on the Environment and the Panel on Environmental Affairs of the Legislative Council.

(4) The Design, Build and Operate ("DBO") contracts of the 12

dedicated LPG filling stations will expire successively between 2021 and 2022. Prior to the expiry of these DBO contracts, the Government will examine the future arrangements for the dedicated LPG filling stations and, in parallel, consider land uses that will dovetail with the development of new energy vehicles.


Annex 1

Air Pollutant Emissions under Laboratory-based Exhaust Emission Tests of Existing Local Light Bus Models(2)

Fuel Emission

Standard

Test

Cycle(3)

Emissions

NOx Carbon

Monoxide

Hydro-

carbons

Non-methane

Hydro-

carbons

Particulate

Matter(4)

Particle

Number

(mg/kWh)(5) (#/kWh)

Diesel Euro V ESC 680-

1 817

20-310 7-53 Not

Applicable

2-20 Not

Applicable

ETC 1 290-

1 990

5-1 000 Not

Applicable

15-92 3-20 Not

Applicable

Diesel Euro VI(6) WHSC 64-186 0-24 0-6 Not

Applicable

2-3 1.06x1010-

1.31x1011

WHTC 242-317 32-348 1-53 Not

Applicable

2-4 1.19x1010-

5.57x1011

LPG(6) Japan

JE05

2009(7)

JE05 79-80 10 400-

10 430

Not

Applicable

37-40 Not

Applicable

Not

Applicable

Notes: (2) Based on information provided by vehicle suppliers under the applications of type approval for exhaust

emissions to EPD (3) Euro V/VI diesel light buses and LPG light bus are tested under different test cycle conditions. Under

laboratory-based exhaust emission test, the test cycles of Euro V emission standard are European Steady-State Cycle ("ESC") and European Transient Cycle ("ETC"). The test cycles of Euro VI emission standard are World Harmonised Steady-State Cycle ("WHSC") and World Harmonised Transient Cycle ("WHTC"). Japan emission standard adopts JE05 test cycle.

(4) The particulate matter measured under the test is not subdivided into fine suspended particulates. (5) Emissions are rounded to integers. (6) The prevailing statutory emission standard for light bus in Hong Kong is Euro V. (7) Equivalent to Euro V emission standard


9799

Annex 2

Trials of Electric and Hybrid Light buses subsidized under PGTF

Manufacturer Vehicle Class

(Model)

Wuzhoulong electric light bus (FDG6700EVG)

King Long electric light bus

XMQ6706CYBEVS

GMI hybrid light bus

(Dongfeng EQ6700L5SHEVY)

(old model, no longer supplied in

the market)


(GM6700GAREEV) (New model)

Number of trial [Number of vehicle under the trial]

1[2] 1[1] 4[5] 5[6]

Energy category Electric Electric Diesel-electric Diesel-electric Organization participating the trial sunder PGTF (Driving routes of light bus)

Hotel ICON Limited (Hotel ICON and Tsim Sha Tsui)

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (No fixed route)

- Yan Yan Motors Limited (green minibus services between Tuen Mun town centre and So Kwun Wat)

- Teamwise Corporation Limited (green minibus services between Whampoa and Tsim Sha Tsui)

- Big Three Limited (green minibus services between Yue On Estate and Tin Hau MTR Station)

- Hong Kong Metropolitan

- Multi Logistics Limited (green minibus services between Kai Tak Cruise Terminal and Telford Garden in Kowloon Bay)

- Nam Kee Transport Company Limited (green minibus services between Lok Wah South Estate and Yue Man Square)

- Pokfulam Maxicab Company Limited (green minibus services between Kennedy Town and Chi Fu Fa Yuen at Pok Fu


Manufacturer Vehicle Class

(Model)

Wuzhoulong electric light bus (FDG6700EVG)

King Long electric light bus

XMQ6706CYBEVS


(Dongfeng EQ6700L5SHEVY)

(old model, no longer supplied in

the market)


(GM6700GAREEV) (New model)

Bus Limited (green minibus services between Cyberport and Causeway Bay)

Lam) - Leung Sick Chiu

(red minibus services between Sau Mau Ping and Jordan)

- Yeung Wui Wing (green minibus services between Lok Wah Estate and Kwun Tong)

Charging time# 4 hours 4 hours Not Applicable@ Not Applicable@ Driving range after fully charge (without air-conditioning)#

180 km 180 km Not Applicable@ Not Applicable@

Emissions under laboratory-based emission test* (mg/kWh)

Electric light bus has no tailpipe emission

Electric light bus has no tailpipe emission

NOx: 680 (ESC); 1 290 (ETC) Particulates: 11 (ESC); 11 (ETC)

NOx: 680 (ESC); 1 290 (ETC) Particulates: 11 (ESC); 11 (ETC)

Average fuel economy

1.55 km/kWh 1.78 km/kWh 4.4 km/L Not Applicable^

Notes: # Information provided by the manufacturer @ Hybrid vehicles could operate without charging their batteries by an external power source, so their

operation is similar to that of general conventional vehicles. ^ An independent third party consultant has been engaged by EPD to assess the trial data of this new model.

Results of the trials will be announced upon completion of the assessment. * Based on information provided by the vehicle suppliers under the applications of type approval for exhaust

emissions to EPD.


9801

Carrying out alteration works for the facilities in the units of public rental housing tenants 15. MR ANDREW WAN (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that at present, upon receipt of the recommendations from subvented social welfare organizations or healthcare workers (e.g. occupational therapists) of the Hospital Authority, the Housing Department ("HD") will carry out alteration works for the facilities in the public rental housing ("PRH") units in which the elderly and persons with disabilities reside, so as to facilitate their daily living. In addition, at a recent meeting of the Panel on Housing of this Council, HD officials indicated that upon receipt of the applications from elderly PRH tenants for installation of grab rails or alteration of shower facilities in the toilets of their units, HD would schedule a date for carrying out such works. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the current number of elderly PRH tenants awaiting HD to alter the facilities in their units (with a breakdown by PRH estate), and the estimated time, manpower and costs needed for completing the works;

(2) of the average time taken by HD in the past three years from the

receipt of the aforesaid recommendations to the completion of the works concerned, and the procedure involved;

(3) of the number of applications for alteration of facilities in PRH units

that were referred by the Total Maintenance Scheme personnel under HD in the past five years to healthcare workers or occupational therapists for assessment; and

(4) whether HD will install, free of charge, facilities other than grab

rails in the toilets in the units in which elderly PRH tenants reside only upon receipt of the recommendations from occupational therapists; if so, whether HD will relax this requirement by stipulating that as long as the tenant is a "singleton elderly person" or an "all elderly household", or a referral has been made by a social worker, HD will carry out such installation works on the tenant's request, so as to shorten the tenant's waiting time?


SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to Mr Andrew WAN's question is set out below: With the rapidly increasing elderly population in Hong Kong, the Government's policy is to achieve "ageing in place as the core, institutional care as back-up". We are of the view that, with adequate community care and support, many elderly persons with long-term care needs can still continue to age in their own place. To this end, the Government aims to strengthen community care services to enable elderly persons to stay in the community as far as possible so as to lessen their need for institutionalization. In view of the above objectives, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") has put in place a set of established policies to provide home modification/adaptation works in public rental housing ("PRH") units for elderly and disabled tenants, so as to afford them a suitable environment to carry out daily activities safely and independently. Elderly PRH tenants and other tenants in need (such as wheelchair users) may make relevant applications through their corresponding Estate Management Office ("EMO"). The duration of home modification/adaptation works depends on their complexity. In general, works can be completed within two to five weeks. HA has not maintained statistics on the home modification/adaptation works carried out in PRH units of elderly tenants. HA currently installs grab rails in bathrooms and converts the bath tub into a shower area for elderly and disabled tenants free of charge. These works do not require referrals from medical officers, occupational therapists/physiotherapists or social workers. For other modification works, HA will decide whether it is necessary to consult medical officers or occupational therapists/physiotherapists subject to the actual need of a case. With tenants' consent, HA may also refer cases to the Social Welfare Department or medical social workers for professional advice before carrying out specific modification works. We believe that such arrangement will better meet the tenants' needs. If there is a need for home modification/adaptation works arising from health conditions, tenants may submit applications to EMOs at any time. Furthermore, under the Total Maintenance Scheme ("TMS"), HA proactively inspects the in-flat conditions and provides necessary repair services for PRH units aged 10 years or above. HA inspects units in buildings aged between 10 and 30 years every 10 years. For buildings aged over 30 years old,


9803

the frequency is increased to every five years. The objective of TMS is to provide preventive repair and maintenance services to tenants. In-flat Inspection Ambassadors and maintenance workers will arrange minor repairs on the spot upon inspection; and will arrange contractors to make appointments with the tenants to follow up on more complicated works. Franchised bus services 16. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, regarding franchised bus services, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows, since the Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited ("KMB") launched a monthly pass scheme on 1 March last year, (i) the average number of monthly passes sold each month, (ii) the top 10 bus routes with the highest numbers of passengers using monthly passes and the changes in the patronage of these routes before and after the launch of the monthly pass scheme, and (iii) whether the overall patronage has increased and KMB has correspondingly adjusted the bus frequencies; given that some cross-harbour bus routes are jointly operated by KMB and other franchised bus companies, but the monthly passes are applicable only to those trips made on buses of KMB, whether the Government has requested KMB to explore solutions to this problem; if so, of the details;

(2) as it has been reported that KMB is studying the introduction of a

monthly pass scheme for short-haul routes, whether it knows (i) the progress of the study, the launch date of the scheme and the districts to be covered, and (ii) if other franchised bus companies have planned to launch monthly pass schemes;

(3) of the details of the bus routes (i) newly introduced and (ii) cancelled

in each of the past five years by various franchised bus companies, including the justifications, effective dates and route information;

(4) as the Guidelines on Service Improvement and Reduction in Bus

Route Development Programmes provide that in considering the provision of new bus service, priority will be given to railway


feeders or new bus routes serving areas that are beyond the catchment area of existing railways, whether the Government will consider amending this provision with a view to improving the situation that public transport services rely heavily on railway service;

(5) as the Government has subsidized franchised bus companies to

install real-time bus arrival information display panels at about 1 300 bus stops on a matching basis, of the respective numbers of bus stops at which the installation work (i) has been completed and (ii) is expected to be completed by the end of next year, and set out the locations of those bus stops in the order of District Council districts;

(6) as some members of the public hope that more large bus stops for

bus-bus interchange offering interchange concessions will be provided in various districts in Kowloon (e.g. the bus stop near the Regal Oriental Hotel on Prince Edward Road East), whether there are such studies currently in progress; if so, of the details; and

(7) as the lost trip rates of franchised bus services have risen from 1.6%

in 2016 to 2.9% in 2018, of the measures the Government has in place to urge various franchised bus companies to improve such a situation?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, our reply to Mr WU Chi-wai's question is as follows:

(1) and (2) The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited ("KMB")

launched the monthly pass scheme on 1 March 2018. Based on the information provided by KMB, from the launch of the scheme to March 2019, about 15 000 monthly passes on average were sold by KMB per month. Details of the top 10 bus routes with the highest numbers of passengers using monthly passes are set out at Annex 1. The patronage of these 10 routes has increased by a total of about 4% since the launch of the monthly pass scheme.


9805

From March 2018 to March 2019, the average daily patronage of KMB has been on the rise, increasing from about 2.82 million passenger trips to about 2.89 million passenger trips. In addition to the monthly pass scheme, the growth in local population, commissioning of new infrastructure (such as the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link), introduction of new routes as well as other fare concessions offered by KMB (such as bus-bus interchange fare concessions) have also driven the passenger growth. The Transport Department ("TD") and KMB have been closely monitoring the service level of all bus routes, and will adjust the bus service in a timely manner to cope with passenger demand. In fact, KMB has introduced 30 new bus routes and strengthened the service of 87 bus routes between March 2018 and March 2019.

TD understands that KMB has no plan to introduce a monthly pass

scheme for short-haul routes, nor do other bus companies have any plan to launch monthly pass scheme. Given that KMB monthly passes are not applicable to trips made on jointly-operated cross-harbour routes operated by other franchised bus companies, a monthly pass label has been posted on every KMB bus for which monthly passes are applicable for easy identification by passengers. The Government will continue to encourage the bus companies to offer more fare concessions, including monthly passes, for the benefit of passengers.

(3) Over the past five years, the five franchised bus companies have

introduced a total of 194 bus routes and have cancelled a total of 54 bus routes, with the relevant details set out at Annex 2.

(4) Heavy rail, operating on dedicated rail corridor and providing high

capacity, convenient and emission-free services, has been serving as the backbone of our public transport system. Nonetheless, other public transport modes, in particular franchised buses with high passenger carrying capacity which serve as the road-based mass carrier, still play an important role, particularly for serving areas without direct railway access as well as providing feeder service connecting the railway network and inter-district service. TD will


continue to work with the franchised bus companies to improve the franchised bus services to meet passenger demand in order to provide better public transport services to the public.

(5) To improve the ancillary facilities of public transportation, the

Government provides subsidies to the franchised bus companies for installation of real-time bus arrival information display panels at about 1 300 covered bus stops with electricity supply in the territory. The installation works will be undertaken in three phases. The first phase of the subsidy scheme was completed in end 2018, in which display panels were installed at 283 bus stops. The franchised bus companies plan to proceed with the second and third phases of the installation works at about 990 bus stops by end 2020. The locations of the bus stops with the installation of display panels being completed or expected to be completed in various districts are set out at Annex 3 and Annex 4 respectively.

(6) The Government has been actively searching for suitable locations to

set up new Bus-Bus Interchanges ("BBIs") or upgrade the services and facilities of existing BBIs so that passengers can enjoy bus network with extended service coverage at BBIs. This also facilitates better resource allocation of the bus companies and thereby alleviating traffic congestion and air pollution. Over the past few years, TD and the franchised bus companies have set up new or enhanced existing BBIs at Tuen Mun Road, Tsing Sha Highway, Fanling Highway and the Tai Lam Tunnel Toll Plaza. There are also a wider range of interchange routes and more attractive fare concessions to facilitate passengers commuting between the New Territories, Kowloon and Hong Kong Island.

With reference to the experience on these BBIs, the Government has

planned to construct BBIs in tandem with the development of certain new or extensions of major infrastructure projects, such as tunnels, bridges and highways, so as to facilitate passengers interchanging for more destinations. Such infrastructure projects include the portal of Tseung Kwan O-Lam Tin Tunnel, the toll plaza of Tseung Kwan O Tunnel and the toll plaza of the Northern Connection of Tuen Mun-Chep Lap Kok Link.


9807

For developed urban areas with relatively high pedestrian and vehicular flows at narrower pavements and carriageways, it is not easy to set up large-scale BBIs. Nonetheless, the Government has been actively improving the existing bus stops to facilitate passengers interchanging between bus routes. Amongst them, the Government has worked with bus companies and completed upgrading the bus stop facilities at eastbound and westbound (outside The Latitude) of Prince Edward Road East in April 2018, including the erection of a new shelter at the eastbound bus stops and the installation of seats at the eastbound and westbound bus stops for passengers interchanging between bus routes. The Government will continue to search for other suitable locations to set up BBIs or upgrade the existing bus stops for the convenience of passengers interchanging between bus routes.

(7) TD has been closely monitoring the regularity and level of bus

services through various channels, such as examining the operating returns submitted by the franchised bus companies, conducting regular surveys and taking note of passengers' complaints or suggestions, etc. Regarding the factors affecting the regularity of bus services, some are within the control of bus companies, such as shortage of drivers and vehicles, vehicle breakdown, etc. However, some of the factors are external, such as public events, traffic congestion, traffic accidents or inclement weather, etc.

TD notes that average lost trip rate of the bus industry has increased

in 2018, and the main factor leading to such lost trips was driver shortage. In this regard, TD has requested bus companies to improve the remuneration of bus captains, take more proactive and effective actions in bus captain recruitment, and review the journey time of the bus routes concerned, having regard to the actual traffic condition. TD will also continue to examine with the franchised bus companies the causes of lost trips, direct them to tackle such causes within their control, and urge them to adopt suitable measures to address other external factors as far as possible.


Annex 1

The top 10 bus routes with the highest number of passengers using KMB monthly passes

Route No. Origin/Destination 1 68X Hung Shui Kiu (Hung Fuk Estate)-Mong Kok (Park Avenue) 2 258D Po Tin-Lam Tin Station 3 268C Long Ping Station-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier 4 269C Tin Shui Wai Town Centre-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier 5 269D Tin Fu-Lek Yuen 6 277X Luen Wo Hui-Lam Tin Station 7 960 Kin Sang-Wan Chai North 8 961 Shan King-Wan Chai (Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition

Centre) 9 968 Yuen Long (West)-Causeway Bay (Tin Hau) 10 978 Wah Ming-Wan Chai North

Annex 2

Details on the New Routes Introduced and Bus Routes Cancelled between 2014 and 2018

A. New Routes (i) KMB

No. Route No. Origin/Destination Date of

Implementation Justifications

1 6X Mei Foo-Tsim Sha Tsui (Middle Road)

29/3/2014 To meet changing passenger demand.

2 64S Sheung Tsuen Playground-Kam Sheung Road


3 72C Fung Yuen-Tai Po Market Station


4 74B Tai Po Centre-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier



9809



5 74D Kau Lung Hang-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier


6 74P Kwun Tong Ferry Pier-Tai Po Central


7 82B Mei Tin-Tai Wai Station 4/2/2014 To meet changing passenger demand.

8 82C Kwong Yuen-Hong Kong Science Park

18/8/2014 To provide morning service from Sha Tin (Kwong Yuen) to Hong Kong Science Park.

9 88X Sha Tin Station-Ping Tin (Circular)

4/8/2014 To provide express service between Sha Tin and Lam Tin.

10 106A Wong Tai Sin-Tai Koo (Kornhill Plaza)


11 203C Tai Hang Tung-Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road)

18/1/2014 To maintain service between Tai Hang Tung and Tsim Sha Tsui in connection with the cancellation of Route Nos. 2C and 203.

12 203S Chak On-Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road)

18/1/2014 To maintain service between Tai Hang Tung and Tsim Sha Tsui in connection with the cancellation of Route Nos. 2C and 203.

13 240X Wong Nai Tau-Kwai Hing Station

15/12/2014 To provide express service from Wong Nai Tau to Kwai Hing via Tsing Sha Highway.

14 251B Pat Heung Road-Sheung Tsuen (Circular)

4/10/2014 To maintain service between Sheung Tsuen and Pat Heung Road in connection with the cancellation of Route No. 251M.




15 268X Hung Shui Kiu (Hung Fuk Estate)-Jordan (To Wah Road)

13/9/2014 To improve operational efficiency.

16 269A Tin Sau Road-Kwai Chung (Kwai Fong Estate)


17 269P Kwai Chung (Kwai Fong Estate)-Tin Heng Estate


18 286C Sham Shui Po-Lee On 6/12/2014 To meet changing passenger demand.

19 287X Pok Hong-Jordan (Circular)

23/8/2014 To provide express service between Pok Hong and Jordan via Tsing Sha Highway in connection with the cancellation of Route No. 87A.

20 299X Sha Tin Town Centre-Sai Kung

11/1/2014 To provide express service between Sha Tin and Sai Kung in connection with the cancellation of Route No. 299.

21 936 Lei Muk Shue Estate PTI-Causeway Bay (Cotton Path)

16/6/2014 To provide morning service from Lei Muk Shue to Causeway Bay in connection with the cancellation of Route No. 336.

22 N73 Lok Ma Chau-Sha Tin Town Centre

18/1/2014 To introduce overnight service between North District and Sha Tin in connection with the cancellation of Route Nos. N76 and N270.


9811



23 T270 Sheung Shui-Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road)

25/8/2014 To provide morning express service from Sheung Shui to Tsim Sha Tsui.

24 T277 Sheung Shui-Lam Tin Station

25/8/2014 To provide morning express service from Sheung Shui to Tsim Sha Tsui.

25 2X Choi Fook-Mei Foo 19/12/2015 To meet changing passenger demand.

26 5S Kowloon Bay Station-Kai Tak (Trade and Industry Tower)

12/10/2015 To provide special service between Kowloon Bay Station and Kai Tak (Trade and Industry Tower).

27 16X Lam Tin (Kwong Tin Estate)-Mong Kok (Park Avenue)


28 35X On Yam-Tsim Sha Tsui East


29 36X Lei Muk Shue Estate Public Transport Interchange-Jordan (To Wah Road)


30 69C Tin Yan Estate-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier


31 83A Shui Chuen O-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier

12/10/2015 To provide special service between Shui Chuen O and Kwun Tong Ferry Pier.

32 182X Central (HK-Macau Ferry Terminal)-Yu Chui Court


33 272X Tai Po Centre-Mong Kok


34 259X Lung Mun Oasis-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier





35 264R Tai Po Market Station-Yuen Long (West)

5/12/2015 To provide direct service between Tai Po Market Station and Yuen Long (West) on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays.

36 268P Ma Wang Road-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier


37 280X Sui Wo Court-Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road)

24/1/2015 To provide express service between Sui Wo Court and Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road) via Tsing Sha Highway in connection with the cancellation of Route No. 280P.

38 286P Mei Chung Court-Cheung Sha Wan

13/6/2015 To meet changing passenger demand and improve operational efficiency.

39 288 Shui Chuen O-Sha Tin Central (Circular)

28/4/2015 To provide feeder service between Shui Chuen O and Sha Tin Central.

40 290 Choi Ming Public Transport Interchange ("PTI")-Tsuen Wan West Station PTI

28/3/2015 To provide a direct service between Tseung Kwan O and Tsuen Wan.

41 290A Choi Ming Public Transport Interchange ("PTI")-Tsuen Wan West Station PTI

28/3/2015 To provide a direct service between Tseung Kwan O and Tsuen Wan.

42 307C Tai Po (Tai Po Tau)-Wan Chai (Hong Kong Convention And Exhibition Centre)



9813



43 673 Sheung Shui-Wan Chai North Temporary Public Transport Interchange


44 934A Allway Gardens-Wan Chai


45 978 Fanling (Wah Ming)-Wan Chai North Temporary Public Transport Interchange


46 978A Fanling (Luen Wo Hui)-Wan Chai North Temporary Public Transport Interchange


47 978B Fanling (Chi Fuk Circuit)-Wan Chai North Temporary Public Transport Interchange


48 985 Mei Tin Estate (Mei Chi House)-Wan Chai (Hennessy Road)

22/8/2015 To provide special service from Mei Tin Estate to Wan Chai (Hennessy Road) via Western Harbour Crossing in connection with the cancellation of Route No. 305 (which operates via Cross-Harbour Tunnel).

49 N36 Tsuen Wan Station-Lei Muk Shue Estate Public Transport Interchange (Circular)

29/12/2015 To provide midnight service between Tsuen Wan Station and Lei Muk Shue Estate.

50 N39 Tsuen Wan Station-Allway Gardens (Circular)

29/12/2015 To provide midnight service between Tsuen Wan Station and Allway Gardens.

51 X42C Cheung Hang-Lam Tin Station





52 3X Tsz Wan Shan (North)-Yau Ma Tei

28/11/2016 To provide direct service from Tsz Wan Shan (North) to Yau Ma Tei.

53 5R Kai Tak Cruise Terminal-Ngau Tau Kok Station (Circular)

30/4/2016 To provide feeder service between Kai Tak Cruise Terminal and Ngau Tau Kok Station.

54 5X Tsz Wan Shan (Central)-Star Ferry Pier

8/8/2016 To operate special service Route No. 5X between Tsz Wan Shan (Central) and Star Ferry Pier to meet changing passenger demand.

55 6P So Uk-Lei Yue Mun Estate

15/8/2016 To provide direct service between So Uk and Lei Yue Mun Estate.

56 68F Yuen Long Park-Au Tau 14/5/2016 To meet changing passenger demand.

57 74E Tai Mei Tuk-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier

12/12/2016 To provide direct service from Tai Mei Tuk to Kwun Tong Ferry Pier.

58 86P Nai Chung-Sha Tin Station

25/4/2016 To operate special service Route No. 86P from Nai Chung to Sha Tin Station to meet changing passenger demand.

59 87E Nai Chung-Tsim Sha Tsui (Middle Road)

29/2/2016 To operate special service Route No. 87E from Nai Chung to Tsim Sha Tsui (Middle Road) to meet changing passenger demand.

60 91S Clear Water Bay-Hang Hau Station

22/8/2016 To provide feeder service from Clear Water Bay to Hang Hau Station.


9815



61 213D Sau Mau Ming (Central)-Mong Kok (Circular)

27/8/2016 To operate special service Route No. 213D between Sau Mau Ming (Central) and Mong Kok (Circular) to meet changing passenger demand.

62 213M On Tat-Lam Tin Station (Circular)

4/6/2016 To provide feeder service between On Tat and Lam Tin Station.

63 213X On Tat-Tsim Sha Tsui 30/7/2016 To operate special service Route No. 213X between On Tat and Tsim Sha Tsui to meet changing passenger demand.

64 214 Yau Tong Public Transport Interchange-Cheung Sha Wan (Kom Tsun Street)

13/8/2016 To provide direct service between Yau Tong and Cheung Sha Wan (Kom Tsun Street).

65 258X Po Tin-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier

31/10/2016 To operate special service Route No. 258X from Po Tin to Kwun Tong Ferry Pier to meet changing passenger demand.

66 267X Siu Hong Court-Lam Tin Station

31/10/2016 To provide direct service from Siu Hong Court to Lam Tin Station.

67 269S Tin Shui Wai Town Centre-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier

17/10/2016 To operate special service Route No. 269S from Tin Shui Wai Town Centre to Kwun Tong Ferry Pier to meet changing passenger demand.




68 270C Luen Wo Hui-Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road)

27/6/2016 To operate special service Routes No. 270C from Luen Wo Hui to Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road) to meet changing passenger demand.

69 270D Luen Wo Hui-Sham Shui Po

27/6/2016 To operate special service Routes No. 270D from Luen Wo Hui to Sham Shui Po to meet changing passenger demand.

70 288A Shui Chuen O-Sha Tin Central (Circular)

22/8/2016 To operate special service Route No. 288A between Shui Chuen O and Sha Tin Central (Circular) to meet changing passenger demand.

71 905P Lai Chi Kok-Wan Chai (Harbour Road)

3/10/2016 To operate special service Route No. 905P from Lai Chi Kok to Wan Chai (Harbour Road) to meet changing passenger demand.

72 40A Kwai Hing Station-Kwun Tong

4/12/2017 To operate special service Route No. 40A between Kwai Hing Station and Kwun Tong to meet changing passenger demand.

73 43D Cheung Wang-Kwai Shing (Central)

29/8/2017 To operate special service Route No. 43D from Cheung Wang to Kwai Shing (Central) to meet changing passenger demand.


9817



74 48P Wo Che-Tsing Lung Tau

24/4/2017 To provide direct service between Wo Che and Tsing Lung Tau.

75 80A Mei Lam-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier

18/9/2017 To operate special service Route No. 80A from Mei Lam to Kwun Tong Ferry Pier to meet changing passenger demand.

76 88 Sau Mau Ping (Central)-Tai Wai Station

9/7/2017 To provide direct service between Sau Mau Ping (Central) and Tai Wai Station.

77 89S Wong Nai Tau-Wu Kai Sha Station (Circular)

9/12/2017 To operate special service Route No. 89S between Wong Nai Tau and Wu Kai Sha Station (Circular) to meet changing passenger demand.

78 213S On Tat-Lam Tin Station (Circular)

29/6/2017 To operate special service Route No. 213S between On Tat and Lam Tin Station (Circular) to meet changing passenger demand.

79 234D Tsing Lung Tau-Kwun Tong Station

4/12/2017 To provide direct service between Tsing Lung Tau and Kwun Tong Station.

80 241X Cheung Ching-Oi Man 28/8/2017 To operate special service Route No. 241X from Cheung Ching to Oi Man to meet changing passenger demand.

81 252X Handsome Court-Lam Tin Station

16/10/2017 To provide direct service between Handsome Court and Lam Tin Station.




82 268A Long Ping Estate-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier

13/11/2017 To operate special service Route No. 268A from Long Ping Estate to Kwun Tong Ferry Pier to meet changing passenger demand.

83 271B Fu Heng-Tsim Sha Tsui (Middle Road)

27/2/2017 To operate special service Route No. 271B between Fu Heng and Tsim Sha Tsui (Middle Road) to meet changing passenger demand.

84 271S Tai Wo-Hung Hom Station

11/12/2017 To operate special service Route No. 271S from Hung Hom Station Tai Wo to meet changing passenger demand.

85 271X Fu Heng-Tsim Sha Tsui (Middle Road)

27/2/2017 To operate special service Route No. 271X from Tsim Sha Tsui (Middle Road) to Fu Heng to meet changing passenger demand.

86 272E Tai Wo-Sham Shui Po (Yen Chow Street)

9/10/2017 To provide direct service between Tai Wo and Sham Shui Po (Yen Chow Street).

87 278A Luen Wo Hui-Tsuen Wan (Nina Tower)

15/7/2017 To operate special service Route No. 278A from Luen Wo Hui to Tsuen Wan (Nina Tower) to meet changing passenger demand.


9819



88 279A Luen Wo Hui-Tsing Yi Station

28/8/2017 To operate special service Route No. 279A from Luen Wo Hui to Tsing Yi Station to meet changing passenger demand.

89 288B Shui Chuen O-Wo Che 23/10/2017 To operate special service Route No. 288B from Shui Chuen O to Wo Che to meet changing passenger demand.

90 290B Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate-Tsuen Wan West Station Public Transport Interchange

27/2/2017 To provide direct service from Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate to Tsuen Wan West Station Public Transport Interchange.

91 290X LOHAS Park Station Public Transport Interchange-Tsuen Wan West Station Public Transport Interchange

27/2/2017 To provide direct service from LOHAS Park Station Public Transport Interchange to Tsuen Wan West Station Public Interchange.

92 293S Hang Hau (Ngan O Road)-Mong Kok East Station

3/12/2017 To operate special service Route No. 293S between Hang Hau (Ngan O Road) and Mong Kok East Station to meet changing passenger demand.

93 296P Sheung Tak-Mong Kok (Circular)

30/10/2017 To provide direct service between Sheung Tak and Mong Kok.

94 613 On Tai (West)-Shau Kei Wan

18/4/2017 To provide direct service between On Tat and Shau Kei Wan.




95 N41X Hung Hom Station-Cheung Wang

31/10/2017 To operate special service Route No. N41X from Hung Hom Station to Cheung Wang to meet changing passenger demand.

96 N283 Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road)-Wong Nai Tau

14/2/2017 To provide all night service from Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road) to Wong Nai Tau.

97 N287 Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road)-Wu Kai Sha Station

30/10/2017 To provide all night service from Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road) to Wu Kai Sha Station.

98 968A Yuen Long (West)-Causeway Bay (Tin Hau)

13/11/2017 To operate special service Route No. 968A from Yuen Long (West) to Causeway Bay (Tin Hau) to meet changing passenger demand.

99 980X Wu Kai Sha Station-Wan Chai (Hennessy Road); Admiralty Station (East)-Wu Kai Sha Station

20/2/2017 To provide direct service from Wu Kai Sha Station to Wan Chai (Hennessy Road) and from Admiralty Station (East) to Wu Kai Sha Station.

100 981P Yiu On-Wan Chai (Hennessy Road); Admiralty Station (East) Bus Terminus-Yiu On

20/2/2017 To provide direct service from Yiu On to Wan Chai (Hennessy Road) and from Admiralty Station (East) to Yiu On.

101 14H Yau Tong Public Transport Interchange-Shun Lee (Circular)

26/3/2018 To introduce a new service for residents in Yau Tong, Lam Tin and Shun Lee to and from United Christian Hospital.


9821



102 26X Shun Tin-Tsim Sha Tsui East


103 32H Cheung Shan-Lai Chi Kok

6/4/2018 To provide direct service between Tsuen Wan/Kwai Shing and Princess Margaret Hospital/Yan Chai Hospital.

104 38B Riviera Gardens-Shek Mun

22/1/2018 To provide direct service between Riviera Gardens and Shek Mun during peak hours.

105 38P Kwai Chung Estate-Ping Tin


106 40S Nai Chung-Kwai Fong Estate

22/10/2018 To provide direct service from Nai Chung to Kwai Fong Estate.

107 68 Park Yoho Transport Interchange-Yoho Mall II (Circular)


108 73B Tai Po Hospital-Sheung Shui (Circular)


109 203X Choi Hung-Jordan (Battery Street)

29/10/2018 To provide express service in morning peak to meet the passenger demand.

110 205M Tsz Wan Shan (Central)-Wong Tai Sin

12/3/2018 To provide direct service from Tsz Wan Shan (Central) to Wong Tai Sin.

111 252 So Kwun Wat-Tuen Mun Road Bus-Bus Interchange (Tuen Mun Bound)

25/6/2018 To provide feeder service between So Kwun Wat and Tuen Mun Road Bus-Bus Interchange (Tuen Mun Bound).




112 258A Hung Shui Kiu (Hung Fuk Estate)-Lam Tin Station


113 261X Tuen Mun Town Centre-Fanling (Cheung Wah)


114 263A Tuen Mun Station-Hong Kong Science Park

9/4/2018 To provide direct service from Tuen Mun Station to Hong Kong Science Park.

115 274 Sheung Shui (Tai Ping)-Wu Kai Sha Station

27/8/2018 To provide direct service from Sheung Shui (Tai Ping) to Wu Kai Sha Station.

116 603A Ping Tin-Central Market 15/1/2018 To meet changing passenger demand.

117 673P Sheung Shui-Central (Rumsey Street)


118 872X Sha Tin Racecourse-Tai Po Central

18/2/2018 To introduce express service from Sha Tin Racecourse to Tai Po via Tolo Highway.

119 936A Lei Muk Shue Estate Public Transport Interchange/Shek Wai Kok-Causeway Bay (Cotton Path)


120 960C Tuen Mun (Fu Tai)-Wan Chai (North)


121 980A Shek Mun Estate-Wan Chai (Hennessy Road)


122 N3D Kwun Tong (Yue Man Square)-Tsz Wan Shan (Central)

11/8/2018 To provide direct service from Kwun Tong (Yue Man Square) to Tsz Wan Shan (Central)


9823



123 N252 Mei Foo-Sam Shing 18/9/2018 To provide overnight service from Mei Foo to Sam Shing.

124 N290 Tsuen Wan West Station Public Transport Interchange-LOHAS Park Station Public Transport Interchange


125 N373 Fanling (Luen Wo Hui)-Central (Macau Ferry)

26/8/2018 To provide overnight service between Fanling (Luen Wo Hui) and Central (Macau Ferry).

126 W2 Kwun Tong Station-West Kowloon Station Bus Terminus

23/9/2018 To introduce a new bus service to tie in with the commissioning of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link.

127 W3 Sheung Shui-West Kowloon Station Bus Terminus


128 X42P Cheung On-Lam Tin Station


129 X89D Nai Chung-Kwun Tong Ferry Pier

5/2/2018 To provide direct service from Nai Chung to Kwun Tong Ferry Pier.

(ii) Citybus Limited (Franchise for Hong Kong Island and Cross-Harbour Bus

Network)



1 43M Tin Wan Estate-Shek Tong Tsui (Des Voeux Road West near Hill Road) (Circular)

28/12/2014 To strengthen feeder service to tie in with the opening of West Island Line.




2 1P Wong Nai Chung Road (Broadwood Road)-Central; Central-Happy Valley (Upper)

11/5/2015 To enhance service in Route No. 1 with the amalgamation of Route No. 5 into this route.

3 182X Central (Macau Ferry)-Yu Chui Court


4 307C Tai Po (Tai Po Tau)-Wan Chai (Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre)


5 70A Central (Exchange Square)-Aberdeen Bus Terminus


6 981P Yiu On-Wan Chai (Hennessy Road); Admiralty Station (East) Bus Terminus-Yiu On

20/2/2017 To provide direct service from Yiu On to Wan Chai (Hennessy Road) and from Admiralty Station (East) to Yiu On.

7 20 Kai Tak (Muk Ning Street)-Tai Kok Tsui (Island Harbourview)

29/4/2018 To provide direct service between Kai Tak and Tai Kok Tsui.

8 22 Kai Tak Cruise Terminal-Kowloon Tong (Festival Walk)

24/6/2018 To provide feeder service between Kai Tak Cruise Terminal and Kowloon Tong.

9 77A Shau Kei Wan-Tin Wan 17/9/2018 To provide direct service from Shau Kei Wan to Tin Wan.

10 608 Kowloon City (Shing Tak Street)-Grand Promenade

27/8/2018 To provide direct service from Kowloon City to Grand Promenade.

11 962E So Kwun Wat-Taikoo (Kornhill Plaza); Quarry Bay (Sunway Gardens)-So Kwun Wat

8/1/2018 To provide direct service between So Kwun Wat and Taikoo.


9825

(iii) Citybus Limited (Franchise for Airport and North Lantau Bus Network)



1 NA21 Airport-Tai Kok Tsui (Hoi Fai Road)


2 E11A Causeway Bay (Tin Hau)-AsiaWorld-Expo Bus Terminus


3 A29P Tseung Kwan O Station Public Transport Interchange-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus)


4 E22C Tseung Kwan O (Tiu Keng Leng Station Public Transport Interchange)-Airport (Aircraft Maintenance Area)


5 NA29 Tseung Kwan O (Po Lam Public Transport Interchange)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus)


6 NA11 North Point Ferry Pier Public Transport Interchange-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus)

16/7/2016 To provide midnight service between North Point Ferry Pier Public Transport Interchange and Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus).

7 E21C Tai Kok Tsui (Island Harbourview) Bus Terminus-Airport (Aircraft Maintenance Area)





8 A20 Hung Hom Station-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)

20/3/2017 To provide direct service between Hung Hom Station and Airport (Ground Transportation Centre).

9 A26 (Yau Tong Public Transport Interchange-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)


10 B5 Hong Kong Port-MTR Sunny Bay Station

24/10/2018 To introduce a new bus service to tie in with the commissioning of Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB").

11 E23A Tsz Wan Shan (South)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)


12 S52A Tung Chung North (Seaview Crescent)-Aircraft Maintenance Area


13 W1 Admiralty Station (West) Bus Terminus-West Kowloon Station Bus Terminus


14 NA20 Whampoa Garden-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)


15 NA12 Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)



9827

(iv) New World First Bus Services Limited

No. Route No.

Origin/Destination Date of


1 106A Wong Tai Sin-Tai Koo 20/1/2014 To meet changing passenger demand.

2 682B Shui Chuen O-Siu Sai Wan

20/1/2014 To provide direct service from Shui Chuen O to Siu Sai Wan.

3 682C City One ShaTin-North Point (King's Road outside Island Place); North Point Ferry Pier-City One ShaTin


4 798A Hong Sing Garden-Sha Tin Station; Sha Tin Town Centre-Hong Sing Garden


5 798B LOHAS Park Station Public Transport Interchange-Sha Tin Station; Sha Tin Town Centre-LOHAS Park Station Public Transport Interchange


6 985 Mei Tin Estate (Mei Chi House)-Wan Chai (Hennessy Road)

22/8/2015 To provide special service from Mei Tin Estate to Wan Chai (Hennessy Road) via Western Harbour Crossing in connection with the cancellation of Route No. 305 (which operates via Cross-Harbour Tunnel).


No. Route No.

Origin/Destination Date of


7 88X Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort)-Kennedy Town (Belcher Bay Temporary Bus Terminus)

21/11/2016 To provide direct service from Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort) to Kennedy Town (Belcher Bay Temporary Bus Terminus).

8 905P Lai Chi Kok-Wan Chai (Harbour Road)

3/10/2016 To operate special service Route No. 905P from Lai Chi Kok to Wan Chai (Harbour Road) to meet changing passenger demand.

9 8H Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort)-Causeway Bay (Eastern Hospital Road)

23/7/2017 To provide direct service between Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort) and Tung Wah Eastern Hospital.

10 796E Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate-So Uk

25/9/2017 To provide direct service from Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate to So Uk.

11 980X Wu Kai Sha Station-Wan Chai (Hennessy Road); Admiralty Station (East) Bus Terminus-Wu Kai Sha Station

20/2/2017 To provide direct service from Wu Kai Sa Station to Wan Chai (Hennessy Road) and from Admiralty Station (East) to Wu Kai Sha Station.

12 H1A Central Ferry Piers (Pier 6)-Tsim Sha Tsui (Hankow Road)

21/10/2017 To provide direct service from Central Ferry Piers (Pier 6) to Tsim Sha Tsui (Hankow Road).

13 H2 Central Ferry Piers (Pier 6)-Tsim Sha Tsui (Hankow Road)

21/10/2017 To provide direct service from Central Ferry Piers (Pier 6) to Tsim Sha Tsui (Hankow Road).

14 980A Shek Mun Estate-Wan Chai (Hennessy Road)


15 X970 South Horizons-So Uk 23/7/2018 To provide direct service from South Horizons to So Uk.


9829

(v) Long Win Bus Company Limited



1 E34A Tin Shui Wai Town Centre-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)


2 S64X Tung Chung (Yat Tung Estate Public Transport Terminus)-Airport (Passenger Terminal Building) (Circular)


3 S64C Yat Tung Estate Public Transport Terminus-Airport (Cargo and Catering Area) (Circular)


4 N30S Yuen Long (East)-Tung Chung Station Bus Terminus

28/6/2015 To meet changing passenger demand and improve operational efficiency; and to tie in with traffic arrangements in connection with the development at the site of the original bus terminus in Tung Chung Town Centre.

5 N42P Sheung Shui Station-Tung Chung Station Bus Terminus

12/7/2015 To meet changing passenger demand and to tie in with traffic arrangements in connection with the development at the site of the original bus terminus in Tung Chung Town Centre.

6 E34X Tin Shui Wai Town Centre-Tung Chung (Yat Tung Estate)





7 A33P Tuen Mun (Chung Uk Tsuen)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus)


8 A36 Hung Shui Kiu (Hung Yuen Road)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus)


9 A47 Tai Po (Fu Heng)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus)


10 A43P Fanling (Luen Wo Hui)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus)


11 A31P Tsuen Wan (Discovery Park Bus Terminus)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)


12 A32 Kwai Chung Estate-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)

3/12/2016 To provide direct service between Kwai Chung and Airport (Ground Transportation Centre).

13 A37 Hung Shui Kiu (Hung Yuen Road)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus)

25/7/2016 To provide service between Hung Shui Kiu/Tin Shui Wai and Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus).

14 A47X Tai Po (Fu Heng)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)

20/8/2016 To provide direct service between Tai Po (Fu Heng) and Airport (Ground Transportation Centre).


9831



15 NA40 Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)-Wu Kai Sha Station


16 NA41 Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)-Sha Tin [Shui Chuen O)


17 NA43 Fanling (Luen Wo Hui)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)


18 A33X Tuen Mun (Fu Tai)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)

23/12/2017 To provide direct service between Tuen Mun (Fu Tai) and Airport (Ground Transportation Centre).

19 E32A Kwai Fong Station-Tung Chung Development Pier

25/3/2017 To provide direct service between Kwai Fong Station and Tung Chung Development Pier.

20 NA33 Tuen Mun (Fu Tai)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)

23/1/2017 To provide overnight service between Tuen Mun (Fu Tai) and Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus).

21 NA34 Tin Shui Wai Town Centre-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)

23/1/2017 To provide overnight service between Tin Shui Wai Town Centre and Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus).

22 NA47 Tai Po (Fu Heng)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)


23 NA31 Tsuen Wan (Nina Tower)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)


24 NA32 Kwai Chung Estate-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)



(vi) New Lantao Bus Company (1973) Limited



1 11A Shek Pik-Tung Chung Town Centre


2 37H Tung Chung (North Lantau Hospital)-Tung Chung North (Caribbean Coast)

10/10/2015 To tie in with traffic arrangements in connection with the development at the site of the original bus terminus in Tung Chung Town Centre, and to meet changing passenger demand.

3 37M Tung Chung Station-Tung Chung North (The Visionary) (Circular)

1/4/2016 To tie in with traffic arrangements in connection with the development at the site of the original bus terminus in Tung Chung Town Centre, and to meet changing passenger demand.

4 37S Tung Chung Development Pier-Tung Chung Station Bus Terminus


5 39M Mun Tung Estate-Tung Chung Station (Circular)


6 B4 Hong Kong Port of HZMB-Airport (Circular)

24/10/2018 To introduce a new bus service to tie in with the commissioning of the HZMB.

7 B6 Hong Kong Port of HZMB-Mun Tung Estate, Tung Chung

24/10/2018 To introduce a new bus service to tie in with the commissioning of the HZMB.

8 N37 Ying Tung Estate-Tung Chung Town Centre (Circular)



9833

B. Routes Cancelled (i) KMB



1 2C Yau Yat Tsuen-Tsim Sha Tsui (Circular)

18/1/2014 Low patronage and amalgamated with Route No. 203 and re-numbered as Route No. 203C.

2 44P Tsing Yi Ferry-Mong Kok East Station


3 46S Tai Wai Station-Lai King North


4 64P Yuen Long (West)-Tai Po Market Station


5 66P Tai Hing-Tsuen Wan Station


6 82S Kwong Yuen-Kowloon Tong (Suffolk Road)

18/8/2014 Low patronage and alternative public transport service is available.

7 86P Heng On-Cheung Sha Wan


8 86X Lee On-Cheung Sha Wan


9 87A Pok Hong-Mong Kok (Park Avenue)

23/8/2014 Low patronage and replaced by Route No. 287X.

10 203 Yau Yat Tsuen-Tsim Sha Tsui East (Circular)

18/1/2014 Low patronage and amalgamated with Route No. 2C and re-numbered as Route No. 203C.

11 234S Sham Tseng (Bellagio)-Tsing Yi Station

22/4/2014 Low patronage and amalgamated with Route No. 234C.


No. Route No. Origin/Destination

Date of Implementation Justifications

12 264M Tin Yan Estate-Tsing Yi Station

22/11/2014 Low patronage and amalgamated with Route No. 68E.

13 265P Tin Yan Estate-Lai Yiu 29/11/2014 To meet changing passenger demand.

14 299 Sai Kung-Sha Tin Town Centre

11/1/2014 Replaced by Route No. 299X to improve operational efficiency.

15 336 Lei Muk Shue Estate PTI-Sheung Wan

16/6/2014 Replaced by Route No. 936 to provide express service between Northeast Kwai Chung and Hong Kong Island.

16 N76 Sheung Shui-Lok Ma Chau PTI

18/1/2014 Low patronage and amalgamated with Route No. N270 and re- numbered as Route No. N73.

17 N270 Sheung Shui-Sha Tin Town Centre

19/1/2014 Low patronage and amalgamated with Route No. N76 and re-numbered as Route No. N73.

18 6X Mei Foo-Tsim Sha Tsui 19/12/2015 To meet changing passenger demand and improve operational efficiency.

19 35S On Yam-Mei Foo Station


20 59S Tuen Mun Pier Head-Mong Kok

19/12/2015 Low patronage and alternative public transport services are available.

21 280P Sui Wo Court-Tsim Sha Tsui

25/1/2015 Low patronage and replaced by Route No. 280X.


9835



22 305 Mei Tin Estate-Sheung Wan

22/8/2015 Replaced by Route No. 985 to improve operational efficiency.

23 373A Fanling (Wah Ming)-Wan Chai North Temporary Public Transport Interchange


24 15P Kai Yip Estate-Ping Tin 15/2/2016 To cease operating special service Route No. 15P from Kai Yip Estate to Ping Tin to improve operational efficiency.

25 238S Riviera Gardens-China Ferry Terminal

17/10/2016 To cease operating special service Route No. 238S from Riviera Gardens to China Ferry Terminal to improve operational efficiency and alternative public transport services are available.

26 267S Siu Hong Court-Tsim Sha Tsui

31/10/2016 To cease operating special service Route No. 267S from Siu Hong Court to Tsim Sha Tsui to improve operational efficiency.

27 3P Tsz Wan Shan (South)-Choi Wan

29/4/2017 To cease operating special service Route No. 3P between Tsz Wan Shan (South) and Choi Wan to improve operational efficiency and alternative public transport services are available.




28 5S Kowloon Bay Station-Kai Tak (Trade and Industry Tower)


29 13S Po Tat-Lam Tin Station 31/8/2017 To cease operating special service Route No. 13S between Po Tat and Lam Tin Station to improve operational efficiency and alternative public transport services are available.

30 212 Whampoa Garden-Sham Shui Po (Tonkin Street)


31 692P Hang Hau (North)-Central (Exchange Square)


32 802 Sha Tin Racecourse-Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort)


33 811 Sha Tin Racecourse-Kennedy Town


34 885 Sha Tin Racecourse-Lee On


35 886 Sha Tin Racecourse-Mei Foo



9837

(ii) Citybus Limited (Franchise for Hong Kong Island and Cross-Harbour Bus Network)



1 698R Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort)-Wong Shek Pier


2 M47 Wah Fu (North)-Central (Hong Kong Station) (Circular)


3 3B Central (Man Kat Street Bus Terminus)-Pokfield Road

17/5/2015 Amalgamated into Routes No. 12 and 12M to improve operational efficiency and other alternative public transport services are available.

4 5 Causeway Bay (Whitfield Road)-Felix Villas

10/5/2015 Amalgamated into Route No. 1 to improve operational efficiency and other alternative public transport services are available.

5 5C Shek Tong Tsui-(Queen's Road West) Wan Chai (Luard Road)

10/5/2015 Amalgamated into Route No. 5B to improve operational efficiency.

6 5P Kennedy Town-Wan Chai Ferry Pier


7 5S Sai Ying Pun (Centre Street)-Wan Chai (Queen Elizabeth Stadium); Wong Nai Chung Road (Broadwood Road)-Sai Ying Pun (Centre Street)

10/5/2015 Amalgamated into Route No. 1 to improve operational efficiency and other alternative public transport services are available.

8 70M Wah Kwai Estate-Admiralty Station (East) Bus Terminus

17/5/2015 Amalgamated into Route No. 70 to improve operational efficiency.




9 629A Ocean Park (Main Entrance)-Central (Exchange Square)

11/1/2017 To improve operational efficiency and alterative public transport services are available.

10 629S Admiralty (West)-Ocean Park (Main Entrance)

11/1/2017 To improve operational efficiency and alterative public transport services are available.

11 973P Shum Wan Road Public Transport Terminus-Tsim Sha Tsui East (Mody Road)

17/7/2017 To improve operational efficiency and alternative public transport services are available.

(iii) New World First Bus Services Limited



1 H2 Central Ferry Piers (Pier 7)-Causeway Bay (Circular)


2 43X Wah Kwai Estate-Wan Chai (Harbour Road) (Circular)

17/5/2015 Replaced by CTB Route No. 43M (introduced on 28 December 2014) to improve operational efficiency and other alternative public transport services are available.

3 46X Tin Wan Estate-Wan Chai (Harbour Road) (Circular)

17/5/2015 Replaced by CTB Route No. 43M (introduced on 28 December 2014) to improve operational efficiency and other alternative public transport services are available.

4 305 Mei Tin Estate-Sheung Wan

22/8/2015 Replaced by Route No. 985 to improve operational efficiency.


9839



5 94X Lee Tung Estate-Central (Exchange Square)

2/5/2017 To improve operational efficiency and alternative public transport services are available.

6 95B South Horizons-Wong Chuk Hang (Circular)


7 590A South Horizons-Admiralty Station (East) Bus Terminus (Circular)


8 692P Hang Hau (North)-Central (Exchange Square)


9 802 Sha Tin Racecourse-Siu Sai Wan (Island Resort)


10 811 Sha Tin Racecourse-Kennedy Town


(iv) Long Win Bus Company Limited



1 E34 Tin Shui Wai Town Centre-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre)


2 A47 Tai Po (Fu Heng)-Airport (Ground Transportation Centre Bus Terminus)

27/1/2017 Replaced by Route No. 47X to improve operational efficiency.


Annex 3

Location of Bus Stops with Real Time Bus Arrival Information Display Panels Installed by Franchised Bus Company under the Government's Subsidy Scheme

by end 2018 (Phase 1) Yau Tsim Mong (Total: 11) 1. Gascoigne Road Labour Tribunal 2. Waterloo Road south of Dundas Street Kwong Wah Hospital 3. Boundary Street outside House No. 15 near Tai Nam Street 4. Tai Kok Tsui Road outside House No. 121 5. Hoi Wang Road outside Charming Garden 6. Nathan Road outside House No. 133 Park Lane 7. Prince Edward Road West outside Prince Edward Road/Nullah Road

Garden 8. Hoi Wang Road outside Hoi Fu Court 9. Hung Hom Railway Station Bus Terminus 10. Salisbury Road Middle Road Park near Lamp Pole AA7970-2 11. Cherry Street outside Ming Kei College Sham Shui Po (Total: 15) 1. So Uk Bus Terminus 2. Tai Hang Tung Road outside Concordia Lutheran School 3. Lai Chi Kok Road outside House No. 808 Good Luck Industrial Centre 4. Cheung Sha Wan Road opposite Cheung Sha Wan Post Office [2] 5. Lai Chi Kok Road outside House No. 250 6. Cheung Sha Wan Road outside Yee Kok Court [2] 7. Cheung Sha Wan Road near Mei Foo Railway Station 8. Nam Cheong Street outside Shek Kip Mei Commercial Centre 9. Nam Cheong Street outside Shui Tin House Pak Tin Estate 10. Sham Mong Road outside Fu Cheong Estate 11. Cheung Sha Wan Road north of Wing Lung Street 12. Tai Po Road opposite Carlton Hotel 13. Tonkin Street outside Cheung Sha Wan Railway Station Kowloon City (Total: 20) 1. Argyle Street Hong Kong Eye Hospital Lamp Pole BE6265-9 2. Argyle Street Kowloon City Police Station Lamp Pole AE6264-3


9841

3. Argyle Street Kowloon Hospital Lamp Pole E6277-7 [2] 4. Mok Cheong Street House No. 19 The HK Society for the Blind 5. Argyle Street House No. 163 after Forfar Road 6. Argyle Street opposite House No. 106D 7. Hung Hom South Road near Cheong Wan Road 8. Argyle Street House No. 134-136 9. Oi Man Bus Terminus [4] 10. Prince Edward Road East near Sa Po Road 11. Chatham Road North opposite Ulfert near Ping Chi Street 12. Fat Kwong Street outside Housing Authority Headquarters 13. To Kwa Wan Road House No. 33 near Ngan Hon Street 14. Hung Hom Road south of Bailey Street Peninsula Square 15. Chatham Road North near Cooke Street Lamp Pole K9729-7 16. Prince Edward Road East opposite Rhythm Garden Wong Tai Sin (Total: 28) 1. Hammer Hill Road near East Kowloon Polyclinic 2. Po Kong Village Road near Fu Shan Estate 3. Prince Edward Road East near Choi Hung Estate 4. Chuk Yuen Road opposite Baptist Rainbow Primary School 5. Tsz Wan Shan Road opposite Oi Fu House Tsz Oi Court 6. Lung Cheung Road near Tan Fung House Choi Hung Estate [2] 7. Tsz Wan Shan Road outside Ching Hong House Tsz Ching Estate near

Lamp Pole AB3817 [2] 8. Fung Tak Road outside Lung Poon Court [2] 9. Choi Hung Road outside House No. 22-24 10. Choi Hung Access Road outside Pik Hoi House Choi Hung Estate [2] 11. Fung Tak Road outside House No. 75 12. Fung Tak Road outside Ban Fung House Fung Tak Estate 13. Tung Tau Tsuen Road outside Lung Wing House Lower Wong Tai Sin

Estate 14. Juntion Road near Lok Fu Recreation Ground 15. Fu Mei Street outside Wang Fu House Wang Tau Hom Estate 16. Lung Cheung Road near Morse Park Swimming Pool 17. Lung Cheung Road outside Tin Ma Court 18. Chuk Yuen Road near Baptist Rainbow Primary School 19. Po Kong Village Road outside Po Leung Kuk No. 1 W.H. Cheung College 20. New Clear Water Bay Road outside Pak Hung House Choi Wan Estate


21. Po Kong Village Road near Po Tsz Lane Lamp Pole AA7558 22. Fung Tak Road outside Nam Lian Garden 23. Ma Chai Hang Road outside Wang King House Tin Wang Court 24. Fung Tak Road outside Chi Lin Nunnery Kwun Tong (Total: 30) 1. Shun Tin Bus Terminus [3] 2. Clear Water Bay Road Ping Shek Bus Terminus outside Choi Hung

Railway Station 3. Kwun Tong Road Kwun Tong Railway Station Bus Terminus [4] 4. Lam Tin (Kwong Tin Estate) Bus Terminus [4] 5. Ngau Tau Kok Road opposite Amoy Gardens 6. Wang Kwong Road outside Richland Gardens Shopping Centre 7. Pik Wan Road near Tak Hong House Tak Tin Estate 8. Chun Wah Road opposite Lok Nga Court near Lamp Pole E2801 9. Lei Yue Mun opposite St. Antonius Girls' College 10. Chun Wah Road outside Lok Wah Community Centre 11. Sheung Yuet Road opposite Enterprise Square 12. Prince Edward Road East near Choi Hung Interchange 13. Hip Wo Street opposite United Christian Hospital near Lamp Pole AA0313 14. Sau Mau Ping (Upper) Bus Terminus 15. Kwun Tong Road outside Kwun Tong Road Sitting-Out Area 16. Po Lam Road opposite Po Tat Estate 17. Hiu Kwong Street outside Hiu Lai Court 18. Pik Wan Road outside Heng Nga House Hong Nga Court 19. Lee On Road opposite Shun Lee Fire Station 20. On Tin Street opposite Ping Chun House 21. Chun Wah Road Ngau Tau Kok Bus Terminus 22. Sau Mau Ping (Central) Bus Terminus Island (Total: 3) 1. Wai Tung Road opposite Seaview Crescent 2. Man Tung Road outside Caribbean Coast Phase 2 3. Man Tung Road outside Caribbean Coast Phase 1 Kwai Tsing (Total: 23) 1. Lai King Hill Road near Kau Wa Keng Village 2. Chung Mei Road near Hong Shun House Cheung Hong Estate


9843

3. Tsing Yi Heung Sze Wui Road outside Tsing Yi Police Station 4. Cheung Ching Bus Terminus near Cheung Ching Estate Community

Centre [3] 5. Kwai Chung Road near Hoover Industrial Building 6. Kwai Chung Road outside Kwai Fong Shopping Centre 7. Shek Pai Street outside Shek Foon House 8. Fung Shue Wo Road near Tai Wong Ha Tsuen 9. Tai Wo Hau Road opposite Fu On House Tai Wo Hau Estate 10. Tsing King Road opposite Tsing Yi Sports Ground 11. Cheung Wang Bus Terminus 12. Lai King Hill Road near Princess Margaret Hospital Nurse Quarter 13. Lai King Hill Road near Princess Margaret Hospital 14. Castle Peak Road outside Tai Wo Hau Sports Centre 15. Cheung Wing Road outside Tung Chun Soy & Canning Company 16. Lai King Hill Road near Yin Lai Court 17. Kwai Tsing Road near Modern Terminals 18. Tai Wo Hau Road outside Ha Kwai House Kwai Chung Estate 19. Wo Kwai Lane otuside Tak Cheong Building 20. Tai Wo Hau Road opposite Chau Kwai House Kwai Chung Estate 21. Kwai Shing Circuit near Shing On House Tsuen Wan (Total: 12) 1. Sha Tsui Road outside House No. 213 Lady Trench Polyclinic 2. Castle Peak Road outside The Panorama 3. Wai Tsuen Road near Luk Yeung Sun Chuen 4. Tai Ho Road outside House No. 53-55 5. Tai Ho Road outside Cheuk Ming Mansion 6. Castle Peak Road outside Wing Hong House Fuk Loi Estate [2] 7. Tai Chung Road near Castle Peak Road 8. Wing Shun Street under Tsuen Wan Road Flyover 9. Sea Crest Villa Access Road opposite Sea Crest Villa Phase 2 10. Tsuen King Circuit outside Tsuen King Garden Monthly Carpark 11. Tsuen King Circuit outside Allway Gardens Phase 3 Tuen Mun (Total: 22) 1. Tuen Fat Road Waldorf Garden near Lamp Pole H1867 [2] 2. Castle Peak Road near Waldorf Garden opposite Lamp Pole H3636 3. Castle Peak Road near Tuen Mun Hospital opposite Lamp Pole H4932


4. Wu King Road Wu Tsui House Wu King Estate near Lamp Pole H0957 5. Wu King Road opposite Wu Tsui House Wu King Estate near Lamp Pole

H0958 6. Tuen Mun Heung Sze Wui Road near Siu Lun Court opposite Lamp Pole

DD0065 7. Castle Peak Road Hong Kong Gold Coast opposite Lamp Pole DD0007 8. Castle Peak Road near Nai Wai opposite Lamp Pole FA8102 9. Wu Chui Road Siu Hei Court opposite Lamp Pole DD0976 10. Ming Kum Road outside Po Tin Interim Housing opposite Lamp Pole

FA2578 11. Lung Mun Road opposite Sun Tuen Mun Centre opposite Lamp Pole

FB6948 12. Tin King Road Tin Yue House Tin King Estate near Lamp Pole AD6651 13. Castle Peak Road Fu Tai Estate opposite Lamp Pole DD0197 14. Castle Peak Road Fu Tai Estate opposite Lamp Pole DD0198 15. Ming Kum Road Goodrich Garden Commercial Complex opposite Lamp

Pole FA2577 16. Wu Chui Road Tip Sum House Butterfly Estate near Lamp Pole H4594 17. Castle Peak Road Harvest Garden opposite Lamp Pole H4957 18. Tsun Wen Road Tai Hing Sports Centre opposite Lamp Pole FA2085 19. Castle Peak Road The Aegean opposite Lamp Pole FC4864 20. Wu Sau Street Yuet Wu Villa Bus Terminus 21. Wu Chui Road Tuen Mun Pier Head opposite Lamp Pole DD0978 Yuen Long (Total: 19) 1. Castle Peak Road Lok Ma Chau near Lamp Pole AD7512 2. Castle Peak Road San Wai (Fairview Park) near Lamp Pole FA8356 3. Tin Sau Road Yat Yeung House Tin Yat Estate opposite Lamp Pole

AD1215 4. Tin Wu Road Yiu Shing House Tin Yiu Estate opposite Lamp Pole

DD0338 5. Wang Tat Road Yuet Ping House Long Ping Estate near Lamp Pole

AD5062 6. Tin Shui Road Yan Fu House Tin Fu Court opposite Lamp Pole AD1087 7. Castle Peak Road House No. 142 near Lamp Pole DD1027 8. Castle Peak Road Shui Pin Wai Estate near Lamp Pole AD2894 9. Tin Wah Road near Tin Yuet Estate opposite Lamp Pole AD1305 10. Tin Fuk Road Tn Yau Court opposite Lamp Pole AD6673 [2]


9845

11. Castle Peak Road Hung Shui Kiu opposite Lamp Pole AD2839 12. Tin Shui Road Tin Chak Estate opposite Lamp Pole AD1067 13. Tin Yiu Road outside Tin Shui Wai Police Station opposite Lamp Pole

DD0524 14. Tin Kwai Road near Lynwood Court near Lamp Pole FB2085 15. Tin Shui Road outside Tin Wah Estate opposite Lamp Pole DD0538 16. Kam Tin Road near Lo Uk Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole U8860 17. Wang Tat Road Fung Chi Tsuen near Lamp Pole H1595 18. Tin Ha Road Lee Uk Tsuen near Lamp Pole FB9092 Northern (Total: 13) 1. Sha Tau Kok Road Sha Tau Kok Clinic near Lamp Pole EA9319 2. Tai Ping Estate Bus Terminus 3. Pak Wo Road Yan Shing Court near Lamp Pole AD4514 4. Lung Sum Avenue near Lung Fung Garden opposite Lamp Pole DD0393 5. Wah Ming Road Hong Ming House Wah Ming Estate near Lamp Pole

AD0948 6. Chi Fuk Circuit Ka Fuk Estate opposite Lamp Pole EA9562 7. Sha Tau Kok Road opposite Oil Station opposite Lamp Pole N7665 8. Jockey Club Road Tsui Lai Garden opposite Lamp Pole AD2648 9. Lui Ming Road Wah Ming Estate near Lamp Pole EA9063 10. Wo Muk Road Alliance Primary School Sheung Shui near Lamp Pole

DD0743 11. Pak Wo Road Flora Plaza opposite Lamp Pole EA1894 12. Choi Yuen Road near Choi Pik House Choi Po Court near Lamp Pole

N1688 13. Fan Kam Road Lin Tong Mei opposite Lamp Pole EB5087 Tai Po (Total: 16) 1. On Po Road Tai Po Central Bus Terminus opposite Lamp Pole EB3785 2. On Cheung Road Tai Po Civic Centre opposite Lamp Pole EB3767 [2] 3. Tai Po Road Kwong Fuk Estate near Lamp Pole EA7874 4. On Cheung Road Eightland Gardens near Lamp Pole EB3767 5. Wong Shek Pier 6. Sai Sha Road near Sai O 7. Tai Po Road opposite Kwong Fuk Estate opposite Lamp Pole EA8356 8. Tai Po Tai Wo Road near Heng Wo House Tai Wo Estate opposite Lamp

Pole DE0033


9. Nam Wan Road near Uptown Plaza opposite Lamp Pole EA7573 10. Wan Tau Street outside Tai Po Hui Market near Lamp Pole BE0567 11. Nam Wan Road Sun Hing Garden near Lamp Pole N3221 12. On Po Road near Yee Nga Court opposite Fu Shin Plaza opposite Lamp

Pole AN6675 13. Lam Kam Road San Tong Kun Kee Farm near Lamp Pole EB0488 14. Tai Po Central Tai Po Plaza [2] Shatin (Total: 43) 1. A Kung Kok Street near Sha Tin Hospital [2] 2. Mei Tin Road outside Holford Garden 3. A Kung Kok Street opposite Sha Tin Hospital [2] 4. Ning Tai Road near Lamp Pole AE0393 Ngan Shing Street near Yuen

Chau Kok Temporary Housing Area (Ngan Shing Street near Saint Rose of Lima's College)

5. Sha Tin Wai Road near Li Ka Shing Specialist Clinic 6. Kwong Yuen Bus Terminus 7. Sha Tin Tau Road outside Yan Wai House 8. Wong Nai Tau Bus Terminus [4] 9. Hin Keng Street near Hin Pui House [2] 10. Hin Keng Street near Hin Hing House 11. Fo Tan (Shan Mei Street) Bus Terminus 12. Hang Hong Street outside Tsang Pik Shan Secondary School 13. Siu Lek Yuen Road outside Cypress House Kwong Yuen Estate 14. Tai Chung Kiu Road outside Belair Garden 15. Tai Chung Kiu Road outside Block 13, City One Shatin 16. Ngan Shing Street opposite Yue Tin Court 17. Sai Sha Road near Lee Wing House Lee On Estate 18. Kam Ying Road outside Kam Ying Court 19. Hung Mui Kuk Road near Chung Pak Road 20. Sai Sha Road opposite Chung On 21. Sui Wo Road opposite Goldfield Industrial Centre 22. Mei Tin Road outside Yat Shing House May Shing Court 23. On Chun Street opposite Bayshore Towers 24. Tin Sam Street near Po Leung Kuk C.W. Chu College 25. Tai Chung Kiu Road outside Jat Min Chuen 26. Sha Tin Tau Road outside Shek Ying House 27. Sha Kok Street outside Sha Kok Estate


9847

28. Hung Mui Kuk Road outside Sun Yuet House 29. Mei Tin Road outside Mei Chung Court 30. Yuen Wo Road opposite Wo Che Estate 31. Ma On Shan Road near Ma On Shan Police Station 32. Hang Hong Street near Hang Kong House 33. Tai Po Road near Chinese University of Hong Kong 34. Tai Po Road near Shek Lei Pui Reservoir 35. Sha Tin Centre Street outside Hilton Centre 36. Chevalier Garden Bus Terminus [2] Sai Kung (Total: 27) 1. Tai Mong Tsai Road Mak Pin 2. Hang Hau (North) Bus Terminus near Tseung Kwan O Hospital [6] 3. Hiram's Highway Marina Cove 4. Po Lam Road North opposite Yan Ming Court outside Tseung Kwan O

Jockey Club Clinics 5. Tong Ming Street outside Tong Ming Street Park 6. Po Lam Road North outside King Min House King Lam Estate [2] 7. Clear Water Bay Bus Terminus 8. Yan King Road outside Yan Ming Court near Lamp Pole EA9627-G 9. Po Lam Road North near Tsui Lam Estate 10. Ling Hong Road opposite Haven of Hope Hospital 11. Wan Lung Road outside Tseung Kwan O Swimming Pool 12. Po Ning Road near Tak Fu House Hau Tak Estate 13. Po Lam Road North Hong Sing Garden Bus Terminus 14. Tseung Kwan O Industrial Estate Bus Terminus 15. Hiram's Highway opposite Po Lo Che near Lamp Pole EB6641-7 16. Pung Loi Road near Oscar By The Sea 17. Po Lam Road near Tsui Lam Road 18. Po Lam Road North outside Tseung Kwan O Fire Station 19. Po Lam Road North outside Yan Ming Court 20. Tong Ming Street opposite Beverly Garden 21. Po Hong Road opposite Well On Garden Note: Display panels were installed at more than one bus shelter at some locations. The number inside the square bracket denotes the number of sheltered bus stops with display panel installed.


Annex 4

Location of Bus Stops to be Installed with Real Time Bus Arrival Information Display Panels by Franchised Bus Companies

under Phase 2 and 3 of the Government's Subsidy Scheme Yau Tsim Mong (Total: 41) 1. Gascoigne Road Chi Wo Street Lamp Pole AA3705 2. Sai Yee Street outside Queen Elizabeth Secondary School 3. Hoi Wang Road outside Park Avenue 4. Nathan Road outside House No. 784 5. Chatham Road South outside Science Museum near Lamp Pole DF0154 6. Jordan Road outside Kowloon Union Church 7. Tsim Sha Tsui East B/T 8. Nathan Road outside House No. 105 near Kowloon Park [4] 9. Cheong Wan Road outside HK Polytechnic University 10. Salisbury Road Middle Road Park 11. Salisbury Road Middle Road Park near Lamp Pole AA7972-3 12. Hoi Wang Road outside Charming Garden 13. Tat Chee Avenue opposite House No. 1 near Lamp Pole E8927-5 14. Nathan Road Mongkok Police Station 15. Salisbury Road near Cross Harbour Tunnel Lamp Pole AA7716 16. Nathan Road outside House No. 23-25 Prestige Tower 17. Jordan Road House No. 3 near Chi Wo Street 18. Argyle Street outside House No. 83 Sincere House [2] 19. Nathan Road outside Peninsula Hotel 20. Boundary Street outside Tai Hang Tung Recreation Ground [2] 21. Nathan Road House No. 134 near Kimberley Road 22. Nathan Road outside House No. 630 Bank Centre [2] 23. Nathan Road outside House No. 760 near Allied Plaza 24. Nathan Road outside House No. 636 Bank Centre 25. Jordan Road House No. 5 near Chi Wo Street 26. Island Harbourview Bus Terminus 27. Salisbury Road East Tsim Sha Tsui Station 28. Canton Road outside The Victoria Towers 29. Nathan Road outside House No. 132 near The Mira Hong Kong 30. Hoi Wang Road outside Hoi Fu Court 31. Nathan Road near Gascoigne Road Lamp Pole E0217-5


9849

32. Lai Chi Kok Road outside House No. 166 near Tai Nam Street Sitting Out Area

33. Lai Chi Kok Road House No. 112 near Tai Nam Street Sitting Out Area 34. Nathan Road House No. 138 near St. Andrew's Church 35. Hong Chong Road Cross Harbour Tunnel Bus Bay Sham Shui Po (Total: 46) 1. Tai Hung Tung Bus Terminus outside Tung Lung House Tai Hang Tung

Estate 2. Lai Chi Kok Bus Terminus 3. Cheung Sha Wan Bus Terminus 4. Mei Lai Road near Mei Foo Sun Chuen outside Mobile Petrol Station 5. Nam Cheong Street opposite Chak On Estate 6. Sham Shui Po Yen Chow Street underneath Dragon Centre 7. Cheung Sha Wan Road outside CLP Power Station east of Mei Lai Road

[2] 8. Cheung Sha Wan Road opposite Trade Square [2] 9. Cheung Sha Wan Road Yat Ching House Yee Ching Court [2] 10. Cheung Sha Wan Road Yee Kok Court [2] 11. Mei Lai Road opposite Mei Foo Sun Chuen 12. Tonkin Street outside Lai Kok Estate 13. Cheung Sha Wan Road outside Maple Street Sports Ground 14. Cheung Sha Wan Road Cheung Sha Wan Post Office [2] 15. Cheung Sha Wan Road CLP Sham Shui Po Centre 16. Cheung Sha Wan Road near Cheung Sha Wan Path [2] 17. Cheung Sha Wan Road opposite Cheung Sha Wan Fire Station 18. Lai Chi Kok Road Sham Shui Po Park 19. Tai Hang Tung Road north of Tat Chee Avenue [2] 20. Woh Chai Street outside Man Lok House Tai Hang Sai Sun Chuen 21. Woh Chai Street outside Mei Sang House Shek Kip Mei Estate 22. Lai Chi Kok Road IVE (Haking Wong) 23. Mei Lai Road near Lai Wan Road 24. Cheung Sha Wan Road No. 339 near Yee Kok Court 25. Tai Po Road outside Carlton Hotel 26. Tai Hang Tung Road north of Tong Yam Street 27. Cheung Sha Wan Road Mei Foo Railway Station 28. Tai Po Road opposite the Savannah College of Art and Design, Hong Kong 29. Woh Chai Street outside Shek Kip Mei Estate Block 23


30. Mei Lai Road south of Lai Wan Road Lamp Pole K2192-8 31. Sham Mong Road outside Fu Cheong Estate 32. Pak Wan Street Cheung Tin House [2] 33. So Uk Bus Terminus 34. Tat Chee Avenue opposite House No. 1 near Lamp Pole E8927-5 35. Tonkin Street outside Lei Cheng Uk Tomb Museum 36. Po On Road outside Wing Hei House Po Hei Court 37. Sham Mong Road near Hing Wah Street West 38. Tat Chee Avenue outside House No. 26 Kowloon City (Total: 59) 1. Prince Edward Road West outside House No. 239 2. Kowloon Tong Suffolk Road Kowloon Tong Station 3. Prince Edward Road West opposite The Lamma Palace [2] 4. Prince Edward Road East near Sa Po Road [10] 5. Waterloo Road Kowloon Tong Club 6. Princess Margaret Road Oi Man Estate Lamp Pole AA5593-2G 7. Prince Edward Road West near Padek Palace 8. Prince Edward Road West near Ma Tau Chung Road 9. Prince Edward Road West outside House No. 199 10. Argyle Street outside House No. 123 11. Ma Tau Chung Road outside Argyle Street Playground [2] 12. Prince Edward Road West outside Belvedere Heights 13. Prince Edward Road West near Ma Tau Chung Road [2] 14. Waterloo Road south of Suffolk Road 15. Chung Hau Street opposite Carmel Secondary School 16. Argyle Street outside Argyle Street Playground [3] 17. Princess Margaret Road near Greenfield Terrace 18. Waterloo Road south of Derby Road 19. Waterloo Road south of Junction Road 20. Argyle Street outside House No. 121 21. Argyle Street outside The Astrid 22. Ma Tau Chung Road outside Argyle Street Playground 23. Prince Edward Road West outside House No. 249 24. Chung Hau Street Carmel Secondary School Lamp Pole AA1351-8G 25. Lancashire Road House No. 34 east of Oxford Road 26. Broadcast Drive outside RTHK Television House 27. Waterloo Road south of Rutland Quadrant Lamp Pole K8660-6


9851

28. Cornwall Street opposite House No. 6 Lockoo Gardens 29. Ma Tau Chung Road outside Sung Wong Toi Park [2] 30. Waterloo Road Kowloon Tong Club 31. Broadcast Drive outside House No. 89-91 32. Argyle Street outside House No. 125 33. La Salle Road Beverly Villas 34. Hung Hom South Road outside Royal Peninsula 35. Renfrew Road House No. 30 opposite Mary Rose School 36. Junction Road near Renfrew Road outside Hong Kong Baptist University 37. Laguna Verde Bus Terminus 38. Fat Kwong Street Valley Road Estate Block 2 39. Prince Edward Road West outside House No. 201 40. Sheung Shing Street Sheung Lok Street near Lamp Pole AA1123-8 41. Hau Man Street near Kar Man House Oi Man Estate 42. Ma Tau Chung Road House No. 90-98B 43. Ma Tau Chung Road outside House No. 115 44. Ma Tau Chung Road outside House No. 77 Wong Tai Sin (Total: 37) 1. Choi Hung Bus Terminus 2. Choi Hung Road outside Ng Wah Catholic Secondary School 3. Fung Tak Road outside Lung Poon Court 4. Po Kong Village Road outside Fu Yan House Fu Shan Estate 5. Fung Tak Road outside Fung Tak Park 6. Sheung Fung Street near Kam Fung Street Sitting-out Area 7. Prince Edward Road East outside Prince Industrial Building 8. Po Kong Village Road near Po Kong Village Road Sports Centre 9. Po Kong Village Road outside Fu Yau Building 10. Lung Cheung Road outside Temple Mall North [2] 11. Tung Tau Tsuen Road outside Ying Tung House Tung Tau Estate [2] 12. Tung Tau Tsuen Road outside Wai Tung House Tung Tau Estate 13. Lung Cheung Road outside Tan Fung House Choi Hung Estate 14. Tsz Wan Shan (South) Bus Terminus [2] 15. Shung Wah Street near Po Kong Lane 16. Choi Hung Road near Rhythm Garden 17. Lung Cheung Road near Morse Park Swimming Pool 18. Hammer Hill Road outside Kam Wan House Choi Hung Estate 19. Choi Hung Access Road outside Kam Pik House Choi Hung Estate


20. Choi Hung Road opposite Wing Chai Industrial Building 21. Tung Tau Tsuen Road outside Mei Tung House Mei Tung Estate 22. Tung Tau Tsuen Road outside Morse Park Open-air Theatre 23. Wong Tai Sin Road near Wong Tai Sin Temple 24. Wai Wah Street near On Hong House 25. Tung Tau Tsuen Road outside Morse Park No. 1 near Lamp Pole E1370 26. Tsui Chuk Garden 27. Tsz Wan Shan Road near Ching Fai House Tsz Ching Estate 28. Fung Mo Street outside Morse Park 29. Fung Tak Road outside Chi Lin Nunnery 30. Fu Shan Bus Terminus 31. Lung Cheung Road near Ping Ting Village Ngau Chi Wan 32. Prince Edward Road East near Choi Hung Interchange [2] 33. Junction Road Lok Fu Plaza Lamp Pole K8694 Kwun Tong (Total: 90) 1. Kwun Tong Road Kwun Tong Railway Station Bus Terminus [2] 2. Chun Wah Road Ngau Tau Kok Bus Terminus [4] 3. Hong Ning Road outside House No. 149 4. Ko Chiu Road outside Ko Yuen House Ko Yee Estate 5. Pik Wan Road outside Tak King House Tak Tin Estate 6. Pik Wan Road outside Kwong Tin Shopping Centre 7. Kai Fuk Road near KITEC 8. Kwun Tong Road opposite APM Millennium City 5 9. Kwun Tong Road opposite Kowloon Bay Railway Station 10. Sau Ming Road outside Sau Ming House 11. Prince Edward Road East near Choi Hung Interchange 12. Kwun Tong (Elegance Road) Bus Terminus 13. Tseung Kwan O Road opposite Kwun Tong Police Station 14. Wang Kwong Road outside Richland Gardens Shopping Centre 15. Kowloon Bay Bus Terminus 16. Sau Ming Road outside Sau Fu House 17. Sau Ming Road opposite Sau Hong House 18. Sau Mau Ping (Upper) Bus Terminus 19. Kai Yip B/T [3] 20. Wang Chiu Road near House No. 17 21. Tak Tin Street outside Kai Wong House Kai Tin Estate 22. Pik Wan Road outside Tak Lok House Tak Tin Estate near Lamp Pole

LAA6890-6


9853

23. Chun Wah Road opposite Chun Wah Court 24. Wang Chiu Road outside Block 13, Richland Gardens [2] 25. Lei Yue Mun Road outside Yau Tong Estate 26. Kwun Tong Road opposite Kowloon Bay Railway Station [2] 27. Kwun Tong Road near Yue Man Centre 28. Kwun Tong Road outside Kwun Tong Road Sitting-Out Area 29. Kai Fuk Road near Lamp Pole AB3541-1 30. Pik Wan Road outside Kwong Ching House Kwong Tin Estate 31. Wang Chiu Road outside Block 18, Richland Garden 32. Lei Yue Mun Road opposite St. Antonius Girls' College [2] 33. Lin Tak Road opposite Hong Yat Court 34. Wang Chiu Road opposite Richland Gardens Shopping Centre 35. Kwun Tong Ferry Bus Terminus [10] 36. Tsui Ping Road outside Tsui Pak House Tsui Ping Estate 37. Wang Chiu Road opposite Exchange Tower 38. Lei Yue Mun Road opposite Lam Tin Station (under Sceneway Plaza) 39. Kai Cheung Road opposite Dah Chong Hong Motor Car Service Centre 40. Tsui Ping Road outside Po Pui Court 41. Hip Wo Street opposite Wah Fung Court 42. Wang Chiu Road opposite Kowloon Bay Sports Ground [2] 43. Kwun Tong Road outside Kwun Tong Road Sitting-Out Area 44. Wang Kwong Road outside Lam Wah Street Playground near Lamp Pole

E7750-3 45. Shun Lee Tsuen Road opposite Shun On Estate near Lamp Pole AB4076-4 46. Tak Tin Street near Tak Tin Shopping Centre 47. Kwun Tong Road outside Ngau Tau Kok Railway Station [2] 48. Wang Kwong Road near Kai Lai Road 49. Lei Yue Mun Road outside Lai Yue Mun Road Playground 50. Kwun Tong Road opposite Kowloon Bay Railway Station 51. Sau Mau Ping Road opposite Sau Ching House Sau Mau Ping Estate 52. Cha Kwo Ling Road outside Block 17 Laguna City 53. Laguna City Bus Terminus 54. Lin Tak Road outside Choi Tin House Hing Tin Estate 55. Kai Tin Road outside Kai Tin Shopping Centre 56. Sau Ming Road opposite Sau Mau Ping Shopping Centre 57. Kwun Tong Road outside St. Joseph's Primary School 58. Pik Wan Road near Tak Hong House Tak Tin Estate 59. Pik Wan Road near Lung Pak House Hong Pak Court near Lamp Pole

AA1214-0G


60. King Yip Street outside House No.55 61. Kai Cheung Road opposite Dah Chong Hong Motor Car Service Centre 62. Lin Tak Road outside Hong Yat Court 63. Pik Wan Road outside Heng Nga House Hong Nga Court near Lamp Pole

AA1208-5G 64. Kwun Tong Road opposite APM Millennium City 5 65. Chun Wah Road opposite Lok Wah Community Centre near Lamp Pole

E2812-8 66. Tsui Ping Road outside Po Pui Court 67. Sau Mau Ping Road near Sau Hong House Sau Mau Ping Estate 68. Tak Tin Street outside Hong Yat Court 69. Yan Wing Street near Yau Tong Centre 70. Kwun Tong (Yue Man Square) Bus Terminus Island (Total: 15) 1. Tat Tung Road outside Fu Tung Plaza 2. Shun Tung Road outside Yu Tung Court [2] 3. Shun Tung Road opposite Yu Tung Court 4. South Lantau Road (East bound) after Cheung Sha Government Villas 5. Shun Tung Road (South bound) outside Yu Tung Court near Lamp Pole

FB8299 6. South Lantau Road (West bound) after Chi Ma Wan Road 7. South Lantau Road (East bound) after Tong Fuk Village 8. Ngan Kwong Wan Road (West bound) outside Ngan Sing House 9. Tung Chung Road (North bound) outside Area 39 Public Housing 10. South Lantau Road (West bound) before Chi Ma Wan Road 11. Tat Tung Road outside Fu Tung Plaza 12. Tat Tung Road near Mei Tung Street 13. Cheong Tat Road opposite Car Park 4 14. Tat Tung Road inside Citydate Outlets Kwai Tsing (Total: 58) 1. Shek Yam Road outside North Kwai Chung Market [2] 2. Lai King Hill Road outside Ching Lai Court Lamp Pole FA4952-5 3. Cheung Ching B/T near Cheung Ching Estate Community Centre [2] 4. Kwai Chung Road outside Hoover Industrial Building [2] 5. Ching Hong Road outside Hong Shun House Cheung Hong Estate 6. Shek Pai Street outside Block 9, Shek Lei Estate


9855

7. Lai King Hill Road outside Yat King House 8. Lai King Hill Road outside Lok King House 9. King Cho Road outside Cho Yiu Chuen Commercial Complex [2] 10. Ching Hong Road outside Ching Wai House Cheung Ching Estate 11. Tsing Yip Street outside Yi Wai House Tsing Yi Estate 12. Tsing Yi Road outside Ching Tao House Cheung Ching Estate 13. Castle Peak Road near Chung Shan Terrace 14. Lai King Hill Road near Lai Chi Kok Bay Garden 15. Lai King Hill Road near The Salvation Army Lai King Home 16. Lai King Hill Road near Ching Lai Commercial Centre 17. Hing Fong Road outside Metroplaza 18. Shek Pai Street near Castle Peak Road 19. Tsing King Road near Tsing Luk Street 20. Lai King Hill Road outside Lok King House 21. Castle Peak Road outside Greenknoll Court 22. Kwai Chung Road near Kwai Yik Road 23. Cheung Wing Road outside Sun Fung Centre 24. Fung Shue Wo Road outside Greenfield Garden Shopping Mall 25. Hing Fong Road outside Kwai Chung Sports Ground 26. Tai Pak Tin Street near On Chit Street 27. Lai King Hill Road Lai King North Bus Terminus 28. Kwai Shing East Bus Terminus 29. Lai Cho Road Lai Yiu Bus Terminus 30. Lai King Hill Road Lai King North Bus Terminus 31. Castle Peak Road outside Tai Wo Hau Sports Centre 32. 233 Hing Fong Road outside Metroplaza 33. Cheung Hang near Cheung Hang Shopping Centre 34. Liu To Road outside Cheung Hang Estate Commercial Complex 35. Cheung Wing Road outside Sun Fung Centre 36. Cheung Ching B/T near Cheung Ching Estate Community Centre 37. Wai Kek St outside Shek On House 38. Castle Peak Road near Shek Ying Path 39. Tai Pak Tin Street outside Yung Shek House Shek Yam Estate 40. Kwai Luen Road outside Kwai Shing West Bus Terminus [2] 41. Kwai Shing Circuit outside Lee Wai Lee College 42. Tai Wo Hau Road outside New Kwai Hing Gardens [2] 43. Tsing King Road outside Tivoli Garden 44. Sai Shan Road near Mayfair Gardens


45. Kwai Shing Circult outside Shing Kwok House 46. Castle Peak Road near Tsui Yiu Court 47. Shek Pai Street outside Fung Yam House Lamp Pole 4405-2 48. Kwai Shing Circuit near Tai Wo Hau Road Lamp Pole 9747-8 49. Kwai Shing Circuit outside Lee Yat Ngok Memorial School 50. Shek Pai Street near Shek Lei Catholic Primary School 51. Kwai Hing Railway Station Bus Terminus 52. Fung Shue Wo Road outside Tsing Yi Ferry Tsuen Wan (Total: 30) 1. Shek Wai Kok Road Shek Wai Kok Bus Terminus 2. Tsuen King Circuit outside Allway Gardens Phase 3 3. Tsuen Wan West Railway Station Bus Terminus [11] 4. Castle Peak Road outside House No. 135-143 Silka Far East Hotel [3] 5. Wo Yi Hop Road opposite Ho Fung Secondary School 6. Castle Peak Road outside Telephone Exchange 7. Castle Peak Road―Sham Tseng outside Rhine Garden 8. Bayview Garden B/T Castle Peak Road opposite Greenview Court [4] 9. Tsuen Fu Street near Tsuen Wah Street outside East Asia Shopping Arcade 10. Castle Peak Road outside The Panorama 11. Tai Ho Road outside House No. 30 near Hang Seng Bank 12. Luen Yan Street opposite House No. 26 13. Wai Tsuen Road near Shek Wai Kok Road 14. Kwok Shui Road opposite Ham Tin Village 15. Shek Wai Kok Road outside Shek Ho House Shek Wai Kok Estate Tuen Mun (Total: 60) 1. Tuen Tsing Lane Sun Tuen Mun Centre 2. 43 Lung Mun Road inside Lung Mun Oasis [2] 3. Castle Peak Road Lam Tei opposite Lamp Pole GD0630 4. Castle Peak Road near Pearl Island opposite Lamp Pole DD0025 5. Castle Peak Road The Aegean opposite Lamp Pole FC4855 6. Castle Peak Road Siu Sau Sheung Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole FC4845 7. Castle Peak Road Ka Wo Lane Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole DD0019 8. Castle Peak Road opposite Brilliant Garden opposite Lamp Pole FB1958 9. Hoi Chu Road Goodview Garden near Lamp Pole H1358 [2] 10. Tsing Wun Road opposite St. Peter's Church opposite Lamp Pole FC3772 11. Wu Chui Road Wu Pik House Wu King Estate near Lamp Pole FA2184


9857

12. Castle Peak Road opposite Yan Oi Market opposite Lamp Pole H3657 [2] 13. Castle Peak Road outside Gold Coast Complex opposite Lamp Pole

DD0010 14. Castle Peak Road near Chung Uk Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole AD2824 15. Castle Peak Road Siu Sau Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole FC4846 16. Hoi Chu Road Tsui Ning Garden near Lamp Pole FA1441 17. Tuen Mun Central Bus Terminus [2] 18. Castle Peak Road near Siu Lam Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole FC4895 19. Castle Peak Road Siu Lam San Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole FC4879 [2] 20. Castle Peak Road Hoh Fuk Tong College opposite Lamp Pole H1082 21. Slip Road of Lam Tei Interchange Fu Tei [2] 22. Castle Peak Road opposite Fu Hang Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole DD0196 23. Castle Peak Road Tai Lam Chung opposite Lamp Pole FA2034 24. Castle Peak Road Siu Lam Quarters opposite Lamp Pole FC4912 25. Castle Peak Road near Tsing Bik Street near Lamp Pole DD0154 26. Tin King Road near Tin Lok House 27. Castle Peak Road opposite Fu Hang Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole DD0198 28. Tsing Tin Road Lok Sang House Kin Sang Estate opposite Lamp Pole

FA2463 29. Tuen Mun Heung Sze Wui Road near Siu Lun Court opposite Lamp Pole

DD0064 30. Wu King Road near Wu Poon House, Wu King Estate 31. Castle Peak Road―Castle Peak Bay opposite Castle Peak Beach 32. Castle Peak Road near Lok Tsui Street opposite Lamp Pole FC4891 33. Tuen Mun Heung Sze Wui Road near Tuen Mun Park opposite Lamp Pole

H4646 34. Castle Peak Road Marine Police Headquarters opposite Lamp Pole

GC0485 35. Tuen Mun Heung Sze Wui Road Yau Oi Podium opposite Lamp Pole

FA2256 36. Tuen Mun Road near Shell Oil Station opposite Lamp Pole AD3875 [2] 37. Wu King Road Wu Poon House Wu King Estate near Lamp Pole H0947 38. Tsun Wen Road opposite Tuen Mun Catholic Secondary School opposite

Lamp Pole FA2379 39. Tsun Wen Road near Tai Hing Police Station opposite Lamp Pole FA2385 40. Tai Hing Bus Terminus opposite Hing Fai House Tai Hing Estate 41. Tin King Road opposite Siu Pong Court opposite Lamp Pole FA2644 42. Under the Podium of Hanford Garden


43. Kin Sang Estate near Lok Sang House 44. Yau Oi (South) Bus Terminus 45. Lung Mun Road Glorious Garden opposite Lamp Pole AD0439 46. Castle Peak Road Tai Lam Chung opposite Lamp Pole FA6697 47. Hoi Wong Road Tuen Mun Swimming Pool opposite Lamp Pole FA3349 48. Hoi Wong Road opposite Tuen Mun Swimming Pool opposite Lamp Pole

FA3348 49. Wu King Road opposite Wu Poon House Wu King Estate near Lamp Pole

H0948 50. Tsun Wen Road outside Tuen Mun Catholic Secondary School opposite

Lamp Pole FA2380 51. Tuen Mun Heung Sze Wui Road near Siu Lun Court opposite Lamp Pole

DD0065 52. Ming Kum Road outside Po Tin Interim Housing opposite Lamp Pole

FA2578 53. Tuen Mun Heung Sze Wui Road outside Tuen Mun Town Centre Bus

Terminus Yuen Long (Total: 54) 1. Tin Shui Bus Terminus [2] 2. Tin Yiu Bus Terminus 3. Tin Shui Road Tin Chung Court opposite Lamp Pole DD0537 4. Tin Yiu Road Yiu Man House Tin Yiu Estate opposite Lamp Pole DD0526 5. Yuen Long Station (N) Public Transport Interchange 6. Fan Kam Road near Shui Kan Shek 7. Kam Sheung Road near Lamp Pole U8395 8. Tin Shui Wai Town Centre Bus Terminus 9. Tin Wing Road opposite Chestwood Court opposite Lamp Pole DD0331 10. Kam Tin Road opposite Ko Po Tsuen near Lamp Pole AD1658 11. Sheung Tsuen Bus Terminus 12. Tin Shui Road Tin Yan Estate opposite Lamp Pole AD6627 13. Kam Sheung Road Shui Lau Tin near Lamp Pole U8413 14. Yuen Long Park Bus Terminus 15. Kam Sheung Road Dao Uk Tsuen near Lamp Pole U8451 16. San Tam Road Chuk Yuen near Lamp Pole FA8434 17. Route Twisk Country Park Management Centre near Lamp Pole FA7877 18. Kam Tin Road opposite The Salvation Army Kam Tin Integrated Services

Centre opposite Lamp Pole FB5702


9859

19. Wetland Park Road opposite Grandeur Terrace opposite Lamp Pole AD2155

20. Pak Heung Road Bus Terminus 21. Castle Peak Road near Tai Tao Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole AD2850 22. Castle Peak Road Ko Hang near Lamp Pole FA8399 23. Fan Kam Road Ta Shek Wu Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole BD1139 24. Fan Kam Road Fireman Training School near Lamp Pole FB3637 25. Tung Wui Road near Ng Ka Tsuen near Lamp Pole AD7125 26. Castle Peak Road House No. 130 near Lamp Pole DD1026 27. Route Twisk Country Park Management Centre near Lamp Pole FA7879 28. Castle Peak Road Fung Kat Heung near Lamp Pole FA9214 29. Tin Wu Road near Ju Ching Chu Secondary School opposite Lamp Pole

DD0341 30. Tung Wui Road near Ng Ka Tsuen near Lamp Pole AD7113 31. Castle Peak Road Pak Shek Au Interchange near Lamp Pole EA2978 32. Tin Shui Road opposite Tin Shui Shopping Centre 33. Tin Wu Road outside Yiu Shing House, Tin Yiu Estate 34. Tin Shui Road outside Tin Shui Wai Park 35. Castle Peak Road Chuk Yuen near Lamp Pole FA8368 36. Tung Wui Road near Sha Tin Hang Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole AD7062 37. Ping Ha Road opposite Sheung Cheung Wai opposite Lamp Pole AD6687 38. Castle Peak Road Mo Fan Tsuen near Lamp Pole FA9222 39. Fan Kam Road Ta Shek Wu near Lamp Pole FB3668 [2] 40. Castle Peak Road Pok Wai near Lamp Pole FA6939 41. Wetland Park Road near Grandeur Terrace opposite Lamp Pole DD1859 42. Sha Tau Kok Road Chun Yiu near Lamp Pole EA9219 43. Castle Peak Road Tai Sang Wai near Lamp Pole GD1108 44. Ping Ha Road Tin Shing Court opposite Lamp Pole AD6659 45. Kwu Tung Road San Tin Barracks near Lamp Pole EA2828 46. Yuen Long Railway Station 47. Tin Tsz Bus Terminus 48. Ping Ha Road opposite Sheung Cheung Wai opposite Lamp Pole AD6687 49. Hung Yuen Road Hung Shui Kiu (Hung Yuen Road) Bus Terminus near

Lamp Pole AD7223 50. Lam Kam Road Ling Wan Temple near Lamp Pole U8526 51. Lam Kam Road Ling Wan Temple near Lamp Pole H4953 52. Tin Fuk Road outside Tin Yau Court


Northern (Total: 39) 1. San Wan Road opposite Landmark North near Lamp Pole EB7355 2. Ching Ho Estate Bus Terminus 3. Sha Tau Kok Road San Tsuen near Lamp Pole EA9339 4. Sha Tau Kok Shun Lung Street near Lamp Pole EA8878 5. Wah Ming Road Yiu Ming House Wah Ming Estate opposite Lamp Pole

EA9057 6. Pak Wo Road Wah Sum Estate Lamp Pole EA1895 7. Sha Tau Kok Road Loi Tung Lamp Pole EA9223 8. Jockey Club Road near Fung Kai Secondary School Lamp Pole AD2633 9. Ping Che Road near Tak Wu Ling Police Station opposite Lamp Pole

N4282 10. Ping Che Road near Wan Chuen Sin Koon near Lamp Pole EB7412 11. Sha Tau Kok Road Ma Tseuk Leng near Lamp Pole EA9289 12. Kwu Tung Road Kwu Tung Market near Lamp Pole EA2040 13. Wo Hing Road Chi Hoi Yuen opposite Lamp Pole N8171 14. Fan Leng Lau Road House No. 125 Fan Leng Lau Tsuen 15. Kwu Tung Road Kwu Tung opposite Lamp Pole EA2053 16. Sha Tau Kok Road near Ha Wo Hang near Lamp Pole EA9280 17. Sha Tau Kok Road Yim Tso Ha near Lamp Pole EA9302 18. Sha Tau Kok Road Luen Wo Hui Playground opposite Lamp Pole N7677 19. Lui Ming Road Wah Ming Estate near Lamp Pole EA9063 20. Pak Wo Road Ng Uk Village opposite Lamp Pole EA3049 21. Fan Kam Road On Po Village opposite Lamp Pole AJ1498 22. Sha Tau Kok Road Shek Kiu Tau Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole EA9296 23. Sha Tau Kok Road Ma Tseuk Leng near Lamp Pole EA9290 24. Castle Peak Road Ho Tung Bridge near Lamp Pole EA2160 25. Sha Tau Kok Road On Lok Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole N7668 26. Sha Tau Kok Road Tai Long near Lamp Pole EA9283 27. Sha Tau Kok Road Tai Tong Wu near Lamp Pole EA9205 28. Sha Tau Kok Road Tong To Tsuen near Lamp Pole EA9328 29. Sha Tau Kok Road Loi Tung opposite Lamp Pole EA9223 30. Sha Tau Kok Road Shek Kiu Tau Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole EA9299 31. Sha Tau Kok Road San Tsuen near Lamp Pole EA9341 32. Fan Kam Road Ping Kong opposite Lamp Pole AD8350 33. Luen Wo Hui Bus Terminus 34. Jockey Club Road Tsui Lai Garden opposite Lamp Pole AD2648 35. Tin Ping Road opposite CICTA Training Centre near Lamp Pole EA2598


9861

36. San Wan Road Caritas Fanling Chan Chun Ha Secondary School opposite Lamp Pole N3112

37. Wah Ming Road near Wo Hing Tsuen near Lamp Pole AJ1335 38. San Wan Road near Fanling Centre opposite Lamp Pole N3112 39. Tin Ping Road Fung Kai Social Service Complex opposite Lamp Pole

EA2606 Tai Po (Total: 82) 1. Chuen On Road Bus Terminus near Nethersole Hospital near Lamp Pole

EA8580 2. Sai Sha Road Sai Keng 3. Tai Po Tau Bus Terminus 4. Tai Po Market Railway Station [13] 5. Tai Po Road Shui Wai near Tai Po Garden near Lamp Pole EA7027 6. Ting Kok Road Lung King Village opposite Lamp Pole EA8237 7. Tai Po Tai Wo Road near YATA opposite Lamp Pole DE0015 8. Ting Kok Road Tai Mei Tuk B/T opposite Lamp Pole EA8270 9. Ting Tai Road Buddhist Chi Hong Chi Lam Memorial College opposite

Lamp Pole DE0054 10. Tai Po Tai Wo Road near Tai Po Old Market Public School opposite Lamp

Pole DE0026 11. Sai Sha Road near Cheung Muk Tau 12. Tai Po Road Sam To Hang Hong Lok Yuen near Lamp Pole N6798 13. Tai Po Industrial Estate near Dai Kwai Street Tai Po Sewage Treatment

Works 14. Sai Sha Road Nai Chung [2] 15. Sai Sha Road Che Ha 16. Sai Sha Road Tai Tung near Lamp Pole N2464 17. Sai Sha Road opposite Cheung Muk Tau 18. Ting Kok Road Lung Mei (opposite Lung King Villa) opposite Lamp Pole

EA8238 19. Nam Wan Road near Block 17 Tai Po Central opposite Lamp Pole N3218 20. Ting Kok Road near Heng Cheong House Fu Heng Estate opposite Lamp

Pole EB0384 21. Tai Po Tai Wo Road opposite Tai Po Old Market Public School near Lamp

Pole EB8313 22. Sam Mun Tsai Road Sam Mun Tsai Bus Terminus near Lamp Pole N3091 23. Pak Shek Kok


24. Po Heung Street Luk Heung Public School opposite Lamp Pole N3269 25. Tai Po Road Deerhill Bay opposite Lamp Pole EB9996 26. Tai Wo Service Road West Kau Lung Hang opposite Lamp Pole N7079 27. On Po Road near Yee Nga Court opposite Fu Shin Plaza opposite Lamp

Pole AN6675 28. Wan Tau Street opposite Tai Po Hui Market 29. Heung Sze Wui Street near Tai Po Hui Market opposite Lamp Pole

EB1197 30. Dai Cheong Street near Tai Po Industrial Estate Bus Terminus near Lamp

Pole M7468 31. Ting Kok Road opposite Chen Hsong Machinery opposite Lamp Pole

EB2847 32. Ting Kok Road Ha Hang opposite Lamp Pole EB2837 33. Pak Tam Road Tai Tan Country Park Lamp Pole N2539 34. On Chee Road Eightland Gardens near Lamp Pole EB7435 35. Wan Tau Street outside Tai Po Hui Market near Lamp Pole BE0567 36. Dai Fu Street House No. 6 Unilever Hong Kong Limited near Lamp Pole

EB3026 37. Dai Fu Street opposite Unilever Hong Kong Limited near Lamp Pole

EB3025 38. Sha Tau Kok Road San Tsuen near Lamp Pole EA9339 39. Lam Kam Road San Tong Kun Kee Farm near Lamp Pole EB0488 40. Lam Kam Road Kau Liu Ha near Lamp Pole EB9382 41. Lam Kam Road Ng Tung Chai opposite Lamp Pole EB0448 42. Lam Kam Road Pak Ngau Shek Ng Tung Chai opposite Lamp Pole

EB0459 43. Lam Kam Road Shek Poon Ho near Lamp Pole EA7142 44. Dai Hei Street near ZAMA Corporation Limited near Lamp Pole EA7512 45. Sam Mun Tsai Road near Pao Siu Loong Care and Attention Home near

Lamp Pole N3080 46. Nam Wan Road near Kwong Fuk Playground opposite Lamp Pole

AM3295 47. Tai Po Road Cheung Shue Tan near Lamp Pole EC0749 48. Lam Kam Road Shek Poon Ho near Lamp Pole EA7374 49. Sai Sha Road Ma Kwu Lam near Lamp Pole N2469 50. Sam Mun Tsai Road opposite Pao Siu Loong Care and Attention Home

opposite Lamp Pole N3079 51. Tai Wo Service Road West Nam Wah Po near Lamp Pole N6101


9863

52. Dai King Street opposite Phoenix Television Corporation near Lamp Pole EA7530

53. Nam Wan Road opposite Kwong Fuk Estate near Lamp Pole N3282 54. Sai Sha Road Kei Ling Ha San Wai near Lamp Pole EA0667 55. Tai Wo Service Road West Kau Lung Hang near Lamp Pole N7079 56. Dai Cheong Street opposite Tai Po Industrial Estate Bus Terminus near

Lamp Pole M7469 57. Ting Kok Road Fortune Garden near Lamp Pole BE1220 58. Dai Kwai Street House No. 18 Cabot Plastics HK Limited opposite Lamp

Pole BM7480 59. Tai Po Road Chung Tsai Yuen near Lamp Pole M6323 60. Dai Kwai Street FC Packaging Holding Limited opposite Lamp Pole

EB3041 61. Tai Po Road Tai Po Kau opposite Redland Garden opposite Lamp Pole

EC0683 62. Lam Kam Road Ng Tung Chai 63. Nam Wan Road near Wan Loi House Wan Tau Tong Estate near Lamp

Pole EA7605 64. Yuen Shin Road Yuen Shin Park opposite Lamp Pole EA7986 65. Yuen Shin Road Waterfront Park opposite Lamp Pole EA7987 66. Lam Kam Road near Ng Tung Chai Tsuen opposite Lamp Pole EA7130 67. Fu Heng Bus Terminus [2] 68. Lam Kam Road opposite Lam Tsuen Rural Committee near Lamp Pole

EB0524 Shatin (Total: 119) 1. Kwong Yuen Bus Terminus [4] 2. Fung Shun Street outside Wo Yue House Fung Wo Estate 3. Sha Tin Central Bus Terminus [17] 4. Jat Min Chuen Street outside Chan Cho Chak Primary School 5. Ma On Shan Road near Sunshine City 6. Tai Chung Kiu Road opposite Belair Garden [2] 7. Tai Chung Kiu Road outside Belair Garden [2] 8. Kam Ying Road outside Kam Ying Court 9. Wu Kai Sha Railway Station Bus Terminus 10. Hin Keng Street near Hin Hing House [2] 11. Lee On Bus Terminus [3] 12. Tai Chung Kiu Road near Treasure Floating Restaurant


13. Siu Lek Yuen Road near Tai Chung Kiu Road 14. Ngau Pei Sha Street outside Koon Wah Mirror Group Limited 15. Siu Lek Yuen Road opposite Block 28, City One 16. Sha Tin Tau Road opposite Shek Ying House 17. Che Kung Miu Road outside Chun Shek Estate [2] 18. Siu Lek Yuen Road outside Siu Lek Yuen Village 19. Po Tai Street outside Ocean View [3] 20. Ngan Shing Street outside Yue Tin Court 21. Ning Tai Road outside Tak Sun Secondary School [3] 22. Tai Chung Kiu Road outside Ravana Garden 23. Che Kung Miu Road opposite Hin Keng Estate 24. Tai Chung Kiu Road outside Block 13, City One Shatin [2] 25. Sai Sha Road near Fok On Garden 26. Siu Lek Yuen Road outside Block 28 City One near Po Shing Street 27. Ning Tai Road near Lamp Pole AE0337 opposite Tak Sun Secondary

School 28. Che Kung Miu Road outside Hin Yeung House Hin Keng Estate 29. Hang Hong Street outside Tsang Pik Shan Secondary School 30. Hin Keng Street near Hin Tin Village 31. Sha Tin Wai Road near Ever Gain Building 32. Siu Lek Yuen Road near Yuen Hong Street 33. Hang Hong Street opposite Tsang Pik Shan Secondary School [2] 34. A Kung Kok Street outside A Kung Kok 35. Fo Tan Road near Fo Tan Village 36. Che Kung Miu Road outside Festival City 37. Chap Wai Kon Street near Yue Tin Court 38. Sha Tin Tau Road outside Foo Wai House 39. Siu Lek Yuen Road outside Siu Lek Yuen Road Playground 40. Hang Hong Street opposite Yiu On Estate Bus Terminus 41. Tai Chung Kiu Road outside Jat Min Chuen [2] 42. Tai Po Road outside House No. 8623 43. Tai Wai Railway Station Bus Terminus 44. Siu Lek Yuen Road near Slip Road to Tate's Carin Highway 45. Lion Rock Tunnel Road opposite Sha Tin Park 46. Che Kung Miu Road outside Tin Sam Village 47. Sha Tin Centre Street outside Hilton Centre 48. Chap Wai Kon Street opposite Shatin Industrial Centre 49. Tai Chung Kiu Road near Treasure Floating Restaurant


9865

50. Sha Kok Street outside Sha Kok Estate 51. Siu Lek Yuen Road opposite Cypress House Kwong Yuen Estate 52. Hang Hong Street near Hang Kong House 53. Tai Po Road near Seaview Villa 54. Sai Sha Road outside Bayshore Towers 55. Sha Tin Tau Road outside Shek Ying House 56. Ma On Shan Road near Ma On Shan Police Station 57. Ngan Shing Street outside Bus Terminus 58. Ngan Shing Street outside City One Bus Terminus 59. Ngan Shing Street opposite Yue Tin Court [2] 60. Ngau Pei Sha Street outside Koon Wah Mirror Group Limited 61. Tai Chung Kiu Road opposite Tsang Tai Uk 62. Tai Chung Kiu Road near Tsang Tai Uk 63. Ma On Shan Road opposite Yiu Shun House Yiu On Estate 64. Chui Tin Street near 63 Sun Tin Village 65. Sun Chui Bus Terminus 66. Che Kung Miu Road outside Sun Chui Estate 67. Ngan Shing Street outside Ngan Shing Plaza 68. Sai Sha Road opposite Chung On [2] 69. Sai Sha Road opposite Fok On Garden [2] 70. On King Street outside Garden Vista 71. Kwong Sin Street opposite Kwong Yuen 72. Kam Ying Road near Saddle Ridge Gardens [2] 73. Kam Ying Court Bus Terminus [3] 74. Ning Tai Road near Holy Spirit Primary School [2] 75. Kam Ying Road opposite Lung Yan House Kam Lung Court [2] 76. Kam Ying Road outside Kam Lung Court 77. Ravana Garden Bus Terminus 78. Yiu On Bus Terminus 79. Tin Sam Street outside Hin Yiu Estate Sai Kung (Total: 53) 1. Po Lam Road North outside Po Yan House Po Lam Estate 2. Clear Water Bay Road opposite Silver Cape Road 3. Hang Hau Station Bus Terminus 4. Po Lam Road North opposite King Nam House King Lam Estate 5. Tong Ming Street outside Sheung Tak Plaza 6. Chun Wang Street outside Mei Ah Centre


7. Tong Ming Street outside Tong Ming Street Park 8. Po Ning Road near Tak Fu House Hau Tak Estate [2] 9. Kai King Road outside Ho Ming Court 10. Clear Water Bay Road opposite Shaw's Studio 11. Po Lam Road North outside Lok Sin Tong Lau Tak Primary School 12. Clear Water Bay Road outside Pik Uk Correctional Institution 13. Po Lam Road North opposite Ying Ming Court 14. Po Lam Road near Anderson Road 15. Clear Water Bay Road Lung Wo Village 16. Chun Ying Street opposite HITACHI HEE TKO Centre 17. Po Lam Road North outside Po Yan House Po Lam Estate 18. Clear Water Bay Road Tai Po Tsai 19. Tong Ming Street opposite Tong Ming Court 20. Po Hong Road near Kwong Ming Court 21. Tong Ming Street outside Sheung Tak Plaza 22. King Ling Road inside Tiu Keng Leng Station Public Transport

Interchange 23. Tong Chun Street inside Tseung Kwan O Station Public Transport

Interchange 24. Tai Mong Tsai Road near Tso Wo Hang Marine Police Station 25. Po Ning Road near Tak Fu House Hau Tak Estate 26. Tai Mong Tsai Road near Fung Sau Road near Lamp Pole EA0227 27. Tai Mong Tsai Road Au Kung Wan near Lamp Pole EA0245 28. Chiu Shun Road outside Yuk Ming Court 29. Chun Choi Street near Wellcome 30. Fuk Man Road near Sai Kung Police Station 31. Hiram's Highway Ho Chung 32. Sai Sha Road near O Tau 33. Tai Mong Tsai Road Wong Keng Tei 34. Hiram's Highway Nam Pin Wai 35. Hang Hau Road opposite Tseung Kwan O Hospital near Boon Kin Village 36. Wan Po Road near Drainage Department 37. Clear Water Bay Road Mang Kung Uk 38. Chiu Shun Road opposite Yuk Ming Court 39. Po Tung Road outside House No. 19E 40. Hiram's Highway opposite Lakeside Garden 41. Wan Po Road near Pak Shing Kok 42. Po Hong Road opposite Kwong Ming Court


9867

43. Tai Mong Tsai Road near Pak Tam Road near Sheung Yiu near Lamp Pole N2601

44. Po Lam Bus Terminus 45. Clear Water Bay Road Mang Kung Uk 46. Wan Po Road opposite KMB Depot 47. Po Lam Road opposite Mau Wu Tsai 48. Po Lam Road North Hong Sing Garden Bus Terminus 49. Po Lam Road North near Yan Kuk House Yan Ming Court 50. Po Hong Road outside Po Hong Park 51. Po Lam Road North near Yan Kuk House Yan Ming Court 52. Po Fung Road outside STFA Leung Kit Wah Primary School Central & Western District (Total: 49) 1. Drake Street outside Lippo Centre 2. Man Yiu Street opposite Central Pier 6 3. 12-16 Des Voeux Road Central outside The Landmark 4. Chater Road outside Statue Square [2] 5. Queen's Road Central opposite HSBC Main Building 6. Garden Road outside HK Zoological & Botanical Garden 7. 8 Garden Road outside St. John's Cathedral 8. 23 Cotton Tree Drive outside Hong Kong Squash Centre 9. 168-200 Connaught Road Central outside Shun Tak Centre 10. Queensway outside Bank of China Tower 11. Connaught Road Central outside City Hall 12. 88 Queensway outside Pacific Place 13. Tamar Street outside Lippo Centre 14. Connaught Road Central outside Statue Square 15. Robinson Road opposite Garden Terrace 16. 93 Queensway outside Admiralty Garden/Queensway Plaza 17. 4 Des Voeux Road Central near HSBC Main Building 18. Connaught Road Central outside Jardine House 19. 79B Pok Fu Lam Road outside Chiu Sheung School Hong Kong 20. 94 Bonham Road near HKU East Gate 21. Victoria Road before Mount Davis Road 22. Harcourt Road outside Central Government Offices 23. Des Voeux Road Central outside Chater Garden 24. Caine Road outside Caine Road Garden 25. 38 Queensway outside High Court 26. 3 MacDonnell Road near YWCA


27. Des Voeux Road West before Hill Road 28. Des Voeux Road West after Queen's Road West 29. Kennedy Town Praya opposite Collinson Street 30. Kennedy Town Praya before Sai Cheung Street 31. 38 Kennedy Town Praya outside Belcher Bay Park 32. Pok Fu Lam Road opposite Pokfield Road Bus Terminus 33. 2 Murray Road outside Murray Road Multi-Storey Car Park 34. Connaught Road Central outside Shun Tak Centre 35. Cotton Tree Drive outside Lippo Centre 36. Pier Road opposite Harbour Building 37. Sai Ning Street opposite China Merchants Godown 38. 95 Queensway inside United Centre 39. Man Kwong Street outside Central Pier 5 40. 139 Des Voeux Road West after Eastern Street 41. Pok Fu Lam Road near HKU Yam Pak Building 42. Pok Fu Lam Road opposite Pok Fu Lam Road Playground 43. Pok Fu Lam Road outside Pok Fu Lam Road Playground 44. 2 Lyttelton Road outside St. Stephen's Girls' College 45. Peak Road after Guildford Road 46. Peak Road before Mount Kellett Road 47. 60 Robinson Road before Seymour Road 48. 2-8 Caine Road outside Caritas Centre Wan Chai District (Total: 54) 1. Stubbs Road outside Tung Shan Terrace 2. 555 Hennessy Road outside East Point Centre/Sogo Department Store 3. 286 Queen's Road East outside Queen Elizabeth Stadium 4. Gloucester Road outside Victoria Park 5. Causeway Road outside Victoria Park 6. Morrison Hill Road opposite Happy Valley Racecourse (under Morrison

Hill Road Flyover) 7. 7 Gloucester Road outside Immigration Tower 8. 7 Eastern Hospital Road outside Shing Kwong Church 9. Caroline Hill Road opposite South China Athletic Association 10. Eastern Hospital Road outside Hong Kong Stadium 11. 19 Eastern Hospital Road outside Tung Wah Eastern Hospital 12. Wong Nai Chung Gap Road outside Shell Station 13. Queen's Road East outside Wanchai Market 14. Stubbs Road opposite Tung Shan Terrace


9869

15. Wong Nai Chung Gap Road outside Hong Kong Tennis Centre 16. 1 Green Lane outside Aroma House 17. 94 Blue Pool Road after Green Lane 18. Wong Nai Chung Road outside HK Sanatorium 19. 22 Hennessy Road after Anton Street 20. 262 Gloucester Road after Cannon Street 21. 151-159 Gloucester Road (inner) outside AXA Centre 22. 50 Gloucester Road (outer) outside Malaysia Building 23. Hennessy Road outside Asian House 24. Morrison Hill Road before Leighton Road 25. 62 Moorsom Road outside Aurizon 26. 58 Mount Butler Road before Mount Butler Drive 27. 113 Tai Hang Road outside Swiss Towers 28. Tai Hang Road outside Fontana Gardens 29. 23 Tai Hang Road outside Morengo Court 30. 7 Chun Fai Road outside Flora Garden 31. 35 Moorsom Road opposite Jardine's Lookout Garden 32. King's Road after Ngan Mok Street 33. Leighton Road outside Craigengower Cricket Club 34. Hennessy Road outside Southorn Playground 35. Morrison Hill Road outside Happy Valley Racecourse 36. Hing Fat Street outside Victoria Park Swimming Pool 37. 28 Harbour Road outside Causeway Centre 38. 1 Gloucester Road outside The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts 39. Victoria Park Road near Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter 40. 111 Leighton Road after Caroline Hill Road 41. 281 Queen's Road East outside Wah Yan College Hong Kong 42. Causeway Road outside Hong Kong Central Library 43. 56 Tai Hang Road outside C.C. Lodge 44. 18 Harbour Road outside Central Plaza 45. 27 Harbour Road outside Wan Chai Training Pool 46. Queen's Road East outside St. Joseph's Primary School 47. Morrison Hill Road near South Pacific Hotel 48. Stubbs Road outside Lingnan Primary School 49. Stubbs Road after Bowen Road 50. Stubbs Road opposite Evergreen Villa 51. 115 Wong Nai Chung Road before Broadwood Road 52. 50 Tai Hang Road outside True Light Middle School of HK 53. Lai Tak Tsuen Road opposite Tak Chuen Lau (Block 4), Lai Tak Tsuen


54. 336 Tai Hang Road outside Marymount Primary School Eastern District (Total: 44) 1. 677 King's Road opposite Model Housing Estate 2. Chai Wan Road before A Kung Ngam Road 3. Aldrich Street near Nam On Street and Po Man Street 4. King's Road opposite Tsing Fung Street 5. 511 King's Road opposite Island Place 6. 1037 King's Road outside Block A, Westlands Gardens 7. Lei King Road opposite On Ping Mansion (Tower 14), Lei King Wan 8. 15 A Kung Ngam Road outside Block F, Ming Wah Dai Ha 9. 991 King's Road outside Sunway Gardens 10. Tai Hong Street outside Tai Hong House 11. 852 King's Road before Mansion Street 12. 2 Kornhill Road outside Kornhill Plaza (South) 13. King's Road opposite Cambridge House, Taikoo Place 14. Yiu Hing Road opposite Yiu Tung Shopping Centre 15. Yiu Hing Road outside Yat Hei House (Block B), Tung Hei Court 16. Yiu Hing Road outside Tung Hei Court Multi-storey Car Park 17. Chai Wan Road near Koway Court 18. 127 King's Road outside 7 Seas Shopping Centre/Carson Mansion 19. Chai Wan Road before Tai Tam Road 20. 140 Tsat Tsz Mui Road outside Lady Robert Black Clinic 21. Tin Chiu Street outside Tin Chiu Street Playground 22. 668 King's Road outside Healthy Village (Phase II) 23. 511 King's Road outside Island Place 24. Java Road opposite Ibis North Point 25. Siu Sai Wan Road outside Siu Sai Wan Estate Shopping Centre 26. Oi Yin Street outside Aldrich Garden 27. King's Road before Tsing Fung Street flyover 28. Braemar Hill Road opposite Kiangsu-Chekiang College 29. Yee King Road near Lamp Pole 33387 30. Fortress Hill Road opposite Fo Kar Court 31. Yiu Hing Road outside Hing Tung Shopping Centre 32. Yiu Hing Road outside Yiu Wah House, Yiu Tung Estate 33. Yiu Hing Road opposite King Hei House, Tung Hei Court 34. Island Eastern Corridor outside Chong Gene Hang College 35. Island Eastern Corridor outside Chai Wan Park 36. Wing Tai Road outside Tsui Shou House, Tsui Wan Estate


9871

37. Chai Wan Road before Yee Tai Street 38. Chai Wan Road outside Wan Tsui Market 39. Chai Wan Road outside Star of the Sea Catholic Church 40. Fei Tsui Road outside Chin Hing House, Hing Wah Estate 41. Chai Wan Road outside Shan Tsui Court 42. Siu Sai Wan Road outside Siu Sai Wan Sports Ground 43. Siu Sai Wan Road outside Harmony Garden 44. Tai Tam Road near Tsui Yue House (Block B), Shan Tsui Court Southern District (Total: 59) 1. Ap Lei Chau Main Street near Lee Chi Road 2. Chi Fu Road outside Chi Fu Landmark 3. Ocean Park Road outside Ocean Park 4. 11 Shum Wan Road inside Broadview Court 5. Wah King Street near Wah Chui House, Wah Fu Estate 6. Wu Nam Street opposite On Tai Building 7. Wong Chuk Hang Road after Ocean Park Road 8. Wong Nai Chung Gap Road opposite HK Tennis Centre 9. 6 Stanley Village Road before Stanley Beach Road 10. 40 Stanley Village Road before Stanley Mound Road 11. Repulse Bay Road before Headland Road 12. Stanley Gap Road after Stanley Gap Road Interchange 13. 39A Tung Tau Wan Road opposite St. Stephen's College 14. Aberdeen Praya Road outside Ocean Court 15. Nam Fung Road after Deep Water Bay Road 16. Wong Chuk Hang Road outside Hong Kong Country Club 17. 52 Island Road outside Island Club 18. 76 Chung Hom Kok Road 19. Chung Hom Kok Road opposite Chung Hom Kok Fire Station 20. 109 Repulse Bay Road outside The Repulse Bay/Old Repulse Bay Hotel 21. 63 Repulse Bay Road outside Manhattan Tower 22. 41 Repulse Bay Road outside Monte Verde 23. Island Road opposite Deep Water Bay Beach 24. Nam Fung Road outside Wong Chuk Hang Hospital/Complex for Elderly 25. 168 Wong Chuk Hang Road outside Wong Chuk Hang Indoor Games Hall 26. Wong Chuk Hang Road outside Grantham Hospital 27. Chi Fu Road after Chi Fu Close 28. 162 Pok Fu Lam Road outside Pok Fu Lam Village 29. 150 Pok Fu Lam Road outside LCSD Pokfulam Nursery


30. Chi Fu Road outside Chi Fu Fa Yuen Tennis Court 31. Pok Fu Lam Road opposite Ebenezer School & Home for the Visually

Impaired 32. Pok Fu Lam Road outside Middleton Towers 33. Pok Fu Lam Road opposite Yu Chun Keung Memorial College No. 2 34. Yue Kwong Road opposite Hoy Au Lau, Yue Kwong Chuen 35. Aberdeen Reservoir Road opposite Pak Sha Lau, Yue Kwong Chuen 36. 14 Wong Chuk Hang Road outside Victory Factory Building 37. Wong Chuk Hang Road outside Wong Chuk Hang San Wai 38. Repulse Bay Road opposite Repulse Bay Towers 39. Wah Fu Road outside Wah Ching House, Wah Fu Estate 40. Pok Fu Lam Road opposite HKCCCU Pok Fu Lam Road Cemetery 41. Pok Fu Lam Road outside HKCCCU Pok Fu Lam Road Cemetery 42. Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road outside Ap Lei Chau Estate Multi-storey Car

Park 43. Tin Wan Praya Road outside Wah Kwai Shopping Centre 44. Lei Tung Estate Road outside Lei Tung Shopping Centre (Phase 2) 45. Nam Fung Road near South Island School 46. Cape Road after access road to Lung Tak Court 47. Cape Road outside Koon Ma House, Ma Hang Estate 48. Ap Lei Chau Bridge Road before Lee Chi Road 49. Victoria Road opposite access road to Upper Baguio Villa 50. Tai Tam Road opposite The Red Hill Peninsula 51. 147 Pok Fu Lam Road opposite to Pok Fu Lam Village 52. Pok Fu Lam Road opposite Queen Mary Hospital 53. Repulse Bay Road opposite The Brentwood 54. Aberdeen Praya Road outside Aberdeen Promenade 55. Wong Chuk Hang Road opposite Wong Chuk Hang Hospital/Complex for

Elderly 56. Wong Chuk Hang Road outside Wong Chuk Hang Hospital/Complex for

Elderly 57. 33 Tai Tam Road outside The Manhattan 58. 84 Stanley Village Road after Wong Ma Kok Road 59. Cape Road outside Chun Ma House, Ma Hang Estate Note: Display panels were installed at more than one shelter at some locations. The number inside the square bracket denotes the number of sheltered bus stops to be installed with display panels.


9873

GOVERNMENT BILL PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill. Council became committee of the whole Council. Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now becomes committee of the whole Council to continue the consideration of the Appropriation Bill 2019. Stand-over item: Appropriation Bill 2019 (standing over from the meeting of 8 May 2019) APPROPRIATION BILL 2019 CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee will continue the second session for the joint debate on the 56 amendments to the 51 heads and the sums for such heads standing part of the Schedule. The contents and objectives of the amendments are set out in the table in Appendix 1A to the Script. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): In this session, I will speak on Amendment No. 1 proposed by Mr WU Chi-wai in respect of "Head 21―Chief Executive's Office" to reduce the head by $5,092,800, an amount equivalent to the expenditure on the emoluments of the Chief Executive for the whole year. The emoluments of Chief Executive Carrie LAM are so high that she is among the highest paid leaders in the world. We can see from the ranking of the highest paid world leaders that LEE Hsien Loong of Singapore ranks first with an annual salary of US$1,610,000, and he is followed by Carrie LAM, whose emoluments are even higher than those of Donald TRUMP and amount to US$640,000. Hong Kong people can judge on their own whether Carrie LAM deserves the second highest pay among government leaders in the world. I therefore strongly support the amendment proposed by Mr WU Chi-wai.


Before expressing my personal views, I wish to first provide some objective figures by citing the survey findings published yesterday by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong on the popularity of government officials. The popularity rating of Carrie LAM has been dropping ever since she took office and it now stands at 44.3 marks, which has decreased by 4.7 marks when compared with the figure recorded two weeks ago. Another critical observation made from the findings is that when compared with the popularity of former Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, nicknamed "689", during the same period after assumption of office, her rating is even lower. The popularity rating of LEUNG Chun-ying in the corresponding period was 48.2 marks, but that of Carrie LAM only stands at 44.3 marks. Hence, Mr WU Chi-wai was actually telling the truth when he commented last week that she was worse than LEUNG Chun-ying, because judging from the rating recorded during the same period after assumption of office as Chief Executive, her popularity rating is lower than that of LEUNG Chun-ying. LEUNG Chun-ying got the lowest popularity rating when he delivered his final policy address in office, and it only stood at 37 marks, but I am sure Carrie LAM will soon catch up. She has a popularity rating of 44.3 marks, with 32% approval rate, 56% disapproval rate and a net approval rate of -24%, indicating that her performance is getting worse and worse, and she is becoming more and more unpopular among the people. Carrie LAM has once claimed that she would resign if the people of Hong Kong do not consider it appropriate and suitable for her to continue to hold office as Chief Executive. I therefore support the contents of this amendment, and agree that all her emoluments should be deducted. It is the common aspirations of Hong Kong people for Carrie LAM to step down, and it is the wish of all people that she must go. What are the justifications for supporting Mr WU Chi-wai's amendment? I can summarize them simply into the following four points: Firstly, she has betrayed the interests of Hong Kong people; secondly, she has done her job behind closed doors without regard for public opinions; thirdly, she has employed sly tricks in the Budget last year and has even gone so far as to do injustice to the royalists, her allies; fourthly, she has no vision at all and has brought Hong Kong and even the Central Government worries and trouble. What is the most important mission of Carrie LAM since she has taken office? She has to please the Central Government and has therefore ignored the interests of Hong Kong people. We can foresee that in the current financial


9875

year, Carrie LAM will try even harder and spare no effort to launch many policies against public opinions, and will push all of us in Hong Kong into an irreversibly dangerous situation. The hottest issue now is of course the legislative amendments proposed in the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). The SAR Government suddenly announced in February this year that in order to handle a murder case which happened in Taiwan, actions had to be taken to amend the law so that the suspect could be surrendered to Taiwan for trial. However, this has aroused a huge uproar in society because under the relevant legislative proposals, applications may be made in accordance with the amended law by the relevant authorities of Taiwan and other Mainland places to the Hong Kong Government for extraditing Hong Kong people and foreigners who are physically in Hong Kong. We can make reference to the public opinions reflected from certain incidents as follows: On 30 March, over ten thousand took to the street to protest against this "extradition to China legislation", but Carrie LAM responded on 1 April that some members of the public had misplaced their focus. At the Chief Executive's Question Time held subsequently, some Members queried whether local courts had such a gatekeeping power in connection with extraditions applications made under the Bill, but Carrie LAM asked rhetorically if it was appropriate for Members to always bad-mouth Hong Kong. Less than a month later, over 130 000 people took to the street on 28 April to voice opposition to the "extradition to China legislation", Carrie LAM still opined that these people did not really understand what the legislative amendments were about, despite a ten-fold increase in the number of demonstrators within one month. Last week, alternative feasible options were suggested by people of great insight and even some pro-China scholars for handling the Taiwan homicide case, but Carrie LAM turned a deaf ear to their views and insisted that there was no room for revising the legislative proposals. Carrie LAM's stance over the issue has also caused a storm at the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session held in this Council last week. She urged Members to refer to the article written by former Director of Public Prosecutions Ian CROSS, but I would instead like to ask her why she did not listen to the views of former Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions Michael BLANCHFLOWER, who has taken part in the drafting of the Fugitive


Offenders Ordinance back in those years, and has been following up the matter for over 10 years? Carrie LAM has chosen to ignore public opinions, including views expressed by the business sector, Members of the pro-establishment camp in this Council and pro-Government scholars, and leave the relevant policy explanation work totally to John LEE and Teresa CHENG. In this connection, I will speak on an amendment proposed to reduce the expenditure on the emoluments of the Secretary for Justice later. All in all, Carrie LAM is of the view that we are all wrong, and our opposition is based either on misunderstandings or malicious intentions and wicked motives, while the option put forward by the Government represents the most correct and best way to deal with the issue. I think there should be no need for me to elaborate further on the ensuing controversies. I wish to say a few words here specifically on the issue of whether Carrie LAM has told lies. As the President has already made a ruling on the matter, I have no intention to argue about this, but what can we in this legislature do when a government official is really telling lies? According to the approach I am going to adopt today, since she has knowingly confused right and wrong by telling lies, I can only describe what she has said as "a deviation from the truth". This is an objective and neutral description, and I do not think you will prohibit the use of this phrase in this legislature. In fact, when determining what descriptions we should or should not use and how we should express our views in the best way in the legislature, we are actually casting a net. This is similar to the use of foul language, which is also inappropriate on certain occasions. However, if we do come across some people whom we have the urge to scold with foul language on these occasions, it is suggested that we can simply substitute what we want to say with the phrase "you are really cute". Therefore, I wish to tell Carrie LAM: "You are really cute". Why do I say that what Carrie LAM said has deviated from the truth? She stated in this Council last week that the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance enacted before reunification was not applicable to China, which was neither purposefully designed nor made out of concern over the Mainland legal system. Ms Claudia MO thus accused her of telling lies, but I will not say so today, and will only describe what she said as a deviation from the truth. According to the declassified records in the United Kingdom, when the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ("FCO") of the British Government discussed with the British Hong Kong Administration in 1992 non-standard arrangement for extraordinary rendition between China and Hong Kong after reunification, FCO


9877

officers queried if it was appropriate to have a negotiation between China and Hong Kong on rendition arrangement. The then Deputy Political Adviser Stephen BRADLEY of the British Hong Kong Administration stressed that it was never their intention to negotiate with the Mainland on rendition arrangement between China and Hong Kong. He also pointed out that an agreement reached with the Mainland might arouse concern among those countries which had concluded extradition agreements with Hong Kong, and one of their major worries was about the possibility of surrendering to China those suspects who had been extradited from these countries to Hong Kong. As reflected by the declassified records concerned, the British Government had all along emphasized that in concluding a rendition agreement between China and Hong Kong, the human rights conditions in the country concerned would be their foremost consideration, and rendition arrangements should only be established with countries where the prevailing judicial system, penal system and human rights conditions were up to acceptable standards. Such criteria would and should still be applicable even after the reunification of Hong Kong, meaning that no extradition agreement should be concluded with countries which could not meet such requirements. The public will judge fairly how Carrie LAM has distorted the facts, and hold her accountable for this. She has made another serious mistake by doing her job behind closed doors without regard for public opinions. If we allow a person who does everything behind closed doors to continue receiving emoluments in the current financial year and enjoying the second highest pay among government leaders in the world, the Government will only meet great difficulties in implementing its policies, and its legitimacy and credibility will only be further undermined. Take the legislative amendments proposed by Carrie LAM in the current financial year to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance as an example, she firmly refused to conduct a formal public consultation on the proposed amendments after announcing the amendments, and repeatedly used the time constraint in handling the Taiwan homicide case as an excuse for introducing the amendments, but has so far failed to provide an answer to a crucial question. Although an arrangement was made for Matthew CHEUNG and John LEE to provide a response yesterday, it only served to waste our time as well as reporters' efforts. With regard to that crucial question, even if I give up arguing with you and accept that a loophole does exist in law, why should we bundle up the handling of the Taiwan homicide case with the plugging of that loophole in law? Why


should the two issues be bundled up and handled together? She fails to give us an answer. Even though the two issues are equally important, which one is a matter of greater urgency? Actions are of course more urgently needed to handle the Taiwan homicide case. If the two objectives run counter to each other, should the Government handle the matter of greater urgency first by dealing with the Taiwan homicide case? The answer is crystal clear and known to everybody, but Carrie LAM has not only failed to handle the murder case first but also insisted on bundling the two issues up, distorting the facts and misleading the public. I have already made no mention of her complete failure to listen to the views of Albert CHEN, who has always been a pro-Government scholar and supported the legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law as well as the implementation of the co-location arrangement. Whose views has she heeded then? The answer is Ronny TONG, her spokesman in the Executive Council. Apart from the proposed legislative amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance―it is also not my wish to focus on only one topic in my whole speech―the development of artificial islands in the Central Waters proposed in the Budget this year is another idea worked out by Carrie LAM behind closed doors. The Government is now going to rob us of money once again, and a funding application for the development proposal will be submitted to the Public Works Subcommittee of the Legislative Council this Friday. In addition, it is amazing that three meetings are scheduled to be held concurrently on Friday morning. Apart from the meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee, two meetings will also be held then, one to discuss the legislative proposals concerning electronic cigarettes and heat-not-burn tobacco products, and another one under the chairmanship of Mr Martin LIAO to deliberate on the bill introduced for the enactment of a local national anthem law. This government has gone totally crazy, and so have the royalists in this Council. They have gone so far as to have three equally important meetings held at the same time, when they all have to satisfy a very stringent quorum requirement. Carrie LAM would definitely argue that the matter has nothing to do with her and this is an internal matter for the Legislative Council, but who started all these in the first place? If a call for quorum is made in all three meeting rooms at the same time, we will surely get into trouble as there will only be one cover for three pots. In fact, apart from the Lantau Tomorrow Vision, the SAR Government under the leadership of Carrie LAM has also been denounced for mishandling a number of issues. Owing to time constraint, I cannot elaborate it, but I do wish


9879

to say a few words on the humiliation suffered by those in the pro-establishment camp. The Government incorporated the proposed measure of raising the eligible age for elderly Comprehensive Social Security Assistance to 65 into that "telephone directory" appended to the Budget last year, but argued subsequently that the proposal was actually passed by Members who had voted for the Budget, implying that the Government should not be blamed for this. I can really feel sorry for Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, who was dressed down in this way by Carrie LAM the other day. This is why we should look closely into the contents of the Budget this year, and should not have it passed too lightly. Finally, I would like to conclude my speech with a very popular article which was widely circulated recently. This article entitled "Why Abbess Miejue1 has aroused the greatest public wrath?" was written by FUNG Hei-kin, and from which I would like to quote a few lines as follows: "Those who fail to establish harmonious interpersonal relationship are heartless, and those without a strong sense of right and wrong are ruthless. A simple-minded woman who is both heartless and ruthless is nothing but a useless bitch who should go to hell, because she will surely bring us endless miseries and troubles once she possesses the Heaven Sword and becomes a person with power and influence. Our life is long enough for us to come across a few Abbesses Miejue, but very few cities are as lucky as Hong Kong to have an Abbess Miejue as the Chief Executive." Lastly, the proposed legislative amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance should be withdrawn. This is a matter of life and death for Hong Kong, when either Carrie LAM or Hong Kong can survive. Apart from cutting her emoluments, Carrie LAM must step down. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am going to speak on Amendment No. 1 which seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure on the annual personal emoluments for the Chief Executive. Hong Kong people learnt some lessons from the Legislative Council meeting last week: Firstly, a government official had the audacity to lie in front of so many people in this Chamber, but Members were obstructed when they accused her of lying. We are regressing nearly to the situation as in the novel 1984: the Government "merely permits officials to burn down houses while forbidding the common masses to light

1 Abbess Miejue is a character from the wuxia novel The Heaven Sword and Dragon Saber

by Louis CHA, and the name "Miejue" literally means "destroy and eliminate".


lamps". That means only if the ranking of the government officials is high enough, they can be protected for telling any lies, but we will be sinful to point out that they are telling lies. What kind of a world is this? Secondly―Mr WU Chi-wai is not present today―some people say that his language is vulgar. But in the street, what I can hear most is people praising Mr WU Chi-wai for finally speaking the mind of Hong Kong people on that high-ranking official that "her being alive does not serve any function". Let us think about it. She often claims that she has been an Administrative Officer for over 30 years, and always says that she is a high-ranking official serving Hong Kong people. But what is she doing? Nothing is more evil than this amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("the Ordinance"), because the amendment to the Ordinance is imposing a death sentence on all the Hong Kong people. Some people think that only the Legislative Council Members or politicians will have the greatest fear. In fact, we surely will not be very afraid, as when we come forward to criticize the Government and the Communist Party, we are prepared to face the possible consequences. However, in regard to many Hong Kong people who always think that they will not be politically affected, such as businessmen and manufacturers with factories on the Mainland, they do not expect to see this incident today and that they may be affected by a law. We all know about the situation on the Mainland. If you do not follow the practice or resort to some facilitating means on the Mainland, it will be very difficult to do any business, including operating factories or engaging in trading businesses. Therefore, under the situation of "not a single official is not corrupt" in Mainland China, when doing business on the Mainland, "not a single businessman will not offer bribes". But the bribes can be of different scales, and a minor bribe can be in the form of $10,000 to $20,000 to treat some high-ranking officials to a meal. I met a friend who has business on the Mainland and he mentioned his ordeal a few years ago. In a three people dinner when one of them was a high-ranking official, they ordered a RMB 10,000 yuan meal. But when the meal was served, that high-ranking official said that it was not sea cucumber, meaning that the meal ordered by my friend was not expensive enough. This is our impression of Mainland officials―"not a single official is not corrupt". Hence, when doing business or operating factories on the Mainland, one needs to follow the practice or resort to some facilitating means.


9881

We originally thought that this would only happen on the Mainland and not in Hong Kong, but this is not true now. The fact tells us that when the Ordinance is amended, all people, no matter those doing business or working on the Mainland, will have the chance to fall into the legal trap mistakenly. I will later talk about how some people who are not doing business will fall foul of the law inadvertently. And now, I will talk about those law-abiding businessmen. I use the word "law-abiding" to describe these businessmen, because they have not violated the Hong Kong laws and originally have not violated the Mainland laws. We know that the local governments may turn a blind eye to some people contravening the laws. Nevertheless, sometimes many corrupt officials on the Mainland will be caught due to certain political reasons. We may be aware that in Mainland bureaucracy, another expression for "anti-corruption" is "purging of the Party". For instance, when XI Jinping took office, he purged the Party members of the previous government. Hence, ZHOU Yongkang, a member of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, GUO Boxiong and even BO Xilai earlier, have to be caught. Sometimes the Mainland officials might not know and still thought that they were prestigious … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please return to the subject of this debate. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am returning to this subject. Chairman, you are also involved, as we know that you also have factories on the Mainland. Therefore, it is very easy for people to unknowingly fall into the trap of this legislation. Initially, with the implementation of the principle of "one country, two systems", it was hoped that the laws of Hong Kong or the court would not be undermined. In respect of the amendment to the Ordinance―we of course are not referring to Taiwan, as Taiwan has actually spelt out its stance very clearly. The Mainland Affairs Council … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, I have already reminded you that the subject you are now debating is not the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance.


DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am explaining the reasons for slashing the personal emoluments of the Chief Executive. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject of this debate session. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Her incompetence is precisely the reason for slashing her personal emoluments. Chairman, you do not need to always defend her. It is very conspicuous that the Hong Kong society is torn apart due to her incompetence and her intention to amend the Ordinance, otherwise 130 000 people would not have taken to the street and a few thousand people would not have gathered outside the Legislative Council Complex in these two days to support Members fighting the battle. We understand clearly that this legislation is imposing a death sentence on Hong Kong. This is not only a matter of the Legislative Council, but also a major concern of all Hong Kong people. I read an editorial of Sing Tao Daily the other day. We know that the Mr HO has always been friendly with the Government, but he also points out that the Government needs to be very careful in dealing with the amendment to the Ordinance, as a small mistake will bring far-reaching adverse consequences to Hong Kong. I have also heard Peter LAM making similar comments. And even some well-off people in Hong Kong, such as Joseph LAU who has just applied for a judicial review … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, I have already reminded you a couple of times. Please return to the subject of this debate. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am returning to the subject of this debate. What do you want me to do? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You have digressed from the subject of this debate. You should not discuss the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance here.


9883

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): So I need to keep on saying that Carrie LAM is bad, Carrie LAM is incompetent, Carrie LAM is not doing well, and thus she should not get any salary. You want me to say that every 10 seconds, right? Then I will say that every 10 seconds. We all know that all people in Hong Kong have great worries over "one country, two systems" due to the Government's amendment to the Ordinance, and that is exactly attributed to the work of Mrs Carrie LAM. This is also the reason for slashing her personal emoluments in my proposal. Is she qualified to get any salary? Is a person causing harm to Hong Kong people qualified to get any pay? How can a person who bites the hand that feeds her be qualified to get pay? What is meant by biting the hand that feeds her? Her personal emoluments are paid by all Hong Kong people, including the richest businessman, LI Ka-shing, and the poor people who have paid tax or have done some consumption activities. Hence, we are qualified to ask her to step down and are qualified not to allow her to get any salary. Are we not qualified? Not just the rich have the qualification. The trouble starter of the amendment to the Ordinance is the SAR Government―I will later talk about Mr John LEE, so please be rest assured―However, we know that the amendment to the Ordinance can only be launched by the joint efforts of Mr John LEE and Mrs Carrie LAM. I am one of the people who come forward to criticize her for lying blatantly. On the following day after this incident was exposed, three major characters who have played an important part in the deliberation of the Fugitive Offenders Bill before Hong Kong's reunification in 1997 voiced their views. They are Albert HO, former Legislative Council Member, Chris PATTEN, former Governor of Hong Kong, and Anson CHAN, former Chief Secretary for Administration. The three of them participated in the deliberation of this Bill before 1997 and were well aware of the situation. In fact, back then, the Mainland Government also knew about the situation as both parties had discussions. We also learn about the political landscape before 1997. Although Chris PATTEN was criticized by LU Ping as the sinner for a thousand centuries, Chris PATTEN would inform the Mainland Government for anything he has done in Hong Kong. The Government would only take a proposal on board with the consensus reached by both parties, otherwise the transition of Hong Kong would be rendered very difficult. As we know, this is political reality.


The veteran politicians of the United Kingdom were not ignorant. Hence, in the discussion of the Fugitive Offenders Bill back then, how would the Legislative Council Members of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong British Government and the Beijing Government not be aware that Hong Kong people were worried about the legal system of the Mainland? Do you think that they pretended not to see anything, burying their heads in the sand just like ostriches as claimed by Mrs Carrie LAM? If she dares to call others as ostriches, then the state leaders like XI Jinping and DENG Xiaoping were all ostriches. It is better that she criticizes all state leaders, but does she dare? She does not dare, of course, because they are her bosses. Mrs Carrie LAM has served the previous three Chief Executives, and this can show the true colours of Mrs Carrie LAM: Even though she has served them, she is the decision maker now and she insists on saying that they are ostriches. Therefore, "689" LEUNG Chun-ying, Donald TSANG and TUNG Chee-hwa are all ostriches, except for Mrs Carrie LAM who is the smartest. Should the salary be raised for a smart person? It should of course be raised. But why do a number of Members ask to reduce or even completely cut her salary? Because Mrs Carrie LAM is not only offering no help to Hong Kong people, but is doing something which hurts Hong Kong people most deeply. Let us think about it. The principle of "one country, two systems" is actually very fragile, more fragile than we can imagine. As we all know, the world north of Shenzhen River is completely different from the world south of Shenzhen River. In fact, we are now interconnected geographically, as there are several boundary control points, high speed rail and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, but Hong Kong can still maintain its own systems. Many new arrivals from the Mainland say that in Hong Kong, they can feel a different atmosphere, because they can enjoy freedom of speech here to express their own views and even criticize public officers, they can also act according to laws. As we are aware, Hong Kong's legal system is different from that on the Mainland. In regard to the legal system on the Mainland, we see that an offender is not even allowed to apply for bail or apply for legal representation. If he appoints a legal representative, even the legal representative will be arrested. I am not going to repeat the stories of WANG Quanzhang and LIU Xiaobo here―of course if I have enough time, I will mention those stories―a prisoner can be detained for three years or even longer before he is sent to the court to face


9885

the trial. The three persons in the "4 June liquor" case were kept in prison for three years before they were sent to the court. There is also the ordeal of LI Wangyang who was made to commit suicide in the prison. All these are hard facts, and similar incidents happen on the Mainland every day. Some people say that it is all right, as Mrs Carrie LAM will serve as a gatekeeper for us, but I just do not believe that she will do that for us. To put it nicely, she is the Chief Executive, but to put it bluntly, she is only a maid. When Grandpa says that something needs to be done, does the maid dare to refuse? She surely does not dare to refuse, and will pretend to send the case to the court. We know that the court only looks into the prima facie evidence. What is meant by prima facie evidence? It is very simple. The officially approved and court documents of a case on the Mainland will list out the offence committed, the factual basis, as well as the name and age of the person concerned. If a prima facie case is established, the court will have to handle it. In respect of the issue concerning fugitive offenders, in most circumstances, if a prima facie case is established and with the consent of the Chief Executive, the only way out is to surrender the fugitive offender, because a fugitive offender from Hong Kong is not allowed to be tried in Hong Kong. This is forbidden. Then in what position can the Chief Executive and the court in Hong Kong refuse extradition of a certain person requested in an officially approved document issued by a Mainland court at the national level in the future? They surely will be in no position to refuse, especially with the passage of the amendment to the Ordinance. Will we be in any position to refuse extradition? Anyone can be arrested then, and it is as simple as that. Some people are very naïve. They say that we actually do not have to feel worried, because the amendment to the Ordinance by Mrs Carrie LAM is for XI Jinping to purge Party members, and he will only arrest the Mainlanders concerned. I have no idea whether he wants to arrest those few hundred corrupt officials or suspects, but I do not want Hong Kong to be a haven for Mainland criminals either. As a matter of fact, if the Mainland authorities do not allow these people to leave the country, the corrupt officials cannot easily escape. If the Mainland authorities do not like them, they can disallow these people to leave the country and have their properties confiscated. However, Hong Kong will not adopt this approach as we have rules and regulations, and common law is practised in Hong Kong. Everyone can be assisted under the genuine rule of law.


If people think that the amendment to the Ordinance seeks to deal with corrupt officials, they are totally wrong, because at that time, there will be no differentiation while differentiation is also unnecessary. Anyone, including officials―people have to be careful, especially those who had unauthorized building works at home or have done certain things―will also be affected. Because as we know, there are only political trials on the Mainland and the court will only follow the political decisions of state leaders, including the length of sentence and who can be granted medical parole. We should already have an idea about the rule of law on the Mainland. We hope that Hong Kong can continue to maintain its status, and it is as simple as that really. We usually say that "river water will not interfere with well water". But it is no longer valid now, as "river water has to interfere with well water", and this is exactly the present situation (The buzzer sounded) … So how can we remunerate the Chief Executive? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, please stop speaking immediately. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to respond to what two Members have just said about reducing subhead 000, that is, deducting the estimated expenditure of more than $5 million on the emoluments for the Chief Executive. First of all, in my view, CSA No. 1 is as vexatious as other amendments. Earlier on, two Members … Let me first talk about Dr KWOK Ka-ki, who is now absent. He never minces his words in lambasting others in a bitterly sarcastic tone. In his eyes, there is only a sand grain of others, but not a tree of his own. What does it mean? He nitpicks at even very tiny stuff when sizing up others, but brushes aside his own shoddy work, medical blunders, vicious deeds, error-induced deaths and the like. He supports slashing the Chief Executive's $5 million-plus remuneration. In fact, we have all seen the "511 incident" that occurred earlier in the Legislative Council. What happened on 11 May? There was an ugly brawl. I cannot say that this bunch of people are "pan-democrats", because they have defiled the spirit of democracy. I can only describe them as "scum". They have gone so far as to turn this place for legislation into a mess, as if … (Mr AU Nok-hin stood up)


9887

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point? MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, he has just used the word "scum" to describe Members of the democratic camp. May I ask if Dr Junius HO has used an offensive word? If so, is he willing to withdraw it? DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): No, I will even go on to explain … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, have you used this word to describe other Members? DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): I mean some Members are really scum. But, Chairman, please allow me to explain, because he is now asking me to explain … MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, a point of order. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU, please let Dr Junius HO explain first. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): I mean they are undeserving of being Members of the democratic camp. Such behaviour is typical among hooligans and scum, and I am referring to the behaviour. Therefore, if Mr AU Nok-hin did the same on that day and now identifies himself with that description, I cannot rule out that he becomes scum as he has self-proclaimed, but I have not targeted him. I have just made the distinction that the significance of democracy is nothing like that at all and Members of the democratic camp should not behave in this way. Anyone coming across this way is not a democrat. I have already made myself very clear. Thank you, Chairman. (Mr AU Nok-hin indicated his wish to raise a point of order)


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, please raise your point of order. MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, first of all, he did use the word "scum" to describe Members of the Legislative Council, and I find this term offensive. Secondly, what does his so-called "511 incident" have to do with today's debate? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, even though the speeches made by two Members earlier were also partly irrelevant to the debate topic, I allowed them to continue with their speeches. MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Do you mean that it does not matter if the contents of today's speeches are irrelevant to the debate topic? If so, the contents of my upcoming speech can also be irrelevant to the topic. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): In fact, as long as there is room for discussion, I will let Members carry on with the debate. Dr Junius HO, please continue with your speech. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, you can see those who claim themselves to be democratic, but I have said … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO … DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Thank you. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Dr HO and Members please …


9889

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): I will get back on the right track immediately. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I call on Members to be careful about the words used in their speeches. Although Members will lock horns in a debate, please try not to use any insulting words. Dr HO, please continue with your speech. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I respect your view. I would like to make one point: after I had spoken for just 1 minute and 24 seconds, these self-proclaimed democrats intervened immediately; they often disrupt me during my speech, but what we often hear here is their bitterly sarcastic remarks which any ordinary person with common sense would feel uncomfortable to make, much less graduates from universities or professional institutes. Chairman, you have intervened several times, but they are still so obstinate. Even under such circumstances, we have not intervened. Just think about it―although they have spoken the most times, we still hold an inclusive attitude, with which we are truly embodying democracy. They can talk hogwash as if it is a magic bullet during their own speaking time, but during my speech they often interfere with me, which I consider very inappropriate … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please speak on the subject of this debate. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I return to the subject of this debate. This is … (Mr KWONG Chun-yu indicated his wish to raise a point of order) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point of order? MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, after "scum" comes "talk hogwash as if it is a magic bullet". Chairman, please rule whether this is a parliamentary expression.


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, I remind you once again. Please do not use any insulting expression against Members. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): What is wrong with talking hogwash as if it is a magic bullet? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr HO, please continue with your speech. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): So long as they are not hogs, there is no problem, is there? Chairman … MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to ask if you have made a ruling? Someone is still saying "magic bullet". DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman has not made a ruling. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please continue with your speech. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Thank you. It is my hope that Chairman does not let anyone else arbitrarily interfere with my speech. If you think "scum" is inappropriate, then I refrain from saying "scum", but where come most of the criminals, criminal record holders and jailbirds from? Let us return to the topic of reducing Carrie LAM's $5 million remuneration. A person in such high office and with so much weight in her words is cursed by them with "7778". This is yet another example of their behaviour. Despite so much work she has done, they say the $5 million-plus remuneration is inappropriate. I believe it is more appropriate to ask Mr WU Chi-wai and Mr HUI Chi-fung to return their nearly $1,200,000 of Member's remuneration … (Mr AU Nok-hin indicated his wish to raise a point of order)


9891

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point of order? MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Which amendment is he speaking on exactly? Why do you not ask him to clearly point out … DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): He is such a pain. He did not even listen when I spoke … MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): … he has strayed way off topic all the way through. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): It is CSA No. 1. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, please do not interrupt the Member's speech. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): How can he be a teacher? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please continue with your speech. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, if they think that the $5 million remuneration for Carrie LAM should be reduced despite her diligent efforts to serve us―they are laughing because they do not agree―then I ask them to first return the full sum of $1,170,000. Chairman, the numerous Members who set themselves up as democrats or pan-democrats strike me as very disappointing. Unlike ever before, the Sixth Legislative Council abounds with those disqualified, prosecuted, sentenced to imprisonment, awaiting sentencing to imprisonment and doomed to be convicted soon. Chairman, I am telling the truth. (Mr KWONG Chun-yu indicated his wish to raise a point of order)


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point of order? MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, which amendment is he discussing exactly? Can he make it clear? Please make a ruling. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Yours is not a point of order. Please sit down. Dr Junius HO, please return to the subject of this debate. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have all along been speaking around the subject. I am speaking on CSA No. 1, which is about the annual emoluments of $5,090,000 for the Chief Executive. There is a paper but they have not read it. The amendment was proposed by them, and I am answering their questions now. The two of them have not listened to others' speeches at all. They just disturb others and abuse the point of order procedure. All of them are the most "out-of-order" people, who always raise points of order. I have skipped a word … (Mr KWONG Chun-yu indicated his wish to raise a point of order) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point of order? MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to raise a point of order. Please make a ruling on the meaning of "the most 'out-of-order' people". I am going to make him "out of order" right now. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please continue with your speech. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Yes, thank you, Chairman. I will carry on with my speech so long as they do not disturb me. I am speaking on CSA No. 1. For the record, this is the fourth time I have said it.


9893

Chairman, such a situation has resulted in the low popularity of Carrie LAM, but can we figure out a Chief Executive whose popularity is not low? One is lower than another. Who caused it? They are those who charge and nitpick. If they consider the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") problematic, they can engage in discussion on a formal platform, but so far they have balked at it and even obstructed it. Even the election of a chairman has caused such a sensation. Now, what exactly should be done next? We very much hope that Members of the Legislative Council do what they are supposed to do instead of wasting time. What exactly has happened to the Legislative Council? Where have yesterday's rules gone? Where has the order gone? They seem to have disappeared off the face of the earth today. Yesterday, 14 May, when we were about to hold a meeting of the Bills Committee on FOO, some Members were guarding the conference room to prevent other Members from attending the meeting, and at the same time another group was acting aggressively towards Mr Abraham SHEK. They did all this for only one purpose. Instead of using your wisdom, you just turned to violence to obstruct others. If you were a little more shrewd … even if you keep raising points of order to challenge me today, I can answer you. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please address the Chair. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Thank you, Chairman. I am not targeting Chairman, but sometimes when I get angry, I will stare at those who fabricate truth and create chaos. I totally do not support this amendment to deduct the estimated expenditure of $5,090,000 on the annual emoluments for the Chief Executive. On the contrary, I think she deserves a pay rise for her hard work. I may have to consider next year awarding a pay rise to those principal officials who have done good jobs. Therefore, thanks to their proposal to cut pay today, next year I really have to seriously consider increasing pay instead. Those having done good jobs naturally deserve a pay adjustment. Chairman, we must not condone the wrongdoings of our colleagues. Having seen someone proclaim himself Chairman of the Bills Committee and issue a series of false instruments, we must correct the situation. The


Legislative Council is a legislature, not a place for breaching the law. We must do the right thing at the right time by rectifying all the inappropriate matters and expelling all those who have broken the law in the Legislative Council. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please return to the subject of this debate. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, my speech ends here. Thank you. (Mr KWONG Chun-yu indicated his wish to raise a point of order) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point of order? MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, if he claims that a colleague has broken the law, he may call the Police, but then he should definitely remember to cover his phone number. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, this is not a point of order. Please sit down. DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Sit down, fight picker! MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): What a troublemaker! MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, given your leniency shown to Mr Junius HO who was allowed to speak on a wide range of issues, I hope you will also allow me to speak on a wide range of issues. It is my belief that we, as Members of the Legislative Council, should have due respect for one another. I deeply regret that Mr HO uploaded his mobile phone number to the Internet as well while making a report to the Police. I just hope no one would call him.


9895

First and foremost, I would like to respond here to Mr HO's views on CSA No. 1 concerning the reduction of an amount equivalent to the emoluments for the Chief Executive. Just as Dr KWOK Ka-ki has questioned: Given her acts that served to destroy Hong Kong's rule of law and its foundation that had taken years to build, how come she is still paid a salary? Yet, "practicing lawyer" Mr Junius HO posed another question in return: "Looking back on what happened yesterday, where had the rules of the Legislative Council gone, may I ask?" Well, this is where the crux of the problem lies and it is precisely for this reason that pro-democratic Members have proposed cuts to the remuneration of certain positions of the Legislative Council. This problem exactly originated from no one but the Secretary General of the Legislative Council Mr Kenneth CHEN, who is just sitting right beside the Chairman. Mr CHEN should not have allowed the Legislative Council Secretariat ("the Secretariat") to, in violation of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), issue a notice on its own without being directed by the Chairman concerned. On the surface, he issued the guideline on behalf of the House Committee, but in fact, it has already been prescribed in RoP that as long as any member of the Bills Committee has signified disapproval and requested that the matter should be discussed at a meeting, no guideline shall be issued, on the basis of consent gained from the majority of Members, to specify Mr Abraham SHEK as the one in charge of the election of the chairman and deputy chairman of the Bills Committee. This is precisely the problem of the ruling bloc which ignores the rules prescribed and does not act in compliance with the established systems. Moreover, Mr HO also accused Mr James TO of issuing a false instrument, but I really hope he is able to discern which Bills Committee meeting is truly convened in accordance with RoP. The former President of the Legislative Council, Mr Andrew WONG, also said that the Bills Committee meeting chaired by Mr James TO was lawful, while that chaired by Mr Abraham SHEK was inappropriate. I just hope Mr HO would not be mistaken. In addition, I also hope he will become well versed with the basic rules of the Budget Debate by the Council as we Members are not supposed to put forward proposals to increase the remuneration of bureau secretaries, which I have pointed this out time and again. He expressed his great admiration for some of the officials appointed under the accountability system and wished to give them a pay rise. Regrettably, we cannot increase the Government's expenditure budget due to the constitutional limitation. If he really wants to give the bureau secretaries a pay rise, may I ask him either to seek changes to the existing system or simply stop reversing what is right and what is wrong then?


Since Secretary Michael WONG happened to be present here, I would like to make clear to him once again: I oppose the Government's selling of Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137 (APIL 137). As a matter of fact, I have raised objection in this respect on a number of occasions, but this time I would like to propose something new: I object to its sale unless the Secretary is willing to add a clause to the Agreement and Conditions of Sale to require the new developer to arrange for the provision of a station there for connecting to the MTR. Is the Secretary willing to act accordingly? I guess he is not willing to do so. He only focuses on getting the land sold and totally disregards other voices. How are we supposed to give him a pay rise, may I ask? And so, it is difficult for us to propose such a pay rise whether or not we are bound by any rules or it is well justified to do so. Back to the issue in focus―I have already spent four minutes speaking―I intend to speak on CSA No. 44 proposed by Mr HUI Chi-fung. Related to the Education Bureau, this amendment aims to reduce an amount equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure for developing the "Learning and Teaching Resources for Basic Law Education" (i.e. "Resolved that head 156 be reduced by $580,000 in respect of subhead 000) by the Education Bureau. I am so sorry that the two Secretaries now present in this Chamber actually have nothing to do with education but still have to listen to my speech on this policy area. However, I really want to talk about issues in this respect, for example, the work of the Curriculum Development Institute ("CDI") and the Curriculum Development Council ("CDC") which is worth pondering. Chairman, an amendment proposed by me about the estimated expenditure for CDI was disapproved by you without mentioning specifically the reasons for that. Yet, the work undertaken by CDI in assisting in the preparation of curriculum guidelines, the production of official teaching materials and the reform of subjects, will have profound impacts on Hong Kong's education and is very much relevant to a Member's current proposal of reducing the estimated expenditure for the promotion of Basic Law education. As we all know, since the abortive introduction of national education, the Education Bureau has repeatedly revised the curriculum guidelines in order to achieve the objective of taking forward "brainwashing" education. This is illustrated by its efforts towards the adoption of Putonghua as the medium of instruction for teaching the Chinese Language Subject in primary and secondary schools and the curriculum of the Chinese History Subject at junior secondary level, where both efforts have been criticized for aiming at "brainwashing". Actually, the curriculum in question was initially drawn up by CDI. If the Administration does not intend to


9897

take forward "brainwashing" education, I think the appointment framework of CDI should be made more transparent and must include frontline teachers. Otherwise, the teaching outcome may turn out to be completely different from what is expected even though the frontline teachers do teach in accordance with Education Bureau's curriculum guidelines. In addition, efforts made to promote the Basic Law are usually regarded as attempts to achieve certain political ends. This will indeed tarnish the dignity of education. A few days ago, numerous educational organizations have jointly written a report on the appointment of members to CDC, its operation and transparency of its work―I do not know whether the Secretary for Education is aware of this―in which a lot of requests were raised. The report points out exactly the truth that CDI, as an important body which assists CDC in preparing curriculum guidelines, has turned into an accomplice engaging in the latter's mission of taking forward "brainwashing" education to serve political ends. The CDI keeps preparing problematic curriculum guidelines that will indeed affect the teaching of frontline teachers. Some frontline teachers have pointed out that the curriculum guidelines have, in effect, deprived teachers of the autonomy of education and the flexibility to adjust the contents of the teaching materials. Take for instance the finalized draft of the curriculum framework of the Chinese History Subject (Junior Secondary) published by the Education Bureau in May 2018, which aims to foster students' sense of national identity and sense of belonging. Nevertheless, the syllabus has failed to cover some of the most important historical events, such as the Democratic Movement in China in 1989, the 1967 riots in Hong Kong, etc. On the contrary, a historical view that emphasizes China-Hong Kong relations has been incorporated into the said framework. Does this indicate that history also has to be screened? Does the Government intend to show only the good things in history and conceal the ugly ones by so doing? According to the results of a survey conducted by the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union on the revision of the syllabus of the Chinese History Subject for junior secondary schools, 77% teachers opined that emphasis should be laid on the unique development of Hong Kong since its opening up as a commercial port, but the newly revised syllabus of the Chinese History Subject for junior secondary schools has attached less importance to the history of Hong Kong and the stance taken is obviously very different from that of the teachers. Meanwhile, the curriculum guidelines have fallen short of their expectations while their professional views have been ignored as well.


Besides, I would like to discuss the manpower issues of CDI. In the past, CDI had set up a dedicated section for each core subject to coordinate curriculum development tasks of respective core subjects. And as at present, the Task Force on Review of School Curriculum is reviewing the curriculum of Liberal Studies ("LS"). There has always been much discussion in society about LS, such as the extensive discussion on the importance of Independent Enquiry Study ("IES") and LS. As the person who assumes the post of Head of LS in CDI is responsible for taking part in discussions on curriculum-related matters and making responses when necessary, it is impossible for this post to remain unfilled after it becomes vacant. Yet, it did happen that the post of Chief Curriculum Development Officer (Liberal Studies/Cross-curricular Studies) of CDI had been left vacant since 1 March 2018 and remained unfilled until the middle of last month. How was the review of LS supposed to be conducted during such a period of vacancy? The amendment we are now discussing relates to the learning and teaching resources for Basic Law education which must have something to do with LS, but how can the review be conducted in the absence of the Chief Curriculum Development Officer? Hence, it is inevitable that people will doubt if the authorities intend to dwarf the importance of LS in light of this. There are still a number of issues concerning CDI that are worth our discussion here. Although it is no easy task to discuss the issue amid society's harsh criticism for the time being, I would still like to talk about the second point, that is, the issue about the learning and teaching resources for Basic Law education developed by the Education Bureau. This part really merits our attention and is also among the key funding items in every year's Budget. The Government often says that it wants to promote the Basic Law, but the teaching contents prepared by the Education Bureau in this regard have been triggering controversy from time to time and are questioned as to whether they can really help deal with the problems. Several matters of concern are involved here, such as the "Constitution and the Basic Law Learning Package" and the "Understanding the Law, Access to Justice―Basic Law Learning Package" under the curriculum of Basic Law teaching. Actually, what is wrong with these teaching materials? Well, the "Constitution and the Basic Law Learning Package" includes a text as follows: "Demonstrations/public processions are a means of expressing people's aspirations, but they should not be the only means. The very act of leaving idle the effective communication mechanism for consultation and taking to the streets instead reveals only the crudeness and shallowness of the democratic consciousness of some people in Hong Kong." These words and the previous


9899

remarks made by Mr Junius HO―in fact, I would like to respond to Mr HO's remarks by citing these words―how could the Education Bureau have taken such a biased stance in portraying the local phenomenon of "demonstrations/public processions"? In fact, only when an effective mechanism for the public to express their will is absent from the existing political framework or when the consultation mechanism fails, will people have to take to the streets so as to make their voices heard. At this moment, even if a tripartite talk is held among Members belonging to the pan-democratic camp, Members belonging to the pro-establishment camp and the Government, I still do not have the slightest idea about what is to be discussed, not to mention the unbearable attitude of the Government. Appearing in public to make a response yesterday, Secretary Matthew CHEUNG remarked that it was not the Government's role to take part in the talk. Excuse me, how come it is not the Government's role to do so? Do not forget that it is the Government that initiated to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance this time and the proposed legislative amendments concerned have caused great controversy. Should the Government have been able to settle the dispute under the existing political regime, the Bills Committee would not have ended up in the current chaos and there would not have been as many as 130 000 people who took to the streets rather than enjoy their holidays. Do you think it is really enjoyable to do so? Who does not want to enjoy holidays? Well, there were 130 000 people who did not trust the existing political system and had thus decided to take to the streets to express their dissatisfaction with the legislative amendments proposed to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance by the Government. Take a closer look and you will realize the Government's attitude is precisely reflected in both what Secretary Matthew CHEUNG had said and the teaching materials for Basic Law education: the act of taking part in demonstrations/public processions is deemed crude and shallow by the Government. You may look down upon Hong Kong, but you can never look down upon the demonstrations/public processions experienced by those democratic countries across the world. Dare you criticize the yellow vests' protest in France for being crude and shallow? Of course, it would be nice if there was a mechanism under our political system for resolving the problem effectively, but this is not yet possible for the time being. Given that Hong Kong has yet to implement universal suffrage after all these years, how can public opinion reach the Government's executive authorities? It is precisely for this reason that the teaching materials mentioned above were written from a biased perspective.


Another point is about the functions of the Legislative Council, that is, "to convey public opinion to the Government"; "to provide views from different professions and sectors"; and "to make the Government more responsive to the needs of the public and different sectors" as students are so told by the above learning packages. This really sounds ironic, right? And now, we are told by Matthew CHEUNG that the Government does not play a role in resolving disputes within the Legislative Council. What the hell is he talking about? Try not to deceive the public as the powers of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are interconnected in fact. Furthermore, the Legislative Council has to discharge certain more fundamental functions, namely "to enact, amend or repeal laws"; "to examine and approve budgets introduced by the Government"; "to approve taxation and public expenditure"; and "to raise questions on the work of the Government". This is precisely what is told to student visitors every day by our Secretariat colleagues who provide them with guided tours around the Legislative Council Complex. In fact, a lot of Legislative Council Members will also escort students visitors to tour around the Legislative Council Complex, but whether it be our Secretariat colleagues or Members, they do say the same thing. However, the teaching materials prepared by the Government has completely ignored the most important facts. Actually, how does the Education Bureau use the learning and teaching resources for Basic Law education, may I ask? In short, I think there must be frontline teachers among the members appointed by CDC. It is of utmost importance that the Government listens to the voices of different stakeholders in the formulation of curricula, or perceived bias may arise. The same also holds true for Matthew CHEUNG and CDI under the Education Bureau. I look forward to Hong Kong's becoming a society built upon democratic accountability. I so submit. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak in support of Amendment No. 1 proposed by Mr WU Chi-wai to delete the expenditure of $5.09 million for paying the annual salaries of Chief Executive Carrie LAM. Before elaborating on my arguments for this proposal, I wish to give a brief reply to Dr Junius HO on his criticisms against certain Members of this Council, notably Members from the democratic camp, including Mr WU Chi-wai.


9901

First, he reprimanded Dr KWOK Ka-ki, saying that the words he used were scornful. But I wonder if Dr Junius HO has ever listened to the playback of his own speeches again. He described various democratic Members with words such as "convicts", "law-breakers" and "scums". Is he saying that all such words are not scornful and offensive? Why did he use all such words? What is the point of doing so? He also contented that democratic Members went after other Members with verbal violence. Well, he must have forgotten his chanting of the words "kill without mercy" during a pro-establishment rally, in an attempt to incite supporters of the pro-establishment camp to use violence against people in the democratic camp. Besides, Dr Junius HO also criticized the democratic camp for its storming actions and protests, questioning whether we were oblivious to the rules of the Legislative Council. But if he really attaches a great deal of importance to rules, why did he as a practising lawyer in Hong Kong take a selfie inside a courtroom? How could he possibly be so ignorant about the prohibition against selfies in courtrooms under court rules or the law? Chairman, lastly, he reproached democratic Members, saying that they could only see the branch in others' eyes but not their own … What he said should be, "They could only see the grain of sand in others' eyes but not the stem in their own eyes." But Mathew 7:3-5 of the Bible actually read, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?" Dr Junius HO changed "speck of sawdust" to "grain of sand". I wonder if this is because he is a believer of the Chinese goddess of mercy and compassion with a statute of it at home. Even though he claims to be a Christian, he is not even clear about the Bible wording. The Bible says clearly " … look at the 'speck of sawdust' in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye" rather than "grain of sand". I hope Dr Junius HO can avoid stirring up conflicts in this Council when he speaks. Chairman, let me turn back to talk about the reason why I support the deletion of the expenditure for paying the salaries of Chief Executive Carrie LAM. There are four main reasons. First, she harbours evildoers. Whom did she harbour? Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG. It is crystal clear that Teresa CHENG lied about her unauthorized building works ("UBWs"). As a barrister well versed in the Buildings Ordinance, she nonetheless claimed that she was not aware of the UBWs in the basement at the time of purchasing the house. Her explanation was unbelievable, simply an insult to people's intelligence. Nevertheless, what did the Chief Executive say in reply? The Chief Executive harboured her and urged people to look ahead.


The Chief Executive's reply was simply an insult to people's intelligence. She appointed a devious person who disregarded the law and blatantly told falsehood after her irregularities were unveiled to be the Secretary for Justice. Before assuming office as Secretary for Justice, she did not deal with or disclose her serious UBWs problem beforehand and instead only waited for it to be unveiled. As the superior of Teresa CHENG, the Chief Executive must bear responsibility for this matter. Subsequently, Teresa CHENG let go of LEUNG Chun-ying. This has dealt a severe blow to Hong Kong's reputation as a corruption-free city and further undermined people's confidence in the rule of law. All this is the ill-consequence of Carrie LAM's attempt to harbour Teresa CHENG. Second, the Chief Executive has told lies one after another. What did she say in her explanation at the previous Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session? According to her, it is not correct to say that the Mainland was deliberately excluded from the arrangements for the surrender of fugitive offenders around the time of the reunification. Then, she quoted out of context the words uttered by Albert HO when he was a Member of the then Legislative Council, arguing that Albert HO also supported the proposed legislative amendments. She was simply telling lies one after another. As clearly pointed out in a declassified British document, the colonial administration simply did not agree to enter into any agreements with the Mainland on the surrender of fugitive offenders because the legal standard on the Mainland lagged far behind the international human right standard. So, it contented that surrendering fugitive offenders to the Mainland was out of the question. Besides, former Governor Chris PATTEN and also former Chief Secretary for Administration Anson CHAN have likewise rebuked Carrie LAM's assertion in unison. All this is proof that she has lied in this Chamber again and again. What else can we say about the integrity of this Chief Executive? Third, she is a person with no moral integrity and sense of righteousness who betrays her former superiors and colleagues. At the previous Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session, she asserted that as Secretary for Security John LEE used "ostrich" to describe how the Government of the three previous terms had failed to deal with the formulation of arrangements for the surrender of fugitive offenders to the Mainland, she had no alternative but to support John LEE's assertion.


9903

First, if John LEE's assertion is true and justifiable, why did Carrie LAM sound as though she could only support the assertion of Secretary John LEE without any alternatives? She could say assertively that Secretary John LEE was correct, and that she as her superior totally supported his point. Why did she sound as though she were forced to show support? Is it true to say that Secretary John LEE's assertion is simply pointless or without any factual basis? Chairman, Members should not forget that Carrie LAM has been working in the Government ever since the reunification without any interruption. She was once the Secretary for Development and the Chief Secretary for Administration, and she is now the Chief Executive. She has never left the Government. One particular point to note is that she was once the Chief Secretary for Administration. According to her, the Government of the three previous terms is "ostrich". If this is true, then she is actually the head of this "ostrich" Government or its aide, to say the very least. She calls them "ostrich". Has she ever done any self-reflection? She has buried her head in the sand just like them. Mrs Regina IP in this Council was a former Secretary for Security. Is she saying that Mrs IP was likewise an "ostrich"? Mrs IP once tried to force through the enactment of legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law for the Government, and she is renowned for her allegiance and courage. Frankly speaking, even though I disagree with her stance, I think she is the bravest among all officials because she was at least courageous enough to defend government policies in public and debate with other, in marked contrast to Carrie LAM, who has "remained hidden in her tortoise shell". She should not stand aloof from this matter and dismiss the Government of the three previous terms as "ostrich". How much money has she received as wages since the reunification? And, how many people has she worked with? TUNG Chee-hwa, Donald TSANG and LEUNG Chun-ying are her previous superiors. Her words have betrayed all her former superiors and colleagues. She is a person without any sense of loyalty and righteousness. Fourth, the extradition law she has tried to force through is the prologue of enacting legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law. Various legal scholars, barristers, senior counsel, businessmen and also academics in other disciplines have cast serious doubts over the extradition law, reckoning that it will greatly undermine Hong Kong's rule of law, pose threats to human rights and "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong, and hinder our business environment


and the confidence of overseas investors in Hong Kong. Facing all such queries, Carrie LAM merely uttered the word "nonsense" in reply. Why does she consider all such queries to be nonsensical? After examining the direction of the government bill concerned, they opine that as long as the extradition law is passed, the "firewall" in Hong Kong's rule of law will cease to exist. Despite all this, she has merely looked up to the country in the north to see whom the Mainland wants to arrest these days. Will people believe that the Mainland is now implementing a transparent legal system, just as Maria TAM has asserted? Please do not be a laughing stock. They have honestly failed to live up to their status as legal practitioners as they have told falsehood with eyes wide open. Who will dare to say that the Mainland implements fair trial, an independent judicial system and also a system whereby the defendant can receive a reasonable opportunity to defend his case? All these are non-existent. She said that she would not comment on the judicial system of the Mainland, merely asserting that the bill must be passed expeditiously in order to plug the loopholes, and that there was huge urgency to do so as the suspect in the homicide case in Taiwan would soon be released after serving his prison sentence. Why is this matter so very urgent? The Taiwan authorities raised three requests with the Hong Kong Government for negotiations on this matter. But the Hong Kong Government has simply ignored their requests. Subsequently, she contended that this matter was time-critical as the court in Hong Kong was going to deal with another case involving the same suspect, so she conducted a consultation exercise of only 20 days, in a bid to secure the passage of the bill as soon as possible. She has even called upon the Legislative Council to pass the bill expeditiously and kept urging pro-establishment Members to force through the passage of this draconian law. Recently, Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew CHEUNG put forth a new point for the Government. We requested a tripartite meeting to discuss this matter. But he nonetheless said that the Government would not interfere with it as it was an internal matter of the Legislative Council. Then, they should stop urging Members to speed up the scrutiny process. What does this show? Downright double standards. Chairman, if I am to describe the difference between Carrie LAM and LEUNG Chun-ying, I will say that LEUNG talks more often than taking action, whereas in the case of Carrie LAM, it is the other way round. But mind you, she will only turn more ruthless and remain oblivious to the consequence, and to her,


9905

the most important of all is to show her loyalty to Beijing. The demand put forth by various Members from the Democratic Party and the democratic camp for the immediate stepping down of such a deplorable Chief Executive is just sensible. I believe Mr WU Chi-wai's request for deleting the estimated expenditure for paying her annual salaries will command the support of all Members from the democratic camp. MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, this session is supposed to speak on the amendments, but I will reserve a little time to give Dr Junius HO "a treat". He just commented that the series of actions of the democratic Members had prompted him to make remarks that were seemingly related but actually totally unrelated to the amendments. If he happens to be listening to me in his office now, I hope he will come and debate with us whether he should describe democratic Members who oppose the so-called "send China" bill as scum. After all, we are colleagues in this Council, but he has time and again made inappropriate remarks and expanded the scope of dictions used in this Council. Today, he even used the word "scum". Mr WU Chi-wai certainly has his reason to slash the annual salary of the Chief Executive in Amendment No. 1. One really does not know where to start with if one has to list what she has done. A recent example, for instance, is the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") which is meant to send fugitive offenders to China for trial. The Mainland Affairs Council of Taiwan has made it clear that even if Hong Kong amends the law, Taiwan may not make an extradition request. That is to say, the factor of urgency in handling the Taiwan murder case, as claimed by the Government, no longer exists. We hold that the SAR Government is responsible for the several chaotic incidents which took place in the Legislative Council because of the Bill. The head of the SAR Government is Carrie LAM, that is why we propose to slash her salary in Amendment No. 1. Dr Junius HO says Carrie LAM should have a salary increment rather than deduction and that the best approach is to tip her. Secretary LAU Kong-wah happens to be here. He has been handling a conflict lately. Everyone knows that it is not an offence to tip a performer in parks managed under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. Giving "red pockets" to performers is not


regulated nor punishable by law. Dr Junius HO may do so if he so wishes. But I wish to tell him, which is actually common sense, that amendments proposed in the Committee stage can only reduce the proposed expenditures and not increase them. This is a basic rule that any Member who has been a Member for a few years should know. I really do not know how Dr Junius HO can be a Member. As a matter of fact, Dr Junius HO has used the word "scum" and coined such new phrases like "taking nonsense as inviolable truth". He has come under the spotlight lately. In a meeting of the Bills Committee on Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, he wrongly scolded a person whom he mistook as a member of the ViuTV crew because the person wore a T-shirt with "VIIV", and not "ViuTV", written on it. He scolded the wrong person. He wrongly accused ViuTV and he later apologized for it. We do not want to argue with him about the details. But Chairman, sometimes, we really cannot stand it anymore. Sometimes, I also saw the President rolling his eyes when he heard certain words or phrases. Dr HO spoke for some 10 minutes. Was he truly speaking on the amendments? Chairman, I am truly speaking on the amendment. We have a reason for slashing the salary of the Chief Executive. I believe the general public are also doubtful whether Carrie LAM deserves to be given any salary. Her recent deeds show her iron hand in a velvet glove. She claims that she will let the Legislative Council handle all controversial proposals submitted by the Government and there will not be any interference, but then she forces the Legislative Council to pass evil bills. This evil bill has brewed much worry among Hong Kong people and prompted 130 000 people to take to the street. The business sector has also voiced their different concerns. We now ended up having two so-called Bills Committees on the Bill, but our former Legislative Council President Mr Andrew WONG says that the one chaired by Mr James TO has greater legitimacy. It is thus evident that the controversy is over Carrie LAM, who is the originator of the evil bill and should be the one to settle this matter. She once remarked that if there were a large number of people expressing dissatisfaction about her, she would step down. Honestly, this "send China" bill has been gaining heat. In this Chamber, the democratic Members are not the only ones finding this hard to deal with. I believe some pro-establishment Members also feel the same. We question why we have to be forced to deal with it. There is now no urgency in handling the Taiwan murder case. But she


9907

still insists on pressing ahead with the legislative amendment in her capacity as Chief Executive. When this ordinance was first drafted in the 1990s, it was decided that fugitive offenders would not be surrendered to the Mainland due to distrust in the Mainland judicial system. If there has been trust, the Government does not need to revise the legislative amendment to take out the business sector-related clauses to alleviate their concern and convince them to support the Government's proposed amendment. If there is no distrust, why does she not submit the original legislative proposal to the Legislative Council and see how things turn out? So, coming back to the subject, there is a reason for slashing the salary of the Chief Executive. I hope Dr Junius HO will speak with substance in the debate. It is not difficult to make terse remarks, but would he please explain the reason and meaning of his remarks. I do not want to raise a point of order on his remarks. Chairman, our debate with him in this Chamber is often very colourful because he often forgets what he has been saying. It does not matter that he forgets what he is saying, or his line of thought is broken. What matters is that his remarks will affect the subsequent debate because we have to make a response; otherwise, other people will think that we agree tacitly with what he says. Hence, I need to reserve some time to give Dr Junius HO "a treat". Chairman, it is necessary for me to do so. I need to let people watching the television broadcast know that we do not agree tacitly with his remarks and we do not support what he says. Only he would make remarks like tipping the Chief Executive. We want to propose an amendment in the Committee stage to slash the salary of Carrie LAM. It is as simple as that. In fact, people watching the television broadcast now can see the amendments we will propose. Most of our amendments seek to cut certain expenditures due to certain reasons. For example, we are dissatisfied with the performance of the Secretary for Transport and Housing due to the scandal about the Shatin to Central Link and various traffic-related problems. We think that his salary should be cut for his poor performance. What Members are supposed to do in the Committee stage is to move amendments to cut the salaries of public officers. So, it is not about why we do not cut our own salaries. I hope Dr Junius HO's remark will not mislead the people watching the live television broadcast. Chairman, Mr WU Chi-wai will propose Amendment No. 1 to slash the salary of the Chief Executive, and I will propose Amendment No. 2 to cut the expenditure on killing animals by euthanasia, costing $1.3 million public money.


The Secretary for Food and Health is not present, but I know a considerable number of people are watching the debate on the Budget today. I want to propose this amendment because the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") uses public money to euthanize animals every year. Their work is far too easy. I thus wish to cut their allocation, so that they cannot do so. Chairman, I need to explain further because we only slightly touched on this amendment last week. Its background is actually very complicated. I wish to use this opportunity to let people watching the live broadcast know why I propose this amendment to slash the expenditure of $1.3 million on euthanizing animals. AFCD has been using euthanasia to handle animals, especially community or stray animals. Last year, AFCD captured 1 300 dogs and killed 1 000 of them, and captured 500 cats and killed 300 of them. Some people may ask why the animals have to be killed, and the reason is inadequate space. The four Animal Management Centres under AFCD are very congested. Why additional resources have not been allocated to them? It is because the authorities think that allocating more resources to these centres is much more troublesome. It is better to use the money on killing the animals and get rid of them once and for all. Sorry, the international community as well as various cities are getting increasingly clear about their stand of having an animal-friendly policy. Hong Kong is very backward in this regard, but it should not stop progressing forward. At this stage, we will first stop the proposed allocation in the Appropriation Bill 2019 for AFCD in this regard. Here, I call on fellow Members to support these two amendments when they cast their vote later because AFCD has been too casual in using money. It used $1 million public money on animal euthanasia in the year before last and $600,000 on funding animal rescue organizations; and this year, it will use $1.3 million on euthanasia and about $1.6 million on funding animal rescue organizations. I wish to explain the meaning behind these figures. If we do not stop AFCD, it will spend more money on killing animals than saving them. Besides, the way AFCD spends money on rescuing animals and uses public money is not transparent. AFCD casually picks about 10 organizations for funding. Can it address the problem of animals being euthanized? I do not think it can. I thus propose this amendment, hoping to put some pressure on AFCD. As long as it


9909

does not reform the Animal Management Centres and give these animals a glimpse of hope after entering these centres, I will continue to propose this amendment. I will do so every year. I will first talk about the Animal Management Centres. Many people think that upon receipt of a complaint, AFCD is supposed to capture and rescue the puppy or kitten and take it back to an Animal Management Centre for protection and care and then for adoption. But fellow Members, the adopted animals are disproportionate to the euthanized animals. If we refer to the figures just mentioned, we will find over half of the animals in Animal Management Centres were euthanized. We believe these centres do not have any "revolving doors". Ordinary citizens, and not even me, cannot adopt the animals in these centres. If I want to go into these centres, I probably have to apply for a visit from AFCD. It is meaningless to make such a visit because they will make the environment of these centres very presentable when I visit them. When an ordinary citizen wishes to adopt the animals, AFCD will say that according to the veterinary officer, this dog has aggressive behaviour and that cat is not suitable for adoption. If these animals are not claimed after four days of waiting period, they will progress to the euthanasia procedure. In a public consultation hosted by AFCD, the authorities told me that they had now extended the waiting period from 4 days to about 17 days, only after which the animals would be arranged to be euthanized. Buddies, it means that these animals have to be killed anyway. The only difference is that they will be killed in 4 days or 17 days. This is not the way to solve the problem. I thus wish to cut the allocation of AFCD through this amendment, so as to urge them to find a solution. AFCD has asked me to find a solution. Indeed, there is a solution. And the solution is to reform the Animal Management Centres. Just begin with one of them first. Allow the public to adopt animals in one of the Animal Management Centres, so that at least there is a way out for these animals and give these kittens and puppies a chance to leave these "animal prisons". Moreover, the Government should not stop the policy of "Trap-Neuter-Return" ("TNR"). AFCD selected three locations earlier to implement this policy on a trial basis. One of the locations is Yuen Long, which is my District Council constituency. What is TNR? Under this policy, stray animals are trapped, neutered, and most desirably, vaccinated, and then returned to where they were captured. It is widely recognized by many countries that this


is a far better approach than euthanasia. However, according to latest information of AFCD, the trial scheme implemented in Hong Kong shows that after three years of research, the animals which have been returned to their capturing places have not reduced in number. Chairman, this conclusion contains a major logical mistake. When a dog is neutered and returned to its original place, we certainly can find it still living in that place after three years. This means that the dog has been living healthily there. The animals there will certainly not reduce in number because they, like the dog, are living healthy there. Besides, some of these places are open to the public. Many people can abandon their pets there and this will naturally increase the number of stray animals in that place. Having seen the stray animals increased in number after a few years, the authorities draw the conclusion that the TNR policy is ineffective. I wish to point out that it is AFCD that has been working ineffectively. I believe people will applause if I slash its allocation. Hence, we do not want AFCD to be so easily given the money to kill animals. It thinks that it has solved the problem by killing them. But this is not an animal-friendly policy. Chairman, the Government now intends to introduce an animal welfare law and has just put the matter under public consultation. It is believed that the Government will continue to press ahead with animal welfare matters. It is anticipated that these matters will be pressed ahead in the coming year or so spanning 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. I am grateful to see the progress. As a matter of fact, it has been very difficult to shake the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance which was enacted in 1935. The Government is attempting to formulate an animal welfare law, but it also allows the practice of euthanasia to be continued. Frankly, this is not something we wish to see. It kills animals with the excuse of inadequate space. Is there really no space? Not necessarily. Earlier, we proposed the establishment of a $1 billion fund and the proposal was approved by the Development Bureau. I am grateful that the Bureau has approved the use of abandoned school premises as animal rescue centres. This proves that not having adequate space is untenable. However, I hope that various government departments can work together and offer help to non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") when they apply for using abandoned school premises as animal rescue centres. Chairman, I have


9911

been helping one of the NGOs. It has been a very difficult application process. The drainage report alone has taken us one month to prepare. So, coming back to the original issue, euthanasia is inhumane. If we want to achieve an animal-friendly policy, we must first cut the $1.3 million appropriated for AFCD to conduct euthanasia. I so submit. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this session, I would like to speak on Amendment No. 41, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's proposed amendment on "Head 151―Government Secretariat: Security Bureau". The said amendment aims at deducting the estimated expenditure on the annual personal emoluments for the Security Bureau in 2019-2020. Chairman, for years, whether before or after being elected to the legislature, I have been concerned with issues relating to the offence of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent". I have all along been highly dissatisfied with the attitude and the practice adopted by the Security Bureau in handling this offence. Throughout these years, we have been told by the Bureau that everything is alright and in full compliance with the law. But now, it has finally betrayed itself, or, to put it another way, the truth has come to light. In early April this year, the Court of Final Appeal affirmed that the offence of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" had virtually been abused by the Department of Justice ("DoJ"). Although just the Court of Final Appeal's judgment on a particular case, it not only has a bearing on that case, but also carries profound implications, because it has pointed out that the context of the relevant legislative provision does not cover the situation where offenders used their own computers. In fact, over all these years, it has been clear to us that from this and even other aspects (including the legislative intent of the relevant provision), the offence has nothing to do with the said situation, but still, the Government has been using it to … I remember clearly that in the last term of the Legislative Council when we stood here and raised oral questions to the former Secretary for Security, he was so brazen as to reply that the authorities would charge a defendant with whichever offence that was more likely to result in a conviction. For years, the Government has behaved in this way, trying to muddle through and exploit its power to the fullest extent. Fortunately, we managed to get some justice from the court in the end. But then, a big mess has been created as it has now become uncertain as to what offences should be used


to prosecute a number of cases. While we have long since told the authorities not to do things that way, the advice has fallen on deaf ears, and now the authorities tells us that they are very anxious. Chairman, in the past decade or so―almost over a decade indeed―I, together with many people in society … and many members of the technology industry, have been greatly discontented with the Government's arbitrary use of the offence of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" under the Crimes Ordinance, and have kept urging the Government to redress it. The very reason for this offence being dubbed a "universal key" is that the Government has laid its eyes simply on two highly useful terms in the provision on the offence, i.e. "dishonest" and "criminal intent", and randomly picked between them to initiate prosecutions. Moreover, as we have noted over the years, the Government has been inclined to target the underprivileged when using the provision on this offence for prosecution. To those people, they would say nothing more upon getting a lenient sentence for the offences they committed. Also, in general, first-time offenders of this offence will not be sentenced to imprisonment but simply be imposed a fine of several thousand dollars or be bound over, so those charged with the offence would rather plead guilty and will not file any appeal. These cases then become specious precedents, and everything just went on well as the defendants of these cases all pleaded guilty. However, as the saying goes, "The fish that nibbles at every bait will be caught". Perhaps, the Government had gone too far, so it finally landed itself in the present situation when it prosecuted those who would appeal. Actually, we have been discussing this issue for years, but those in power really cannot care less about it as they are the ones who can continue to abuse the power. Let us come back to this offence. When the Government initially added the provision on the relevant offence in 1993, its aim was not what it appears to be at present. As explained by the Government back then, if a person had the criminal intent, say, to commit computer fraud but ended up doing nothing that amounted to the offence of fraud, he could not be prosecuted for the offence. In the light of this, the Government had no alternative but to add a new offence to deal with this kind of situation. Actually, at that time, the Government made it clear that no criminal prosecution would be initiated against non-criminal infringement cases, but in reality, the provision on the relevant offence has been increasingly abused during the past 10-odd years, and ended up being used to initiate prosecution against whatever criminal acts conceivable: upskirting, unauthorized use of Wi-Fi, using company telephone to make long-distance calls,


9913

stealing game tokens from other people, etc. And in the most serious case, people may be convicted of the offence as a result of the views they expressed. This is something very clear to us. Let us put aside things that happened too long ago as we are now discussing this year's Budget. But then again, over all these years, this charge has been abused by the Government to institute numerous prosecutions, and until now, the Government remains reluctant to inform us of the breakdown of the relevant prosecutions. As I can still recall, we have kept asking the Government about this for years―well, the Government is really astute―and in the end, the Security Bureau referred me to DoJ, and then DoJ, without giving me an answer, referred me back to the Security Bureau again. By the way, the replies we got from the relevant authorities several years ago are very detailed. I do not know whether they have connived with each other to "kick" me around and make me walk away empty-handed. Is it ludicrous? There are only 100-odd cases a year? As I always say, all they need is simply getting someone to sort out those 100-odd files to do some counting. It will only take a little time and money to get this done. Yet, they refused to do so and only responded that they did not keep the relevant records. The Government really excels in this regard. When it comes to matters that it does not want to tell you, it will claim that it has not kept the relevant records. Now, finally it is not possible to use this charge the same way as before any more. The incidents in the past few years have also shown us why this is a serious problem. For 2014-2015 in particular, we see that the number of cases prosecuted has rocketed up. As we all know, what happened during that time was the Umbrella Movement. In 2014, I initiated a joint online signature campaign to call on the Government to stop abusing section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance, and it was supported by 10 000 members of the public. Subsequently, I raised questions on this issue in the Panel on Security, and then proposed a motion for debate in the Legislative Council meeting in February 2015. The motion requested that a review be conducted on this piece of legislation to avoid it being abused, but the relevant contents therein were completely deleted by the pro-establishment camp, and at last, their amendment was passed. Though they did request the Government to review this piece of legislation as well, their view was that the legislation was not tough enough and needed to be toughened up, of course. The Government, however, was really daring to have turned a deaf ear to the views of both sides and ignored them all


altogether. It has taken no action at all until the court had ruled that the practice really ran counter to the construction and the purpose of the said provision and should not continue. Chairman, what I often see in my dream is the scene back then when LAI Tung-kwok was standing over there and said that the authorities would use whichever criminal provision that could be readily invoked for prosecution. It is really outrageous for this Government to hold such attitude. Although I do not have legal knowledge, I know that such attitude is incorrect. In fact, the Government has really put itself at a disadvantage in this way. Sometimes, it is apparent that another provision can be properly used for the prosecution of an offender to allow imposition of a heavier penalty and better administration of justice. But being too lazy and preferring a convenient way out, the Government just institutes prosecution with a statutory provision which allows easy prosecution and conviction of offenders. Of course, it may be more likely that the Government is using this statutory provision to create white terror, thus making people worried about falling foul of the law easily. Let us say a husband telling his wife that he is busy and is not returning home for dinner tonight, will this be described as deceiving her? Any act can be described as dishonest, you know. With the Government taking the lead to behave this way … we can see that the entire Security Bureau has adopted this kind of attitude to enforce the law, and this is one of the many problems that the Security Bureau … even for our present discussion on the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the Government has also taken the same attitude that it just cares about securing the votes required to pass the bill and exploiting its power to the fullest extent. I still remember that in April, when the Court of Final Appeal concluded that case, our Finance Committee had a special meeting. At the meeting, we immediately put questions to the Secretary for Security, and indicated to him that things should not go on that way. We also asked him what would be done to deal with the situation. At that moment, he looked really anxious, and in a serious tone, he told us that DoJ and the law enforcement departments were eager to work out which piece of legislation could be used to deal with other cases prosecuted for the offence of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent", especially the upskirting cases which are of concern to the community. It was not until then that he told us he was anxious. Well, we have long since told him that the provision on this offence should not be used in upskirting cases. The Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong ("LRC") has also conducted a study on this


9915

type of cases long ago and stated that legislation against these cases should be drawn up. As we noted even earlier, the United Kingdom had already legislated against these cases some 10 years before … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, you have repeated your arguments in detail. Please return to the subject of this debate. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): I am only discussing my point in great detail, and have returned to the subject of this debate. Chairman, you may say that I have spoken in too much detail, but you cannot say that I am digressing. I am not digressing, but merely going into detail. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You have already repeated your arguments a number of times. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): I go into detail, because as a matter of fact … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): But you have repeated your arguments. Please return to the subject of this debate. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): I have returned to the subject matter and have not strayed from it. I merely wish to point out that the Government has turned a deaf ear to our requests during these couple of years, and now … Chairman, I have got something new to tell you. The problem does not stop at the issue of introducing legislation on voyeurism which is considered to be an urgent task for the Security Bureau as the discussion goes on in the public. Since Members have talked a lot about this, I am not going to repeat their words here. Anyway, my worry stems from the observation that some cases can no longer be prosecuted for this offence of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent" now. Considering the attitude of the Security Bureau in the past, it is possible that the Bureau is trying to find another piece of legislation to serve as a "universal key". Actually, I have already received such


cases. Again, in order to make the accused plead guilty sooner, the authorities have charged them with an offence which attracts comparatively light penalty and affords a better chance to secure a conviction. The authorities would rather create another "universal key" this way than seriously examine what approach we should adopt and what new piece of legislation should be drawn up for the purpose of combating computer-related crimes. As always, the Government just hides behind LRC while LRC is carrying out its work which takes a good many years. Perhaps, LRC does not have sufficient resources, so we should probably cut down on the resources for the Security Bureau, with a view to providing LRC with additional resources. All in all, the Government has adopted a bad practice of choosing a convenient way out for whatever matter and exploiting its power to the fullest extent. Over all these years, the Security Bureau and the Police Force … I am just wondering how we can do justice to those prosecuted and convicted under this provision which has been abused by the Government over all these years. Certainly, in law, or in court, it is difficult to … I mean, after their convictions, if the relevant persons are unable to spend a lot of time and resources on appealing their cases, or the time limit for appeal in respect of their cases has expired, then nothing can be done at all. The attitude of the Government and the Security Bureau remains the same throughout, from handling matters relating to section 161 of the Crimes Ordinance (i.e. the offence of "access to computer with criminal or dishonest intent") to dealing with the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance at the moment. Therefore, I really think that we should support this amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, as the saying goes, "Don't make stupid people famous", therefore I wish to remind Members that Members need not spend much time responding to some absurd remarks, because that will make some stupid people famous. In this session, I am going to speak on "Head 163―Registration and Electoral Office". Mr CHAN Chi-chuen proposes an amendment to reduce about $2 million, which is approximately equal to the annual remuneration for the Chief Electoral Officer. I leafed through the report of the controlling officer under "Head 163―Registration and Electoral Office" and found that the aim of the controlling officer was "to ensure that elections are conducted openly, honestly and fairly". I suggest that the emoluments of the Chief Electoral


9917

Officer be reduced simply because various incidents that happened over the past year have shown that in his capacity as the person in charge of the Electoral Office, the Chief Electoral Officer has not only failed to ensure the public that our election system is conducted openly, honestly and fairly, but quite the opposite, which shaken public confidence in the election system to the point of near collapse. First, speaking of open and honest, I have to mention an incident that took place in early April. What happened in early April? A burglary case that took place more than two years ago was uncovered by the media. What was stolen? A register of electors which contained the data of more than 8 000 voters of the New Territories West constituency in the Legislative Council election was stolen from a polling station in Tsing Yi. It was far more serious than the loss of a laptop computer containing the register of electors in the Chief Executive election in 2017. Why? It is because the register of electors involves more than 8 000 electors and their voting records―when the public entered the polling station, the staff members of REO would mark a red line on the register to indicate that the elector had voted―that is, a register of electors containing the data of 8 000 electors was lost, and at the same time, the voting record of those 8 000 voters was also lost. As to this burglary case which took place more than two years ago, who exactly knew the details of the case? First, it turns out that it was the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") that uncovered the case. Since ICAC had to investigate an election bribery case, it suspended the planned destruction of all the registers of electors of that election. When ICAC was conducting the search of each register and the Kwai Tsing register was nowhere to be found, therefore the incident was uncovered. Strangely, ICAC had not informed the Chief Electoral Officer of the Registration and Electoral Office ("REO") and the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Therefore, Secretary Patrick NIP of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau and Mr WONG See-man, the Chief Electoral Officer could say: "We have no idea why ICAC has not reported the case to us." Second, it is not true that ICAC did not inform REO after it learnt the incident. It did inform REO, but up to which level of REO staff did it inform? Up to this moment, both the Secretary and the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr WONG See-man, whose emoluments are proposed to be reduced, are remaining silent and reluctant to speak. That is where the problem lies. It is


because the lost item was a register with the voting records of voters, therefore both colleagues from the pro-democracy camp and pro-establishment are concerned about if it was related to election bribery. It is because such a case is not uncommon in overseas countries when some people know who the voters are and then voters would be persuaded to vote in their favour by way of offering the voters various advantages. Nevertheless, how can they make sure that the voters have voted for them? Besides using cellular phones to take pictures of the ballots, they will rely on the register containing the voting records for checking purpose. For that reason, it was a burglary case of a register involving suspected election bribery. Up to which rank of officials of REO was aware of the incident then? Chairman, up to this stage, Patrick NIP and the Chief Electoral Officer―the person whose emoluments are proposed to be cut―were invited to attend the last meeting of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs. I asked him a question. That is, up to what rank of official was aware of the burglary case? That is to say, who had been told by ICAC of the incident, and up to which rank of superior had been informed? But none of them had made any comments. Nevertheless, a strange thing had happened afterwards. That is, after the 2016 Legislative Council Election, REO changed the way of storing the election materials. Originally, all the materials would be packed in one bag. But from that time onwards, they used two bags of different colours to pack the materials. One bag would store the register of voters and the other would store the remaining materials. For that reason, I asked if the change had anything to do with the burglary case. The Secretary and the Chief Electoral Officer were trying to play dumb by saying, "No, we would review that every year." But actually, everyone can see the reasons for changing the security arrangement, it was because REO knew that a burglary case had taken place, therefore it had to take remedial measure. On that day, the Chief Electoral Officer only revealed one thing that it had nothing to do with him and it was the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer who decided the change. Does it imply that the highest rank of official who had knowledge of the burglary case was the Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, therefore it just so happened that those above that rank knew nothing about the incident? Nevertheless, the entire incident has enabled me to make my judgment that in addition to deducting his emoluments, we should ask him to resign. On the same day, I asked the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs to tender


9919

his own resignation. According to the so-called "Accountability System" familiar to the political circle in Hong Kong, the responsible public officer would be held accountable only if he had a full understanding of the matter because he was the decision maker who "pressed the button" to push forward the faulty policy, or he was the one who received the bribes, or he was the one who lost the papers, then all Principal Officials would never need to be held accountable. (THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair) One can see from the incident that as such a serious burglary case could take place in that Bureau and in the eyes of the public … while the Bureau has claimed that voters registration campaign would be carried out openly and honestly, but just because it had concealed the loss of the papers in a burglary case for a period of more than two years, it had already ruined public confidence in one go. Therefore, in his capacity as the Chief Electoral Officer, how can he face us? How can he have the courage to refuse to resign? I really do not know if senior government officials have a sense of shame. Besides, this was not the first such incident. The last one being loss of the register of voters in the Chief Executive election. The general public would sigh but it was no big deal, because they did not have the right to vote in that election. Nevertheless, it was different this time around. As the register of more than 8 000 voters was lost, how could we ensure that the authorities would extremely carefully protect the privacy of individuals? As the authorities failed to explain the reason for the loss of the register, then it would be possible that 10 or even 100 registers could be lost. This point alone would justify the call for his resignation, not to mention the proposal to cut his emoluments. The second incident took place recently, that is, as REO claims, election should be conducted in a fair manner. Recently, the Legislative Council is scrutinizing a bill relating to changes to the composition of functional constituencies. Certainly, functional constituencies should be abolished, because the aspirations of the general public can only be reflected by way of "one person, one vote". Even the fact that functional constituencies still exist; we should make the election process as fair as possible. However, what has REO done? Take the agriculture and fisheries constituency for example, this year, two associations have been suddenly approved to be a new member of the constituency which has a total of more than 100 electors, including "香港新界本地農協會" (Translation: Hong Kong New Territories local farmer association),


and the Hong Kong Veterinary Association Limited. Members have not heard it wrong. Deputy Chairman, you have not heard it wrong either. The Hong Kong Veterinary Association Limited has joined the agriculture and fisheries constituency, and become a group of voters of the constituency. Many agriculture and fisheries groups which have been founded over the past decade do not know how they can become a member of the functional constituency, yet I am not sure how can the above two associations can rise above others. This functional constituency with a little more than 100 voters can demonstrate to the public that the authorities are actually treating different groups differently. In so doing, the credibility of the representative elected by the agriculture and fisheries constituency is set to be questioned, because some of the associations are actually not eligible to register as electors. For that reason, is REO helping people in the industry who want to enter into politics to become voters of the constituency, while some genuine representatives of the industry and representatives who are more qualified and represent the broadest scope of the sector are turned away? Conversely, if the agriculture and fisheries constituency can accept the veterinary trade as a member of the constituency, then why environmental groups cannot be accepted as a member of the agriculture and fisheries constituency? Environmental groups also support local farming industry and the conservation of local farmlands, why the Hong Kong Veterinary Association Limited is accepted, or why the Hong Kong Veterinary Association Limited is not accepted as a member of the medical sector? Why should the Administration not broaden the medical sector to which Dr Pierre CHAN belongs by including the veterinary trade? I wish to speak on one more thing, and that is an even more interesting thing about the Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication Functional Constituency―the functional constituency to which Mr MA Fung-kwok belongs. The Hong Kong Printers Association says as the name of the functional constituency is the "Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication Functional Constituency", and then the Association should belong to the publication sector. But it turns out that it belongs to the insurance sector. However, how can Mr CHAN Kin-por has time to handle matters concerning the publication sector? As a result, the Hong Kong Printers Association gave up its seat and its eligibility to vote in the insurance sector. It wanted to join the "Sports, Performing Arts, Culture and Publication Functional Constituency". However, REO had rejected its application on the ground that the Hong Kong Printers Association had too many members and therefore it would affect the constituency if the application was approved.


9921

Similar ridiculous cases abound. For that reason, no matter officials from REO or the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, please act with common sense. I have to speak frankly that the functional constituency has already been "a pile of faeces". However, how can we make the election of this "pile of faeces" as fair as possible which will be of some help to Hong Kong? Therefore, I urge you to deal with it in a more serious fashion. First, regarding the loss of the register involving more than 8 000 voters, I hope the Administration would not act similar to what it did in the 2017 incident in the belief that the public will forget it as time goes by, and therefore nobody should be held responsible and nobody should resign and take the responsibility; the second thing is the problem of functional constituency. It seems that 15 minutes of speaking time is not adequate for me to speak on the issue concerning REO alone. I will speak on it on the next occasion. MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the only Members remaining in the Chamber now are you, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and I myself, and Secretary for Development Michael WONG is also present. I am very grateful to him for attending today's debate in this Council. Although Members are not eager to speak, this is fine with me. I have to make myself clear once again because it is the greatest honour of my life that throughout the years of my tenure as a Member, I have the chance to speak for a few hours every year in this Council. It is common for parliamentary members in many countries to criticize and put forward views to their government, and some Members may regard this as filibustering, but this is actually not the case since there are sound arguments in our speeches. As Secretary WONG was absent from the Chamber just now, I was a bit worried when I pressed the "Request to speak" button, and I wondered if he would be here to listen to me, because I have deliberately chosen to speak at this moment. I understand that when officers of different Policy Bureaux are present here, they may be very much bored with our speeches because Members keep criticizing Chief Executive Carrie LAM. It seems that such criticisms have nothing to do with them because under the accountability system, they are just officials responsible for individual policy areas. Hence, I have deliberately chosen to speak on Amendment No. 32 in respect of "Government Secretariat: Development Bureau (Planning and Lands Branch)" this time. I am sorry for offending the Secretary as he may be aware that this amendment seeks to reduce


the estimated expenditure on the emoluments of the Secretary for Development, the Under Secretary for Development and the Political Assistant for the whole year of 2019-2020. I believe the Secretary also understands that it is not my intention to undermine the relationship between the executive authorities and the legislature. However, Members and the Deputy Chairman must have noted from some of my previous speeches that I have been closely following up the issues concerning a land site in the district from which I was elected. I understand that Mr Paul TSE has great reservation about this, and he has repeatedly commented in the past and even today at the meeting of the Subcommittee on Hillside Escalator Links and Elevator Systems that as Members of the Legislative Council, we should refrain from focusing too much on district affairs, or else our work here would be very much like that of district councillors. Nevertheless, as a Member who is also serving as a District Council member, I consider that district work is as important as my work in this Council. As reflected by the slogan frequently used by Mr Gary FAN, "no livelihood issue is too trivial, and no effort should be spared to fight for democracy". During my handling of the issues concerned and my exchanges with the Development Bureau, I realize that the problem actually lies very much in the overall policies adopted by the Government. Let me first provide some background information on this district issue, lest Members do not know what I am talking about. There is a very small piece of land in the district from which I was elected, occupying an area of perhaps more or less the same size as that of the President Podium in the Chamber. This small piece of land was previously used by the former Urban Council to provide a refuse room, but after so many years, the Government has already rezoned the site to residential use, and has not missed the chance to put the site up for sale so that it may be used for an infill development. Residents of the district have great reservation about the plan because the land site is already surrounded by many residential buildings developed on the adjacent site, and there is also a school on the other side. Will using the land site for an infill development be of great help to the property market? Residents of the district object to the idea because there are already many residential buildings in the vicinity. An issue of greater concern to me is that how much does the Development Bureau know about the supply of public and private housing? According to the response given to me by the Development Bureau, no consideration will be given to withdrawing the land sale plan, and this is the final reply provided to me,


9923

unless the Secretary tells me today that he has already changed his mind. However, I would like to ask the Bureau how much does it know about the supply of public and private housing? I anticipate that with that piece of land which is only of the size similar to that of the President Podium, the number of housing units to be provided will be less than 100. No matter what measures will the Town Planning Board take to adjust the development parameter of the land site, its area will remain unchanged, and this will significantly limit the number of flats to be built on the site to nothing more than a drop in the bucket. Hence, is the existing policy adopted by the Development Bureau to ensure the supply of private housing the right remedy to the problem? Most of the charts and tables I am going to use to illustrate my points are provided by Prof YIU Chung-yim. As I do not have the chance to undertake academic researches, I have to indicate clearly the source of research findings cited when I speak or make public comments on them, so that members of the public will realize that the charts and tables are prepared by Prof YIU Chung-yim. The first chart is a common one used to bring forth a basic message that over a 15-year period from 2003, property prices in Hong Kong have risen by five times, rents have increased by 1.6 times, the income of the general public has recorded an increase of less than 100% (i.e. 86%), while the cumulative inflation rate has been 47%. People who are watching television broadcast of the meeting can see the information contained in this chart clearly. Simply put, the message is not difficult to understand, and it seeks to reflect the fact that the burden imposed by exorbitant rents and high property prices is becoming increasingly heavy. In the face of these figures, the simplest solution we can think of is an increase in the supply of both public and private housing, or else property prices will get higher and higher. People are generally guided by such a myth because according to the basic principles of economics, there will automatically be a surge of property prices when there is a short supply of housing. As for people who cannot afford flats in the private market, assistance should be rendered by the Government to provide them with public housing. However, will there be a drop in property prices after we have increased the supply of private housing? The second one is a table setting out some very interesting figures to illustrate that although the completion figures of private domestic flats in Hong Kong have increased drastically in recent years, it has not resulted in a fall in property prices. For example, the number of newly completed domestic flats in Hong Kong kept increasing in the period from 2015 to 2018, but the number of


uncompleted flats put up for sale every year during the same period fluctuated, because a constant supply of newly completed flats does not necessarily mean that a certain number of uncompleted residential units will always be made available for sale. Yet, as we can see, there were about 11 296 newly completed domestic units in 2015; 14 000 in 2016; 17 000 in 2017 and 20 000 in 2018, meaning that the number of such units kept increasing. There was, however, a slight difference in the number of new flats put up for sale every year in the market during the same period. In order to make the figures more objective, Prof YIU has pegged them with another parameter and come up with the findings that there were 14 000 uncompleted residential units put up for sale in the market in 2015; 20 000 in 2016; 19 000 in 2017 and 21 000 in 2018. Generally speaking, there were nearly 20 000 units put up for sale in the market every year. Nevertheless, has the sale of more newly completed domestic flats led to a fall in property prices? According to the information on residential property price index I have at my hands, it seems that there was once a slight decline in property prices, as evidenced by the annual change in the index from 296.8 in 2015 to 286.1 in 2016, but what happened subsequently was just the opposite. The index has risen to 333.9 in 2017 and further to 377 in 2018, representing an increase of almost 25%. Theoretically speaking, according to the most basic principles of economics, an increase in the supply of private domestic flats will bring about a suppression effect on property prices, but how come this is not the case in Hong Kong? In this connection, reference should be made to another parameter, and before offering an analysis and a conclusion, let me first briefly go through the information contained in another similar table at my hands. We can see from this table at my hands the changes in the completion figures of new flats, the figures of uncompleted and completed flats put up for sale, the sale figures of new flats and the residential property price index in the period from 2015 to 2018. I do not intend to read out the figures one by one, because with the physical distance between me and the Deputy Chairman as well as the Secretary, they may not be able to see the figures very clearly, but these figures are shown to everyone on the television screen. What can the information contained in this table tell us? The point is that when newly completed or uncompleted domestic units are made available for sale, the home acquisition demand is in fact not that keen, and how can we arrive at such a conclusion? According to the sale figures of new flats as shown in this table, 16 000 units were sold in 2015 but instead of an increase, a drop was recorded in the number to only 15 000 in 2018.


9925

In other words, I can draw a simple conclusion: Although there is an increase in the completion figures of private residential flats, and there are more and more uncompleted residential units put up for sale, there is firstly no drop in property prices; and secondly the number of home buyers in the market is not that many. This reflects a very interesting phenomenon, and one cannot help but ask: Why were these newly completed domestic units not sold out? Prof YIU suspects that there are two possible reasons behind: property prices have either been manipulated or escalated to a level beyond public affordability, and the ample supply of private residential units is of no use to them, no matter how queer and bizarre are the names given to these residential property developments. We should therefore reflect upon the effectiveness of the existing housing policy in rendering genuine assistance to small citizens. I can only say that there is now an enigma concerning real estate research and that is, why is there still a surge in property prices when the supply of private housing has increased? According to one of the reasons offered, it has something to do with the supply and demand of first-hand and second-hand residential properties. The blue line on this chart represents the transaction volume in the second-hand property market, while we can see that the sale of first-hand residential properties has remained very stable, and about 20 000 flats are sold each year. In other words, it will be enough to have an annual supply of 20 000 units in the first-hand property market, because the demand is actually not strong enough to warrant the supply of more flats, and the transaction volume will remain at more or less the same level. However, the transaction volume in the second-hand property market has shown a marked decline, and this has something to do with the "two harsh measures" implemented during the LEUNG Chun-ying era. With the implementation of such measures, the second-hand property market has indeed been very severely suppressed. There are thus queries about which one has actually benefited from the "two harsh measures", property developers or small citizens? This is a subject that we can discuss. I wish to point out that from this perspective, buyers of the first-hand and second-hand property markets may not think alike when they make a property acquisition decision. They may not insist on acquiring uncompleted domestic units, and may switch to the second-hand property market when they fail to acquire a first-hand residential property, but there is now a shrinkage of the second-hand property market. Therefore, to a certain extent, when considering the issue of housing supply, focus should not be put solely on the supply of


private housing, but also on the balance between the first-hand and second-hand property markets. We can thus reach a conclusion and ask: Is it really necessary to put up the site I mentioned earlier for sale? As I have just said, only less than 100 residential units can be produced on that site, and the land site can actually be used to implement many other government policies. I have suggested to the Secretary that instead of putting the site up for sale, it can be used for developing a community green station. Residents of the district have been urging the Government to provide a pet garden, but since the Community Green Station projects have been operating rather smoothly, developing a community green station can also provide residents with an open space where they can go for a walk with their pets. This is one possible avenue for the expenditure earmarked in the Budget for the Environment Bureau, because there are plans to roll out the Community Green Station projects in all 18 districts, but possible sites have not been identified so far in certain districts for this purpose, at least with regard to the Southern District. Should the Government listen to public views even though the site has to be used for housing development? I have consulted residents of the district lately and will discuss the issue with the Government again, because Ap Lei Chau residents have recently urged for the provision of additional MTR exits, but do not have the opportunity to do so. Given that the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") is particularly lousy and will definitely not take the initiative to provide additional exits there, I will adopt an even more pragmatic approach to deal with the issue. I will maintain my stance and expressly indicate to Secretary WONG my absolute objection to the proposal of putting up the site for sale, as well as my hope that he would use the site for other purposes. However, if I cannot stop him from doing so, I hope he will at least require the future landowner to negotiate with MTRCL during development of the site, and make the provision of additional MTR exits a prerequisite for the development project. I consider this very important. Given the poor relationship between the executive authorities and the legislature at present, although Members returned by direct election will sometimes convey public views to the Government as elected district representatives, I wonder if the Government will pay heed to all of these views which are not totally infeasible. I consider myself a very pragmatic person, and the Secretary may also feel that it does not match with my usual style sometimes when I have made too much compromise. However, I have all along adopted a


9927

pragmatic approach in discussing various options with residents of the district, hoping that the Government will accept our views, lest the executive-legislature relationship will fall into a deadlock. Yet, if the Government is really willing to listen more extensively to public views, there should be no need for me to move such an amendment to cut the emoluments of politically appointed officials of the Development Bureau. I have just spent 15 minutes to briefly express my concern about the development of public and private housing, as well as some issues concerning the district from which I was elected. I so submit. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I will begin my speech in this session with a few additional points about Amendment No. 36. This amendment is proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki, and its resolves that the estimated expenditure of $4.37 million for paying the annual salaries of the Financial Secretary be deleted. As I remember, I already explained some of the reasons last week, including Paul CHAN's indiscriminate liking for anything Chinese. He is only good at singing praises but ignorant about risk assessment. The second reason is his indiscriminate opposition to anything foreign and also shameful talks. According to him, there will be no problem even if Hong Kong loses any special treatment in the Sino-American relationship due to the trade conflict. Today, I must add that he refuses to admit his fault, overestimates his ability, and pays no heeds to people's demands and views. The Financial Secretary often juggles with figures in the Budget and gives erroneous projections. But the most appalling thing is that he remains complacent about himself despite all this. When he spoke in reply to Members' views during the resumption of Second Reading debate last week, he asserted (I quote), "I believe Honourable Members have probably noticed that the provisional consolidated surplus of $68 billion for the whole financial year as announced by the Government at the end of April is $9.3 billion more than the revised estimate … When viewed against the surplus of $99.8 billion recorded in the first 11 months, the former figure has actually dropped drastically by $31.8 billion. In fact, there is a shortfall of only $5 billion between the total government revenue for 2018-2019 and the initial estimate. This shortfall merely accounts for 0.8% of the estimated revenue of nearly $600 billion … I can therefore say that the projection of the 2018-2019 Budget is very close to the


Government's financial position." From this, Members can see how he has manipulated the figures. He has only compared the shortfall in his erroneous projection with the overall estimate and contended on this basis that the shortfall only accounts for a very small percentage of the total. The Financial Secretary's remarks have honestly antagonized many people because he has put things the other way round, saying that his projection is very close to the result. Actually, the $9.3 billion increase in the surplus means a 15% increase over the surplus of $58.7 billion as announced in the Budget. Despite such a significant revision, he has nonetheless asserted that the Budget's projection is very close to the Government's financial position. It can be said that he is the very first to talk about a shortcoming as a merit. Facing the challenge of an erroneous projection, the Financial Secretary of previous terms (such as John TSANG) would only say, "Which case do Members want to see? A small deficit in my projection but a substantial surplus in the end, or a small surplus in my projection but a substantial deficit in the end?" He would only try to explain away Members' accusation with his language tricks, in marked contrast to Paul CHAN, who has instead sung praises of himself. As his projection is seriously wrong, we demand a deduction of his remunerations. I even think that the Government should hand out the $9.3 billion shortfall in its underestimation to all Hong Kong people. Even with the handout of just this sum, everybody can already get over $1,000. Besides, I must also make it a point to say that he pays no heed to people's views and demands, and he has even deliberately given people a hard time. Last year, due to the Financial Secretary's belligerence towards John TSANG … As everybody knows, Carrie LAM has been belligerent towards John TSANG. Whatever measures launched by John TSANG which commanded people's support are invariably undesirable and defective according to her and will meet with her rejection. An apt example is the handing out of $6,000 years back. Even today, Carrie LAM still maintains that this is not in line with the present Government's philosophy of fiscal management, while also criticizing this initiative for its lack of a specific target. This explains why she insists on imposing various barricades, ones which have brought much inconvenience to people and incurred very high administrative costs. In the end, people can get much less benefits. I am talking about the Caring and Sharing Scheme ("the Scheme").


9929

As everybody knows, some applicants of the Scheme have only received a few dollars in the end. Those who sent their applications by mail have even suffered a loss of postage and time. Besides, the administrative cost incurred by the cash handout has also gone down the drain. The Government will of course say that it is necessary to set a boundary and certain requirements for the Scheme, and that there are bound to be some applicants who can receive only a single- or double-digit sum upon computation. Precisely for this reason, why should the Government refuse to dispense with those restrictions generously and hand out money to all people directly? This is the point marked by the greatest disagreement between the Financial Secretary and me. But the Scheme on handing out $4,000 to people has honestly provoked widespread resentment among people due to the inconvenience brought to people and the very high administrative cost. The staff in charge of the Scheme have been plunged into enormous hardship, and some of them have even quitted the job. How does the Financial Secretary respond? He has said that since people have so many negative views on the Scheme launched by him last year, he will no longer implement the Scheme this year. The focus of people's criticism is his poor arrangements, and they are not saying that he is wrong in adopting the angle of sharing the surplus with all people. Nevertheless, he has misinterpreted people's views. From this, we can see that if he is forced to do one thing in the end despite his unwillingness in the very first place, then he will draw up some very poor arrangements because if the arrangements are so poor that people all criticize them, then he will not have to do it again next time. This is Paul CHAN's line of thought. For this reason, the Budget this time is stripped of any scheme for handing out money to people. As I remember, the political party to which the Deputy Chairman belongs once held a discussion with him, in the hope of offering some advice on regularizing the relevant measure. One proposal is that when the discrepancy between the actual surplus and his projection reaches a certain amount, the mechanism of sharing the amount in shortfall with people will be triggered automatically. In my view, this is very sensible because this can spare us the need of asking him here every year. He feigns poverty each time and deliberately underestimates the surplus amount, in a bid to reduce the social pressure on him shortly before the announcement of the Budget (this is "expectation management" in his words), and to deter people or political parties from putting forth any vehement demand for a cash handout to them because the surplus amount has indeed reduced. But the amount is not really very small.


In this regard, if I have time later on―my Amendment No. 39 precisely proposes to cut the estimated expenditure for the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (The Treasury Branch)―I will "settle the score" with Paul CHAN and the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau as to how they have deliberately underestimated the surplus amount in an attempt to reduce the pressure arising from our demand for a direct cash handout to all people. They have now said that the current Government will not launch the measure again as it can be adopted only once but not twice. Of course, after both of them have stepped down, we will explain the pros and cons to the next Government and request it to relaunch the measure. They have also raised the question of whether the measure is "target-specific" or not. The existing measure is indeed very "target-specific". Who is their target? People with "N-nos"―no need for rates payments because of no properties, no receipt of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, and no tax concessions. They target at these people, and it can be said that the measure is honestly very "target-specific". As a result, they have been plunged into great ordeals, and they have not received the money even today. They now realize that the early submission of applications does not mean that they can get the money earlier, and all must also depend on the location of drop-in boxes. And, if an applicant's particulars are input into the computer before others, he may get the money before others. The arrangements are frankly very chaotic. I believe many people will support the deduction of the estimated expenditure for paying the salaries of the Financial Secretary. I need not talk too much about the popularity of the Financial Secretary. Paul CHAN's popularity rating is not the lowest among the existing 3 Department Secretaries and 13 Bureau Directors because Teresa CHENG is at the bottom, to say the very least. But if I have time, I will discuss this aspect in detail with Members. The amendment I am going to discuss next is very interesting and also contentious. It is Amendment No. 25 proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin, which resolves that an amount roughly equivalent to the estimated expenditure for paying the annual salaries of the Legislative Council's Chief Security Officer ("CSO") in 2019-2020 be cut. I strongly support this amendment, of course. Mr AU Nok-hin put forth this amendment before the struggles in the legislature last week and this week took place. His proposing of this amendment shows that he is visionary because he has provided us with the room for


9931

explaining to the public in this Budget debate why we propose to cut the estimated expenditure for paying the annual salaries of CSO. Under CSO's leadership―I will not make a sweeping statement―some security guards have degenerated into a tool of the non-democratic camp. Not only have they hindered democratic Members in discharging their duties, but they have also obstructed journalists in doing news reporting. They are even suspected of inflicting injuries on journalists. It is the seventh year since I became a Legislative Council Member. I have been the one Member who resorts to struggles in the legislature since I joined the Legislative Council, so naturally, I may come into physical contact with security guards. But to be fair, I must say that unlike other Members, I have never experienced the twisting of my arms behind my back or been deliberately hurt by security guards when they enforce the rules. As a matter of fact, both sides can really get injured during physical contact. But in recent years, people can notice through the camera … Some accused security guards for "simulation"―not me―and a royalist even let it slip that they were even better actors than security guards. This shows his perception that security guards also played a part in the process. Such suspicions do exist, and they are justifiable. Recently, Mr Jeremy TAM received a request for assistance from a security guard, who has already resigned. She asserted that someone in the Legislative Council asked the security guards to indicate their political stance by choosing between "blue ribboners" and "yellow ribboners", without the "neutral" option. According to Andrew WONG, President of the then Legislative Council, questions about political stance are not ones that cannot be asked, but it is most desirable if the relevant personnel can hold an apolitical or near-neutral rather than a very strong political stance. But now, security guards are required to―if the accusation is true―make a declaration on whether they are "blue ribboners" or "yellow ribboners". This is very absurd, and we are thus concerned about whether anyone tries to pressurize our security guards into pledging allegiance. I hope the Legislative Council Commission can deal with this seriously. Since the beginning of this fiscal year, the most contentious issue must be the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. I think the whole Legislative Council Secretariat (including security guards) has already forgotten that it must remain politically neutral. Members could see various scenes through the camera last Saturday. I do not intend to describe them in detail or repeat them. One example is the suspected attack on Mr CHU Hoi-dick, just as everybody could see. Despite all this, what is the role of security guards? I


also understand that sometimes, security guards may be caught in a difficult position during conflicts involving Members. All will be fine if their principle of enforcing the rules is to step back and let both sides settle their dispute on their own. But this is not what we see in most cases. Sometimes, they even hinder Members in properly performing their duties. One example is that I wished to raise certain nominations with Mr Abraham SHEK, but they nonetheless stopped me from moving closer to Mr SHEK. So, Mr Abraham SHEK might miss other nominations and therefore announce the uncontested election of Mr Paul TSE as Chairman. Isn't this possible? Fortunately, as Mr Abraham SHEK still had a bit of conscience, he did not do so. Neither did he feign deafness to other nominations and announce the uncontested election of Mr Paul TSE as Chairman. But the focus of my discussion is on security guards rather than Mr Abraham SHEK. Security guards of the Legislative Council must uphold impartiality and neutrality in assisting Members or news media practitioners in performing their duties. Some journalists said that certain staff members of the Legislative Council Secretariat had told them in an intimidating tone that they would jot down the names of those journalists who entered the conference room. In fact, the situation at the time was very chaotic. I believe if the Deputy Chairman were a journalist, she would have entered the conference room as well, right? If they really record the names of all journalists on a blacklist and bar them from doing any reporting inside the Legislative Council, I am afraid no journalist is going to do any reporting inside the Legislative Council in the days ahead. But the most important point is that in the incident yesterday where certain security guards purportedly hindered journalists in doing reporting, someone―not the Deputy Chairman―brought up the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) in reproaching journalists. This is not acceptable. Security guards should assist journalists in performing their reporting duties. Places with news stories taking place, places at the centre of media attention, will naturally see the presence of journalists. They should understand this. Minor scuffles are sometimes inevitable. But anyone who deliberately pushes away the camera or even inflicts injuries on journalists should bear the responsibility. This is not a right thing to do in any case. For all these reasons, I support Mr AU Nok-hin's proposal for cutting the estimated expenditure for paying CSO's salaries because he is the ultimate person in charge (The buzzer sounded) … I hope he can do a proper self-reflection.


9933

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, your speaking time is up. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the speech I am about to make probably will not be too political as in fact I personally do not like politics that much. I am serious, I do not like politics at all. Indeed, the greatest concern of many people now is whether there is food to eat in Hong Kong, whether we have food that we can eat. Therefore, I will discuss in my speech Dr Helena WONG's amendment which proposes to deduct the estimated expenditure on the emoluments of the Secretary for Food and Health for three months, that is about $1,020,000. Strictly speaking, I find this amendment too lenient, given the current situation where Hong Kong people have no food to eat, the reduction of her three-month salary in fact cannot compensate for the worries endured by pig traders, the Hong Kong people and the entire Hong Kong society when facing a food crisis. Let us leave alone events in the distant past and focus on those which have just taken place these few days. I believe that a party buddy of the Deputy Chairman is also one of the victims and he is now kind of laying low. The latest situation is that some pig farmers said if the performance of Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN and the Food and Health Bureau this week could not meet their expectation, i.e. if they failed to properly contain the spread of swine fever and deal with the issues concerning the interests of pig farmers, people would be able to catch live pigs in Central for consumption. Catching live pigs in Central will indeed be a rather funny scene in Hong Kong, as there are wild pigs everywhere in Hong Kong and some also say there are quite a lot of "Hong Kong pigs" around, and so on. I do not mean to make comments from this perspective. I would like to return somehow to the point I raised earlier to explain the reason for my opinion that deducting three months' salary of Prof Sophia CHAN is lenient. In fact, with regard to swine fever, though I am not a member of the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene ("the Panel"), on as early as 9 January 2019 I attended a meeting of the Panel to raise questions. I asked while the whole world was worrying about the rampant African swine fever in Mainland China, what specific measures had been taken by Hong Kong to protect local pig farmers and traders in pig-related businesses, on top of safeguarding food safety of Hong Kong people and the quality of pork. The answer given by the Bureau in


response to my queries at that time was a blank one, blank in the sense that they had only done some rehearsals and arrangements in which pig stuffed toys were used to stage a mock slaughter. You should be able to recall those pictures. Next, starting from January several countries have implemented a 100% inspection of pig products exported from Mainland China, be they frozen pork or other pig products. In Hong Kong, however, no measures were adopted at that time to protect Hong Kong people from the fallout from neighbouring Mainland China where swine fever had gone out of control. The question I raised at that time was very simple and direct: Would the Centre for Food Safety adopt special measures to prevent the import of pig products or frozen pork into Hong Kong? With regard to the definition of cold meat, a Director of Audit's report has raised queries and the Government should answer them more rigorously. In the end, after only a couple of months, swine fever virus was found in a pig last Friday at the Sheung Shui Slaughterhouse and the other 6 000 pigs there thus have to be culled altogether. We of course understand that swine fever virus is infectious and those 6 000 pigs should be culled for the sake of preventing the epidemic, despite the reluctance of us all. This is the situation as it stands now and let us revisit it from the beginning. Several months ago, the Government had no reason not to understand how absurd the approach taken by the Mainland Government was. The Mainland Government allowed pig farmers to slaughter the pigs and make them into pig products for exportation to all over the world as soon as possible. This is not a simple matter of pig inspection, it can be as serious as a trade war embargo. In other words, this can lead to an embargo on all China-related pig products and indeed this measure is now implemented. Last Friday swine fever was found in a pig at the Sheung Shui Slaughterhouse and all the pigs at that slaughterhouse had subsequently to be culled. Mr Steven HO, a Member returned by functional constituency, discussed with the Secretary on behalf of that slaughterhouse which is run by a well-known and also the largest meat supplier in the territory. We know nothing about their discussion but now pig traders are criticized for unreasonable price hike and accused of extorting more compensation from the Government. But as of now, the Government has been adopting many measures which are inexplicable to us. For instance, why the incident that happened in Sheung Shui Slaughterhouse has led to the closing of a private slaughterhouse in Tsuen Wan? If you ask me, I would say that the Government secretly knows swine


9935

fever cannot be contained. Therefore, Tsuen Wan Slaughterhouse must be closed for cleaning, closed for a 100% thorough cleaning in one or two weeks before it can be reopened and to resume livestock slaughtering safely. Yet, Deputy Chairman, as you can see, the existing way the Government culls the animals is problematic. They only electrically stun and bleed a pig before it is properly wrapped and transported to a landfill. This is really an unreasonable way, as we all know tissues of the pig body may possibly leak out and be eaten by wild animals. We all understand the food chain relation: birds which feed on those pig bodies may fall ill and then they infect wild pigs which are plenty in Hong Kong. Swine fever will then reappear again in this circular way. Obviously, the root cause of the situation today is that the Food and Health Bureau's inaction to take measures in view of swine fever. I now have to declare that quite a number of my family members work in the wet market. Why did I raise queries in the Panel a few months back in January? At that time, in view of the swine fever problem in Mainland China, pig farmers said they lost $300 to $400 in each pig every day. Local pigs have been affected by the situation and hence I asked the authorities about the measures they would take. Today, I tell you that the Food and Health Bureau had done absolutely nothing. What can we do when facing a lack of pork for consumption? Sophia CHAN dared to tell the media that the people in fact had a lot of choices, they could eat chilled meat or vegetables, for instance. This is not a problem to me. People who know me and colleagues working in the cafeteria on the ground floor of the Legislative Council Complex understand that I usually have vegetarian lunch. There is a rather strong sense of brutality in this Council, so I personally choose to eat vegetarian dishes usually. As Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN has asked us to eat more vegetables, I would like to ask if the vegetables are problem-free. Vegetables are in fact kind of related to Secretary Michael WONG as well. Regarding vegetables, the Government has suggested farming rehabilitation and has formulated rehabilitation policy to promote agriculture that will revitalize local farmers. But agriculture parks will be built in the forthcoming development of North East New Territories, New Territories West and especially Kwu Tung North. This runs contrary to local farmers' demand for dwelling in the farm. They will do farming there, grow vegetables and transport them to the vegetable market for wholesaling. They get up at 2:00 am or 3:00 am every day and transport the vegetables to the wholesale market at 4:00 am or 5:00 am.


The Government said that the areas would be planned afresh for developing various new towns and then for building agriculture parks. Under this plan, farmers cannot dwell in their farms. Instead, one gets a public housing estate unit and a temporary hostel in the farm. Every morning, the farmers have to cycle or ride on the night coaches arranged by the authorities to harvest vegetables in the farm and then do wholesaling. In reality, is this promoting local farming rehabilitation policy, or is this stifling local farmers? Why did I say this is not a food safety issue but a food problem? We only have 1% of local agriculture remains. Yet, as a result of the rehabilitation policy and because the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department fails to let farmers dwell in the farms within the agriculture parks, more local farmers cannot survive. Not all farmers engage in leisure farming, they are not those who go to the farms only during weekends to grow tomatoes and then bring them home to eat or barbeque. This is not the life of farmers. So, from this we can simply conclude that the entire Policy Bureau does not understand the needs of the farmers. They hope to have a link with the farmland and want to live there, so why force them to live in high-rise apartments? When the authorities want to develop agriculture parks, why make them live in public housing estates? And this policy sounds silly as the Government admits that the supply of public housing is insufficient, so why makes the farmers live in public housing estates? These farmers will then have to travel to and from their farms and so it is necessary to provide them with hostels in the farms. This would mean these farmers get two dwellings. Of course, according to the authorities, agriculture parks should not be used for residential purpose. But in future the authorities will have to relax this rule. Deputy Chairman, Sophia CHAN asked us to eat vegetables because of the swine fever. Talking about vegetables, many people believe we should buy home-grown vegetables but not those from the Mainland. However, because the rehabilitation policy has neglected certain details, local agriculture cannot be rehabilitated and has fallen into gradual decline instead. Upon coming to the point where no vegetables are available to us, we can only eat other foods unwillingly. Of course, the Food and Health Bureau has other duties to perform. For instance, the Secretary told us that swine fever is harmless to people, meaning eating pigs infected with swine fever will cause no harm. This was how she replied to me on 9 January, as eating the pork from sick pigs will not get humans


9937

infected, barring the mutation of virus. But in fact, if that piece of meat is rotten, people will get sick after eating it, they may get stomach pain or other sicknesses. I believe we all understand this. Deputy Chairman, what has the Food and Health Bureau done against this background? Under the Bureau, there is a new committee which is one of its work highlights. It is called the Committee on Reduction of Salt and Sugar in Food. This Committee is the biggest task in the Bureau and it makes people happy with the campaign it has organized, the "sugar cube pyramid" which asks people to consume less sugar and salt. The Bureau has gathered 30 000 sugar cubes and stacked them in a pyramid, in a gimmick which helps to ask people not to eat too much sugar for the sake of their own health. I hate people playing with food and I trust all of you understand the absurdity of playing with sugar cubes. It played with 30 000 sugar cubes―though it said there were ways to let people reuse the sugar cubes but playing with food is indeed absurd―and then applied for a world record with regard to this gimmick. Building a pyramid with 30 000 sugar cubes is a big deal to them. But unfortunately the media revealed that the association from which the Bureau sought accreditation, the World Record Association, had been exposed by the Mainland media seven years ago as a fake organization which provided fake accreditation. Deputy Chairman, a proper government department could get into a muddle when staging a gimmick. From the food we eat, to local food production, to organizing a show: all are absurd farces. How can we convince people that Secretary Prof CHAN is able to live up to the necessary requirements of a bureau head? I am being mild, I do not say she is incapable. Recently, reporters like to call people incompetent and report on their incompetence. So, the problem is that it has failed even to put up a show, and this is outrageous. Some issues should not have been under the Secretary's portfolio. People get sick because of the food they eat, then they have to see a doctor and this eventually comes under her Bureau's portfolio. While there is a shortage of doctors and inadequacy of public health care, people who suffer from stomach ache and feel unwell have to visit doctors. Subsequently, public hospitals cry out for help and doctors complain about insufficient resources. Over the years, the Government has not increased inpatient beds. It has just announced the scheduled completion of a new hospital in Kai Tak in two years, apart from announcing the Tin Shui Wai Hospital earlier. But these definitely cannot resolve the problem of inadequate inpatient beds. You may not understand the


background of the problem: after SARS, many public hospitals have to upgrade the quality of their immunization and hygiene and hence they reduce the number of inpatient beds. Then, the number of beds has not been increased for 10 years or more. So you get the background, right? Facing all these problems, Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN just let the Hospital Authority stage some absurd political farces (in other words, the public relations shows): handing out hand cream to doctors and health care personnel, distributing fish balls and siu mais in Tuen Mun Hospital. I cannot recall all the absurd incidents. But then, the handing out of hand cream is already very absurd. And then, they tried to boost up the morale of the doctors by asking some artists―not artists actually but celebrities, though whether one knows them is another issue―to thank the doctors for their hard work. In fact, people's demands are straightforward and that is the amount of funding allocated to the public health care system in the budget this year, so that we can see whether she is confident of resolving medical problems in Hong Kong in the long run. But, everything we see are just public relations shows. To conclude, actually the most crucial or the biggest problem in Hong Kong now is people have no food to eat. They do not know what to eat and are afraid that they will fall ill after eating. They also find staying in hospital without getting cured even more dreadful than dying itself. Therefore, I support Dr Helena WONG's amendment (The buzzer sounded) … to deduct the relevant item. I so submit. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG, your speaking time is up. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I would like to express my views on an amendment which some Members have just now mentioned in their speeches. The amendment is proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin to cut the emoluments for the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council Commission ("the Commission"). Having listened to what a number of Members of the opposition camp have said, I would like to express my views and I simply cannot help refuting their arguments. We could all see very clearly from television last Saturday that Members of the opposition camp tried by all means to unprecedentedly engage in physical scuffles in the Legislative Council. There were Members pouncing themselves


9939

onto Mr Abraham SHEK like American football players, trying to snatch his microphone, and we could all see that some of them even jumped or climbed onto the table, thus causing injury to a number of people. In the face of such a situation, how can they put the blame on our security staff, criticize them for not performing their duties properly, and propose to cut their emoluments? This is simply ridiculous, and they are just trying to lay all the blame on others. According to Members of the opposition camp, how can our security staff be proper? They should roll out a red carpet for Members of the opposition camp to engage in physical confrontations and injure others, these Members can do whatever they like, such as snatching a microphone from somebody else, attacking other Members or anyone present at the scene unrestrainedly, or even taking away anything from anybody else. Would our security staff be regarded as proper by Members of the opposition camp by so doing? It seems that this is their logic. Deputy Chairman, what I want to say is that in such ugly physical confrontations last Saturday, Members of the opposition camp were seen engaging in physical scuffles recklessly without any regard to the personal safety of others. This was a total disregard for the personal safety of other Members and the safety of others, let alone the safety of the staff and security staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat. Security staff are required to perform their duties of maintaining order in the legislature, and they have to take action when the situation warrants. However, in doing so, they can also be easily injured if people engage in physical scuffles recklessly without any regard to the safety of others. Very regrettably, it seems that Members of the opposition camp have not only paid no regard to the safety of others but also given no consideration to the possibility of injuring our security staff. Moreover, they have even tried to put the blame on others and accuse our security staff of obstructing them when they engaged in physical scuffles that day, claiming that they have failed to perform their duties properly and hence proposing to cut their emoluments. This is the logic of Members of the opposition camp. According to their logic, all lawless elements in Hong Kong will agree to the proposal of cutting the emoluments for police officers because as law enforcing officers, they have brought lawless elements to justice and they regard this as improper. Police officers should not enforce the law, and should instead let lawless elements commit whatever crimes they like. By enforcing the law and catching criminals, police officers would be regarded as not performing their duties properly and their emoluments should be deducted. This is the logic of the opposition camp and it can be so ridiculous.


Deputy Chairman, I have been listening attentively to their speeches just now, and they are now accusing the staff and the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council Secretariat of failing to act without bias and uphold the principle of neutrality. This is a very serious accusation against the Legislative Council Secretariat, the Chief Security Officer or our security staff. I wish to make it very clear that the Legislative Council Secretariat has all along been discharging its duties professionally, independently and impartially. Recently, people of the opposition camp have made a number of accusations against the Legislative Council Secretariat, criticizing the Secretariat for failing to uphold the principle of neutrality, or requiring certain employees to declare their political stance. In this connection, I think they should formally report all such suspected cases to the Commission, so that proper investigations can be launched to clear all doubts surrounding such cases. They should not repeatedly make such groundless and serious accusations against the Legislative Council Secretariat, the Chief Security Officer or our security staff, because this is very unfair to the Secretariat and its staff. All allegations should be referred to the Commission as soon as possible, so that meetings could be convened expeditiously to appropriately investigate into the cases, because by making groundless comments repeatedly, many people who do not know what is going on will be misled by these one-sided accounts, and the Secretariat and its security staff will be treated very unfairly in the absence of any proper investigation by the Commission. Therefore, Deputy Chairman, I speak in opposition to the proposal put forward by Members of the opposition camp just now to cut the emoluments for the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council Secretariat. I would like to reiterate that in the ugly physical confrontations last Saturday, we could all see very clearly that Members of the opposition camp paid no regard to the safety of others, created disturbances, engaged in physical scuffles and caused personal injuries. They are just trying to lay all the blame on others now by accusing our security staff of not performing their duties properly and proposing to cut their emoluments, when the accusing finger should instead be more fittingly pointed at themselves. Deputy Chairman, I so submit. MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I hope Mr Holden CHOW did not need to be so angry, because as the former Legislative Council President Mr Andrew WONG said at some public events that both camps should stop and think. I will


9941

mull over my shortcomings from time to time. Regardless of what we do, we should think about it and consider if it is alright to go ahead. Sometimes I will do the introspection. Nevertheless, as far as my amendment, the Legislative Council Secretariat, as well as the security arrangement of the Legislative Council are concerned, I still consider that there is a common background. I hope Mr CHOW can understand the background. That is, the fact that the pro-establishment camp has wrongly comprehended the Rules of Procedure by convening an unlawful meeting of the Bills Committee―excuse me as I have a cold―and therefore it has caused the ensuing confrontations on Saturday and Tuesday. If we had allowed the Bills Committee to go ahead with the meeting, then all the conventions established by the Legislative Council over the years would have been totally ruined. The major problem is why the Legislative Council Secretariat could, without the authorization of the presiding Member of the relevant committee, coupled with the fact that the Chairman of the Bills Committee had not been elected, disregard all the rules prescribed by the Handbook for Chairmen of Bills Committees, the Rules of Procedure and the House Rules of the House Committee. The rules stipulated that as long as a Member of the Bills Committee indicates his/her disagreement or his/her wish to convene a meeting, Members should be given the floor to discuss the guideline issued by the House Committee. However, have we been given the floor to discuss that? They simply went ahead with the election of the Chairman right from the start and then asked for nominations, needless to mention that we pro-democracy camp Members have all along been following the provisions in the Rules of Procedure in convening the meetings of the Bills Committee. For that reason, who has caused all these conflicts? It is quite difficult to shift the blame onto a certain side unilaterally. Mr CHOW, I hope that you will understand that it was a former the Legislative Council security staff who alleged to us that she had been requested to declare her political inclinations towards the yellow ribbon or the blue ribbon camps. Frankly speaking, as far as I know, the press conference was not convened for no reason at all. I can recall that before Raphael WONG was sent to jail, he had mentioned the incident. However, we did not feel that was a big deal as the relevant person was not ready and had not considered if the incident should be made public at that time. Nevertheless, the recent incidents of the Legislative Council, especially the remarks made by


Kenneth CHEN concerning the political neutrality he had all along been observing in his work, had infuriated the relevant person. Therefore, she held the press conference accompanied by Mr Jeremy TAM on the other day. Mr CHOW, if you consider that the Legislative Council Commission ("the Commission") should conduct an investigation and follow up on the matter, of course I also agree that it should do so. However, I have to remind colleagues that not every Member may participate in the meetings of the Commission; at least I am not eligible to participate. I hope Members will deal with the matter in a decent, dignified and solemn way according to the established practices and procedures of the Legislative Council. Deputy Chairman, sorry, the above remarks were made in response to Mr CHOW. In fact, this time around I am going to speak on the proposal that head 190 be reduced by $30 million in respect of subhead 000, which is equivalent to the estimated expenditure for meetings of the University Grants Committee ("UGC") and its sub-committees, the Research Grants Council ("RGC") and the Quality Assurance Council in the fiscal year 2019-2020. Originally, I am going to speak on this part, but in view of Mr CHOW's earlier speech, I had to respond to his remarks first. Frankly speaking, I am somewhat crossing the line as Members should not engage in any business irrelevant to the meeting in any Council meeting according to the Rules of Procedure. Meanwhile, I am sorting out my teaching materials and information for my teaching work―it is simple, I am classifying and sorting out them and then I will return them to the University later on. In fact, the teaching work are quite heavy for university teachers in these days, and we consider that UGC is playing a vital role in resolving the problems relating to teaching and learning. Members should understand that instead of the Education Bureau or the councils of relevant universities, it is UGC which is the institution responsible for arranging the funding for Hong Kong's universities and tertiary institutions. With regard to the funding to tertiary institutions, if Members have read an article in Ming Pao Daily News, which was written by the former chairman of The Chinese University of Hong Kong Employees General Union Ms Emily NG―"算大學教資會的帳(English translation: Holding UGC to account)", then Members should understand that she has compiled statistics for us. The writer pointed out that in 2004, the funding for local institutions was drastically reduced.


9943

From that year onwards, the grants to universities could never meet their original levels. It was mentioned in the article that the total grants for the year 2003-2004 by UGC accounted for 6% of total government expenditure. Up to the present day, it only accounts for 4.2% to 4.5%. If it is calculated on a per capita basis, in 2003-2004, the average UGC grant amount each student could get was $210,000. In the fiscal year of 2016-2017, it was increased to $260,000. However, after taking inflation as well as other growth indexes into account, it was only 87% of the grant in 2003-2004. Therefore, the actual commitment―the Government's commitment to university education―has reduced. In addition, considering the change from a three-year to a four-year system of undergraduate studies, Members should think about the question that since students have to study one more year, and if the funding for the new fiscal year is calculated on that basis, then we will find that it is only 65% of the original allocation. For that reason, the level of the allocation of resources to tertiary institutions by the Government could not even meet the level of 2003. Let me talk about something which concerns myself. Under such an adverse situation, too often the subsidies to universities are only allocated for research purposes―I am not saying that research work is not important―but are universities not education institutions? Even though we obtain huge subsidies for research purposes, yet the resources allocated for universities are far less than those allocated in 2003, giving rise to two irreparable consequences. First, the retrenchment of teaching resources has caused a fragmentation of teaching jobs in tertiary institutions. Some professors who used to teach in universities told me that since all incumbent university professors have to conduct researches all year round, they seldom give lessons to students; some even do not give a single lesson in one year. On the contrary, the teaching work of part-time and full-time lecturers is very clear. But that should not be the proper learning attitude for students. Let us say that if I were a student, I should be eager to learn and find the good teachers, but why are university professors not giving lessons? As a result, teaching jobs become the main work of lecturers, but due to the need of maintaining flexibilities in the employment conditions, universities may not be able to hire full-time teachers. This has resulted in the phenomenon that some drifting lecturers have to fill the teaching vacancies in four to five universities. All they want is a job. The phenomenon of drifting lecturers has aggravated the uncertainty in curriculums and teaching staff. As for lecturers, their prospects are very grim since there is no job security. They may teach at the University of Hong Kong


today, and The Chinese University of Hong Kong ("CUHK") the next day, and then the Hong Kong Shue Yan University the day after that. This is not good for students because students can only find the lecturers the day that they come to teach at the university, but on Tuesday or Wednesday, they are nowhere to be found, because they have to give lessons in other universities. As for lecturers, the uncertain job prospect has not only affected their confidence and morale in their teaching and research work, but also hampered the accumulation of teaching experiences. In the long run, the fragmentation of teaching jobs will be a discouragement for people who intend to pursue a teaching or academic career. It has created a gap in the supply of teachers in Hong Kong's tertiary education, therefore in the future, Hong Kong needs to rely more on the import of overseas academics. For students, the frequent changes of teaching staff will make it difficult for students to maintain the relationship with lecturers, which has disrupted the interaction between the students and teachers and intensified the indifference and alienation atmosphere in universities. Besides cutting the resources, the other way for universities to survive is to compete for research resources. Therefore, 23% of the recurrent grants from UGC to eight universities are used for R-portion (the research portion of the Block Grant). In terms of operation, in order to ensure tertiary institutions follow the direction designated by UGC, UGC offers a large amount of short-term funding for research projects, which has aggravated the problem of preference being given to researches over teaching as well as the fragmentation problem. Another issue of concern is the introduction of competition where the eight universities will compete with each other for the funding. Besides, UGC has also put in place an incentive and penalty mechanism linked to the performance, if institutions fail to follow the rules set by UGC, UGC will withdraw the funding. Any institution which refuses to obey UGC's decisions will be kicked out of the game. According to the article of Ms Emily NG, the total funding of the General Research Fund, Areas of Excellence Scheme and Theme-based Research Scheme under RGC is more than $1 billion since RGC launched such schemes in 2017. An example of smaller amount of funding was the $2 million per year allocated for Belt and Road symposium and related activities. Ms Emily NG also pointed out that there were many themes for these kinds of projects, which were not limited to one or two projects, but she just cited some examples. In other words, in order to obtain the funding, institutions have to draw up proposals according to the rules set down by UGC. I cannot help but ask that in addressing issues in

https://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/about/press_speech_other/speech/2011/sp20110225.html

https://www.ugc.edu.hk/eng/ugc/about/press_speech_other/speech/2011/sp20110225.html


9945

university education, apart from considering Belt and Road or General Research Fund, should UGC also consider the quality of teaching and learning during the allocation of funding? As the allocation of funding must rigidly observe the requirements laid down by UGC, the autonomy of universities has been constrained. Another worse problem is the top slicing mechanism as the tertiary institutions call it―its proper name is "the competitive allocation mechanism". The biggest problem with UGC is the top slicing mechanism. UGC uses a beautiful pretext that the subsidized courses of every institution should be cost-effective, thus the eight universities have to draw up proposals for academic development. Those who have submitted a lousy proposal will have their places cut in next year, and those which are considered to have submitted good proposals may add a few new places, so that they can open courses with a beautiful title starting with the words such as "Global" or "Worldwide", but whether they will benefit students is another story. Very often, long-established universities will win the bids in view of the UGC's emphasis on competitiveness, the influence of the international factor, as well as the preference towards research over teaching. Especially those courses with the title "Global" this and that, such as "Global Medical", "Global Finance" and "Global Technology" and so on. These names sound pleasant to the ears; therefore they can easily obtain funding. However, they have to pay a price for that, because the places of a number of humanity subjects―in fact I have all along been considering that university education should be made as diversified as possible―have to be cut. For quite a long time, the practice has been blamed at by tertiary institutions for "forcing universities to gamble for places", as it has made the teaching and learning environment unstable and marginalized humanity subjects. It has also caused the situation where tertiary institutions are competing with each other in the recruitment of outside teaching staff to deal with their research projects―it is because if they could purchase (hire) them, they can also purchase their dissertations, and that will enhance their research capabilities. The most interesting thing is that in order to fulfil UGC's Key Performance Indicators (KPI), that is the requirement for internationalization where more foreign professors will be an indicator, those professors will apply for Canadian passports instead of SAR passports, so as to make their faculties more internationalized―but in fact, they are all Hong Kong people. That is right, they are Canadian citizens, and therefore the institution concerned is more internationalized. Is it really ridiculous for them to pursue those performance


indicators? All I can say is that those who suffer in the end are students. In view of the fact that teachers are so indifferent to the teaching work, they do not give lessons while lecturers are having a hard time in teaching, eventually, the subjects that students can select are reduced. Moreover, very often, real education does not necessary take place in classrooms, it occurs in the communications between students and professors, but it seems that these chances have been greatly reduced. Therefore, when Carrie LAM is out of character by not saying much about education in this year's Policy Address, should Members concur with my proposed amendment that her emoluments should be reduced? She talked very little about education in the Policy Address as she only mentioned laboratories in universities and innovative technology, where have her commitments in education gone? Besides, UGC was established in 1965, thus one may say that it has a long history in taking charge of university resources, but what commitments does it have towards the quality of university education today? This is also the reason why I move this amendment. I so submit. MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, first of all, having listened to the speeches made by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr AU Nok-hin just now, I wish to express some personal feelings and to say a few words in response. Certainly, I have no intention of picking a quarrel but simply wish to present some personal views. I think this will enable us to come to a more balanced and objective conclusion. I would like to respond to a few points just raised by Mr AU Nok-hin. Today, I noticed that Mr AU had repeatedly mentioned some opinions given by Mr Andrew WONG, President of the former Legislative Council before the reunification, while making his speech. Of course, there is absolutely nothing wrong with quoting others' opinions, and for business of the Legislative Council in particular, we may refer to the opinions of former Presidents of the Legislative Council. However, I would like to remind Mr AU that apart from former President Andrew WONG, his successors, namely Mrs Rita FAN and Mr Jasper TSANG, have actually given their opinions on those issues as well. Also, Mr Andrew WONG was the President of the former Legislative Council from 1995 to 1997 during the British Hong Kong era. The Legislative Council back


9947

then and the present Legislative Council are simply worlds apart. The situations and confrontations we see today never happened in those days, whereas scenarios like today's began to creep into the legislature during the presidencies of Mrs Rita FAN and Mr Jasper TSANG. Therefore, if there is need to refer to the opinions of the former Presidents of this Council or the former Council, I think the more recent ones will be a more valuable source of reference, because they have a clear idea about the actual situation of the present Legislative Council. This is the first point I wish to highlight. Secondly, I also heard Mr AU constantly describe the Bills Committee meeting over which Mr Abraham SHEK presided as an unlawful meeting. But there is one thing I wish to point out. The pan-democratic Members should not have participated in the nomination procedures if they had regarded the meeting as unlawful. Even though the meeting was so chaotic that the nomination procedures were left unfinished, many pan-democratic Members had actually actively participated in the nomination that day. While they called the meeting unlawful, they still participated in this unlawful activity. Why? We adopt different stances. From their perspective, the Bills Committee meeting presided over by Mr Abraham SHEK was unlawful, so they had to thwart the meeting, making it impossible for the meeting to proceed. However, is this the best way to achieve their ends? Since they considered the meeting unlawful, why didn't they resort to legal procedures to let the court decide? Doesn't the rule of law exist in Hong Kong? Following their logic, as I thought the meeting chaired by Mr James TO was unlawful, should I "storm the place" as they did? Would the Legislative Council be able to function then? This is definitely not a desirable approach, and these are the problems I wish to point out. Further, Mr AU made a brief mention of the incident which has brought the political neutrality of Mr Kenneth CHEN, the Secretary General of the Legislative Council, into question. He did not speak at length about it, except that there was a complaint from a former security guard. As I said in my remarks to the media, that accusation was a very serious one. Not only does it affect Hong Kong people's confidence in the Legislative Council Secretariat, but also impacts on their confidence in the Legislative Council and the credibility of the Council. As regards this serious accusation, I hope the Legislative Council Commission will expeditiously conduct an investigation, so as to reveal the truth to the Hong Kong public. If it is ascertained in the investigation that this accusation is a slanderous allegation against the Secretary General, it is necessary to do justice to him and the Secretariat. I really hope that the Legislative


Council Commission can launch the relevant investigation as soon as possible. Until this moment, we have not seen anyone producing any evidence. Though someone has talked about a questionnaire or a question form―a piece of evidence which is key to this serious allegation―no one has taken it out. I know that the media have asked Mr Jeremy TAM about this and got the reply that he would not produce the document as it was necessary to protect the complainant. But I am doubtful about it. Since the complainant was willing to meet with the media publicly alongside Mr Jeremy TAM, why couldn't the relevant evidence be produced? The person involved can be seen, but the evidence cannot. In this way, what protection can he afford to the complainant? I very much hope that Mr TAM can provide the evidence as soon as possible, so as to enable us to puzzle out the truth about the incident. Deputy Chairman, next, I would like to respond to the speech just made by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen regarding Mr AU Nok-hin's proposal to reduce the annual emoluments of the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council. In my opinion, some of his arguments are really questionable, and I must make this clear. He has advanced a few points: first, according to him, physical clashes were inevitable, especially during the past few days; second, the security staff need to provide assistance to reporters in covering news; and third, members of the media dashing into the conference room is something inevitable. Before discussing these three points, I would like to stress that I absolutely respect the work of media workers and their freedom of reporting. I also believe that staff members of the Security Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat must have attached great importance to this. Now, let us first discuss whether physical clashes are inevitable. During the past few days … Deputy Chairman, I have the right to speak. Well, why do I mention this point? Because many people said that I was not doing the job of a Member but that of a Legislative Council security guard during these few days. Being in the security team, I clearly got a direct experience of what happened during these few days. The scenario was as chaotic as the condition of the Kowloon Walled City, just like what portrayed in the television drama A Fist Within Four Walls. Police officers were unable to offer me help, and many people charged at me. That was a kind of chaos that no one could have helped resolved. The situation was simply the same as what happened in the drama A Fist Within Four Walls. I felt like being in the Kowloon Walled City instead of the Legislative Council. That day, I accompanied Mr Abraham SHEK to walk from Conference Room 4 to Conference Room 2 for the meeting. On our way, I


9949

met certain people's assistants. Trying to trip me up, they repeatedly attacked me with sweeping kicks. Back then, the whole corridor was crowded with people. If I had got tripped, it would have caused not only me, but also many others, to fall because of the domino effect. It was the very moment that I felt my life threatened in the Legislative Council the first time. If I had fallen down, I would have been injured and so would many others around me. What is more, I also saw that at the beginning, a Member … spoke to, or rather, implored Mr Abraham SHEK, but in a trice, he was seen going behind Mr SHEK and then putting his arms around Mr SHEK. Deputy Chairman, such acts as sticking out one's leg to try to trip others up, and putting one's arms around another person from behind are regarded as fouls even in the context of Rugby sevens. But then, these were precisely the acts repeatedly seen in our corridor on Saturday. Under such circumstances, should our security staff do nothing? Their job is to help with the normal operation of the Legislative Council, including maintaining order in our Council. If a person―whether he or she is a Member, a media worker, a Member's assistant, or an unidentified person―has mingled in the crowd to obstruct Mr Abraham SHEK from entering the conference room to chair the meeting, the security staff should play their role and do all they can to help maintain order, so as to enable Members (including Mr Abraham SHEK) to get into the conference room. It is absolutely legitimate for the security staff to execute their duties. The second point that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen raised just now is about providing assistance to reporters in covering news. Actually, I know that the routine work of many colleagues in the Legislative Council Secretariat is to liaise with the media, and, as I know, even that Sunday, they kept liaising with the media in the hope of, firstly, assisting the media in their work, and secondly, ensuring that the media would follow the rules of the Legislative Council and the requirements of the laws of Hong Kong, and allow us, Members, to do our job. Despite so, the situation that day was indeed extremely chaotic. The priority task of the Legislative Council security staff was, as I just mentioned, maintaining order to ensure that Members could meet without a hitch. As for providing assistance to reporters in covering news, is it the priority task of the security staff? No. But then, I must stress that the security staff are not there to hinder the work of media workers. Their job is to maintain order in this Council so that we can hold our meetings. This is something of great importance.


Thirdly, was it inevitable that the media would dash into the conference room? I believe if you ask Members or the media, they all know that normally, when holding a meeting, except several … Conference Room 1 provides space for certain media workers. However, what happened on Saturday was that many people had actually walked into the conference room, making it impossible for us to hold the meeting. As I could see that day, the situation was that some people were standing in the front. I have no idea who they are. Maybe they are media workers or someone else who took the lead to enter the conference room. I think to myself: if I were a media worker, I might likewise follow those people to enter the conference room that day. If my counterparts got into the conference room to take photos and to cover the news but I did not do so, how should I explain to the newspaper for which I worked? To be frank, I suspected that someone was taking advantage of this mentality to cause all the media to crowd into the conference room abruptly. I understand that the media workers have to face work pressure and meet the expectations of the newspapers for which they work. Nevertheless, why was it wrong for the security staff to maintain order under the circumstances then? Deputy Chairman, the Legislative Council security team which I know of is very competent. You may ask me whether they could possibly use greater force to maintain order that day if they were asked to do so. I think they would absolutely have no problem doing so. Then, why didn't they do so that day? There were two reasons. First, they gave thought to all Members rather than merely the pro-establishment Members. As all of us are aware, when the security staff are keeping order, it may be the case that Members of the pro-establishment camp are on one side, and the opposition Members are on the other. To the security staff, both sides are Members, and they are supposed to look after the safety of both sides. For this reason, they really have their hands tied while doing their job, and this is why the security staff could not … someone has queried whether the security staff could step up their efforts to do a better job to ensure better order. That can be done, but again, they have to give thought to Members of both sides. Second, precisely because our security staff respected and took account of the job of media workers that day, they did not ask the media workers to leave using what is referred to as force or a hard-line approach, although some reporters had entered certain areas which they should not have accessed, and even created some undesirable scenarios for the maintenance of order that morning.


9951

So, Deputy Chairman, in his speech just now, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen merely zeroed in on the incident happened a few days ago, and I consider the performance of our security staff up to the mark. Moreover, I am of the view that it is unjustifiable for Mr AU Nok-hin to propose deducting the annual emoluments of the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council. Deputy Chairman, I so submit. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I have as many as 30 amendments which I want to elaborate to Members in the following few hours. However, since two pro-establishment Members have just spoken on my amendments and responded to Mr AU Nok-hin's Amendment No. 25 in relation to slashing the personal emoluments for the Chief Security Officer, I also have to spend some time responding to them. It is highly probable that the debate in the remaining few hours will become a debate on the clashes which happened in the meeting rooms of the Legislative Council last Saturday or yesterday, or even a debate on the two Bills Committees on Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bills Committees"), and I have no idea how it is going to end. Of course, Members, including me and other Members, can speak. After listening to our speeches, other Members may want to air their further views, when no specific ruling has been made by the Chairman so far, and this is the fact. Firstly, Mr AU Nok-hin proposed this amendment before the incident last Saturday or yesterday. Therefore, I was not speaking earlier on the basis of what happened last Saturday or yesterday to show my support to Mr AU Nok-hin's amendment. Of course, first of all, I have to respond to the few major points highlighted earlier by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, and then, I will respond to the comments made by Mr Holden CHOW. Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan said that we also have to quote the views of former Presidents of the Legislative Council, instead of only mentioning the views of Mr Andrew WONG, former President of the Legislative Council. Then I also want to mention the views of Mrs Rita FAN, former President of the Legislative Council. In regard to the occupation of the meeting room by Mr James TO for the Bills Committee meeting, she remarked with a few words "the provoker should be blamed". People may know that the phrase that follows "the provoker should be blamed" is "and he should bear the consequence without regrets and complaints". In other words, for what the other party did or even if


they have done too much, you have no other alternatives because you are the provoker and have to bear the consequences. Besides, this can also apply to the latest clash for which the provoker has to pay the price. Anyway, it seems that we are now in a predicament of who is the provoker. In this entire debate since last week up to this moment, as regards amending the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("the Ordinance") and cutting the personal emoluments of Mrs Carrie LAM, the provoker is in fact the SAR Government. We sometimes think that the provoker is shielding itself behind the Legislative Council Secretariat, the security staff or the pro-establishment Members. Of course, you think that I am the provoker but I think that you are the provoker. You consider that I am "raiding your place" but I consider that you are "raiding my place". And then we will argue which Bills Committee is the formal and the legitimate one. And now, even Mr Ronny TONG, the strongest supporter of Mrs Carrie LAM and the royalist, also points out in his article that the Bills Committee formed in the meeting chaired by Mr Abraham SHEK may be the only legitimate Bills Committee. He only says in this way. As regards the nomination issue, we say that the pro-establishment camp's Bills Committee is illegitimate and is not formed according to the Rules of Procedure. But why did we participate in the nomination process in the pro-establishment camp's so-called Bills Committee meeting? The rationale is in fact very simple. Honourable Members, on that day, if we had not made nominations, no Member had made any nomination and we had boycotted the nomination, what would have been the result? Mr Abraham SHEK would have done a great job as Mr Paul TSE, the only nominee then, would have been elected automatically as the Chairman of the Bills Committee, while Mr Abraham SHEK would not have needed to write to the House Committee to seek direction. This is the reason for our making nominations notwithstanding our non-recognition of the pro-establishment camp's Bills Committee. This is a very simple principle. Back then, the Government initiated judicial proceedings to disqualify certain Members from office. But before the judicial challenge was resolved, the person concerned was still or was uncertain of whether he was still qualified as a Member, and the Government would continue to answer his question and say, "Although we do not acknowledge your identity and have initiated judicial proceedings, I will still answer your question." The principle is actually the same. In regard to security staff, I think their job is surely rather difficult. I would like to respond to the remarks of Mr Holden CHOW. He said that in the eyes of the thieves, it would be better that the salaries of the Police Force was cut,


9953

because the thieves would then be caught by no one. This is the crux. He surely treated me like a thief―I have been accused of being a traitor, or a traitor to my country. I do not understand why, but they can just accuse me if they want to―Anyway, I also treat him as a thief, and this is of course an analogy. As a security officer, the most important duty is to distinguish who are thieves, and they should not take democratic Members as thieves. If they cannot make a distinction, they should refrain themselves from interfering in the matter and do their own jobs well as far as possible. I agree with Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan that their duty is to protect each and every Member, instead of protecting certain Members in order to harm other Members. Nevertheless, I am not saying that the security staff of the Legislative Council have done any such things. Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan is very observant. As highlighted by him earlier, no matter on Saturday or yesterday, the security staff did not exercise the highest level of force. In fact, they could have taken out their gear, but they did not do so, and there are two reasons: they are taking into consideration the safety of all Members as well as the work of media workers, and this approach is correct. Nonetheless, members of the public also have to give some thought to the following scenario. The so-called parliamentary confrontation or clashes are usually between security staff and democratic Members, whereas in these two days, the role of security staff is not as important as in the past, and we see clashes between Members of two camps. It is exactly because no one can be 100% sure which camp is correct, reasonable, legitimate and rational, and that is why they dare not get too close and go too far. That is the fact and the practical situation. I do not want to continue taking some time from the debate of a minor amendment in respect of the Budget to discuss which Chairman or which Bills Committee is legitimate and reasonable. But concerning the clash between the media and the security staff, I still want to talk a bit more. To the security staff or the Secretariat staff, it is against the rules for media workers to enter the meeting room. However, as also mentioned by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, if he were a journalist, he would also have to enter the meeting room. As security staff or Secretariat staff, they could have stated clearly to the media, "Do not enter the meeting room." In my view, they could have said this to them. But in these two days, what they said was that the names of those journalists had to be jotted down. I do not find it desirable as it sounds a bit intimidating. When any journalist enters the meeting room, does the Legislative Council Secretariat have to hold him accountable and even punish him? In my opinion, this should be avoided by all means.


Yesterday, the biggest clash between security staff and the media happened when Mr Abraham SHEK left the meeting room to take the lift after announcing that the meeting was adjourned. The focus of the journalists at that time was naturally to get a sound-bite from Mr Abraham SHEK. If I were one of them, when other journalists had that moment captured on video but I failed to do so, it certainly would be a very serious matter. Nonetheless, some security staff tried to prevent the journalists from shooting. A journalist has the video footage of a security officer snatching away the camera of a journalist. After the incident, some journalists also said that they were injured. In the view of the journalists, the security staff made a deliberate attempt to stop them from covering news. I am not mentioning their attitudes as certainly, the attitudes of both parties were not friendly at that time. We, however, have to understand the duty of journalists. Whenever there is any breaking news, they will try their very best to cover. What that security officer did yesterday has already been videoed and we can view the footage. The Legislative Council Commission should handle this issue. Of course, I am not qualified to be a member of the Legislative Council Commission, and they will certainly not allow me to join anyway. All these are examples. For what the Chief Security Officer or the entire Estate and Security Office has done, the public have their own judgment. Later, those Members who give their support, including Members from the democratic camp, will continue to speak on this issue. I now return to my amendment, and I have no idea how much speaking time is left. My Amendment No. 39 seeks to cut the estimated expenditure on the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (The Treasury Branch). Let us look at the duty of the Treasury Branch. In Programme (2) concerning Revenue and Financial Control, its duty is "to manage the allocation of resources; oversee the Government's tax and other revenue-raising policies; facilitate decisions on government investments; and promote open, fair, competitive and pro-innovation government procurement, in line with the value for money principles and other policy objectives of the Government". On the Internet, we can also find the work description of the Treasury Branch that it "supports the Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury on matters of fiscal policy and the annual Budget; oversees the Resource Allocation Exercise and the compilation of the Government's annual estimates of expenditure". After scrutinizing in detail the manpower establishment concerned, I learn that there are Units A, B, C, G, H under the charge of the Deputy Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury (Treasury)1, which are responsible for


9955

supporting the Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury on matters of fiscal policy and the annual Budget, as well as the compilation of the Government's annual estimates of expenditure. The staff of these units are mainly responsible for making the wrong estimate on the fiscal surplus each year and among them, Unit H, which has the manpower establishment of 15 people, assumes the greatest share of responsibility. The estimated expenditure on their personal emoluments in 2019-2020 is $12.46 million. This Unit coordinates the compilation of the Government's annual estimates of expenditure, prepares mid-term forecasts, conducts annual reviews on the overall financial position and budgetary forecast, and provides analytical support to the matters concerned. From the above, they are held accountable for underestimating the surplus over the years. In fact, two years ago, i.e. 2017, the Legislative Council Secretariat issued a research report which said that from 1997 to 2017, the Government attained fiscal surplus in 15 years. In these 15 surplus years, 75% of the projection discrepancy was attributable to under-estimation of revenue, and the rest of 25% to under-spending. For these 15 surplus years, there was an under-estimation of government revenue totalling over HK$600 billion and an over-estimation of government expenditure amounting to nearly HK$200 billion. They accounted for 75% and 25% of the projection discrepancy in fiscal balance accordingly. These are staggering figures. We always say that in a company, if the projection discrepancy based on the estimation of the department led by the Chief Financial Officer was so large, he would be fired at once. However, the Government has chosen not to do so. Every year, the officers concerned prepare wrong estimates which are departing more and more from reality, but the Government continues to remunerate them. It has been 22 years since 1997. The Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (The Treasury Branch) and the Units concerned in fact have vast experience in preparing budgets. We are astonished that they have never learnt the lesson from their under-estimation of revenue over the past years or reviewed the causes for their repeated mistakes. Any normal person or even normal civil servant will feel shameful and review the causes even though he does not need to be responsible for his own mistake. But it seems that the Units under the Treasury Branch do not intend to do so at all. The only reason for not conducting any review is that they are actually making repeated mistakes deliberately. Hence, I say that this Budget should be named "the Faulty Budget". It is not because faulty estimates are made in the Budget, but because


faulty forecasts are anticipated to be made in the Budget; and while being faulty is all right, the Budget is even being faulty intentionally. In terms of the intention, as I said earlier, in the preparation of a budget, they can exaggerate the economic risks for the coming financial year, under-estimate the performance of the property and stock markets for the coming year and naturally under-estimate the revenue, so that the Financial Secretary can have an excuse not to increase recurrent expenditure. The result is that every year, since the economic performance is not as bad as forecasted in the budget, and the performance of the property and stock markets is normal, the surplus due to under-estimation of the revenue will go to the coffers instead of benefiting the public. In recent years, there are of course the Caring and Sharing Scheme and some relief measures for the people. The Government says that it will allocate a certain percentage of the surplus to benefit the public. However, as I have been mentioning for many years, these measures which include tax rebate, rates and corporate profits tax waivers cannot benefit those people who do not have properties, companies or do not pay large amounts of tax. This is the result of the erroneous forecasts made by the staff of these Units. (The buzzer sounded) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, your speaking time is up. I just allowed Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to debate on the amendment in relation to cutting the annual personal emoluments for the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council, during which the meeting arrangement of the Bills Committee on Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 on Saturday and even the operation of the Bills Committee were mentioned. I shall remind Members to focus the debate on the amendments to the Budget, rather than turning the debate on the amendments to the Budget into a discussion on the matters relating to the Bills Committee meeting on Saturday. MS CLAUDIA MO: Of course, we need to, and we should, focus on the Budget. But then, if you would have allowed those Beijing loyalists to talk about what they did, I have to make clarifications over the misconceptions, if not actually wrong statements.


9957

Concerning the security of this Legislative Council, I hope they realize that for the first time, journalists were allowed into the conference room. That permission was conducted at the agreement of the Secretariat. The journalists told me, "How about that? On what ground? We have always known that the print media or reporters are allowed in, but not anyone with a camera, especially video cameras, not TV crews. Thank you very much." The logic or the argument was, "There is no proper meeting taking place inside that conference room, so if you guys"―according to the Secretariat―"would want to go inside to film something, you are perfectly allowed." So, when they say it is allowed, it is allowed. There was a meeting taking place, a meeting perfectly constitutional that was being chaired by our Honourable colleague, Mr James TO. So, I told the journalists, "I am sorry. We cannot let you in. You can at most stand right behind the room line, the door line, because otherwise we would seem to be endorsing the Secretariat's 'ruling' that the meeting we are having is indeed non-existent according to the Secretariat." See? When it comes to injuring journalists, I do censure our security people for, obviously, employing unnecessary force on the media type. What did they think they were doing? The security guards are supposed to protect legislators from any side, for God's sake. But all I could hear on both occasions―Saturday and Tuesday (namely yesterday)―was "protect the Chair", meaning the Chairman, meaning Mr Abraham SHEK. As a result, I got a bruise yesterday, from yesterday's scuffles: one on my shoulder, one on my back and one on my hand. All by security people. I am not criticizing them for hurting me. I knew things were getting chaotic, they were doing their job, and they were doing things inadvertently. But the amount of force applied, used, employed was perfectly unnecessary. I think our security people under Mr Kenneth CHEN's leadership and the Secretariat definitely owe our reporting group in the Legislative Council a huge apology. Please do not spread lies around like this. I am fine. I am not really complaining. I am just stating facts. Alright? They are not just making misconceptions; they are telling lies. And telling lies seems to be contagious, as I have kept saying. Carrie LAM lies. I use present tense, please note. Not just that she lied last Thursday; she lies all the time.


Last Thursday, she was here standing over there, mumbling away. Her voice was not particularly clear. But she was mumbling to the effect that "if you say China had deliberately excluded itself out of this Hong Kong-China business, you are all quite wrong, and it is all crap talk." No, she said "trash talk". All I could hear at the time was that vague message. I did not have my earphone on. I could not quite hear the exact words she was using, but I knew vaguely what she was referring to. She was saying, "There is no such thing as 'fear over China's judiciary before or after 1997'."―something to that effect. Am I being the most responsive? Not particularly, because she could hardly be heard. She was mumbling. She was mumbling because she was lying. It was so obvious. Of course, I was fed up. I called her a liar. Her exact wording … I subsequently fished the passages out. Carrie LAM said, "It was not what was said, that there were fears over the Mainland's legal system after the handover, or that China had agreed to it. This is all trash talk." Haha! You seriously need to laugh at that woman. And she would bend her head and say, "I do not lie." Come on, if she is not lying, why does she not come and refute all those very negative allegations further? She would not, would she? She would not dare. Yesterday, she pushed out the security chief and our Chief Secretary to reply to press questions without saying anything. So, what is the point of pushing them out? It is so, so embarrassing. Carrie LAM said, "We should all check Legislative Council documents." On Thursday, she said that. I did not have to, because before she lied quite so publicly here, I had already checked old, old Legislative Council documents. There is this particular one dated 22 October 1996―a Legislative Council document―that says something like this, "With the agreement of the Chinese side and the Joint Liaison Group, we are doing the following." Joint Liaison Group, Okay? It is about the extradition bill. What it says is, "We will be making new arrangements with"―country names―"the Netherlands, Canada, Australia, Malaysia …" There was one more, but I have forgotten which one. There was no China. How come? And that document, in black and white, makes it so clear, "With the agreement of the Chinese side and the Joint Liaison Group"―"JLG". Okay? Poor, poor Carrie LAM.


9959

Subsequently, even Chris PATTEN and Mrs Anson CHAN came out to say, "Practically, of course, Carrie LAM is lying." Just how more sad can it be? I think Carrie LAM owes Hong Kong people a proper explanation as to exactly what she was saying then―at this Council last Thursday. She does not deserve to be paid by Hong Kong people―to come back to the Budget, our add-in deadline. Chris PATTEN actually said … Carrie LAM keeps talking about this loophole in the fugitives law thingy, saying it was an inadvertent, very accidental Hong Kong-China extradition "loophole". Chris PATTEN said, "To pretend that this was a 'loophole' is self-evidently untrue and absurd." Let me put this on the record: It is self-evidently untrue and absurd. For a government leader to be called like that, I think that this is even more humiliating, even more demeaning, than being called a liar by a legislator because other people or outsiders would assume that a lawmaker that is not happy with Carrie LAM is making some emotional criticism of her. No, please look at here. We are talking about the last Governor of Hong Kong making a very public, global statement on the integrity of Carrie LAM. She must respond. She could not pretend that indeed she is yet another "ostrich" as she would call her predecessors over this issue. Come out, please, and explain yourself. The whole saga is more than contemptible. There is another line used by Chris PATTEN. He said, "Both Hong Kong and China knew very well that there had to be a firewall between our different legal systems." Okay? For the record; on the record. To come back to more misconceptions about what happened in the last few days. Some people are saying, "Why do you keep quoting Andrew WONG? Andrew WONG was the President of the Legislative Council before 1997." So, they are implying that he does not count as a result, and we should only listen to Jasper TSANG or Rita FAN. I beg your pardon. History is history. He was the President of the Legislative Council at the time―before or after 1997. And we are talking about issues that straddle the handover year, right? Except there is one thing. If you think Andrew WONG's remarks are quite so irrelevant, I have to remind you that Mr WONG did actually, also openly, say something like this, "To call anyone a liar within the Council is unparliamentary." "This is unparliamentary language", he said. And I


challenged him. I said, "I beg your pardon. The so-called 'unparliamentary' …"―This unparliamentary word "lying" or "liar" is a very tongue-tying word―"That rule is only supposed to be applied on Member-to-Member dialogue, communication or debate inside the Council. It is not applicable to government officials coming in to reply to our questions." And you know what Mr WONG said? He said, "You are right because before then"―during his time―"officials were still Members of the Legislative Council. That is why we do not use that word." But now, we are here to shout at government officials, and I have every right to call Carrie LAM a liar. Thank you. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, just now, I listened carefully to Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Holden CHOW. They criticized Mr AU Nok-hin for proposing Amendment No. 25, which seeks to slash the proposed expenditure on the annual salary of the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council. I wish to talk about 001 in the first place, but I will discuss this first. Several Members talked about violence in this Council, and questioned whether Mr Andrew WONG was qualified to comment on the performance of the incumbent President. Before we say we want to cut the salary of the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council, we must first know who made the order. Only the culprit should be held responsible. Frankly, Kenneth CHEN should be the first one to have his salary cut, since it is questionable whether the Chief Security Officer was the one who ordered to brutally handle the reporters and Members, or he was ordered by his superior Kenneth CHEN to do so. Or, was Kenneth CHEN being ordered by someone else, including Andrew LEUNG or the Government, or even the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR ("LOCPG")? We do not know. Talking about the incumbent Secretary General Kenneth CHEN, it reminds us of his predecessors, including Ricky FUNG. I have at least worked with two Secretary Generals. Honestly, their work ethics and style are very different. Ricky FUNG was a veteran civil servant. He had worked in the Government for quite some years before he assumed the post of Secretary General here. It was everyone's query that Ricky FUNG might side with the Government or undermine the proceedings of this Council if he became the Secretary General.


9961

But strangely, from the few years since he assumed the post to the year he retired, I did not strongly feel so. I clearly witnessed how he made every effort to defend the role of the legislature, both before or after the reunification, which is a far cry from Kenneth CHEN's performance in comparison. (THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair) Everyone knows that before assuming the post of Secretary General, Kenneth CHEN was an Under Secretary appointed under the political appointment system in the Government. That was why when he took office, there were quite many comments about and even queries among Members whether his assumption as Secretary General was a political appointment. Many people adopted a wait-and-see attitude and chose to let time prove whether he would be a fair and responsible Secretary General, or he would jump to the defence of the Government and pro-establishment camp. Regrettably, since the inception of this Legislative Council, Members and even people not working in this Council have had great reservation about his performance. I will not cite distant examples. Let me talk about the House Committee meeting last Friday. We found inappropriate words are used in the Minutes of Meeting of the House Committee. For instance, Members were separated into democratic camp or some other camps. This was a very unwise approach. Something like this should not have happened. Why were such details put in the Minutes of Meeting? Second, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan and Mr Holden CHOW repeatedly said that slashing the salary of the Chief Security Officer was the same as letting the thieves take control … not to mention reducing the salary of the Police. May I ask what they mean by "thief"? Thieves refer to people who rob other people of their private property and power through improper and unlawful means. In Hong Kong, what kind of an establishment is the Legislative Council? We still practice the totalitarianism regime of Italy. We still adopt the totally-outdated functional constituency election of the Upper House of the Irish Parliament. Hence, the seats of the Legislative Council, as we all know, are still largely returned by a coterie election representing the minorities' power especially that of the business sector. The only exception is the five seats returned by the


District Council election. This is a small improvement but the election still has its fallacy such as the nomination method. I will not go into the details. A Council formed by such a system will naturally be distorted. We all know that the President of the Legislative Council, and also the Chairman of the Legislative Council Commission, is not elected through a fair election. They always claim that the Legislative Council Election should follow the example of the Parliament at Westminster or in some other Countries and be more civilized. Would they please reflect on themselves. How dare they say we should follow the example of western countries. Luckily, they do not say we should follow the example of the National People's Congress, or I will go crazy and faint. They say we should follow the western congress etiquette. For how long have we called for realizing universal suffrage and a screening-free Chief Executive Election and Legislative Council Election? If the Central Government is to answer our call, it could have done so long ago in the elections in 2007 and 2008. We are now in the year 2019-2020. Some 11 or 12 years have passed. How dare they talk about being fair with us? They take control of the entire Council. They take control of the election of the President. They take control of everything. They even take control of the Secretary General. How come they talk about fairness with us? They even called us the thieves. Only Members who do not reflect public views and rob people of their power are qualified to be called thieves. But nowadays, it is difficult to tell the difference between a soldier and a thief. People who sit here to make the decision become the soldiers. Any discussion in this Council that cannot come to a conclusion will be put to vote. Anything in the House Committee and the Legislative Council is put to vote. When it comes to voting, we will definitely lose. Members representing public opinions will lose in most cases because they have their dirty tricks. How could the business in this Council be conducted fairly? Mr Holden CHOW, you do not need to worry. You are protected by "Grandpa". You will surely continue to be a Member because you are under the wing of "Grandpa". Will he ever feel a little ashamed? Not even a little? Not feeling ashamed at all? What can I say! The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong also suggested implementing dual universal suffrage in the elections in 2007 and 2008. If dual universal suffrage was implemented back then, all the seats in this Council today would not have been screened but elected by the people, just like those seats returned by direct election. They will still give out various kinds of


9963

goodies paid by LOCPG, but this does not matter as long as dual universal suffrage can be realized. But the case now is different. The Council is distorted. The representatives are distorted. And the system is distorted. They even call us thieves. Are they the soldiers? Are they qualified to be soldiers? And then, they say Andrew WONG did not have the authority to criticize the Council now. Actually, Andrew WONG, the former Legislative Council President, spelled out two things … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you started talking about the amendment to cut the proposed expenditure on the annual salary of the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council … DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Yes. I support the salary cut because … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please come back to the subject of the debate. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am going to, Chairman. Perhaps you know I am going to criticize you, so you stop me. It does not matter. I will criticize you less. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): It does not matter that you criticize me. What matters is you should return to the subject. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I will. You are being magnanimous. I was talking about the Chief Security Officer. The Legislative Council Commission is involved in deciding the salary of the Chief Security Officer. And the Chairman of the Legislative Council Commission is the President of the Legislative Council. Looking from this perspective, it is possible that the President is not involved in this matter.


That said, according to the former Legislative Council President Andrew WONG, he personally observes that the Legislative Council has not been working very well. For instance, the incumbent President has restricted Members from speaking. Mr Andrew WONG also points out that the Rules of Procedure is not meant for increasing the power of the President. Being a scholar of political science, he knows that power should only be restrained, and not enhanced. Only power given by the people or the electorate should be enhanced. If the power is self-given, it is like a person crowning himself and calling himself king. Such power should be restricted. This is the congress in the West … Mr Holden CHOW, this is the spirit of western congress. I heard that you studied in the United Kingdom. What have you studied? All power should come from the people and should not come from the present distorted system. If the former is the case, then the Chief Security Officer, the Secretary General or the President can truly represent the electorate. But our present situation is light-years away from that. I feel ashamed even to describe it. How could this distorted system be able to respond to the aspirations of the people? How come the President still wants to increase his own power? Is that still not enough? He has forbade people, or even Ms Claudia MO sitting beside me to call the Chief Executive a liar. Even if the Chief Executive has lied, we are not allowed to point it out … (Ms Claudia MO talked loudly in her seat) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please be quiet. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): So, this is pathetic, Chairman. I feel sad for Hong Kong because, nowadays, the Government is a mess, and the system is a mess. We hope that the Legislative Council of Hong Kong is a publicly-elected body. The Chief Security Officer only has one duty, theoretically. He should provide service to Members representing the people. This is straightforward. This is what the system of this Council is supposed to work. Only that the system is now distorted. The majority is bullying the minority. The rude and unreasonable are capable of changing everything.


9965

Certainly, I will not put all the blame on the Chief Security Officer. I actually do not personally know him. I do not know what kind of a person he is. Maybe he is a former police officer or a member of the disciplined services. It does not matter as long as he truly discharges his duty, as long as he knows why Members had to leave their seats and do this, and knows that the voting and the election in the Council are a cheat and everything is fake, and as long as he knows that we cannot achieve anything if we remain silent. Everything is decided by voting because the pro-establishment camp can definitely have a motion passed. The pro-establishment camp is smart. They put everything to vote. Why do they not put eating or shitting to vote as well? They will have it passed anyway. They have been acting barbarously. They want to put everything to vote. It turns out that the most democratic means is to put things to vote. It is outrageous. Only when the election system is democratic will voting be truly democratic. The functional constituencies in this totalitarian regime exist eternally. Even Andrew WONG says that the functional constituencies should long be abolished. They should be abolished in 1997, he said. By 2007, the functional constituencies were still not abolished despite being clearly stipulated in the Basic Law. It is now 2019. It has not been abolished in the past 22 years. That is why I say pathetic! I can identify with what Mr AU said. The Chief Security Officer may find the criticism against him reasonable. He may think that he has been doing his job faithfully. When the Secretary General asked him to hit them, he hit them; when the President asked him to hit them, he hit them. He has followed every order, but his salary has to be cut. But I hope that this gentleman or lady … I do not know him … will sit back and think again. He is also a member of the public. He may have been asked by his superior in this Council to do something against his conscience. But on the street, he is also a member of the general public with no power. I beseech him to think again. When we saw unreasonable things done by the Government, and saw incidents that would harm Hong Kong and ruin "one country, two systems", should we still trust what he has done here? A case is now being handled by the Legislative Council Commission concerning a security officer. If the Chief Security Officer has been subject to any political pressure, I welcome him to tell us―although I do not know him―whether the Secretary General has actually ordered security officers to


declare their political stance. He can speak out and prove his innocence. By so doing, he can also do justice to the hundreds of staff members here, including many security officers who have been working conscientiously, and save them from being unjustly involved in this matter and be scolded on the street. Although this Council and this system are distorted, people with a clean conscience may still be willing to tell the truth. The Hong Kong today is pathetic. The Legislative Council today is even worse. But I hope that the public will not give up and will try their best to stand and fight. I so submit. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have proposed one amendment to the Appropriation Bill 2019: Resolved that head 156 be reduced by $85 million in respect of subhead 000. The amount of reduction proposed by me is roughly equivalent to the Education Bureau's estimated expenditure on commissioning the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority ("HKEAA") to conduct the Basic Competency Assessment ("BCA") (formerly known as the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA")) in 2019-2020. Actually, the manpower and the relevant expenditure required by the BCA project have been subsumed under the overall estimated expenditure of the Education Bureau. With part of the expenditure on the BCA project being included in other areas, this estimate of $85 million does not represent the total expenditure on this project. The contract between the Education Bureau and HKEAA for the provision of services relating to the BCA already expired in 2018. In order to take forward the relevant policy initiative, the Education Bureau has signed a new contract with HKEAA. Covering a period of five years, this contract will expire in 2023 and involves a total sum of $427 million. Dividing this sum by five, we will find that the relevant estimated expenditure for the 2019-2020 school year approximates $85 million. On this basis, I have proposed reducing this sum of $85 million in the said amendment. As the representative of the education sector, I wish to tell Members that not all the funding proposals relating to education expenditure will be welcomed by our sector. For example, we very much welcome those which are conducive to improving the education in Hong Kong but not some others, say the one concerning the TSA project that I just mentioned. We are of the view that this sum of expenditure will bring no benefit to the education in Hong Kong, but


9967

exacerbate the problems with it instead. Thus, on the whole, we need to examine the specific details of each expenditure item relating to education, so as to judge whether it is good or bad. This year, the sum of $85 million budgeted for the implementation of the TSA project will be split into two parts, the first part of which will be under the charge of the Education Bureau. In March last year, the Education Bureau announced the resumption of the Primary Three TSA (currently known as the Basic Competency Assessment) in all public sector primary schools in Hong Kong and it would be arranged under the principle of "three Nos" (i.e. no student names, no school names, and no collection of reports), with 10% of the Primary Three students selected to participate in the assessment by sampling. We consider this a desirable arrangement. If the estimated expenditure of $85 million is used in this part only, we will definitely give it our support and will raise no objection. Regrettably, when the Education Bureau announced this arrangement, it left a big loose end of allowing schools to make their own applications to HKEAA for all their Primary Three students to participate in BCA. We know that the Education Bureau's arrangement for 10% of students to sit for the assessment will not bring schools, teachers or students under pressure. But as the Government also allows schools to make applications for full participation of their Primary Three students in the assessment, we are naturally filled with worries. First, may I know if the Government has a good application mechanism? Who will be the one to decide whether or not to make an application? Are teachers and parents involved in making the decision? As stated in the Government's reply, teachers and parents are not involved in the making of the decision. Rather, the decision is left with school management committees whose members are neither professionals nor directly relevant stakeholders. School management committees are merely responsible for leading the administration of schools and without professional background, so why should they call the shots in deciding whether students will participate in the assessment? This is completely unreasonable. Even though school management committees are vested with executive powers, shouldn't teachers and parents be also consulted before any decision is made? This approach will be more reasonable, and yet the Government does not require school management committees to carry out any consultation. To us, this is something that goes against the spirit of school-based management but being done in the name of school-based management. Precisely for this reason, some chaotic situations have arisen in schools under the existing school-based management policy.


The second issue concerns whether the authorities have set up a proper monitoring system to check for the presence of hierarchical pressure (i.e. the pressure passed down from the ones at the top of the hierarchy to those lower down) in the process; and whether the Government will, at the same time, properly monitor the situation afterwards and immediately tackle the problems found. Unfortunately, while the Government stated in its reply that it would exercise stringent monitoring, the past practice would still be followed. In other words, the outcome will be exactly the same as before, with problems left undetected. If it simply maintains the old practice, how can that be called "stringent monitoring"? So, it follows that "stringent monitoring" is just a rhetorical term, and it is merely a kind of false and empty rhetoric which is devoid of substantive meaning. To us, if no proper application and monitoring mechanism is put in place, it means that the Government connives at the schools' excessive participation in Primary Three BCA. As for the occurrence of excessive participation, its root cause may lie in the fact that the decision to participate in BCA can be made by school sponsoring bodies as well as school heads. That is to say this is a decision dictated by school administrators. In 2018, there were applications from 230 primary schools for full participation in BCA, which accounted for 40% of Hong Kong primary schools. Then, in 2019, how many schools have done the same? The Education Bureau has refused to provide the figure and responded neither to queries from the media nor to Member's questions. It is all too unreasonable for the Education Bureau to maintain an attitude of unaccountability. However, we still managed to get a general idea about the relevant situation: at that time, Ming Pao Daily News interviewed some 20 school sponsoring bodies and found that the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong had encouraged 52 of its sponsored schools to arrange for full participation of their students in the assessment; the Hong Kong Council of the Church of Christ in China has 11 of its schools participating in the assessment; the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals has 13; and the Hong Kong Buddhist Association has 4. It is estimated that a number of schools will sign up for participation by the whole grade. Following what happened in 2018, there will be more schools arranging for full participation in the assessment in 2019. The attitude of school sponsoring bodies will directly affect the schools' decisions. Sometimes, they will directly exert pressure on their sponsored schools to compare among themselves and may directly compare the academic performances of their sponsored schools. While this will help them get an understanding of how the schools perform, they will take advantage of the school


9969

management committee meetings or other occasions to exert pressure on school heads indirectly. The pressure will then be passed down by school heads to teachers who will subsequently put pressure on students. This very practice of passing pressure down the hierarchy has made lower and upper primary students spend their school days under the shadow of BCA. Their entire primary school life is simply overshadowed by BCA. The Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union conducted a questionnaire survey last year, i.e. 2018. As the teachers responded, nearly 80% of schools either put great emphasis on or emphasize the assessment results of BCA, and schools having opted to arrange for the whole grade to sit for the assessment account for as high as 85%. Though the Government has not provided any figure, we can learn from the teachers' responses that the pressure from BCA is enormous. As revealed in the survey, with teachers and students being put under pressure, the problem of excessive drilling and the morbid change in teaching have both become severe, especially the latter. What is the morbid change in teaching? It is the situation where teachers teaches more about the topics within the assessment scope of BCA, and for those outside, teachers will teach less about them or even skip them, though they may cover something of importance, such as basic manner, development of interest in learning, etc. All these will not be reflected in written assessments, and will very probably be neglected. For instance, notwithstanding their importance, some specific curriculum contents of certain subjects will be neglected during the process of teaching, if they are not within the scope of assessment. Why would we have allowed the teaching direction to be guided by assessment results? Anyone having a basic concept of education will know that things should work the other way round. Assessment should serve teaching instead of dictating it. In the light of this, what happens now is all a mistake. Also found in the survey is the surprising fact that less than 6% of schools let all their teachers to have the opportunity to decide whether the whole grade would sit for the test. In theory, as rightly stated by the Government, BCA results should not be overemphasized. However, in reality, many schools have applied for full participation of their students in the assessment and overemphasized the results, no wonder BCA has brought teachers and students under considerable pressure and resulted in the problem of excessive drilling and the morbid change in


teaching. Recently, we have learnt from a press report that a primary school has come under much attention due to the occurrence of a very unpleasant incident. That is a school where all students of the same grade sit for BCA, and great emphasis is placed on BCA results. In other words, there is actual evidence to prove that the overemphasis on BCA results will create pressure. We just do not understand why the Education Bureau remains reluctant to face up to this issue today, thus depriving Hong Kong primary school students of the opportunity to receive genuine quality education. Hong Kong officials and teachers have been arranged to have exchanges and visitations in Finland, but its Government is not doing things in a way like ours. Having had all these overseas exchanges and visitations, we still continue with what we have always been doing. Now, here comes an opportunity. The Task Force on Review of School Curriculum ("the Task Force") is currently conducting a holistic review on the curricula and is supposed to come to the Legislative Council next month to give an account of the plan for the future. Primary Three BCA is precisely the "commanding height" as well as the bottleneck of the primary school curriculum. If we want to remove the constraints on the curriculum to give better latitude for teaching in primary schools, we should have a serious look at the various problems arisen from Primary Three BCA through this review, and I hope that the Task Force will provide a breath of fresh air for Hong Kong primary schools. Of course, it will be most desirable if the arrangement of having all Primary Three students sit for BCA can be abolished. If that is not impossible, the authorities should perhaps consider abolishing the Primary Three BCA altogether. Our hope is that the Government can stringently monitor the application procedures for arranging for all Primary Three students of a school to sit for BCA and the subsequent development. But what matters most is that during this process, teachers should be empowered to participate in the decision-making of their schools in respect of professional issues about teaching, because ultimately, we all aim at helping students to learn more effectively. We should systematically consult and respect teachers' views. Moreover, I also hope that the Government can be genuinely accountable and inform the Legislative Council of the number of schools which have all their Primary Three students sit for BCA. Chairman, having said all these, I just wish to highlight one point: now, it is high time we faced up to the various problems with Primary Three BCA properly. This is a fundamental issue which has everything to do with questions


9971

like whether Hong Kong students can enjoy a happy childhood, and whether we can create a quality environment for teaching and learning. As regards the voting on the amendments this time round, I very much hope that other members will support my amendment. More importantly, I wish to get my intended message across to the Government so that improvements can be made. I so submit. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I wish to speak on several items in this session, and the first one is Amendment No. 36 proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki which seeks to reduce head 142 by $4,370,000 in respect of subhead 000 to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for emoluments for the position of the Financial Secretary in 2019-2020. Chairman, why should I speak on this proposed amendment? Everyone knows that the Financial Secretary is not only the incumbent Financial Secretary; he also held the same position in the Government of the previous term. However, what are the major duties of the Financial Secretary? I consider that they cover several areas. First, he should promote Hong Kong's economic development within his scope of duties. Besides maintaining Hong Kong's economic growth, he should also manage a well-balanced distribution of economic wealth. The term well-balanced distribution means that certain social problems should be alleviated. One of the major tasks is to improve the wealth gap. However, the Financial Secretary has not only failed to improve the wealth gap in the past few years, the situation has even deteriorated. Let us take a look at the Gini Coefficients. Since Hong Kong ranks number one in Asia, we can see the gravity of the wealth gap problem in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the question is why the Financial Secretary cannot resolve the problem? Is it a matter of his ability? I don't think so, because according to the Financial Secretary's ability, he could have easily dealt with all of these issues. However, why the wealth gap problem still exists from the time he held post in the previous-term Government to now? In my opinion, it can be attributed his stance. It is because the wealth gap problem raises the question of how well we distribute the fruits of economic development. Certainly, from the Financial Secretary's perspective, the problem should be dealt with through the tax regime.


However, we can see that over the years, he should have asked those who can afford to pay more tax to take up more responsibilities, but unfortunately, he didn't do that. For example, we consider that those with higher income should assume more responsibilities in paying the profit tax, salaries tax or tax under personal assessment. Unfortunately, we can see that the profit tax rate has not been raised or changed for many years; Hong Kong still maintains a low-tax regime. Of course, the Government may argue that a low-tax regime is the pillar of Hong Kong's economic prosperity. But the question is, will some minute changes undermine Hong Kong's important role and its responsibility for maintaining the economic growth? I don't think so. Many countries have increased their profit tax rates from time to time and they can still achieve economic growth. The situation will be greatly improved if we raise the current profit tax rate by 0.5%. Unfortunately, the Government refuses to do so. We have also asked the Government to divide profits tax into different tiers, that is, to levy tax on different bands, so that those who make less profit will pay less tax while those who make more profit will pay more tax. Is it viable? Over the years, the Financial Secretary just did nothing, and he only argued that the answer to all the problems was a simple tax regime. Nobody opposes a simple tax regime. The problem lies in the resultant wealth gap problem. Your inaction to resolve it is already a problem. Moreover, it is not very complicated if the profits tax regime is converted to a progressive one, why the Government is so reluctant to do it? It is a very simple task, but it is reluctant to do it. Salaries tax is also a progressive regime, and it maintains this simple regime all along; why should the Government not do the same with profits tax? I cannot really think of the reason. The only reason is to protect some financial conglomerates and people having vested interests, this is the only reason I can think of. As a result, the rich become richer and the poor become poorer is the situation of today's Hong Kong, and the problem is very serious. I consider that the Government and the Financial Secretary are duty-bound to resolve the problem. Besides, we can see that grass-roots people are facing more and more problems, such as housing problem. Certainly, the housing issue should be under the purview of the Transport and Housing Bureau, but the question is that the Financial Secretary has the final say on land supply. Nevertheless, are we using the land resources properly? The Government has been tackling the land


9973

issue with the high land price policy, and yet the ultimate result of the high land price policy is that the interests of property developers are being protected so that they can make huge profits at the expense of grass-roots people. They cannot afford to buy their homes, nor can they afford to rent a flat. What has the Financial Secretary done to address these problems? Nothing. The Government only introduces the so-called "harsh measures". But what have these "harsh measures" achieved? Home prices are stilling skyrocketing continuously, and it is still very difficult for common people to buy or rent a better flat. It has been a problem over the years to our great disappointment. Besides the land problem, another simple problem concerns the "handing out of money" which has been made a mess. Just think about it, the public should be happy to see the handing out of money, look at how Macao does, how can the handing out of money arouse public outrage? How can that be possible? Nevertheless, the Government hands out money in a different way which has infuriated the people. Why? It is because the Government is doing some redundant administrative work, therefore the public keep on blaming it for its incompetence in the handing out of money. People keep on blaming the Government. Furthermore, in order to "hand out the money", it has to spend money to hand out the money. One or two hundred million has to be used as the administrative cost. Of course, it is not a huge sum of money, but it is also not a small sum of money. If the money can be spent on improving social welfare, more people will benefit. But the Government refused to do that, and the Financial Secretary has made a mess of the handing out of money. It is really baffling how the handing out of $4,000 ended up like that. Furthermore, the administrative measures are being changed continuously. At the very beginning, applicants were required to provide proof of address, afterwards the requirement was scrapped; stamps were originally required if applications were being sent by post, then it was also scrapped. The unpredictable changes have led to administrative chaos. Why? Why the whole thing was messed up? I consider the Secretary should not evade his responsibility. He should bear the responsibility. We have seen that the Secretary has not addressed the problem over the years and he even allowed the deterioration of the problem. For that reason, I consider the estimated expenditure of the emoluments should be cut, instead of being allocated.


Apart from this amendment, I also wish to speak on Amendment No. 35 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, which seeks to reduce head 141 approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for emoluments for the position of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare in 2019-2020. Chairman, why I support the proposed reduction? Everyone knows that since the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, it has been claimed that the care of elderly people was the Government's first priority. The first term of TUNG Chee-hwa's Government even proposed policies with objectives in relation to "giving the elderly a sense of belonging, a feeling of health and worthiness and a sense of security". But unfortunately, up till today, how the elderly people are treated by the SAR Government? Besides no adequate residential care homes are provided, now elderly people under the age of 65 are forced to return to the job market as they are prohibited from collecting the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance or the so-called retirement subsidy. This is why people consider this term of Government really heartless. Let us think about it, how long can one live? The elderly people have been working hard for decades, now their only wish is to retire from work a few years earlier and live a life that they like. Is it an extravagant demand? With just a few decades of life to live, is it wrong for them to work a few years less and enjoy their remaining years? Is it inappropriate? Why should the Government force them to work? I really do not understand why it used to allow this, but not now. Why the Government has to do that? Is it because these elderly people have offended the Government, therefore the Government treats them like that? In this connection, I really disagree with the way the Secretary for Labour and Welfare acts. First, he is unable to increase the number of residential care homes in a proactive manner in order to address the current ageing population problem. On the other hand, as far as the issue of retirement and social welfare is concerned, he is unable to provide supportive measures to elderly people, which have forced the breaking up of the families of these elderly people, and the return of these elderly people under the age of 65 to the job market. As a result, elderly people are unable to adapt themselves to their physical conditions at an earlier time by retiring a few years earlier and doing something they wish to do. Insofar as this point is concerned, I really consider that the Secretary for Labour and Welfare should think it over and consider the issue from the perspective of society. Why elderly people should not be allowed to retire a few years earlier at their twilight years in view of their hard work in the past and their contributions to Hong Kong's economic growth? In the meantime, why they are


9975

unable to find a more cosy home to live in after their retirements, such as getting a place in residential care homes? I hope the Secretary will carefully consider all these issues. Furthermore, I also wish to speak on another amendment, that is, Amendment No. 1 moved by Mr WU Chi-wai, which seeks to reduce head 21 in respect of subhead 000 to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for emoluments for the position of the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive has assumed the office for more than two years. Just now Dr Junius HO kept on saying that she has accomplished a lot of tasks over the past two years, therefore her emoluments should be increased and he questioned why her emoluments should be reduced. He also questioned if we have made a mistake. Chairman, if we look at the matter from the perspective of a labour organization, after a person has done labour work, he should not only be praised, he should be paid with more rewards. It is because he has increased the productivity for the boss. It is therefore something necessary and I agree with that argument. Nevertheless, in the case of the Chief Executive, the situation is rather different. She should have served our society and ensure everyone lives a happy life. Unfortunately, the outcome is quite opposite to that. Over the past two years, she has made everyone live in misery. Everyday people have to face a new problem. And these problems, like layers of pressure, have left everyone with no room for breath. Moreover, the saddest thing is that even the most important core values which have been emphasized in the Sino-British Joint Declaration before the reunification that Hong Kong would enjoy, including "One Country, Two Systems", "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong", "a high degree of autonomy", have not only been undermined, they have also been eroded and torn apart, and that is the most disheartening to see. Let us envisage that even if we talk about "a high degree of autonomy", but what we can see today that as far as policies are concerned, many of them are not under the control of the SAR Government. Instead, it is the Central Government which gives the instruction to the SAR Government and the SAR Government is more than happy to serve the Central Government and to obey the instructions, and the SAR Government keeps on forcing the legislature to do something we should not do, including the implementation of the "co-location" scheme, or the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance that we are facing today. This is what we see.


We hope she can listen to the views of the people, but she has turned a deaf ear to them and is trying to force her way through. Why? It is because a group of people in the legislature echo and obey her. These people will help her and are more than happy to become "hand-raising machines" and rubber stamps if she makes the order. They will pass whatever she want them to pass. What good does it do to Hong Kong except constant social polarization? Moreover, we can see the social polarization after the last term of Government, this term of Government keeps on tearing the community apart―despite the fact that she said she wanted to change the situation when she assumed office. However, to everyone's surprise, she has not changed the situation, she has made it worse. The more serious thing is that she does not honour her words. As soon as she assumed office, she said that if the majority of people did not consider her fit for the job, she would step down without hesitation. If we take a look at the recent opinion poll, more than 50% of respondents do not support her. If she really attaches importance to public opinions and honours her own pledge, she should step down immediately. She should not stay on and have the community live in a state of constant political rows. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak in support of Amendment No. 41 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to reduce "Head 151―Government Secretariat: Security Bureau" by about $174,000,000, approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the annual personal emoluments for more than 200 posts in the Security Bureau for 2019-2020. Chairman, I have the impression that this is not the first time a similar amendment has been proposed in this Council. In fact, Mr CHAN did propose one two years ago. Of course, two years ago, it was a foregone conclusion that the amendment would be negatived under the pressure of pro-establishment Members. Like many other similar amendments, it fell through because the pro-establishment Members let the Administration off the hook. Having said that, I wish to raise the point that while no Member of the Legislative Council proposed any similar amendment last year, I am sure that this one proposed again today will not be passed either. However, leaving aside the fact that this amendment proposed today to deduct the emoluments of the Security Bureau officials will fall through, I think Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has, after all, expressed a genuine wish of many Hong Kong people, namely to amend the Bill. I would also like to point out that the significance of this proposed amendment is more far-reaching than the one two years ago.


9977

Do Members remember what was special about two years ago today? Mr LEUNG Chun-ying was under pressure to step down. At the time, the amendment obviously took aim at the former Secretary for Security ("S for S") in LEUNG's Government for condoning the police's wanton abuse of power. The reason why no similar amendment was proposed last year, as I personally reckon, was that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen or other Members hoped to give the new Secretary a chance when the new Government was formed, so as to see whether the reshuffled Security Bureau will do anything impressive. But unfortunately, less than two years on, we have only found the new S for S's style to be more extreme, more devious, more imperious and more "red". Under the leadership of Secretary John LEE, the Security Bureau has had a deplorable track record over the past year or more, ranging from the refusal of Victor MALLET's entry to the proposed amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO"). The performance of the Security Bureau cannot be described as being up to standard. We in the Civic Party support Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendment with a view to sending the warning signal to the Security Bureau officials, in particular the Secretary, that Hong Kong people are dissatisfied with their performance. Chairman, I wish to highlight here that although Mr CHAN's amendment covers the officials throughout the Security Bureau, we in the Civic Party are in fact particularly and mainly targeting principal officials, especially Secretary John LEE. Chairman, I have heard the suggestion that basically Secretary LEE has not brought any positive feelings or impressions to Hong Kong people in the past year or more, but rather repeatedly put people in mind of the slanderous officials in ancient times who were servile to the emperor for ulterior purposes and always seemed to be contemplating how to help a dictator consolidate power. He has made people feel so bad about him. I only hope that those by my side who made such remarks have made a misjudgment. After all, the Secretary is not living in ancient times, but in a modern society. Although the supreme power still lies in Beijing's hands, officials of the SAR Government must still be accountable to Hong Kong people, who are their real bosses. Chairman, as representatives of the bosses of government officials, and on behalf of Hong Kong people, Members seek to deduct his emoluments and conduct an appraisal on him. In fact, this move serves to tell him that his performance is poor. Pro-establishment colleagues often criticize us in the democratic camp for politicizing certain matters. However, the biggest problem with Secretary LEE is that he has politicized this supposedly highly professional position of S for S,


and instead overlooked many things that he should have dealt with. This is, in our view, the first symptom of his poor performance. We see that all the things Secretary LEE has done since he assumed office are political tasks. He has put his neck on the line to fulfil the intentions of the Central Authorities, at the same time ignoring the damage to "one country, two systems", the impact on the rule of law and the opposition from public opinion. It is not a bad idea to enumerate the tasks performed by Secretary LEE in the past year that are most deeply engraved in the minds of Hong Kong people. The amendment of FOO most certainly tops the list, and we will talk about it later. Also thrown in for good measure are the banning of the Hong Kong National Party, the refusal of Victor MALLET's entry and the obsequiousness he showed while meeting with HAN Zheng during a visit to Beijing. How many livelihood issues that really concern the people of Hong Kong has he dealt with? For example, has he ever faced up to and dealt with the issue of off-duty police crime? Has he ever squarely addressed the problems with one-way permits and really put his heart and soul into doing something about them? What is it about the animal cruelty problem? If not for the fact that Carrie LAM's Government has proposed in the Policy Address this year to tackle some of the situations, we would not have seen S for S do anything positive. Again, for example, on the issue of combating parallel trading activities in the North District, we have not seen any active response or action from the Security Bureau. Chairman, what have just been mentioned are just a few things that have triggered widespread controversy in the community. There are other issues that require special attention, including such issues as frontline enforcement officers in need of care within the Security Bureau, or unequal pay for equal work in the disciplined services, namely the preferential treatment of a certain disciplinary force over another. Has the Security Bureau really faced up to these problems in the past year? It has not. On the contrary, it gives the feeling that the Security Bureau under the helm of Secretary LEE forgets its basic responsibilities and shies away from its normal duties in order to carry out political tasks, which is ultimately the big problem. In order to carry out political tasks, it resorts to fair means or foul, ignores the basic protection afforded to Hong Kong people by the Basic Law, confuses legal bases and deliberately misleads the public. This is ultimately the worrying problem. In particular, it seems to us that the various tasks performed by this Secretary are aimed at achieving some political objectives. This is ultimately what we especially need to zero in on.


9979

I would like to take, in particular, the Hong Kong National Party as an example. Chairman, even though "Hong Kong independence" is a political act that the Central Authorities do not allow, the freedoms of expression and association are nonetheless political rights protected by the Basic Law. Solely because of the remarks it made, administrative means have been used to ban an organization that basically has not caused any specific damage to Hong Kong society. In the meantime, a highly acclaimed foreign journalist who had worked in Hong Kong for many years was unreasonably denied renewal of visa just because he hosted a highly controversial forum. This act simply disregarded the nature of Hong Kong as an international city, trampled on the political rights that the people of Hong Kong originally enjoyed, totally ignored the rule of law, and seriously damaged "one country, two systems". Chairman, I wish to highlight that S for S has to strike a balance between the need to safeguard the overall security of Hong Kong and the greater responsibility to protect the rights and interests of Hong Kong people, because this is a prerequisite for safeguarding the security of Hong Kong. It is unbecoming of a competent S for S, or even any principal official, to wantonly trample on the political and other civil rights of Hong Kong people only in the name of safeguarding the security of Hong Kong. Of course, S for S is the first to bear the brunt of our criticism because this is what his duties are all about. Therefore, Chairman, if S for S continues to maintain the current working attitude, he simply cannot effectively defend Hong Kong's unique status under "one country, two systems". Besides, the way to defend Hong Kong's unique status is not to merely mute something that sounds unpleasant. That is not the real essence of "one country, two systems" at all. Chairman, the third symptom of poor performance is that John LEE completely lacks political acumen despite having to carry out political tasks. Needless to say, what I wish to point out now is exactly the issue of amendment of FOO. Chairman, to be honest, ever since the outset, I have found it absolutely incomprehensible why S for S suddenly proposed to amend FOO at this time, without any prelude whatsoever. Of course, the Secretary has his two main reasons, the first being the need to solve the Taiwan homicide case, which he is rather anxious about. It seems that he also hopes to put all the people of Hong Kong in the same mood, so he constantly tries to use tears to convince them of the urgency of the amendment. However, when other alternatives were proposed in the community, Secretary John LEE seemed to turn a deaf ear to them and dismiss them out of hand, believing that only his method is feasible.


The second reason is his notion of plugging loopholes with a view to solving the issue of surrendering fugitive offenders, once and for all. Chairman, I wish to highlight that, as I have just said, the community has put forward alternatives that are feasible, practical and legally proven, but the Secretary has ignored them and suddenly seems to be in no hurry to deal with the Taiwan case. As Members recall, when the person concerned was awaiting sentencing in court two weeks ago, we anticipated that he would be set free in a short period of time, but how did Secretary LEE respond then? He said that it does not matter, because we will continue to plug the loophole. That is to say, apparently the very urgent reason that he previously suggested has suddenly ceased to exist. So, is the current matter really urgent for him or not? If it is urgent, he should consider all the feasible alternatives. If not, he will have no reason to push for the Bill to get passed by the Legislative Council in the Third Reading before July. To be honest, both logical arguments contradict each other. Secretary John LEE is completely unable to justify himself. If only he had been willing to accept either of the logical arguments, the Legislative Council would not have been tightly involved in such a huge contradiction at all. Chairman, regarding another theory, that is, the notion of plugging loopholes, we would like to point out, assuming there is a real loophole, that if, in order to plug this loophole, another larger loophole has to be created in which Hong Kong offenders are surrendered to a region with judicial standards lower than ours and no protection for human rights, is the loophole actually plugged or enlarged? Chairman, I wish to highlight that, as a politically accountable official, he needs some political wisdom, whether he holds the banner of plugging loopholes or seeking justice, does he not? Could it be that Secretary LEE neither reads newspapers nor watches news reports now? Could it be that he lives in a parallel universe, having no idea about what sort of international situation and position Hong Kong is currently in? Chairman, I wish to point out that the attempt to amend FOO at this juncture has created a big problem. Let me put aside for a moment the protest of 130 000 people against the amendment at the end of April. Actually, it seems that in the past two years, Beijing has been satisfied to a certain extent with the situation of Hong Kong under Carrie LAM's administration. Certainly, many members of the public may not agree with Beijing's observation, but at the very least, there are sufficient or partial justifications for Beijing to think that Hong Kong under Carrie LAM's administration is more harmonious than it was under LEUNG Chun-ying's in the past.


9981

Well, did Secretary John LEE suddenly feel very dissatisfied that he had nothing to do and his boss was at a loose end enjoying an exceedingly high popularity rating, so he wanted to stir up something by proposing to amend FOO, with a view to challenging his boss's political wisdom? Chairman, I would like to particularly bring up a point. While the Central Government currently needs to deal with the Sino-United States trade war, does Hong Kong think that Beijing has too much free time, so it wants to set a fire in its backyard so that Beijing has one more challenge to deal with? Are they not afraid at all that Beijing, the big boss in the eyes of politically accountable officials, will blame them for causing trouble and chaos? Do they think they can get a pay rise as a result? Chairman, since the people of Hong Kong are currently conducting an appraisal on him, I would like to ask: does this politically accountable official have any political wisdom to judge whether what he has done is correct? Chairman, back to topic, as the real bosses of this principal official, the people of Hong Kong are obviously dissatisfied with the way the extradition issue is being handled. Such dissatisfaction is manifested not only by this side of the Council. In fact, it is obvious that other colleagues are also filled with resentfulness and dissatisfaction, though they have not voiced it out. I wish to highlight that a former Secretary preceding Secretary John LEE by several terms, namely Mrs Regina IP, who resigned as S for S in 2003, was dealing with the highly controversial Article 23 legislation, but did Secretary John LEE not see the situation she encountered because he was not living in Hong Kong at that time? Has he not learned from history what a politically accountable official should do? While even Mrs Regina IP, a leading civil servant at that time who was very intelligent, learned and experienced, encountered so much resistance after becoming a principal official, does Secretary John LEE see himself to be more intelligent than Mrs Regina IP and able to tackle this huge political dispute now? Obviously, he is out of his depth. In addition to being completely unaware of his own failings, unable to take stock of the situation, and unversed in legal matters, he brings trouble and chaos to the Special Administrative Region and the Central Authorities. Under this premise, Chairman, I would say that, by not firing him, we have already let him save a lot of face. Now that we just propose to deduct his emoluments, I think we are rather benevolent bosses in every sense. Therefore, I fully believe that it is perfectly appropriate for Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to propose to deduct the


emoluments of John LEE and the relevant the Security Bureau officials this time. Moreover, I hold that other Members in the Council should consider supporting Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's current amendment. I so submit. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, many Members have spoken on the issues concerning the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") today. I will put it aside and refrain from speaking further on it for the time being. Noticing that Under Secretary for Transport and Housing Raymond SO is present, I would like to share with him my views on the Transport and Housing Bureau. In this amendment, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting proposes to deduct the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments of the Secretary for Transport and Housing ("STH"). Members may ask why the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments of the Secretary should be deducted, given that the Transport and Housing Bureau, while being so large in size and hard-pressed at work, has been making great efforts, if not achievements. First of all, I wish to point out that many bombs the Transport and Housing Bureau had in hand have exploded one after another over the past few years. All the problems, ranging from the cost overruns of the high-speed rail link to the steel reinforcement bars in the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL"), reflect the objective fact that he may need to read news reports to know that problems have been brought to light, as STH would say whenever he came forward to explain to the public. Just think about it, as STH in charge of such matters, he has gone so far as to think that remedy is necessary only after a bombshell has been dropped. With this attitude or practice, can he still be considered competent? This is my first doubt. In fact, the first bombshell was the incident of cost overruns of the high-speed rail link. After that, although we had neither the authority of an independent commission of inquiry nor the power under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, we still set up a select committee to look into the monitoring issues arising from cost overruns and delays of the high-speed rail project. I recall that the most explicit point in our report at that time was that the team dispatched for monitoring work, i.e. the Government Engineers dispatched by the Railway Development Office under the Highways Department, had not been effective at all in monitoring the process, nor able to alert the Secretary to the changing situation. That was why the Transport and Housing Bureau subsequently indicated the need to make numerous adjustments to strengthen the corresponding monitoring strategy in accordance with the report, so that the


9983

Government could foresee problems and engage in early intervention. Unfortunately, while these words were still ringing in the ears following the release of the report, a new issue arose in the middle of last year. That is, some steel reinforcement bars in SCL were cut short, and some were not adequately screwed into the couplers to maintain strength. A lot of remedial work is already underway, and perhaps in the end … I have no idea what methods the elite team under the Transport and Housing Bureau can employ to safeguard the safety of SCL stations, but these courses of action clearly reveal that when collaborating with the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") on any engineering works, both the Transport and Housing Bureau as a whole and the Government are fundamentally incapable of monitoring MTRCL's supervisory work under the regulatory agreement, and thus unable to bring the so-called "check-the-checkers" approach into play. So, the first thing that has given me a sense of STH's incompetence is his failure to monitor the progress of such major rail works on behalf of the public, as well as the problems of cost overruns and delays. In my personal view, no matter how, he should officially take the blame and bear the corresponding political responsibilities, instead of whitewashing the incident till it is over as he is doing now. The second incident I wish to point out involves the issue of traffic redistribution among the three road harbour crossings. When the Transport and Housing Bureau submitted the proposal for traffic redistribution to this Council and sought the views of various political parties for the first time, Members expressed considerable dissatisfaction with the Transport and Housing Bureau's forceful promotion of the proposal followed by the exhibition of an adamant leave-it-or-take-it attitude. I understand that the SAR Government may have reached certain agreements with the operator of the Western Harbour Crossing, but does it justify shedding all political inhibitions to press ahead with this matter? Notably, in the case of traffic redistribution among the three road harbour crossings, after Members from both the pro-establishment and pro-democracy camps had expressed negative views during their discussion on the issue in this Council, the Government went with public opinion and addressed Members' overall doubts about the traffic redistribution arrangements by withdrawing the proposal put forward the first time. However, after withdrawing the proposal, as I saw it, the Secretary had not come to grips with the conditions under which this Council would change its mind so that the Transport and Housing Bureau might submit the proposal to this Council for a second time. Instead, the Transport and Housing Bureau proposed minor changes, saying that it would channel the revenue back into road improvement


measures or traffic congestion solutions. Nevertheless, had this been able to solve the problem, it would not have resulted in STH having to withdraw the proposal put forward to this Council the second time. Just think about it, as an accountability official, the Secretary could not even get his head around whether the traffic redistribution proposal would be accepted by the Council, or whether the proposal should have been submitted to this Council at all. He only followed the arrangements set forth in the Policy Address delivered by Chief Executive Carrie LAM, who put forward the proposal. In this case, actually the Secretary has not taken on the responsibility of an accountability official to take stock of the situation. If the Secretary is only a puppet of Carrie LAM's in the Transport and Housing Bureau, how can he deserve the emoluments paid by taxpayers? In fact, the Secretary's remuneration is definitely handsome, amounting to more than $4 million annually. Just think about it, against this backdrop, is the Secretary a suitable candidate to assume the Transport and Housing Bureau's political responsibilities? There are two different areas of work in the Transport and Housing Bureau, and this time I would like to focus on transport first. I have just pointed out two major incidents which show that the Secretary has not taken on political responsibilities in the process of political accountability. The next point I wish to add is about the attitude towards transport policy. As STH, he oversees Hong Kong's transport policy, withstanding the extraordinary pressure on transport as evident in the continuous extension of the railway network, ever increasing passenger capacities, peak-capacity operation and train departures almost every two minutes during peak hours. In theory, in addition to the development of a railway network, parallel mass transit systems should be vigorously promoted. The issue of bus services comes with the territory in Hong Kong's parallel mass transit systems. If bus services can be incorporated into the overall blueprint to effectively alleviate the pressure on corresponding railway services, will the entire transport network be more balanced as a result? Unfortunately, however, every time the Government discusses this issue, we hear it say that the policy of "designating railway as the backbone" or "according priority to railways" remains unchanged in Hong Kong. Due to the unchanged policy of "according priority to railways", the two bus companies encountered considerable constraints when they proposed routes parallel to the railway network. Such constraints might in part originate from District


9985

Councils, but in a larger proportion stemmed from the Administration's lack of full support in terms of policy, or high-handed alteration of some originally very direct route alignments to make them rather tortuous. As we all know, the advantage of railways is that they are direct, quick and predictable. But when transport operators and bus companies are of the view that some routes can be operated, provided that they are direct and rapid rather than tortuous, why does the Transport Department ("TD") disagree? Why does TD consider itself more capable and experienced than the two operating bus companies in terms of operation? The problem I wish to directly point out is that if the two bus companies are interested in operating a direct route running from Kowloon East to Sai Wan Ho and Chai Wan, it can actually offer alleviation in a very direct manner during peak hours, but I have no idea why TD considers such an approach to be not in the public interest. This thought strikes me as very weird. Apart from anything else, is this a problem that the Secretary should squarely face? Thirdly, I hold that the Secretary has to face up to the traffic problems in Hong Kong as well. The core issue involves the continuous growth of private cars in Hong Kong, which readily outpaces the increase in new roads, making it eventually impossible to alleviate the problems as intended. Against this background, the method chosen by the authorities is very strange. Instead of trying to address the issue of private car usage head on, the Secretary has used other methods, such as not providing sufficient parking spaces in an attempt to increase the cost of car ownership so to force car owners to develop the idea of giving up their cars. However, if the Secretary has the same concept, why does he not tackle the matter at source? Why does he not limit the growth of private cars at source, but instead limit the growth of parking spaces downstream? This is obviously a situation that the policy fails to rationalize. Fourthly, I wish to point out that the public transport network in Hong Kong is so well developed that almost 80% of the population commute by various means of public transport. Against this background, how will the Government step up its efforts to enhance the efficiency of commuting by public transport―I have to emphasize that it is a matter of efficiency―and introduce more incentives for private car owners to use public transport instead of driving for convenience? However, along this pathway, it does not appear to me that the SAR Government or the Transport and Housing Bureau will take a broad consideration of how to give further priority to means of public transport in the use of road space. We certainly understand that giving further priority to means of public transport in the


use of road space will inevitably affect the efficiency of road usage by private cars, but as a public policy maker, the Secretary has a responsibility to consider some practices that are in the best public interest, so as to enable effective use of public transport within the community; otherwise, the Secretary is remiss in fulfilling his due responsibility. From the aforementioned points, I conclude that STH has not properly fulfilled his due responsibilities in respect of transport, and neither has he managed to get to grips with the general trend, which is most basic. In particular, he has performed poorly in monitoring the construction process of mega, super and large-scale railways. Therefore, I hold that his emoluments should be deducted. (The buzzer sounded) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU, please stop speaking. MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): In this session, I will speak on Amendment No. 25 in relation to "Head 112―Legislative Council Commission". My amendment seeks to reduce an amount which is equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments for the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council in 2019-2020. Before I explain the reason for proposing an amendment in relation to security matters, I would like to take this opportunity to say something to the security staff and the Secretariat of the Legislative Council. I know that last year when this Council debated on the Appropriation Bill, we seldom aired our critical views on the estimated expenditure for or the work of the Legislative Council Commission. And it is also rare to have amendments in respect of this head. To those members of the public who are listening to the debate of this Council, and to Honourable colleagues and the Secretariat staff working in this Complex, I have to emphasize one point and that is, when I put forward this amendment, I do not mean to take issue with certain staff or certain colleagues, but think that this debate provides a good opportunity for us to scrutinize in detail how the estimated annual expenditure is used by the Hong Kong legislature under the guidance of the Legislative Council Commission. I hope that Honourable colleagues in this Complex, including Mr LEUNG, Chairman of the Legislative Council Commission, can listen to and consider my views in a calm and rational manner.


9987

I would like to read out the programmes and the estimates in the Controlling Officer's Report relating to the Legislative Council Commission. listening to these figures may be a bit boring, and the information concerned can be found on the website. Members of the public who are watching the live broadcast of this debate may not notice that the work of this Council can be viewed from a value-for-money perspective. First of all, under Programme (2) Council Business Services, the financial provision is estimated to be $472.9 million, which is quite a large sum of money. The work of the four Council Business Divisions involves providing general support services and procedural advice for meetings of the Council, and providing general, procedural and research support for committees, including coordination of support services for meetings. As regards the many arguments over the Council Business Divisions recently due to the Bills Committee, I know many colleagues have different views. When the Council has to set up a Bills Committee pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, I think to the respective meetings convened by Members of different political parties, the Council Business Divisions should have provided basic service support. Concerning the need to use amplifiers by Members when speaking inside the meeting room, I find it rather regrettable and also unnecessary to get to this stage. Under a politically imbalanced situation, I find it rather disappointing that the staff only assist the ruling coalition but not the democratic camp Members in holding meetings. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen highlighted the broken bonds of trust between Members and the Secretariat. However, I have to emphasize that the Controlling Officer, namely Mr Kenneth CHEN, Secretary General of the Legislative Council, has to bear the greatest responsibility. In regard to the colleagues of the Council Business Divisions, I know they are in a very difficult position. If they are forced not to provide general, procedural and research support for committees, I hope that Members can understand their situation. Nevertheless, I also have to stress that in principle, the Council Business Divisions should provide due support. In the following, I am going to mention the duty of the Administration Division, including the Estate and Security Office, which is to execute the building management and security policies determined by the Legislative Council Commission in the management of the facilities. Honourable Members, there are 107 people in the current establishment of security staff in the Legislative


Council. According to the Controlling Officer's Reply No. LC009, the estimate for the remuneration expenses for security staff in 2019-2020 is as much as over $45 million. We may not pay attention to these figures. But there are a total of 107 security staff working in this Complex. Someday if the Chief Security Officer calls all the security staff to the Chamber, the ratio of security officers to Members will be 2:1 (two security officers: one Member), and this ratio is believed to be one of the highest among the parliaments of the globe. I wish to ask: Is it really necessary? Let us look at this picture in front of me, which is printed by the Honourable colleagues of the Civic Party. Mrs Carrie LAM attended that Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session, and in that Session alone, we could see the large number of security staff in front of the President's podium. I now quote the matters requiring special attention in 2019-2020 from the Controlling Officer's Report. It says that the various Divisions will continue to implement career development strategies and enhance staff training for maintaining an effective and professional team to support the work of the Council on a sustainable basis. The first question we will ask is: How to maintain an effective and professional team? In regard to the Estate and Security Office, its composition is basically lopsided, not to mention its bloated establishment. As verified by Ming Pao, most of the senior staff in the Estate and Security Office are retired police officers or have disciplined services background. The Chief Security Officer related to my amendment is Mr Sonny CHOW, and I actually do not know him personally. I must emphasize that my proposition of this amendment does not mean to pick on the disciplined services or individual colleagues. The employment of retired police officers is basically to meet the reasonable expectations of the public that these officers, based on their previous police services background and management experience, can turn the Office into an effective and professional team instead of a retired police officers' club. Besides, I think we should not militarize the security team by employing too many security staff to control the order of the Legislative Council. Many media have mistaken that we must be at odds with the security staff as we participate in parliamentary confrontation, but it actually is not true. When I go to the restaurant of the Legislative Council, I always bump into security staff rather than Legislative Council Members, and we will greet each


9989

other. I am also grateful to the security officer for getting the cutlery for me on that day. I would like to make it clear at the outset that I do not want my communication with them will lead to another incident similar to Mr Jeremy TAM's convening a press conference with a former security officer who resigned earlier. In my view, the checking concerned is really unnecessary. Since it is already said that the incident will be thoroughly looked into by the Legislative Council Commission, we should let it conduct an in-depth investigation. I quite understand that many frontline security staff may find themselves in a quandary in work. Some security staff were previously engaged in property management instead of working in disciplined services, and thus may not have much crowd management experience. When dealing with the issues concerned, they may have a rather difficult time. Frankly speaking, many security guidelines were endorsed by the Legislative Council Commission behind closed doors, and members of the Legislative Council Commission at first might not have considered that certain undesirable circumstances have to be handled. However, we are highly concerned that the discussion process is not open. If a Member wants to air his views openly to deal with the matter, he can only do so through the Controlling Officer's Report or through this time of debate. Mr Andrew LEUNG, Chairman of the Legislative Council Commission can also listen to our views and instruct the Chief Security Officer of the Administration Division to have a review on the security arrangement of the Complex to see whether it has to be of the present scale. I borrow this picture from Members of the Civic Party to illustrate an example. We see that there were security staff stationed at different positions. Some people will query whether the security arrangement for meetings of Legislative Council Members has to be like this. On the contrary, there were no security staff near the passageways of the pro-establishment camp and the public officers. All security staff were gathered near the democratic camp or the President's podium to deal with the issues, and this arrangement can be interpreted in many ways. My point of view is that the current practice is not desirable. Will this be too much in favour of the pro-establishment camp? Can Members of the democratic camp not get their due protection and support? It is my hope that we can see whether the deployment of security staff is subject to any political criteria. In my view, there can never be any politically biased criteria, and the deployment for security actions should not be kept confidential. Since we are elected Members, we should be treated equally and there should not be any bias in the arrangement.


I am also concerned about the training courses for security staff. According to the Controlling Officer's Reply No. LC009, in 2019-2020, training workshops/courses covering topics such as first aid, basic safety, occupational safety as well as fire-fighting and prevention will be arranged for security staff. The estimated training expenditure in 2019-2020 is $56,000. I have to say at the outset that I am in full support of these courses. The specific reason for my support is that spending $56,000 for first aid and safety courses is very important as frontline security staff should have this knowledge. However, I would ask Members not to blame our security staff for not bandaging to the right position. We should try to understand that they may make mistakes in haste and confusion. I hope that Mr CHAN Han-pan will not blame them for not bandaging to the right position. Fire safety is no less important. I hope that before any meeting, the doors of the meeting rooms in the Complex will not be locked with iron chains. They should not be locked with iron chains even though there is a lot of electronic equipment inside, and I find this undesirable in terms of fire safety. Besides, when I watched the footage from the television station, I found that while the security staff were carrying out a security order to escort Mr Abraham SHEK, a security officer wrapped his arm tightly around the neck of a Member's female assistant who was also performing her duty. I hope that they will not make such moves casually and will not arbitrarily hold the Members' personal assistants accountable. It is also disagreeable to see the Chief Security Officer blocking the view of the journalists' cameras at times while performing his duty. I hope that the Secretariat and Mr LEUNG can accept my opinions. The security staff also need to have gender awareness when learning occupational safety. They should not exert too much control or make too many neck grabbing moves, as all these are undesirable. I would like to raise a suggestion to the Legislative Council Commission in respect of capital items. It is reported in the media that Chairman is going to get a new vehicle. In my view, instead of purchasing a hybrid vehicle, it is better to get an environmentally-friendly electric vehicle. Besides, the procurement process should be more environmentally-friendly, open and transparent. As a Member, although I am unable to participate in decision-making, and that is fine to me, the decision should not be solely left in the hands of Mr Kenneth CHEN who is at D6 of the Directorate pay scale. The procurement criteria should be open. Being an open Council, we should be able to reach this stage. I wish that we can pay more attention to this aspect.


9991

Finally, there is only a little time left, and I very much wish to mention the education issues which I did not have time to discuss in the previous debate session. On the education front, Mr HUI Chi-fung puts forward Amendment No. 44 which seeks to cut the annual estimated expenditure of the Education Bureau on developing the learning and teaching resources for Basic Law education, and I want to especially add one point. In the promotion of the Basic Law, competitions will sometimes be organized. For instance, the Education Bureau has organized the Hong Kong Cup Diplomatic Knowledge Contest together with the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and has held the Basic Law Quiz Competition through its Curriculum Development Institute. The nature of these two competitions is very similar and they are competitions organized in the name of learning the Basic Law. Nevertheless, we should be careful about whether they are really encouraging the study of the Basic Law or they are for political ends. Through this amendment, I wish to voice an opinion on these quiz competitions or education materials and that is, I hope that the information will not be too biased. But due to time constraint, I cannot elaborate further. I was supposed to spend more time in the explanation but there is only one minute left. As I am aware, when dealing with the work of the Legislative Council, it is not easy or can be rather difficult for many frontline officers. However, most fundamental of all, they should hold fast to their posts and understand the difficulties among different camps. This is also very significant. We have to perform our duties faithfully and refrain from become the pawns of any individual political party in promoting its political agenda. The work concerned is rather difficult. It is my hope that they can show dedication to their duties and always be vigilant to avoid recurrence of undesirable incidents in future. I so submit. MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): In this session, I am going to speak on CSA No.1 proposed by Mr WU Chi-wai, that is, to have head 21 be deducted by an amount equivalent to the expenditure of the annual emoluments for the position of Chief Executive in respect of subhead 000. I will point out why the policies introduced by the Chief Executive in the past year are related to my speech in support of the proposed deduction of the expenditure of the annual emoluments for the position of Chief Executive, showing how close they are interrelated.


Chairman, as shown in the results of the latest polls conducted by the University of Hong Kong, the popularity rating and net approval rate of the Chief Executive Carrie LAM have hit a new record low of 44.3 points since she took office, a drop of 4.7 points from that of two weeks ago, where the latest support rating is 32% and the disapproval rating is as high as 56%, representing a net approval rate of -24%. Among her top echelons in the Government, the popularity rating of Secretary for Justice Teresa CHENG is 29.5 points, representing a new low since she took office; and the net approval rate of the Secretary for Security John LEE is -5%, which is also a new record low since he took office. What on earth is wrong with our government? I believe such rating figures did not purely result from the fact that these three top officials have launched policies against public opinion. This must also have something to do with their political styles, styles of governance and the manners in which they handle matters. They are obviously quite arrogant in that they never put Hong Kong people's views first, nor will they accord high priority to safeguarding our interests. Next, I will talk about why I support the proposed deduction of, as much as $5 million, the annual emoluments for Carrie LAM. Over the past year, we witnessed the Chief Executive Carrie LAM's style of governance in which serving the political will of the Beijing Government was her top priority in order to please the Communist Party of China, whereas the interests of Hong Kong people were ignored. She has been endeavouring to accomplish every mission entrusted to her by the Central Authorities at all costs (including political costs) to please the leaders of the Central Authorities since she assumed office. Members may well recall that at the end of last year, President XI Jinping commended her and her Administration for having embodied the spirit of "not seeking ease and not evading hardships" in their efforts made over the past year. Since then, what we can see is as if Carrie LAM had gained absolute power and had been anointed to rule Hong Kong. With all powers concentrated in her hands and being bestowed with more authority, she exercises dictatorship to a greater extent in governing Hong Kong. In fact, it is her such style of governance that has caused the HKSAR Government to be caught in today's governance crisis. The first tumult, of course, is the "Lantau Tomorrow Vision" ("the Vision") put forth by Carrie LAM in the 2018 Policy Address even at the cost of "setting on fire" hundreds of billions of dollars in reserve, which is tantamount to throwing money down the drain. She plans to carry out the 1 700-hectare


9993

reclamation works for the construction of artificial islands. On the day when the policy address was delivered, she said that the Vision aimed to help people acquire their homes and even claimed that she would fail the next generation of Hong Kong if this plan was not implemented. In reality, however, the cold fact is that the policy rolled out under the Vision had triggered strong reverberations among members of the public and great controversy in society. Some polling organization conducted a survey among 700 youths aged between 10 and 29 in December 2018 and found that 80% of the youths surveyed were against the plan―Chairman, it is 80%―well, it only takes 66% of the respondents to form a supermajority (absolute majority) by the general standard adopted for social science surveys. We are now talking about the nearly 80% of our young people who oppose the Government's plan to find land for the construction of artificial islands by reclamation. And 82% of the respondents expressed concern over the heavy financial burden of over $500 billion incurred by the reclamation project that will fall upon the shoulders of our next generations. The Chief Executive probably had not heard these voices, otherwise the Financial Secretary would not have, right after the release of the policy address, stated expressly in his Budget speech that the Government had sufficient financial means to materialize the Vision of constructing artificial islands through reclamation. This case tells us that Carrie LAM has definitely ignored public opinion. She only insisted on doing what she had in mind, thus exposing the crisis of her governance. The second tumult is, of course, the Government's announcement early this year of tightening the eligible age for elderly Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"), which had triggered dissatisfaction from the public, in particular the elderly persons. Then at the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session of a Legislative Council meeting in January, Carrie LAM emphasized that the Government would not withdraw the decision of raising the threshold for elderly CSSA. Back then, she said in an arrogant manner that the relevant contents of the proposal of raising the threshold had actually been set out in the estimated expenditure under the Appropriation Bill 2018, and she even questioned the pro-establishment Members in return if they remembered having voted in favour of the proposal. Now, you see how she held them by the nose and kicked them in the ass simply by putting them in the spot, while forgoing the interests of Hong Kong people. That explains why she received harsh criticism from the public and some even queried if she had taken the lead to engage in elder abuse.


Subsequently, the Chief Executive Carrie LAM introduced a remedial scheme to provide Employment Support Supplement to able-bodied adult recipients aged between 60 and 64. In response to society's opposition voices, she said that the current proposal of raising the eligible age for elderly CSSA to 65 aimed to rationalize relevant efforts by the Government as a lot of people aged above 60 are still working nowadays. She even said in front of the camera: "I'm over 60 myself and still work more than 10 hours a day." What do we learn from these words of Carrie LAM? Well, we learn that she is both heartless and unkind who utterly shows no mercy to the elderly, weak and disabled. Chairman, a decent person of conscience will never compare his privileged position of working in an air-conditioned office earning an annual income of over a million dollars with the poor situation of the many grassroots people (such as those who live on scanty monthly allowance or make a living by scavenging or collecting cardboard every month) because they are incomparable indeed. The third case that has caused the legitimacy of Carrie LAM's governance to go bankrupt is, of course, the current legislative amendment exercise concerning the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 that has stirred up great controversy at this stage. Carrie LAM and Secretary for Security John LEE subtly made use of the murder case in Taiwan as "wrapping paper" to hide the true motive so as to get the dirty work done at top speed, that is, to finish amending the relevant Ordinance. Throughout this period of time, she kept saying that she was driven by her empathy with and compassion for the murder victim to proceed to introduce the current legislative amendments. But her such remarks only sent chills down our spine. On the other hand, John LEE played a "human flesh recorder", who keeps appealing to the public to believe in him and trust that the proposed amendments to the Ordinance would neither weaken Hong Kong's rule of law nor the protection for human rights, even though he was aware of the fact that members of the public have no confidence in China's judicial system at all. I think John LEE and Carrie LAM must be aware that the Mainland's judicial system is only meant for safeguarding the ruling power of the Central Government and so people utterly have no confidence that the Mainland's judicial and trial processes are open, fair and just. The repeated attempts by Carrie LAM and John LEE will serve to push Hong Kong people into the sharp talons of the Communist Party of China in the days to come. In light of this, the reason behind people's objection to the amendments proposed to the Ordinance by the


9995

Government becomes evident, that is, they distrust the Mainland Government and also the Communist Party of China's judicial system. The proposed amendment to the Ordinance will form a big net and once the people of Hong Kong are caught in the net, they can no longer enjoy the freedom from fear in future. In fact, we can learn from news reports the very naked truths about the failed rule of law on the Mainland, human rights activists being treated unfairly, and no guarantee that the interests of the defendants' families and even the defence lawyers themselves will be safeguarded. Did anyone among the various chief executives or top officials in the past ever dare to tell the people of Hong Kong to believe in the Mainland's judicial system and trust that the system has not been manipulated by the Communist Party or has no dark secrets, may I ask? Only the incumbent Chief Executive Carrie LAM dares to do so. In the face of the public processions involving 130 000 people as prompted by the amendment exercise of the extradition law, Carrie LAM and John LEE still have no regard for public opinion as they remarked in response to the public procession that the number of people taking part in public processions was not the focus. Hence, they simply ignored the opposition voices and kept insisting on pressing ahead the legislative amendment exercise in question. Although the Government has always maintained that the said exercise aimed to settle the case in which a Hong Kong person is suspected of having murdered someone in Taiwan, the Mainland Affairs Council of Taiwan ("MAC") has stressed time and again that the Taiwanese Government would not negotiate with the Hong Kong authorities on the premise of amending the Ordinance. Thus, should the threat that Hong Kong people may be surrendered to the Mainland still remain, the Taiwanese Government would not, even if the amendments to the Ordinance eventually gained passage, give consent to effecting the transfer of CHAN Tong-kai, the suspect of the murder case. MAC further submitted that in the face of queries from all quarters of society, the SAR Government still insisted on amending the Ordinance, while turning a deaf ear to other proposals that could serve both the purposes of safeguarding human rights and upholding justice at the same time. And so, people just could not help querying if, as rumour has it that, the Hong Kong Government did have a political axe to grind in its move of seeking to amend the Ordinance. Although Taiwan has seen through the whole thing, both our Secretary for Security and Chief Executive still keep insisting that the Ordinance be amended as scheduled and keep acting like a cassette recorder by repeating exactly the


same words. On the contrary, they criticized other individuals' and groups' remarks or worries about the Ordinance as nothing but crap. Last week, Chairman, the US Department of State ("USDS") and the Government of Canada successively declared their stances. In a straightforward manner, the USDS stated that the legislative amendment exercise would serve to damage the special international relationship between Hong Kong and the international community. The meaning is pretty clear, that is, the status as a separate customs territory granted to Hong Kong under the United States-Hong Kong Act ("the Act") will be affected in consequence. During last week's Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session, some Members mentioned the Annual Report released by the United States-China Economic and Security Review Commission ("USCC") in which it was stated that if the amendments to the Ordinance gained passage, USCC would advise the United States Government to review afresh the Act, which would ultimately affect not only Hong Kong's international status, but also the special treatment enjoyed by Hong Kong. Officially, the International Chamber of Commerce-Hong Kong, China has also offered a solemn reminder: The business environment in Hong Kong would be affected upon passage of the amendments proposed to the Ordinance. In response to the above, however, the Chief Executive said, "I hope Members will be mindful of the fact that it is not only a struggle by China, but also a Sino-United States wrestling match. Will Members please look closely at the facts and seek to safeguard the interests of Hong Kong." Actually, Carrie LAM made such remarks purely for the sake of the Communist China so as to save face for XI Jinping. Yesterday, former Chief Secretary for Administration Mrs Anson CHAN and Legislative Council Member Mr Dennis KWOK (Functional Constituency―Legal) travelled to Germany to meet with Claudia ROTH, Vice President of the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Germany, and parliamentary Members belonging to other parties. ROTH specially mentioned the legislative amendment exercise at the meeting and pointed out that the proposed amendments to the Ordinance would inevitably upset Hong Kong's current status as an international financial centre and would possibly provide grounds for Germany to cancel the existing surrender of fugitive offenders agreement ("SFOA") with Hong Kong. Those countries that had signed SFOAs with Hong Kong are gravely concerned, and Thomas Bagger, Head of Policy


9997

Planning, German Federal Foreign, also said at the meeting that not a single German or Hong Kong citizen should be allowed to be surrendered to Mainland China for trial. As a matter of fact, a lot of countries have no confidence in Mainland's judicial system at all. When pushing through the proposed legislative amendments in question, the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Security had never anticipated that the amendment exercise would have caused as many as 20 jurisdictions which signed SFOAs with Hong Kong many years ago to review or even consider cancelling the original agreements, just like what Germany is going to do now. Chairman, it is by no means desirable for Carrie LAM, a civil servant, to forgo the interests of the Hong Kong people over the past year, while acting arbitrarily and unscrupulously with arrogance in her governance. Supporting the proposed deduction of the annual emoluments for her, the Neo Democrats opines that she lacks the capabilities and credibility to obtain public confidence in her and make them believe she is competent to stay in her role as the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Thus, she ought to fulfil her promise made when she was running for Hong Kong's Chief Executive election and step down immediately. Meanwhile, I request that the SAR Government withdraws its current proposed amendments to the Ordinance. (The buzzer sounded) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, please stop speaking. Let me remind Members that according to the arrangements for the debate, this debate will come to a close at around 12:00 pm tomorrow. I will call upon public officers to speak at around 6:45 pm this evening, to be followed by the 16 Members having proposed the amendments who will speak again. Then the amendments will be put to vote one by one. Members who wish to speak, in particular those who have not yet spoken, please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Chairman, I also follow Mr Gary FAN in discussing "Head 21―Chief Executive's Office" and the relevant amendment put forth by Mr WU Chi-wai. But I will focus on how the Chief Executive Carrie LAM has deviated from the Basic Law when implementing it. We know that a


core defender of "one country, two systems" is the Chief Executive. She is on the one hand appointed by the Central Government. On the other hand, she shoulders the vital responsibilities of safeguarding the interests of Hong Kong people under the Basic Law and protecting Hong Kong people from the interference of the Central Government when the latter is not acting in accordance with the Basic Law. Indeed, since the current Chief Executive took helm, there have been many incidents showing Carrie LAM has deviated from the responsibilities conferred to her by the Basic Law. Therefore, I strongly support Mr WU Chi-wai's amendment. If we still remember, Chief Executive Carrie LAM made a serious mistake when taking forward the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link (Co-location) Bill ("the Bill"). What was it? The serious mistake was that she was oblivious to the restriction on the power of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") imposed by the Basic Law by allowing NPCSC to demand the SAR Government to implement the co-location arrangement simply with its own decision without citing any provision of the Basic Law. I believe this is one of the plausible reasons allegedly circulated at the time which prompted the former Secretary Rimsky YUEN to leave the Carrie LAM administration only one year after his appointment and let Teresa CHENG replace him to carry out the Bill which allows Beijing to abuse its power. Carrie LAM started pushing through the Bill immediately after taking office, allowing NPCSC to take it forward in disregard of Article 158, Article 20 or Article 18 of the Basic Law. From this, people understand how the Chief Executive will react when she faces unreasonable demands from Beijing, and when the Central Authorities try to operate while bypassing the Basic Law and the power delineation under "one country, two systems": she simply kowtows in submission. She did not just kowtow once in relation to the co-location arrangement. In the past year, she has made a series of kowtows: paying no heed to the series of interferences made by the Central Government and its offices in Hong Kong, and conversely exerting all sorts of unreasonable criticisms and constraints on the Hong Kong people. I am going to discuss these one by one. First, degrading the "one system" of Hong Kong. How did she do this? A concrete example is that in relation to the SAR Government's citing of the Societies Ordinance to prohibit the operation of the Hong Kong National Party, Carrie LAM yielded to the demand of the Central Government in Beijing and


9999

submitted a report on ceasing the party's operation. We have gone through the entire Basic Law from cover to cover and could not find the justification for submitting a report to the Beijing Government. Many colleagues hold different opinions with regard to prohibiting the operation of the Hong Kong National Party but this is purely an enforcement of the Societies Ordinance of Hong Kong, a decision made by the Chief Executive in Council, and has undergone an appeal process. However, many of our Members and people do not understand why Beijing, after the completion of the relevant procedures, can send an official letter to the Chief Executive of the SAR Government, demanding a report from Carrie LAM. What is their mandate? Does it mean that since they are the bosses, she has to submit a report? The same logic applies to the case of the Bill, given that NPCSC holds the supreme power, it can interpret and amend even the Constitution, not to mention the Basic Law. It is like the Basic Law is just a child begotten from the mother, and likewise for the Bills Committee on the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance in question: the Bills Committee is the child and the House Committee is the mother who can do whatever she pleases. This mother, that is the Central Government in Beijing, posed a demand for a report on a ground completely unstated in the Basic Law and the Constitution. How did the Chief Executive react to it? She did not even bother to let the public know the presence of this official letter before submitting the report and subsequently told the public her submission directly. All demands from Beijing, reasonable or otherwise, are fully compiled with by her. But, has she considered that her full compliance of their demands is in fact degrading the "one system" of Hong Kong? Under "one country, two systems", the divide between the "one system" in Hong Kong and the "one system" in the Mainland, and the power delineation between them are very clearly stated and ought to be abided by both. If the Chief Executive of Hong Kong accepts unreasonable demands posed by Beijing on behalf of Hong Kong, it is a degrading of the "one system" of Hong Kong. Regardless of who is the active doer and who is the passive one, once you degrade yourself, Beijing will not show you any deference and will encroach on our side further. This is the first example. The second example happened just today. I literally doubt if the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"), while being an office of the Central


Government in Hong Kong, has deleted Article 22 from the copy of Basic Law it keeps in its office. It is stipulated in the article that "[n]o 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." But an open secret is that LOCPG, as an office of the Central Government in Hong Kong, helps people from various pro-establishment groups and societies organize voter registration or election coordination, turning itself into a large-scale election machine. And I will skip for the time being discussing issues about LOCPG's real estate investment and property acquisition in Hong Kong, nor am I going to talk about their engagement in the publishing industry and their monopoly in distribution and publishing in Hong Kong, I just want to talk about the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance which is hotly debated among us. It is reported that the LOCPG Director WANG Zhimin indicated yesterday the need to learn from and follow up on XI Jinping's speech. We understand that on the Mainland, after XI Jinping has delivered a speech, all the people will hold meetings to discuss and learn from it. When WANG talked about learning from XI Jinping, he also touched on the internal affairs of Hong Kong. He said, "Hong Kong has entered into long-term agreement with 20 jurisdictions on the surrender of fugitive offenders and mutual assistance arrangement in criminal matters with 30 countries and areas. But there is no corresponding arrangement with the Mainland. After the reunification, there has not been any case of surrendering fugitive offender to the Mainland. Amending the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance helps establish between the areas"―that is between China and Hong Kong―"judicial assistance relationship, is a proper responsibility in the implementation of the Basic Law, and on top of these, an important move and a proper obligation in safeguarding Hong Kong's rule of law core value and in entrenching and enhancing Hong Kong's image as a society governed by the rule of law." First, there are a lot of errors in the remarks above. He said that it was "a proper responsibility in the implementation of the Basic Law" … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, I have let you speak for a long time. But this Council is now debating the Budget, please come back to the subject.


10001

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): … Sure, Chairman. I will come back to the subject on LOCPG. In fact, enacting local legislation and amending legislation in Hong Kong are purely local affairs but it is not the first time LOCPG comments on them. Where has our Chief Executive gone after WANG made such comments? She was acting cowardly like a quail, she said Director WANG's remarks were well-taken and she applauded. Later when the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council delivered remarks, she also said they were well-taken. Who actually is responsible for amending the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance? Is it really their business? This is Hong Kong's own business. While we are arguing heatedly over it, they interrupt and talk about our obligation. But they are not in a position to comment in the first place. However, as long as the Chief Executive refrains from stating her stance, acts like a quail and hides herself in a corner, others will continue to make remarks on this and in oblivion of Article 22 of the Basic Law. If the Chief Executive does not say "no" on behalf of the Hong Kong people to such kind of central authorities, be they NPCSC or LOCPG, they will encroach on our side further. In this connection, I would like to raise a least controversial instance: last year when Hong Kong was hit by Mangkhut, the People's Liberation Army went to clear the withered branches, trees, and so on, in country parks, in an alleged breach of the Garrison Law. I am not trying to reprimand them for doing something wrong or otherwise, but the rule is that the People's Liberation Army should only be dispatched upon the request of the SAR Government. Using the excuse of participating in "charitable activities", they tried to pass as innocent. What about our Chief Executive? She again accommodated all they have done. Three examples have been cited above, they are: the submission of report to the Central Authorities in relation to prohibiting the operation of the Hong Kong National Party, allowing LOCPG to make comments inappropriately over Hong Kong's internal affairs, and remaining silent or even speaking in support of the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison when it allegedly contravened the Garrison Law. From these we see how the Chief Executive has deviated in implementing the Basic Law. She has failed to locate the line dividing the two systems and the area that she should protect, and allowed the "one system" of the Mainland to make further encroachment on our side. It is remarkable that in view of Beijing's encroachment, their obvious breach of law and behaviours that are unsupported by law, she can be extremely accommodating and turn a blind eye to them all. On the contrary, she will cite the Basic Law to intimidate and threaten Hong Kong people and foreigners living in Hong Kong. We all know


the Basic Law is a mini-constitution. The most fundamental constitutional principle is that the constitution is formulated to restrain those in power and the Government and to protect the rights of the common people. That is to say, people are vulnerable, they are liable to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment and hence it is necessary to protect them with the constitution or the Basic Law and to limit the scope of power enjoyed by the Government in a bid to prevent power abuse. If a citizen breaks a law, we can enforce the law in accordance with the statutory law or even the common law. But our SAR Government and the Chief Executive have repeatedly accused ordinary citizens of having infringed the Basic Law, referring of course to some comments on the so-called "Hong Kong independence". A citizen will be accused of contravening the Basic Law with a simple remark he or she makes. But Carrie LAM has not cited any statutory law to arrest the citizen concerned. As there is no legislation regulating behaviours which she finds unacceptable, I believe what our Chief Executive should do is to shut up. Conversely, if she wants to say anything, she should reiterate the safeguard provided by the Basic Law on the freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of assembly. She should stand by Hong Kong people, instead of standing by Beijing for the sake of political correctness and holding the Basic Law to intimidate Hong Kong people like shooting everywhere with a machine gun. (The buzzer sounded) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, please stop speaking. MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): In this session, I will speak on my own amendment and some of those proposed by other Members as a whole. First, I wish to continue with the speech I made last Thursday on the amendment concerning head 70 (Amendment No. 13) which seeks to reduce an amount roughly equivalent to one tenth of the estimated operating expenditure of the Immigration Department ("ImmD") in 2019-2020. The speech I made last week mainly centred on the statistics relating to various immigration policies. When the respective numbers of the three types of people, namely people who are granted entry to Hong Kong, people who are permitted to stay and people who are granted the right of abode, have repeatedly set new highs, I am concerned that the relevant Government expenditure and manpower requirements will also increase continuously. Besides, the influx of more immigrants to Hong Kong will impose enormous pressure on the capacity


10003

of our city. As mentioned in the ending part of my previous speech, if the Government reviews the quotas of various immigration policies, tightens the relevant thresholds for application, the number of people applying for entry to and stay in Hong Kong may probably be reduced. This will, in turn, make a saving on the relevant expenditures and allow ImmD to concentrate its resources on performing its gate-keeping role in other important matters such as stopping non-local pregnant women from entering Hong Kong, and combating crimes like bogus marriage and forgery of identification documents. During the scrutiny of this year's Budget, I enquired of the Government about a number of figures which are closely related to Hong Kong's gatekeeper. For example, the manpower at various land control points has increased by more than 50%, from 1 986 in 2016-2017 to 3 043 in 2018-2019. Meanwhile, the actual expenditure on remunerations has risen from $790 million to $920 million, representing an increase of 16%. The cause of the increase in manpower and total amount of remunerations is related to the West Kowloon Station of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), Hong Kong Port of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB"), and the forthcoming commissioning of Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point. The presence of new boundary control points not only has brought a surge in immigrants and visitors, but has also led to the need to increase manpower, thus pushing up the relevant public expenditures and, at the same time, putting additional workload and pressure on front-line officers continuously. Let us take a look at the statistics on the number of suspected pregnant Mainland women intercepted as an example. At the West Kowloon Station of XRL, during the three months from its commissioning last September to the end of last year, ImmD intercepted as many as 3 464 pregnant Mainland women, among whom 124 were refused entry. As for Hong Kong Port of HZMB, during the two months from its commissioning last October to the end of last year, ImmD intercepted a total of 859 pregnant Mainland women, with 78 of them being refused entry. When counted together with other boundary control points, the number of pregnant Mainland women intercepted by ImmD throughout 2018 has exceeded 60 000, which is a record high in three years, and 7% of this total number of persons intercepted comes from the West Kowloon Station of XRL and Hong Kong Port of HZMB, both of which just came into operation for a few months. It is thus conceivable that upon completion of more boundary control points, the number of pregnant Mainland women intercepted and refused entry will simply continue to increase.


Apart from watching over the boundary control points, another important task for Hong Kong's gatekeeper is combating bogus marriages, particularly cases involving Mainland immigrants obtaining One-way Permits through bogus marriages. It is necessary for ImmD to continue with, or even step up, its efforts in collecting evidence of fraudulent acts related to bogus marriages, including forgery of documents, using false documents, making false representation, etc. As revealed by the Government's figures, between 2016 and 2018, ImmD investigated 1 646 cases in which the persons applying for settlement in Hong Kong were suspected of engaging in bogus marriages. In other words, there were some 500 cases each year on average, and more than one case each day. The number of persons arrested were 2 980, and the number of persons successfully prosecuted were 250. With the addition of 10 more members in 2019-2020, the ImmD special task force responsible for investigating bogus marriage cases consists of a total of 32 members and the expenditure involved on their annual remunerations amounts to around $14,930,000. (THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair) While the number of persons arrested for bogus marriages neared 3 000, only 200-odd persons were successfully prosecuted. The substantial difference between these two figures may have something to do with inadequate resources and manpower, and may probably result from the failure to collect sufficient evidence of the relevant fraudulent acts. Therefore, it is my view that the resources and manpower for investigation of bogus marriages should definitely be increased. But we are well aware that as Legislative Council Members, we cannot propose any amendment seeking to increase the estimates but only proposals for reductions. If any expenditure is to be reduced indeed, we should start with various immigration schemes. As I mentioned on the last occasion, the manpower and the expenditure on salaries required by ImmD for handling applications under various immigration policies were 100 posts and $57.6 million respectively, i.e. roughly more than triple the manpower for and the expenditure on dealing with bogus marriages. In the light of this, I think there should be a reallocation of manpower and resources to step up investigations into bogus marriages and interception of pregnant Mainland women at the boundary control points. This will better meet the interests of Hong Kong society and guarantee that Hong Kong people's well-being and peace will have the first call.


10005

I agree that ImmD is a professional disciplined force. A number of front-line staff ImmD officers have stated that in order to tie in with the Government's admission policies, they need to cope with enormous pressure at work. Just take the task of intercepting pregnant Mainland women as an example. They need to be equipped with professional knowledge, rich in experience, skilful in questioning, and well-versed with the policies. It is only in this way that they can successfully reduce the number of cases involving pregnant Mainland women gatecrashing into Hong Kong for delivery at present. Another example is that with a host of visitors entering Hong Kong every day, they are required to make a judgment as to whether a visitor should be allowed entry to the territory within some 10 seconds, yes, just some 10 seconds. The process is both taxing and prone to cause anxiety. Therefore, I think it is a must that fundamental changes should be made to the policies before the problem of excessive visitors can be alleviated, and the trend of people attempting to use false identities to enter and migrate to Hong Kong can be halted, thus easing and reducing the pressure on the front-line ImmD officers. As I said last week, one of the solutions is to review various immigration and admission policies to eliminate phenomena such as bogus professionals and bogus marriages. Deputy Chairman, in my remaining speaking time, I will talk about another root cause of the huge number of visitor arrivals and departures, that is the tens of millions of cross-boundary tourists. As this aspect concerns the tourism policy, I will express my view on an Honourable colleague's amendment which proposes a reduction in the estimated expenditure under "Head 152―Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch)". In the Labour Day Golden Week this year, there was a 4-day holiday in the Mainland, and the number of Mainland tourists entering Hong Kong totalled 990 000, which is an increase of 60% compared to the number of visitors to Hong Kong during the 3-day holiday in 2018. This year, the scene of Hong Kong overflowing with visitors not only appeared in tourist attractions, but also spread to various districts across the territory, including your constituency, Deputy Chairman. Be it the shopping malls, housing estates, university campuses, and even country park campsites, none of them is spared. Flocks of visitors can be seen in all these places. This situation has been described by the media and newspapers with such terms as "seize", "conquer", "occupy". It is, of course, a kind of "occupation". Managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department and the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, those


places like campsites, country parks, beaches, etc. are subsidized, repaired and maintained with public funds. But they are now occupied by tourists, making it impossible for Hong Kong people to use them during holidays. While country park campsites have been heaped with a mass of rubbish and tents left by tourists, shopping malls in downtown areas have to implement crowd control measures. Deputy Chairman, have you ever had the experience of being unable to dine at the restaurant on the ground floor of your block, and unable to get to the main entrance of your block when you go home? Tourists go to the communities of some public housing estates, such as Choi Hung Estate and Nam Shan Estate, and the Pavilion of Harmony in The Chinese University of Hong Kong campus for photo-taking. Originally, these are places where the general Hong Kong public will go during holidays, but today, people either have to avoid these places or resign themselves to the fact that they will be crowded together with tourists in these places. In his interview with the media during the Golden Week, the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, Edward YAU, said, "When we go abroad for travel and visit different places, we may encounter the same problem. I believe nothing cannot be solved with empathy." What kind of a remark is this? Several years ago, when the Chairman of the Hong Kong Tourism Board ("HKTB") came to the Legislative Council, I asked him a very simple question of whether he would open his home for tourists, and he answered unequivocally, "Of course not." Deputy Chairman, Hong Kong is our home, and different communities are our residential neighbourhoods instead of tourism attractions. The existing tourism policy of the SAR Government has turned our home, our communities, our residential neighbourhoods into attractions for tourists. Which city in the world will let this happen? As reported by the media, this is the case in Venice, leaving many locals with no choice but to move away as a result. Those who remain in Venice are very much in the minority. But, for Hong Kong people, where can they move to? Should residents in Sheung Shui, Fanling, Shatin, Ma On Shan, and Tseung Kwan O move to To Kwa Wan, Tsuen Wan or Tung Chung? Which city is like Hong Kong, a city with a population of some 7 million and over 60 million visitors every year? Look at Japan. In 2018, it only had 27 million tourists whereas Hong Kong had 65 million, which is more than its double. How could this be possible? The absurdity is that the current SAR Government takes what is wrong as right. That situation is simply of its own making.


10007

In 2012, I already petitioned to HKTB. Back then, the number of visitor arrivals just stood at some 30 million to 40-odd million a year, and the number has now gone up to some 60 million. The Government keeps spending tens of millions of dollars every year on tourism promotion in the Mainland, but even if it stops using the public money to do so, Mainland visitors will still come to Hong Kong. Under Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, the reason is that it is now more convenient to travel to Hong Kong. The presence of XRL and HZMB has resulted in more visitor arrivals in Hong Kong. However, what kind of visitors are they? Same-day visitors. When they go to Tung Chung to buy two bottles of soy sauce, they take photos everywhere using the mass transit system originally designed for Hong Kong people commuting to work and to school. "With empathy"―the phrase used by Edward YAU―we will see the current situation is an utter nonsense. I initially proposed an amendment to head 152, calling for a cut in the estimated expenditure on three months' emoluments of the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, the estimated expenditure on HKTB's publicity campaigns, and the additional funding of $300 million for the tourism industry in this year's Budget. Unfortunately, it was not approved by President Andrew LEUNG. In my view, the tourist receiving capacity of Hong Kong has been grossly overloaded, and for this, the Government and the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development must be held accountable. The Secretary should have his emoluments reduced, and also, the Government should stop increasing the funding for the tourism industry to attract more visitors to Hong Kong, as this will end up overburdening Hong Kong and subjecting us to the consequence of overcrowded communities. Looking at the statistics of the past three years, we will see that the added value of the tourism industry as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") has gradually dropped from 5% to 4.5% year by year, but meanwhile, there has been a substantial increase in the number of visitor arrivals. This shows that the value added contribution of the tourism industry to GDP is inversely proportional to the number of visitor arrivals and it is not sustainable. For this reason, I think another Assessment Report on Hong Kong's Capacity to Receive Tourists should be prepared, and tourism-related taxes, say, "entry tax" or "overnight tax", should be introduced. Or, perhaps, we should follow the example of Venice to treat the revenue from such taxes as a dedicated fund for the expenditure on maintenance, repair, and improvement of the local infrastructures and tourism facilities. This is the very way to tackle at root the overcrowded situation across Hong Kong at present.


MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): In this section, I will speak on Amendment No. 24, which seeks to slash an amount roughly equivalent to the personal emoluments of the Overseas Economic and Trade Offices ("ETOs") in Washington D.C. in 2019-2020. Why do I have to slash the proposed expenditure for the Washington ETO? There are three reasons. First, it failed to explain the data that Members had requested; second, it failed to fulfil its function of understanding and addressing the concerns of the business and political sectors in the United States; and third, it failed to provide advice to the Hong Kong Government and dissuade it from making decisions that undermine the United States-Hong Kong relationship. The mission of the Washington ETO is actually very unique and different from that of the other two ETOs in the United States. The Washington ETO describes its mission in its website as follows, "The office's mission is to enhance bilateral ties―particularly with regards to economic, trade, investment and cultural matters―between Hong Kong and the United States. The office maintains close working relations with the United States Congress and the Administration". It is evident from the description above that one of its important tasks is to liaise with the United States Congressmen. As a matter of fact, Hong Kong is very different from the United States. Hong Kong is executive-led and the United States is congress-led. The United States Congress makes many important decisions and puts forth important bills. It can control the fate of Hong Kong at any time. Hong Kong may suffer a heavy blow if the United States Congress passes motions to condemn Hong Kong or adds terms in the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act, or advises the United States. President not to execute the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act. According to my observation, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party of the United States are both increasingly hostile to China and increasingly concerned about the situation in Hong Kong. The elaboration on the implementation of "one country, two systems" in the Hong Kong Policy Act Report is also increasingly negative. I wonder if the Washington ETO has maintained a close working relationship with the Congress and the executive authorities of the United States? If it has, has it allayed their long-standing concerns? Hence, in a special meeting of the Finance Committee, I asked a written question on the Washington ETO regarding their number of calls on members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate in 2018-2019. The


10009

authorities' reply is very disappointing. According to the reply, the Washington ETO only made 178 calls on senior government officials/organizations in 2018-2019, but the reply does not mention anything about the number of calls on Congressmen. I am very dissatisfied with the reply. Congressmen are not senior government officials, and describing the United States Congress as an organization is belittling it as well. I tried to follow up with the data in the special meeting of the Finance Committee, but the Government did not have any further explanation. If the Government does not have the relevant data, I would rather prefer that it tells me it does not have the data, instead of telling me B when I ask it about A. My question was straightforward. I asked about the number of calls on members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate by the Washington ETO, but the Government told me that the Washington ETO made 178 calls on senior government officials/organizations. What did it mean? Did the Washington ETO make any calls or not? Why can the Government not respond to our questions in simple and clear manner and allay our worries? The reply is one of the reasons I propose this amendment to cut their expenditure. As a matter of fact, I also suspect whether the Washington ETO can act as the communication interface between the United States and Hong Kong. Quite many United States businessmen, organizations and government agencies seem inadequately informed of decisions of the Hong Kong Government that may undermine the rights of the United States citizens having investment, working or living in Hong Kong. The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, suddenly proposed by the Government in February, will allow China to apply for extradition of foreigners living in Hong Kong to the Mainland to receive trial; and the Chief Executive shall decide whether or not to arrest the fugitive offender and the court shall be the one to handle the extradition applications. The American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong reacted most strongly to the legislative amendment proposed by the Administration. It has issued two statements to express their extreme reservation about the amendment to the ordinance. Subsequent to the two statements of the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, the United States Government also issued a statement to express its extreme reservation about the legislative amendment. This makes me wonder whether the Administration has consulted or explained to the United States politicians and businessmen through the Washington ETO before its formal


announcement of the legislative amendment, and whether their businessmen and politicians have reflected their opinions to the Washington ETO after learning about the legislative amendment. In fact, according to the information on the website of Washington ETO, apart from repeating the English statement of the Government on the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, there is no evidence showing that the Washington ETO has proactively liaised with the political and business sectors to address their concerns about the legislative amendment. If they think that this is not their job, I have nothing more to say. In fact, the United States industrial, business and political sectors absolutely have a legitimate right to express their worries towards the legislative amendment. They have companies in Hong Kong and a large quantity of assets here. A large number of United States citizens are working and living in Hong Kong, and they may need to travel between Hong Kong and the Mainland. China often arrests foreigners without any reasons as a means of revenge. It is thus justified that the United States politicians and businessmen have such a concern. Their statements of concern over the legislative amendment should not be interpreted as intervention in Hong Kong's internal affairs, as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has so claimed. They are only speaking out on policies that may affect their rights. But apparently, the Washington ETO has not, since February, dispelled their concerns. And I believe it is probably incapable of allaying their concerns in the future because the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong has already issued two statements and the political and business sectors of the United States have also expressed their grave concern about the legislative amendment. It is thus questionable as to what the Washington ETO has been doing in the past. The Washington ETO is supposed to act as the interface between the two places and explain new policies in Hong Kong to the United States and relay any concerns and worries they may have to the Hong Kong Government. Is the Washington ETO capable of providing accurate and comprehensive information for the Hong Kong Government, so as to dissuade the Hong Kong Government from making any provocative decisions to the political and business sectors of the United States?


10011

The Washington ETO can be regarded as the institution which the Hong Kong Government uses to collect politico-economic information in the Washington D.C. Their staff members have the professional knowledge, skills and the mission to collect such information and then make recommendations to the Hong Kong Government, so as to ensure that the policies launched by the Government will not undermine the United States-Hong Kong relationship. But during policy formulation and announcement of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019, I am not aware of any efforts being made by the Washington ETO in performing these functions. I also suspect that in the amendment brewing process, this ETO might not even know about the legislative amendment. It might not have sufficient information or wisdom to dissuade the Government from introducing a legislative amendment that would undermine the rights of foreign investors, especially the United States investors. Given that these ETOs, especially the Washington ETO that my amendment specifically focus on, fail to perform their role as the communication interface, I thus propose this amendment. Actually, in additional to the Washington ETO, have other ETOs, especially those in European and American communities, made preparation for the introduction of the legislative amendment? It is indeed very questionable as we see that the way this legislative amendment is introduced is like declaring war to other countries … this is only my parable. In addition to the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Germany have also issued statements indicating the possibility of stopping their arrangement with Hong Kong on extradition of fugitive offenders if the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 is passed. This brings us back to Amendment No. 1 because the problem lies in Carrie LAM. She sacrifices the interests of Hong Kong and the hard-earned trade relationship, or friendly relationship, with the international community. We do not know what she can obtain in return. Earlier today, I compared Carrie LAM to the fictional character of "Abbess Miejue" and now I wish to compare her to the historical figure Empress Dowager Cixi who declared war to the Eight-Nation Alliance. During the Boxer Rebellion, Cixi declared war to eight nations because of face. Two of her officials, LI Hongzhang and ZHANG Zhidong, who were more discerning of the bigger picture of the time, tried to


prevent the war initiated by Cixi from spreading to the south of River Changjiang. They took the risk of being beheaded and charged the crime of treason by Cixi and signed the "Mutual Protection of Southeast China" agreement with the nations. This saved the area to the south of River Changjiang from being rampaged by the war. Today, the United States-China trade war is reaching a climax. The United States has imposed 25% tariffs on imported Chinese goods. Hong Kong is exceptionally blessed under the protection of "one country, two systems" and the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act, which is equivalent to the function of the "Mutual Protection of Southeast China" agreement in the past. We do not know the reason why she has to force ahead with this evil bill which seeks to send fugitives to China. She has all kinds of excuses with her so-called plugging the loophole of the ordinance and doing justice to the victim of the Taiwan murder case. She would go to any length to do this even if she needs to ruin these relationships and undermine the interests of different countries in Hong Kong. What does she want? Does she want to scare away foreign investors and drag other countries into the vortex of the United States-China trade war? We do not know what she actually wants. Hence, we should, more than ever, support the amendment proposed by Mr WU Chi-wai. Actually, I still have many amendments that I do not have time to explain. For instance, Amendment No. 40 seeks to slash the proposed annual expenditure of Programme (2) Subvention: Financial Services Development Council ("FSDC") under the Government Secretariat: Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (Financial Services Branch). Actually, I all along say that we should abolish this monster called FSDC. We cannot see that FSDC has discharged its duty amidst the mega-environment of the United States-China trade war and under this barbaric Government, nor can we see that its work and advice can help solve the present deadlock of Hong Kong. I thus propose to cancel FSDC's expenditure. According to the FSDC website, its objectives are to (1) advise the Government on strategies and measures to expand the scope of the financial markets of Hong Kong and enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong as an international financial centre; (2) support the financial services industry in developing the core competence and knowledge of its practitioners; and (3) promote our financial services industry of Hong Kong and Hong Kong as an


10013

international financial centre on the Mainland and overseas. Our edge as an international financial centre is hard-earned, and the Government's introduction of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 will undermine our position as an international financial centre. As explained earlier in my elaboration, FSDC focuses on money and how to help Hong Kong earn money. It advises on ways to enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong in the international community. In this legislative amendment process, has FSDC conducted any policy assessment to see whether the legislative amendment will undermine the competitiveness of Hong Kong? Has it provided any advice? I have not seen any. If FSDC has done any of the above, its related officer can come out and explain to us. I can withdraw this amendment. Financial services and our hard-earned international position are our long-standing strength. The business sector, even the pro-Government business sector, is concerned about this legislative amendment because it will rock the very foundation of Hong Kong as an international financial centre and scare away international investors from investing in Hong Kong. Hence, a budget of a financial year matters little, but ruining the century-old achievement of Hong Kong matters a lot. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, from what I recall, there were more exchanges between pro-establishment Members and pan-democratic Members in past debates concerning amendments proposed to the Budget, and it was particularly so last year, when the problem of filibustering still prevailed but both parties managed to have some discussions on the estimates of expenditure for various heads. However, it seems that during the Budget debate this year, the debate atmosphere in this legislature has become less vibrant, while Members of the two camps do not even bother to respond, and the situation is actually not too healthy. I would very much like to tell Members of the opposition camp that when criticizing or discussing the estimates of expenditure for different Policy Bureaux of the Government, there can be more constructive debates if more substantive points can be raised for discussion. I am sure members of the public are also looking forward to lively debates in the Legislative Council.


We have reserved more than 20 hours for the current debate session, and to my knowledge, quite a number of young people and citizens have indicated that they would watch the television broadcast of the meeting. I am therefore of the view that we should after all participate in the discussion here. However, the debate has already been going on for some time, but unlike what I did in previous years, I have given up sitting here listening attentively to Members' speeches, although I have still listened to some of them. I have simply no interest in listening further to what Members say, because the contents of their speeches are more or less the same. However, there are still some relatively more meaningful ones which I would like to respond to. I have chosen to start with interest by speaking on the amendment proposed by Mr IP Kin-yuen, because Mr IP Kin-yuen has spent much of his speaking time on the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"). I have all along been concerned about education affairs, and when it comes to levelling criticisms against the Education Bureau, I think I should be regarded as an active participant. This is not something new to me, because ever since the time when I have not yet become a Member of the Legislative Council and was teaching in a university, there were already frequent exchanges between me and the Education Bureau. Far-reaching problems do exist in the education policy of Hong Kong. Mr IP Kin-yuen has expressed many views to the Education Bureau, and the Government has in fact honoured many of its promises in this regard in the current year. For example, a funding of over $8 billion has already been allocated, and resources should have already been made available for resolving many education problems, such as providing full-time teaching posts for part-time teachers. Are we directing our criticisms against the Secretary only? I do not wish to single out anyone, since I understand that Secretary YEUNG is just following the practice of his predecessors, but I think he should not rest on his laurels. A better environment has indeed been created for him after he has taken office, because the Chief Executive is willing to increase substantially the provision of resources to address various problems, including those raised by Mr IP Kin-yuen, and has honoured many promises. Nevertheless, although the Chief Executive has undertaken in her manifesto to address some problems, including those concerning the subject of Liberal Studies, I think she together with the Secretary for Education have failed to do so. It seems that Mr IP Kin-yuen has not mentioned anything about this, and has only commented on how the TSA examinations have been conducted. I


10015

am one of the few people in the pro-establishment camp who agree that both Primary 3 and Primary 6 TSAs should be abolished, and I insist firmly that we should not let students sit for such examinations. However, the same criteria should also be adopted for higher classes, because as I have advocated when I was teaching in a university, happy learning is the key to success in one's study. The Liberal Studies subject was originally introduced to facilitate happy learning among students, so as to nurture them with a world vision, broaden their national outlook and breadth of mind. However, judging from the performance of our students today, Liberal Studies has already become a subject severely plagued with problems, and I wonder if it is due to the fact that our young people have listened too much to what some Members of the Legislative Council have said, particularly over the past 10 years. Certainly, other subjects should also be reviewed, but I consider the problem particularly serious in two subjects, namely Chinese Language and Liberal Studies. Why do I not criticize other subjects such as English Language, Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry? It is because these subjects have very clear syllabuses and curriculum contents, leaving not much room for teachers to exert influence on students, and such influence (if any) can only be found in extra-curriculum activities. However, Liberal Studies is a subject which gives teachers much room for elaboration, because it has no syllabus and curriculum coverage. The subject was first introduced with a reduction of the resources allocated for implementing the subject of Chinese History, and injecting the resources thus saved for introducing the subject of Liberal Studies. We held very high expectation of the subject, but it turns out that it is not as effective as desired. Apart from this, members of the public also find the subject very disappointing. Whenever a public opinion survey is conducted on the subject of Liberal Studies, including the one currently conducted by the Task Force on Review of School Curriculum, the target respondents will only include teachers, while parents, the general public and employers are always excluded. What kind of personality, learning attitude and mindset do we exactly want to nurture local students to develop? The Government has never faced up to this question. Every time when Secretary YEUNG tries to give me a response to the question, I can only feel that he is answering me in a perfunctory manner by commenting on the views expressed respectively by Members of the pan-democratic and pro-establishment camps, claiming that the two parties have different views, and an attempt is never made to face up to students' needs.


I am sure most students do not want to have compulsory questions, and if they are allowed to make their own choice, I believe most students in science subjects would like to abolish Liberal Studies as a compulsory subject when they are taking the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("HKDSE"). Instead, universities have to make some slight adjustments in their assessment method now, in order to adopt a higher weighting for the scores of other professional subjects and a lower one for the score of Liberal Studies. There are teachers who do not want to make changes, and they together with the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority, which is responsible for designing examination questions, have all along asserted that the results of HKDSE would not be recognized by overseas countries once a change has been made to the examination method, and that this would undermine the efforts made over the past 10 years in implementing the system of HKDSE. How come they are so complacent and conservative when it comes to HKDSE? Why should we stick to the arrangement of compulsory questions when it comes to Liberal Studies, thereby forcing students to take them? Some teachers once pointed out that we could not do without compulsory questions, otherwise students would attach no importance to the subject or certain curriculum contents. For example, if there is no compulsory question on political affairs, students will not put their efforts in that area, and the same also applies to environmental affairs. However, should students be proficient in everything? There is no need for them to learn everything in all areas, because the subject of Liberal Studies was originally intended to train the thinking ability of students. If new Members bother to refer to the past records, they will come to realize that back in those years when I was the Deputy Chairman of the Legislative Council Panel on Education in 2009, all Panel members queried the arrangement of having compulsory questions in the examination paper of Liberal Studies. The views were shared by Members of both the pan-democratic and the pro-establishment camps, including WONG Yuk-man, whom I consider was the most radical Member then. We all did not know what development would be seen in the implementation of the subject, but during our discussions at the earliest stage, Members with different political stances shared the concern about the undesirable effects caused to students by the adoption of the examination method described, which forced students to engage in the study of this subject of such an importance. Yet, what happens now? Actions were taken by the Chief Executive only lately to honour her promise of increasing the number of teaching


10017

hours for the subject of Chinese History, but the problems with the subject of Liberal Studies remain unresolved. I hope Secretary YEUNG would listen to my views. Why would problems arise in this respect? Take the curriculum contents on contemporary China studies as an example, when designing examination questions, they can cover the three issues of agriculture, farmers and rural areas, or students' views on the taking of weight control measures by people aged below 18, or sometimes even the relationship between democracy index and economic competitiveness, and we can actually include all sorts of bizarre and weird compulsory questions. With regard to topics that are too difficult to manage, I think teachers may offer a brief introduction, but they should never be covered by the scope of examination. I would therefore like to put forth two requests concerning the subject of Liberal Studies as follows: Firstly, a syllabus must be set for the subject, and according to the views shared by people with different political stances from different political parties, instead of asking for a mere expression of political views, the curriculum contents should only cover the topics which students must learn. I consider this a reasonable requirement. Secondly, there should be a reform in the examination method. What has exactly happened now? I have recently joined a delegation on a visit to Hangzhou and Shanghai. Although I have been to the two cities many times, I still needed to seize the chance and learn from these two places. During the visit, I was told by a Hong Kong businessman in Hangzhou that he once received a group of secondary students from Hong Kong, and hosted for them a number of visits to various units like the Alibaba Group, Tencent and a research and development institution on unmanned aircraft systems. Through such visits, I was deeply impressed with the rapid development of the Mainland, and in a rare move, have even written three articles in my column about the very deep feelings I have about the tour. Seeing the development of computerized systems on the Mainland, Hong Kong should have a greater sense of urgency, lest we will be overtaken. Jack MA is a man with his own style, and although he has failed to get his enterprise listed in Hong Kong, he responded very politely, wished Hong Kong well for a better development and praised Hong Kong for being a place blessed with the reputation of the Pearl of the Orient. However, such a status is not necessarily irreplaceable. The prevailing situation and our visit to these first-tier cities make us deeply feel that we in Hong Kong should not let ourselves down, and people in other third-tier cities like those in Hunan also share the same feelings. I bought


some clothes with several ten Renminbi, and they were sent to my home the next day, saving me the trouble of carrying them with me in my luggage. With its highly efficient logistics chain, people on the Mainland can simply provide their medical information to place a purchase order for the medicine they need, and this will be delivered to them in just half an hour. I am sure the Secretary has also made similar visits before and experienced it for himself. However, according to this Hong Kong businessman, some students in the group suspected that the host of the visit programmes was trying to deceive them. They questioned if they were really physically in China, queried if these were just some "brainwashing" programmes prepared by the host, and kept saying that they wanted to leave for Hong Kong. They wanted to go back to Hong Kong when they have just completed half of the visit programmes, simply because they suspected that their teachers had taken them to an unknown place to brainwash them. Why would these students think so? I wonder what information have they got at school, and what kind of teachers have led them to think in this way. I am gravely dismayed at the incident and such conversations, and I earnestly feel that there is definitely something wrong with the education system of Hong Kong. As most students are surrounded by negative comments of this sort and some extreme views of our fellow Members in this Chamber, they tend to think that China is good for nothing, everything is bad about China, and that we should oppose everything related to China. I do not consider this reasonable. With regard to the amendments proposed by the Chief Executive to the legislation concerning the surrender of fugitive offenders, there is indeed room for improvement as far as the procedures adopted, the way of handling and the specific details contained in the relevant bill are concerned, but the Chairman of the Democratic Party should not have insulted women with such offensive languages that are so intolerable to the ear. What kind of example has he set for the young people by swearing at others in this way, and then trying to justify himself afterwards? Although I have always respected … (Dr KWOK Ka-ki stood up) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please hold on. Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?


10019

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): We are not seeking to cut the emoluments of Mr WU Chi-wai, and I do not understand why Dr Priscilla LEUNG has to mention him suddenly. What has this got to do with the Budget? DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, this is not a point of order. Dr Priscilla LEUNG … DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I think Dr KWOK Ka-ki always scolds other people when he is hit where it hurts by some remarks, right? I do not know but I heard that … DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You mentioned in your speech the deduction of … DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, please let me continue with my speech. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please continue to speak. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, please let me continue with my speech. I am now speaking on the amendment proposed to reduce the estimated expenditure on the emoluments of the Chief Executive for the whole year, and several Members have just now spoken in support of the amendment. What I am saying is thus absolutely related to the subject, and he is the one who fails to take note of or understand my point. I wish to point out that there is indeed no need to use such languages to handle disputes in this legislature, and it will be counter-productive to adopt such an approach to discuss the amendments proposed to the legislation concerning the surrender of fugitive offenders. Given the deteriorating China-United States trade relations at present, begging foreign interference will only spoil the whole matter, and the more views they express on this issue, the less room is left for us


to negotiate. This is not the first time they refuse to heed advice. For example, with regard to the controversies about the constitutional reform, I have told them not to initiate the Occupy Central movement, but they have messed up the whole thing, making it impossible to reactivate constitutional reform within these five years. In the current case, I have also suggested to them that we should let the bills committee discuss the legislative proposals, because it is also our intention to refine the relevant proposals. Yet, they refuse to listen, insist on messing up the whole thing and obstruct the conduct of other businesses, thus embarrassing the Legislative Council openly in front of the general public and causing a "triple lose" situation in which all parties are suspected to have acted unlawfully. This has achieved nothing but on the contrary has benefited the Government, and there is indeed not much time left for negotiation. Many people in the business sector do wish to express their views through us in this Council, but very regrettably, there is not much time left for discussion. Some people like to describe a similar situation with the phrase "pig-like teammates", but I think what we have in our case are "pig-like opponents", who have always used the wrong tactics and messed up everything in the end. Therefore, I very much hope that we will stop adding oil to the fire, and stop resorting to radical and violent means to fight for our causes, because the results will be just opposite to the desired outcome. It is hoped that we will return to rationality when we engage in public policy discussion, because the world of politics is round, and compromises are inevitable. Moreover, as long as the option proposed is a rational one, it is not a bad thing after all to make compromises. Regrettably, our opponents refuse to make compromises absolutely. They insist that everyone must follow what they say, and hence all parties fail to get what they want. Therefore, Deputy Chairman, I wish to put on record my advice to young people, and tell them that they must not follow the bad example of resorting to such means to fight for their causes. They must act wisely and handle issues concerning the development of Hong Kong in a rational manner. I so submit.


10021

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I originally wish to discuss Amendment No. 41, which seeks to slash the proposed annual expenditure on the personal emoluments of the Security Bureau. But I also wish to respond to the education problems Dr Priscilla LEUNG talked about. Although I do not quite understand what she means, I will still briefly talk about them. First, she said that students should have independent thinking and that Hong Kong is not the Mainland. In fact, there is a reason behind. If students can shout slogans like "Vindicate the 4 June incident" and "End one-party dictatorship" in the Mainland without being arrested, I will believe her point that there is freedom in the Mainland. In our country, our great, strong country, we cannot even speak our true mind. She wants students to believe that China is a strong country with genuine freedom. Would she please do not teach students the wrong idea. What I just saw, regarding press freedom in Hong Kong … why do I say so? It has been said that Dr LEUNG worked as a journalist before. Press freedom in Hong Kong is worsening. The ranking of Hong Kong in the World Press Freedom Index of the Reporters Without Borders has further dropped to 73th place, which is the lowest since reunification. This is shameful. Dr LEUNG should talk about how they have turned Hong Kong into a place without press freedom and into a place where students have lost their independent thinking. She is a teacher herself. If she dares to lead a group of students to the Mainland and let the students criticize all the wrongdoings of the Mainland government (such as the ubiquitous corrupted officials), or chant "Vindicate the 4 June incident" and "End one-party dictatorship", I will then commend her. If she could lead the group and go to the Mainland tomorrow, I would ask everyone to join until the quota is full. She was just empty talking. Deputy Chairman, why do I have to talk about the Secretary for Security? It is because he performed poorly. A recent survey compared the popularity of a series of public officers. The popularity ratings of several government officials are low, such as that of Secretary Frank CHAN, who is not here now. His latest net approval rate is -12. The net approval rate of Secretary LAU Kong-wah, who is also not here, is -11. As for Secretary Kevin YEUNG, the Secretary whom Dr Priscilla LEUNG severely criticized just now, his popularity is not high


as well, earning -5 for his net approval rate. But they are not the worst ones. The worst one is Secretary John LEE. His latest net approval rate has dropped to -14. Some people blame this to his appearance. Although his appearance is a little odd, we should not discuss his appearance. The problem is with his brow, but this is not something he can control … (Mr Jeremy TAM stood up) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point of order? MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki said just now that Secretary John LEE's appearance was a little odd. I think his remark is humiliating. Can Dr KWOK Ka-ki clarify his remark? DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM requested Dr KWOK Ka-ki to clarify his remark. Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you can choose whether or not to clarify. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I thank you, Deputy Chairman, for allowing me to clarify. I read a comment from a netizen saying that "some public officers have not offended you, but their look is offensive". I was only quoting the words of a netizen. I did not plan to read it out, but he forced me to do so. Some public officers may look offensive, but this is not something they can control. They can still do a good job. This is not the key point. The key point is that he leads Hong Kong to hell. This is what horrifies us. What do I mean by that? This is related to the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). Deputy Chairman, the proposed legislative amendment falls within his portfolio. I thus need to discuss in detail why we have proposed Amendment No. 41 to slash his salary. He has done nothing; worse still, he neglects what he should do and focuses only on evil deeds. His performance disappoints Hong Kong people.


10023

Hong Kong has been returned to China for over 21 years. At that time, the Chinese side, British side, the Legislative Council Members and everyone knew that people would panic if Hong Kong was to return to China in 1997. Besides, many people still remembered the "4 June massacre" in 1989 because the incident was not that distant from the sovereignty resumption. People still vividly remembered it. We could not dispel our anxiety over the massacre on the Tiananmen Square and all the incidents in the Mainland that saddened Chinese people. Hence, when the Legislative Council at that time debated and endorsed the Ordinance, Members did not avoid the issue. They did not dig a hole and bury their head in the sand like an ostrich, a comparison Secretary John LEE used and "777" Carrie LAM repeated. Or at least, I believe members of the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group did not avoid the issue like an ostrich. It is incorrect to say LU Ping adopted an ostrich policy, nor is it correct to say that ZHANG Junsheng adopted such a policy. They were outstanding people. Their approach was somewhat similar to that of ZHOU Enlai, the former Premier of the State Council. There were many opportunities for ZHOU Enlai to resume the sovereignty of Hong Kong at that time, but he did not do so. It is because he knew China needed a window and also a place for the relatively confined society behind the "Bamboo Curtain" to get in touch with the outside world. History has proven that he was correct. We are all aware that many people nowadays stress the importance of relying on the richness and prosperity of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and our Motherland. But in the period after the reform and opening up of China in 1978, it was the Hong Kong businessmen who brought the first sum of capital to and made the first lot of investments in the Mainland. They were also the ones who introduced modern management and production modes to the Mainland. This is a fact. The Mainland is now very prosperous and has many rich people. But I hope they can be grateful for all their blessings. When they keep condemning Hong Kong people for not learning the worldly wisdom and for our refusal to echo the strength of our country, I hope they can bear in mind that this tiny place called Hong Kong is indispensable to the thriving economic development, modernization and reform and opening up of China. Furthermore, I believe LEUNG Chun-ying, our former Chief Executive "689", also played a part in shaping the prosperity of the Mainland when he introduced our land policy to Shanghai, which was eventually implemented throughout the


Country, when he helped the introduction of the marketization of property assets. In any case, the Chinese side, the British side and the Legislative Council knew that this was something necessary to be done at that time. John LEE, who has not made any future planning for Hong Kong, has refuted the performance of former officials including the former Chief Executives and his predecessors. He even described them as "ostrich". I do not know whether this truly comes from his own words, but his boss Carrie LAM has used this comparison to lash out at the former three Chief Executives, including "689" LEUNG Chun-ying, Donald TSANG and TUNG Chee-hwa. I do not know if John LEE thinks the same, but his boss has taken his advantage. John LEE speedily, or "at the speed of light" as we said mockingly, conducted a consultation. An insolvable problem in the past 21 years is solved by him in 21 days. How incomparably capable he is! If he has any solid performance, he should truly be commended and we should truly have his salary raised. Regrettably, this is not the case. He has infuriated everyone in town. Traditional businessmen, scholars, members of the legal profession and people who have handled the Ordinance have all questioned feasibility of his approach. However, the Secretary says that the legislative amendment is urgent, and thus necessary, because of the CHAN Tong-kai case. Many Hong Kong people have been deceived by him in the beginning because he said that it might be impossible to extradite CHAN Tong-kai if he was set free by the court for his other court case to be tried in end of April, so the legislative amendment was critical. Luckily, nowadays, with the easy access of information, we know that the Mainland Affairs Council ("MAC") of Taiwan has told Hong Kong people and the world that the Taiwan authorities requested the Hong Kong Government thrice to respond to the CHAN Tong-kai case but did not get any response in return. Our Government did not make any reply to Taiwan. The Secretary, who always stresses that the situation is urgent and justice should be upheld, has not made any response to the Taiwan side. Does he truly wish to uphold justice? Does he have any sense of righteousness? Second, the present situation is more than clear. The Deputy Minister of MAC opines that the Ordinance, if amended, seeks to add "a dog's doorway for Taiwan to pass through" and it will turn Taiwan into part of China; and the Taiwan authorities also expressly say that they will not accept nor discuss the


10025

legislative amendment. Any normal human beings will agree that the most reasonable approach to seek legal redress for the family of the victim in the CHAN Tong-kai case is that the Hong Kong SAR Government should expeditiously discuss with the Taiwan authorities on how to handle the case. In all fairness, MAC have already indicated its willingness to conduct an one-off extradition of the offender with the Hong Kong SAR Government on a mutually-agreed basis. If the Secretary is truly so concerned about this case, why does he not accept any of these suggestions? Does he truly wish to mete out justice? He is treating us like a three-year-old. And to date, the Government has not made any response. Later, he expressed the need to amend the Ordinance. He insists on amending the Ordinance, despite the explicit refusal of the Taiwan authorities to accept the amended Ordinance. John LEE should be the fugitive offender instead. He dodges the truth. He is the ostrich. He needs to come to the knowledge that there is now only one way to mete out justice, and that is to discuss with the Taiwan authorities. Even if the legislative amendment is passed, the Taiwan side will not accept it. Does the Government want to send the fugitive offender to the Hong Kong International Airport at Chek Lap Kok on its own initiative? Even so, the Taiwan side will not let the fugitive offender board the plane because Taiwan does not admit that it is part of China and it will not accept the fugitive offender. This is a simple logic that any sensible persons, or any ordinary folk like me, or anyone less intelligent can understand. It does not require intelligent people like Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong to understand this simple logic. Why is it so urgent? There is another ridiculous example. The Government took the initiative to meet only with the nine chambers of commerce before introducing the legislative amendment to the Ordinance. As we all know, the press is one of the sectors most concerned about this matter. Many journalists bet on their safety and life when they report news on Mainland affairs for Hong Kong and the world. Without them, it would be impossible for us to learn about the LI Wangyang case or many other irregular incidents in the Mainland. Thanks to this group of journalists who disregard their own personal safety and report news in the Mainland. Dr Priscilla LEUNG should learn how to write the word "shame". Her fellow co-workers are risking their life to report news, while she is here joining the circle of the great and the good and knowing nothing about how journalists risking their life for their work.


The Hong Kong Journalists Association requested a meeting with John LEE, but the Secretary refused, saying that he had no time. Does he have no time to meet with the Association from day one? Is this "ostrich" really that busy? Maybe, given that he needs to bury his head in the ground for 10-odd hours a day. He is really very busy indeed. A public officer like him will use the excuse of urgency to pass the legislative amendment and push Hong Kong to the dangerous ground. To put it bluntly, he is the public officer who forces Hong Kong to its end and sell out Hong Kong people. Just now, I said Carrie LAM had been biting the hand that feeds her because she called herself "a daughter of Hong Kong". She claims that she came from a poor family and lived in a partitioned flat before. She was an elite student and studied in the University of Hong Kong, and later joined the Government as Administrative Officer and gradually rose to the post of Chief Executive. Her achievement is the joint effort of Hong Kong people. But any conscientious person should know that an arrangement should not transform Hong Kong for the worse, even if it cannot transform Hong Kong for the better. However, as far as what we have seen, Carrie LAM, with her several decade-long service in the Government, has committed this error, so has her subordinate John LEE. As a Security Bureau official, he does not even know how law is enforced in the Mainland. How ridiculous! Secretary John LEE, who served the Police Force before, should be the one standing at the forefront to observe the chaotic situation in the Mainland. Perhaps, he wants to turn the Hong Kong police into their counterpart in the Mainland! But this is not the vision of Hong Kong people, nor the wish of the Hong Kong Police Force. "One country, two systems" is a clear principle. We hope that there can be genuine rule of law and protection in Hong Kong, so that everyone, whether they are leftists, moderates or rightists, and including Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Dr Priscilla LEUNG, can have a safe place to speak out their mind. And unlike the present situation, we hope that leftist, moderate and rightist journalists can conduct interviews based on their own will (The buzzer sounded) … Secretary John LEE does not deserve his salary. I so submit. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, your speaking time is up.


10027

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I propose Amendment No. 33 to the Appropriation Bill 2019 which seeks to deduct an amount of $1.02 million estimated expenditure which is approximately equivalent to the three-month emoluments for the position of the Secretary for Food and Health. In my previous speech, I have spoken on the part of food safety, and now I wish to explain why I propose to deduct the three-month emoluments of the Secretary for Food and Health, even though I consider that more salaries should be deducted. (THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair) Today I wish to focus my speech on health care issues. Recently, we have learnt that the Medical Council of Hong Kong ("MCHK") has passed a proposal favoured by the Government after so many twists and turns. That is, it proposes to relax the practice arrangement for overseas medical practitioners with limited registration to practice in Hong Kong by waiving the requirement of undergoing a compulsory internship period. The Democratic Party welcomes this measure. After the measure is adopted, it is believed that more overseas trained specialists will be attracted to join Hong Kong's public sector, the faculties of medicine of the two universities as well as the Department of Health. I consider that the move is in the right direction. Nevertheless, the outcome will not be as ideal as we expect. I have discussed the issue with doctors of the Hong Kong Medical Association and members of MCHK, they estimated that after waiving the internship requirement, about 30 overseas specialists would be attracted to come to Hong Kong every year. The fact that the additional 30 overseas specialists per year is only a drop in the ocean in view of the current shortfall of manpower in public hospitals. How bad is the shortage of doctor manpower in the public sector? According to the Report of the Strategic Review on Healthcare Manpower Planning and Professional Development published by the Government in 2017, all hospitals in Hong Kong (including the private sector) will have a shortfall of 500 doctors by 2020 (that is, next year); and the overall shortfall of doctor manpower will be as high as 1 007 by 2030. The University of Hong Kong conducted the above projection on the request of the Government, but the considerations then are perhaps outdated now. At present, the Government has new tasks of supporting the Greater Bay Area development and implementing the second 10-year hospital development plan by adding 9 000 hospital beds within


two decades―this is what we badly need. Actually, I do not know why the Government has built very few or no new hospitals over a long period of time in the past, which has led to a shortage of hospital beds and made public hospitals so crowded that patients have to sleep beneath wash-hand basins, toilet doorway or corridors. Hospitals are like disaster areas. Of course we need to build hospitals. But we also see the serious shortfall of doctor manpower in the public as well as the private sectors. Besides, it can be envisaged that the development of the Greater Bay Area will further prompt doctors are practicing in Hong Kong to leave for the Greater Bay Area or shuttle between China and Hong Kong. That is to say, they will serve both the Greater Bay Area and Hong Kong. Some doctors will even settle down in the Greater Bay Area and I am not sure if they will ever return to Hong Kong. For that reason, we very much hope that the Government can formulate the manpower plan as soon as possible and take into consideration the development of the Greater Bay Area, the private sector, the ageing population of Hong Kong and other previously unexpected factors, and tell us as soon as practicable the figures of shortfall in each specialist discipline; and how many specialists are needed to cope with "the second 10-year hospital development plan", in order to meet the needs of the ageing population and resolve the brain drain of manpower in the public sector. Therefore, I believe that the estimated shortfall of 1 007 doctors by 2030 is just a fraction of the actual shortfall. Moreover, we hope Hong Kong's health care standard will improve in tandem with its rising level of economic development. But the fact that Hong Kong's doctor-population ratio of 1.9:1 000―with doctors of the public and private sectors included―is far lower than the average figure set out by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD"), and that is, 3.4:1 000. Hong Kong's doctor-population ratio is lower than those of neighbouring Asian countries. Singapore's ratio is 2.4:1 000, Japan's ratio is 2.5:1 000, South Korea's ratio is 2.3:1 000, but Hong Kong's ratio is only 1.9:1 000. The Secretary for Food and Health has never told us if we should continue to accept the ratio of 1.9:1 000. Are we capable of improving the standard? Even if we cannot catch up with the world standard, at least we should not be worse off than Asian neighbouring countries. Nevertheless, we are unable to see that our Government has the vision and ability to propose a step-by-step improvement plan. First, the 1.9:1 000 ratio actually includes all doctors in the public and private sectors. But the actual situation is that the shortage of doctors in public hospitals is very acute. There are about 14 000 doctors serving the public and private sectors now in Hong Kong, but more than half of them are serving the


10029

private market, while less than half of them are working in public hospitals. Public hospitals take care of more than 90% of Hong Kong's population, but we only have 6 000-odd public hospital doctors serving 7 million people in Hong Kong. Therefore, as far as public hospitals are concerned, the actual situation is even more deplorable if we take into account the so-called 1.9:1 000 ratio. The working condition of these doctors is very awful, and the situation of patients is even worse. The former Secretary for Food and Health Dr KO Wing-man has done nothing. He has neither formulated a plan for the construction of hospitals, nor a plan for increasing the manpower of doctors and training places for medical students. As to the incumbent Secretary, we are unable to see if she is bold enough to resolve the existing problem. The present waiting time for consultation at the Accident and Emergency Department and first consultation appointment in some specialties at public hospitals is really too long, some patients waiting for first specialties consultation appointment and non-urgent patients need to wait at least for three years or more. Ophthalmology is a good example. For patients suffering from minor ailments, basically nobody cares about them. And then minor ailments will become serious ones, and eventually serious ailments will warrant urgent medical attention. Some people may get effective treatment, but more people with more acute medical conditions will not get the same treatment. Therefore, to our surprise, this unfair situation in the provision of health care services which is caused by the wealth gap does exist in an affluent society like Hong Kong. What solution will the Secretary for Food and Health propose to address this serious problem? It seems that what the Government is most willing to do, or the easiest way for its, is to pay the money. As a result, we can see that in recent years, the Government has kept on increasing the funding allocated to the Hospital Authority. However, despite the increase in funding every year, we can still see a shortage of manpower and service inadequacy in the health care service during influenza peak season. As a result, the funding has to be increased again. And it seems to be a never-ending cycle. Of course, we will not oppose the Government's move to increase the funding allocation to the Hospital Authority. Public money should be spent where it is most needed. Nevertheless, we hope the Hospital Authority will conduct a thorough review of its administrative procedures and see how to make optimal use of resources and stop asking doctors to engage in too much


administrative work, as administrative work can be dealt with by dedicated administrators. Doctors should be sent to the front line to do what they are supposed to do, such as guiding junior doctors, treating patients and doing consultations. Some people say that perhaps the Government does not want to improve public health care services because it does not want to allocate too much money. It rather wants the public to turn to the private market and purchase the medical insurance for themselves in view of the poor condition in the public sector. In so doing, the burden on the Government can be alleviated. Some other people say that the Hospital Authority does not want to shorten the waiting time for specialist services, otherwise, each cluster will seek an increase of funding by telling the Government that the queue waiting for specialist services is too long. But is it the real situation? It is hard to provide the proof to speculate the motive of the Hospital Authority and the Food and Health Bureau. But the fact is that even the Government has surplus and is willing to allocate the funding, it seems that it cannot resolve the manpower shortfall in the public sector. Even though the salaries of doctors have been increased, there has been not a corresponding increase in manpower resources. Therefore, even though we want to make real improvement to the existing quality of health care services, money is not the solution in this respect. The Government is not far-sighted enough and its policy is a later starter, that is why we do not see the Food and Health Bureau perform its duties properly. The Government has done the physical planning by allocating $500 billion to improve hospitals and increase hospital beds within 10 to 20 years. Nevertheless, the Government has not made an accurate manpower planning and supply scheme in the light of the shortfall of medical personnel. I can only see that the Government has been acting in a very passive way. If the Government is not going to work hard to increase the number of places for local medical students, we will see that more public sector doctors will be attracted to the private sector. As to what we should do now, the Democratic Party recommends that the Government should consider solutions on all fronts to address the issue. We anticipate that the Government and the Secretary will come up with some aggressive proposals. I understand that we cannot resolve all problems overnight. The Democratic Party considers that the number of places for local medical students should be increased. We see that the Government will increase 60 medical student places in each year from 2019 to 2022. In the next five years, we will have more than 2 000 medical graduates.


10031

However, if we want to catch up with the advanced countries' doctor-population ratio, I believe that it is never adequate no matter how the Government increases the places for medical students. Even the Government is training around 500 doctors each year, but the problem is that there is a wastage of about 300 to 400 doctors from the public sector each year. That is, as far as the net growth of doctors is concerned, there will only be about an addition of 100 doctors after the places have been increased. Since we are unable to fill the gap and find adequate manpower to man new hospitals to be built, then who will do the job of treating patients? For that reason, the Democratic Party considers that the Government should study if a third medical school should be established. Moreover, we should explore the room for increasing the number of places for medical students. However, we understand that there is a problem. The Education Bureau has set a target number of 15 000 places for first-year Bachelor Degree in all eight universities. If the number of places for medical students, nurses and radiation therapists will be substantially increased―the so-called allied health staff, according to the current Government practice, the eight universities will have to adjust the number of places within the original 15 000 places. Mr AU Nok-hin has mentioned this earlier. It is called the top slicing mechanism or the competitive allocation mechanism. That is to say, universities are required to look into their own first-degree places every three years and see if 3% can be released and let universities compete with each other. Needless to say, no more resources can be allocated to them and in future perhaps more than 3% of places is needed to be released, why? It is because we need to increase the number of doctors, nurses and physical therapists. When we have to increase health care manpower which is in the shortest supply and the number of places for allied health staff manpower, it is impossible to sacrifice these 15 000 places to facilitate the health care need. It is necessary for the Government to add additional places above these 15 000 places and make a planning of places for special manpower need. Otherwise, what will occur in future and that is that all eight universities will resist the idea of adding places for medical students because they may have to sacrifice their History, Astronomy, Physics, Humanity and Social Science disciplines, or these disciplines will be subject to huge impact. Therefore, the Government should ask the Education Bureau and the Food and Health Bureau to sit down and discuss the issues and find out the solution. Of course, we opine that the Government should consider adding incentives so


that Hong Kong may be able to attract overseas trained elite medical practitioners who are from Hong Kong to return and serve Hong Kong within a short period of time. In this connection, the Food and Health Bureau cannot show us good leadership―or any leader can tell us besides waiving the internship, what else can be done? Why the Secretary for Food and Health is taking the back seat and waiting for proposals to be put forwards by others? Why is it not the Government which should devise a plan for our discussion? It is really puzzling. Furthermore, the Greater Bay Area issue has to be addressed. It is because the Greater Bay Area will also drain Hong Kong's medical talents, which will make us more difficult to resolve the issue. MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will speak on some amendments, especially the amendment relating to "Head 112―Legislative Council Commission", which seeks to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for emoluments for the position of the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council in 2019-2020 (excluding the monthly cash allowance). As to other proposals that I concur, I will speak on them in the next debate session. First I wish to speak on deducting the annual estimated expenditure for emoluments for the position of the Chief Security Officer of the Legislative Council. This is something I have never heard of. Our security officers are a very important group to us, because they assist us in this Chamber. Everyone considers that they adopt a neutral stance in performing their duties. They act impartially. For that reason, I really want to know why my colleague wants to deduct the emoluments of the Chief Security Officer. I have been listening to the speeches of other Members. But they have been repeating an argument or two. That is, our security staff will only protect pro-establishment Members, therefore they have nothing to do with them. My question is: Do they have consciences? Actually, have they shown any appreciation to the security staff who help them leave the Chamber by saying "thank you" to them? It is because these Members are under constant protection of the security staff, thus they should have shown their gratitude. But why should they propose to deduct the remunerations of the security staff instead? That will send chills down one's spine.


10033

Frankly speaking, Chairman, it is not uncommon for Members to have different political views in this Chamber. But the purpose of this Chamber is for us to debate on public policies, not physical fight. To a rookie like myself, I do not understand why microphones have been grabbed and documents have been swept away from the desk, glasses of water have been emptied or objects have been thrown to others in this Chamber. I really do not understand. If there is a problem, we should resort to reasons, instead of finding fault with our security staff. In recent years, we have always seen physical contact, surrounding the President or sweeping documents from officials' desk. But every time we can see that our security staff have performed their duties devotedly; they do not want any Member get hurt. Moreover, as Members, we should also put ourselves in their shoes, as we may get hurt and our security staff will also get hurt too. I have checked the past recruitment advertisement of the Secretariat for the recruitment requirements of the Chief Security Officer. He is required to formulate management plan for security facilities and he should possess at least 15-year experience in any disciplined forces and security administration, and he is required to perform his duties dutifully. For that reason, I am really concerned that deducting the annual estimated expenditure for emoluments of the Chief Security Officer will set a bad precedent. Besides, it will cause negative impact on the security department. If the situation is really like what Members have described, does it mean that if Members are not happy with anyone, they can propose to deduct the annual estimated expenditure for emoluments of anyone in this Chamber? Or if Members are not happy with the views of the clerk, they can also propose to deduct the annual estimated expenditure for emoluments of the clerk? Or if Members can propose to deduct the annual estimated expenditure for emoluments of any security staff simply because that staff has not greeted the Honourable Members at the corridor? Are we going to do that? Is that what Members of the Legislative Council should do? I only hope that we can uphold the dignity of the Legislative Council. We clearly understand the Secretariat and its security staff have been performing their duties impartially, thus we should not draw them into political rows. Therefore, I speak in particular on this issue and oppose the relevant proposal of deducting the emoluments concerned. Thank you, Chairman.


MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): I am sorry, I am not quite ready for I did not expect Mr CHENG's speech to be so brief. Since Mr CHENG has been so keen on discussing the security issue concerning the Legislative Council just now, I would also like to say something about it. Should the staff members of the Legislative Council Secretariat ("the Secretariat") maintain a neutral political stance? The answer is indeed so obvious. Certainly they should remain politically neutral, but this is not the perceived objective reality, in particular … I believe the incident, in which a security assistant of the Secretariat was forced to declare whether she supported the "blue ribbon" or the "yellow ribbon", had not yet occurred by the time the our Honourable colleague proposed this amendment. While people still think the security personnel and staff members of the Secretariat are politically impartial today, subsequent investigations will enable us to get a clearer picture of the truth and more facts then, I believe. May I ask: Why would people have queried if the security personnel and staff members of the Secretariat are politically impartial? Actually, we can get the answer by looking at the objective reality on various fronts, not just from a case or two, but from the cases accumulated over a long period of time where bias can be perceived and that the situation is getting more and more serious. The vast majority of Members (including the pro-democratic Members) used to, both in the Chamber and various conference rooms of the Legislative Council, defend the Secretariat. In making enquiries on most occasions, we would ask staff members of the Secretariat in a very polite manner to explain matters to us. It was a reality in the past that we trusted them. This is the very first time I joined this Council as its Member and I have always had due respect for my colleagues in the Secretariat. I must make it clear here that I do respect them. I had even reversed certain decisions after listening to my colleagues in the Secretariat who explained to me individually. Here is an example: Previously during the period when amendments were being introduced to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), I once intended to move a motion direct at the Council meeting by invoking the Basic Law. Yet, a colleague in the Secretariat said to me, "Mr TAM, you may definitely exercise the power conferred upon you under the Basic Law to move the motion direct at the Council meeting, but … as a conventional practice of the Council, the motion would normally be discussed at meetings of the House Committee ("HC") before being brought up at the Council meeting." I was not aware of such a conventional practice in the Legislative Council until he told me so, and I do respect conventional practices. I am very grateful to my colleagues


10035

in the Secretariat for informing me direct of such a convention. In my opinion, it is my duty as a Member of this Council to ensure that such a great convention will live on, hence I proceeded to withdraw in writing the motion which I intended to move at the Council meeting pursuant to the Basic Law. I did so precisely because I respect the conventions of the Secretariat, and I, Jeremy TAM, will follow its conventional practices for sure. It is because once there are Members who begin to fail to comply with the conventions, the conventions will eventually disappear. No matter how simple the convention may be, but as I have said just now, I consider it necessary for us to follow it, whether it be a work practice or a matter of etiquette. This is what convention is meant for. If Members of every term are also willing to follow a certain practice, then after 5, 10, or even 100 years, it will become a convention as well and everyone will respect it having regard that it has existed for years by then. Regrettably, the Council has ignored the conventions completely as led by the President when I made up my mind to respect the conventions. How could this have happened? I am not referring to the President presiding over the Council meeting, who is sitting on the President's Podium right now, but the many pro-establishment Members. Once they assume the role to take the chair to preside over meetings, the conventions that I know of will come to nothing at all. Take for instance the legislative amendment exercise on the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). How come that as laid down in the RoP―need not show me for I can remember―what kind of convention is laid down in RoP 1A? Well, it is the "Precedence of Members", that is, the so-called seniority. It is a convention, something to do with respect. Why is there such a list of precedence of Members? Well, it is because we generally think that those who joined the Legislative Council earlier as its Members deserve more respect. This is certainly not specified in the Basic Law, but has been made evident in the RoP, and I must make it clear that I absolutely respect this precedence list and am thankful for having this convention here. Consider this: "Precedence of Members" is laid down in RoP 1A, that means it has been given priority by our predecessors. And so, we can imagine how much this convention is respected by the public. I trust that this convention had already emerged in the days of the former Legislative Council. How come Mr Abraham SHEK, who comes third on the precedence list, could be made to preside over the election of the chairman and deputy chairman of the Bills Committee ("BC") simply by virtue of a guideline issued by the HC? It was utterly unreasonable. One may accuse Mr James TO, who is at the top of


the precedence list, of having behaved problematically, and the HC may even put forth its view that it deems Mr TO problematic because he had failed to, when taking the chair of the BC, conclude the election of the chairman and deputy chairman during the BC meeting. Other things aside, the HC may require him not to preside over the election of the chairman and deputy chairman of the BC. I can understand and find it acceptable if this is the case. Yet, do allow me to ask: What wrong had Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung done? He comes second on the list, but why just skipped him and chose Mr Abraham SHEK instead to carry out the election then? As I have told just now, Mr SHEK only comes third on the precedence list in RoP 1A, but why he was selected to do the job? It is because the pro-establishment camp does not even have confidence in Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, who comes second on the list. However, this is merely a false excuse as the RoP do have provided guidelines to deal with a Member's performance, no matter how good or how bad it may be and he may be censured (i.e. he may lose his seat) in the worst case. A Member is qualified to speak at this Council neither because he is on good terms with the President nor because he is well acquainted with the security personnel. He can do so all because of the votes he has and the fundamental support from voters. Thus, the voters are the only persons who have the power to disqualify him as a Member of the Council and not those playing tricks in the Council. It is very strange for them to, while ignoring the Member in the second place with a false excuse, take the approach based on "rule by man" to specify another person to preside over the election in question. Any piece of legislation, rule and every bill that we have scrutinized must focus on the procedures or titles concerned. For example, the Chief Executive's powers will be presented as "the powers of the Chief Executive" instead of "the powers of Carrie LAM". Similarly, the same principle applies in the case of "the Secretary for Security", which will not be presented as "John LEE" in any legal provisions. Does it not sound strange that the approach based on "rule by man" can be applied in Hong Kong's legislature to name and designate Mr Abraham SHEK to preside over the election? This very practice has indeed violated all the provisions in the RoP. It seems the RoP has been completely ignored. Why would the Secretariat have allowed something like this to take place? Of course, I must point out that right from the start, Kenneth CHEN has been the one we trust the least. Why these things have been allowed to happen? The truth is so simple: All because of the transfer of benefits. The


10037

pro-establishment Members occupy the majority of seats in this Council, and so the majority of the Legislative Council Commission ("LCC") membership is also formed by them that everything is decided by them. Since the Secretariat is under the supervision of the LCC, it does not wish to offend LCC, in other words, it does not wish to offend the pro-establishment camp. It is for this reason that it acts at the beck and call of LCC. Upon going through the information on the membership of the Committee on Personnel Matters under LCC, I found that among the eight members, only two belong to the pro-democratic camp. Well, the "pie" should not have been shared in such an undesirable proportion, right? No wonder today's situation has emerged as a result. Thus, the whole thing shows us … (Dr Junius HO stood up) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, what is your point? DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): He has speculated Members' motives. Why did he mention "transfer of benefits"? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, have you speculated Members' motives? MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, I did not speculate but drew inferences only. I did not mention the names of Members but of course, I cannot help it even if any Members think they are being referred to, Chairman, just like we can do nothing to stop it in the case that some Members had made their phone numbers known to the whole world. Therefore, now we come across the various arguments that have aroused our doubts. What is most distressing and saddens me most, however, is the very sad thing in that the Secretariat has taken the lead to destroy the conventions of this Council which I trust and respect so much. These conventions and routine rules have been laid down for us by the Secretariat and we have great respect for them, but it turns out that it is the Secretariat itself that has assisted and even take the lead to destroy them. Why the Secretariat? I really cannot make any sense of it and absolutely do not want to see it happen at all.


As to the deduction of the emoluments for any staff member the Secretariat, no one actually wants to do so. And please note that the proposed deduction of emoluments is presented in the amendment as the deduction of emoluments for the position of "Chief Security Officer" without specifying if it is the emoluments for any Tom, Dick or Harry since it targets at a particular post title, procedure or matter rather than a particular person. This is common sense and it is a reasonable practice. I can tell and fully understand why some Members think it necessary to deduct an amount equivalent to the estimated expenditure of the annual emoluments for the position of Chief Security Officer. I must stress that I do not know whether the so-called "convention" or mutual respect has really changed so much throughout these years as I have joined the Council for three years only. Why does the Legislative Council allow government officers to come over here to monitor Members' access records while restricting Members' Assistants from accessing certain floors of the Legislative Council Complex? Take for instance today's meeting. While our assistants are not allowed to enter the "Green Carpet" area on the first floor, government officers can have access to that area. It is fine for government officials to come here to attend meetings, of course, but it is really bad if the so-called "paparazzi" are also allowed to come since they are here to monitor Members' every move. I have to ask the same question again: Why should such an arrangement be allowed? Can we just swap our positions so that we can send our staff to the Chief Executive's Office and each floor of the Central Government Complex to monitor the access record of the government officials? Is it possible to do so? Will the Government give a nod to this? Definitely not. If not, can we still assume that mutual respect does exist then? I had argued with the security personnel over this. In the early days after my joining this Council, I utterly could not acclimatized to such practice and wondered how come this could have been tolerated. After all, they are only here to attend meetings, just as in the case that someone visits your house. Is he supposed to bring the security guard into your bedroom who does not sit in your bed but stands by the bed to keep watch of you and see if you are asleep? You would not let anyone do so, would you? Can even such a basic form of respect for others be disregarded? Of course, the security personnel could not give me the plain reply that it was so only because LCC has allowed it to be so. Why would the LCC have allowed it? Just because the pro-establishment Members are the majority in LCC, and is it not the truth that those Members and the Government are actually in the same group? Given this fact, what is the point in


10039

mentioning still something like the independent operation of the Legislative Council? On seeing the turmoil triggered by the proposed amendments to the Ordinance, Carrie LAM only seeks to stay away from trouble, leaving the pro-democratic camp and the pro-establishment camp on their own to discuss with one another in hopes of coming up with a solution. It is indeed unnecessary! Based on the accounts given above, Members should come to realize the truth, namely it is the Government and the LCC that have put our security personnel into the present awkward situation. In the past, they had taken unconventional measures or asked the Secretariat to act in an unreasonable manner, and the Secretariat had been forced to assume the role of a "scapegoat" or "executioner", and got caught in a dilemma. Why would we have tolerated things like that? As for those who have spoken out loud that the Secretariat always remains politically impartial, please ask yourselves whether you have ever forced staff members of the Secretariat to, without following the dictates of their conscience, do you favours. Only when you people dare to answer in the negative can you make the remarks as what you have made in your speeches just now. I so submit. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, our present debate concerns the amendments in respect of 51 heads, and covers a fairly wide range of subjects. Regarding this Budget, just like what I said before, the essential indicator to gauge the appropriateness of the Government's public expenditure―and even the public administration as a whole―is not limited to Hong Kong's economic growth, but also people's quality of life and the improvement in people's livelihood. The heads involved in these amendments include Transport and Housing Bureau, Labour and Welfare Bureau, Education Bureau, and Social Welfare Department ("SWD"). All these are important bureaux and departments which can help improve people's livelihood and allow them to enjoy a better quality of life. So, which area should we look at in order to gauge the improvement in people's livelihood? Very simple. After the passage of this year's Budget, we should look at whether fewer people will reside in subdivided units; whether more people can move into units of public housing estates sooner for a relatively better living environment; and whether the waiting time for public rental housing


will be shortened. We should even assess the housing policy announced by the Government. Well, it is good that the Under Secretary for Transport and Housing is present here. The Bureau has stated that the objective of the housing policy in Hong Kong is to provide adequate and affordable housing for Hong Kong families. That sounds great. But then, how many Hong Kong families are unable to have adequate and affordable housing? This is something that ought to be assessed. After the passage of this Budget, how much progress will be made? Has the Government ever assessed it? No. Will the situation be improved? Absolutely not. Will it become worse? Definitely. In the future, the number of people waiting for public rental housing will keep rising, and so will the number of subdivided unit dwellers. Will the poor population in Hong Kong become smaller? Will the wealth gap be narrowed? Now, we are talking about public finance, a crucial process through which the Government redistributes resources. As the leader, the Government takes certain resources from society and then redistributes them to the areas where they are most needed. This is very clear. Then, has the poor population decreased? Sorry, as revealed in the recently released report on poverty alleviation, the relevant figure has actually gone up again and so has the poverty rate. In other words, the Government has erred. It has done its job ineffectively and its allocation of resources has not been efficient enough. This is very obvious. Has the public health care system been improved? Has the waiting time for specialist outpatient services been shortened? When we say it is essential that patients suffering from serious diseases or cancer should be diagnosed as early as possible, has the waiting time for receiving magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI") examination been shortened? Has the process of waiting for diagnosis been expedited? No. At present, when patients are informed by their doctors that they are at risk from cancer, their doctors will tell them at the same time that they will have to seek private medical consultation if they want to get prompt treatment. Otherwise, sorry, they will have to wait for several weeks or even several months before they can receive the relevant examination at public hospitals. They are then asked to make a choice. So, after the passage of this Budget, will the said situation be improved? No, and it will only get worse. As for drugs, doctors may know that a drug is suitable for treating a disease and able to target the genetic mutations of the relevant patients, but even so, sorry, doctors can do nothing unless the patients pay for the drug themselves because that is a self-financed drug. In this case, the patients can only resort to the old treatment methods such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, but their efficacy is uncertain and may not match the patients' conditions.


10041

Chairman, what is the objective of Hong Kong's health care policy? Its objective is that no one will be denied proper medical treatment due to lack of means. What does it mean by "proper medical treatment"? Should it not be considered proper to let patients obtain the drugs advised by their doctors? Is it proper for doctors to give prescriptions to patients? Sorry, patients will not be able to get those drugs because they are short of money. In this Budget, what has Government vowed to achieve? The Government has vowed to improve people's livelihood and build a caring society. It has also stated that the whole society has to make continuous advancement. So, in which area has our society make advancement? Let us look at the most disadvantaged: our elderly. After the passage of this Budget, will the waiting list for the residential care homes for the elderly be shortened? Will there be fewer cases of elderly persons passing away while waiting for a residential place? No. Over the past years, the waiting list concerned has grown longer and longer, and so have the ones for public rental housing and all other services. However, the elderly are unable to wait that long. Therefore, many of them passed away during the wait. Last year, some 6 000 persons died during their wait, and this year's figure continues to rise. This is the reality. What about the situation of persons with disabilities? It is just the same. The waiting list for the relevant service also gets longer and longer. This is a hard fact indeed. Chairman, today, I have looked at the website of SWD to check the waiting time for hostels for severely mentally handicapped persons in individual districts. As shown on the website, as at 31 March 2019, the situation of Kowloon East is the most outrageous. For this region, the applications being processed now were submitted in November 2000, which is 18 years and six months from now. Chairman, which of the public services, especially the public services for persons with disabilities, require a waiting time of 18 years and six months? Who would have thought that this situation would arise in such an advanced place in the world, a place with a high per capita Gross Domestic Product and an enormous public wealth? Money is all that is left of us, and this is how we treat the disadvantaged. As for hostels for moderately mentally handicapped persons, the ones in Tsuen Wan, Kwai Chung, Tsing Yi, Kowloon West and Hong Kong Island are processing applications made in 2004 at the moment. This means that the applicants have to wait for 15 years, but still, it is much better than those waiting for a place in hostels for severely mentally handicapped persons. Regarding hostels for persons with severe disabilities, the ones on Hong Kong Island are processing the applications of 2001 while those in


Yuen Long and Tuen Mun are processing the applications of 2003. As at 31 March this year, the applications being processed by hostels for persons with severe disabilities on Hong Kong Island were those submitted in 2001. Chairman, no one will believe this is how the situation stands. We have heard the incumbent Chief Executive talk about "zero waiting time" for the On-site Pre-school Rehabilitation Services, and we have actually commended her for this on many occasions. Indeed, she is the proposer of the work in this regard. Launched through the grant from the Lotteries Fund, the relevant services have now been regularized with service quota increased and early intervention achieved wherever possible. That said, as regard early identification, the waiting list for the relevant services is growing longer and longer. At the moment, the waiting list for the services provided by the Child Assessment Centres ("CAC") is extending, and a wait of nine months has already become the norm. In respect of the relevant assessment services, there are 34 doctor posts, of which 10 still fall vacant, while the quota for these services have increased to 7 000. As for the Special Child Care Centres ("SCCCs"), i.e. the centres for children aged zero to six with relatively severe disabilities, children assessed―90% of them are assessed by CAC―and considered to be having relatively severe disabilities will be referred to SCCCs. As at the end of March this year, there are 2 207 children waiting to be admitted to SCCCs. Though there has been an increase in the quota for the said On-site Pre-school Rehabilitation Services proposed personally by the Chief Executive, this is not of any help to these children because they are not going to the mainstream kindergartens or child care centres. With relatively severe disabilities, they need to go to SCCCs where supporting equipment, facilities and professional staff are all available. Please do not forget that this service targets children aged younger than six. The waiting time of Wong Tai Sin district is the most astounding. The applications now being processed are those of 2015. That is to say, applicants need to wait for four years. Chairman, they will not be wait-listed upon their births. Most of them are required to undergo an assessment before they are eligible to be put on the waiting list. But the wait for the assessment alone has already taken up a period of time, and very often, they will have to wait until they are three or older for the assessment. If they are required to wait for another four years afterwards, it will basically be impossible for them to receive the service. In many other districts, it will also take two years or more to wait for the service. Considering the service target of these SCCCs, the Government should not have required them to wait for the service, but in reality, their wait continues.


10043

When it comes to residential care homes for the elderly, there are some 400 000 people waiting for the service. Even for day care services for persons with severe disabilities and day care services for the elderly, waiting is a must. Actually, if the Government can provide sufficient support for home care, there will not be so many people staying in these residential care homes, and it is not necessary for the elderly to live there. As I repeated many times, I have a daughter with intellectual disability, but I will not send her to a residential home. As long as I still have the ability to continue taking care of her, why should I send her to a residential home? Why should she be denied the option to live with us at home? Even when I can no longer take care of myself one day, I will not want to be admitted to a residential home. If given a choice, I will choose to live at my own place. The Government is not unaware of this preference, so why can't people be given a choice? Why can't it provide some better door-to-door care services and community support? The elderly people will then be able to stay in the community to remain connected with society and live a normal life harmoniously with their friends and neighbours in the community, without the need to be sent to residential homes to live out their days as though they are waiting for death. In fact, the Government is not ignorant of this point. However, has this Budget advanced any proposal or measure to ameliorate these situations and reduce the waiting time? Nothing at all. There is literally zero measure. What is more―Chairman, I believe you have also noticed it―many of our long-existing services are regressing. One example is Shine Skills Centre ("SSC"), a school operated by the Vocational Training Council ("VTC") and specialized in providing vocational training for persons with disabilities. The school was required to relocate simply because the Government had its eye on the location, and it would be closed later when the services for persons with disabilities in that district were put up for tender again. The relevant location, as indicated by the Government, would be used for the construction of the Civil Service Academy. Subsequent to the uncovering of this incident, there was an uproar from the public. It was only then that the Labour and Welfare Bureau responded little by little, just like "squeezing toothpaste". For instance, the Bureau claimed that the Centre would not be closed down for good and it was looking for a location to enable the Centre to carry on with its operation into the future. When the public pursued further, the Bureau finally stated that there would be in-situ redevelopment of the Centre.


Recently, the Factory for the Blind has found itself in the very same situation. The Government has been well aware that it is impossible for this group of disabled workers and students to move from To Kwa Wan to Tuen Mun, but the announcement that the Labour and Welfare Bureau would assist the factory to find another site only came after the incident had been exposed. Following this, the Education Bureau offered a vacant school premises to resolve the issue. Why is it always the case that the Government would rather take remedial actions after being disgraced by scandals uncovered by the public? Why can't it be more civilized and consider the entire matter more thoroughly from the user perspective in advance? Why can't it do a better job in the planning? At the end of the day, why does the Budget fail to deliver the objective of improving people's livelihood and ends up causing a loss of public confidence in it? Chairman, I so submit. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now call upon the public officer to speak … (Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (While the summoning bell was ringing, Mr AU Nok-hin indicated his wish to raise a point of order) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point of order?


10045

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Chairman, actually, I did have pressed the "Request to speak" button, and it is not yet 7:00 pm. Would you consider allowing Members to continue to speak? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Just now at around 4:45 pm, I already reminded Members that I would call upon the public officers to speak at around 6:45 pm, and then, I would call upon the 16 Members who have moved amendments to speak again in the order of the amendments. Time has just passed 6:45 pm, so I will call upon the public officers to speak. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any public officer wish to speak? (The Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury indicated his wish to speak) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, please speak. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Chairman, the Appropriation Bill 2019 ("the Bill") is a bill of great importance which is designed to provide resources for the delivery of all public services. In formulating the Bill, the Government has listened meticulously to the views of all sectors of society and has, upon conducting a detailed and comprehensive policy analysis, worked out an all-inclusive proposal on resource utilization by the Government for the current financial year. Members proposed in their amendments to reduce the resources to be allocated to different departments for the provision of public services as well as the estimated expenditure of emoluments for staff of respective departments and their estimated operational expenses. At the end of April this year, the Government wrote to the Legislative Council to express its views on Members' amendments moved to the Bill. We submitted in our letter that passage of such amendments proposed by Members would obstruct the Government's effective


provision of public services and fulfilment of its legal responsibility as an employer, thus affecting seriously the overall government operation. Hence, I implore Members to veto all amendments proposed by Members. Thank You, Chairman. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now call upon the 16 Members who have proposed amendments to speak again. Then, the debate will come to a close, and the committee will vote on the amendments one by one. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you wish to speak again? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I certainly wish to speak, because Chairman has admitted a total of 30 amendments of mine this year. However, it has come to my attention that I have made a relatively in-depth analysis of only four of my proposed amendments in the second debate session because, as we all know, I have to respond to the amendments proposed by other Members in addition to speaking on my own amendments in the Budget debate. In order to properly respond to Carrie LAM and Paul CHAN, I have to speak on not just the amendments proposed by Mr WU Chi-wai and Dr KWOK Ka-ki, but certainly also the one proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin to deduct the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments of the Chief Security Officer. Well, with 10 minutes and something left now, I cannot decide which amendment is the best for me to speak on. I may as well speak on all of my proposed amendments and hopefully have Members' attention. These include deductions of the estimated expenditure on the District Cooling System at the Kai Tak Development, the recurrent expenditure on the electronic identity project, the annual estimated expenditure of the Government Property Agency on rents and management charges for properties, the annual estimated expenditure of the Home Affairs Bureau on personal emoluments, the annual estimated expenditure of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Communications and Creative Industries Branch) on personal emoluments, and the annual estimated expenditure on the personal emoluments of the Secretary for Innovation and Technology, the Secretary for the Environment and the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, to say the least. Moreover, Members may not have noticed that, precisely because I am opposed to the rates rebate, I have proposed to deduct the estimated expenditure totalling $480,000 of the Rating and Valuation Department


10047

on printing leaflets to be attached to the rates demands to explain the rates concession arrangement. I have also proposed to deduct the annual estimated expenditure of the Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration on film classification, control of obscene and indecent articles and newspaper registration. I will speak on the amendment to "Head 144―Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau" in the remaining 10 minutes or more of this session. Dr CHENG Chung-tai proposed Amendment No. 38 to deduct the annual estimated expenditure of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Development Office, amounting to $38 million. In fact, I had also proposed an amendment to "Head 144―Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau to deduct the estimated expenditure on the annual emoluments of the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs ("SCMA"), but adhering to the principles of "one amendment to one subhead" and "bigger prize for bigger size", Chairman admitted only Dr CHENG Chung-tai's amendment and not mine. Actually, instead of saying that my amendment was not admitted, I should have said that it was not incorporated into Dr CHENG Chung-tai's amendment. So, I will continue to speak specifically on the performance of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau ("CMAB"), in particular SCMA. In fact, the idlest of all Policy Bureaux is CMAB. The reason is that Carrie LAM will not revive political reform throughout her term of office, let alone this financial year. Last week, Carrie LAM said it loud at a meeting of this Council that the former Chief Executive was an ostrich because he did not push for the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO"). As far as the issue of political reform is concerned, the current-term Government, led by Carrie LAM, and SCMA are real ostriches. Both Donald TSANG and LEUNG Chun-ying have pushed for political reform; only Carrie LAM has not. If CMAB does not push for political reform, it will have nothing to do about the political system, so what else can it do? Doubtlessly, CMAB has not done a good job in the areas of equal rights and human rights. Equal rights for sexual minorities are going nowhere. Despite a delay of up to three decades, there is not even a sign of legislation against discrimination in sight. The position of Director of the Hong Kong Economic, Trade and Cultural Office (Taiwan) remains vacant. Poor efforts are being made to implement the Law of the People's Republic of China on National Anthem ("National Anthem Law"). In addition, examples of wrongdoings of the Registration and Electoral Office


("REO") are indeed legion, so I have proposed Amendment No. 48 in relation to REO as well. It may be a good idea for me to speak on REO's work prior to the National Anthem Law and the issue of equal rights for minorities. Being the Chief Electoral Officer ("CEO") is really the best plum job in Hong Kong. Over the past four years, REO has been involved in a number of scandals, including two instances of electoral data theft. The first occurred in 2017, when REO staff found two computers missing at AsiaWorld-Expo, one of which contained data of more than 3 million electors. Another instance was REO's recent discovery of the loss of a Register of Electors for the 2016 Legislative Council General Election at a polling station in Kwai Tsing District. Both incidents were highly suspicious. The Government papers submitted to the Legislative Council were littered with doubts. But what happened to the ultimate person in charge? It turned out that CEO did not need to be accountable. He could still hold his office without having his emoluments deducted. CEO did not need to bear the consequences either, despite severe censure from the royalists, such as Ms Alice MAK of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, who was more ferocious than a tiger in condemning him because REO lost the Register of Electors of her constituency and did not give an account of what happened. Since the pro-establishment Members will not support my proposed Amendment No. 48, which seeks to deduct the annual estimated expenditure on CEO's emoluments, he can still receive emoluments that are raised with inflation, and make mistakes as usual without being held responsible. How can he live up to the expectations of the 3 million-plus electors in Hong Kong? That is why I said that being CEO is the best plum job in Hong Kong. In fact, three years have slipped by since the 2016 Legislative Council General Election. The polling station concerned was located at SKH Tsing Yi Estate Ho Chak Wan Primary School in the New Territories West constituency, and the Register of Electors contained the names, sexes, addresses and identity card numbers of about 8 000 registered electors who were assigned to that polling station, as well as the number of ballot papers each of them might be issued with. The Government explained to the media, by giving a really brilliant reason, that having held many by-elections in the previous year, government officials were too busy to discover in time the loss, and there had been no information so far showing any leakage of the relevant information. Is that acceptable? That is to say, even if the Register is lost, it does not mean that electors' information will be stolen or disseminated.


10049

Actually, this incident came to light only when polling station materials were being unsealed at the request of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC") to verify electors' identities. But more than two years on, REO has neither reported the incident to police, nor released the details, nor informed the affected electors, thus squandering the golden opportunity to look for the Register of Electors. According to the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation, election documents must be retained for at least six months from the date of the election to which they relate. The documents must be destroyed thereafter, unless directed by an order of court in proceedings relating to an election petition or criminal proceedings. However, although the ICAC requested access to the Register as early as October 2016, no investigation has been conducted in more than two years. As a result, the Register has not been destroyed within a reasonable time. In other words, it has not yet been destroyed after far more than six months. Should ICAC be also held responsible for the consequential increase in risk of leakage and loss? In fact, I have proposed another amendment to deduct the estimated expenditure of ICAC, but Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has also proposed one. During the two-year vacuum period, did anyone else access the Register? How secure was the place of storage? Of even greater concern is whether the Register was mixed with election materials for other districts during temporary storage. Since the Register involved electors' personal data, it would be worrying if it was placed with other ordinary election materials. It is learnt that REO currently does not provide any guidelines for staff to follow in dealing with temporary storage of materials after elections. When law enforcement officers make a request for retention of materials after an election, there are neither any guidelines to follow nor any standards for disposal, resulting in an increased risk. However, so far REO has not given details of any review plan or any previously undetected loopholes that need fixing now to make up for the initial shortcomings. As the next round of major elections is drawing near, namely the District Council elections by the end of this year and the Legislative Council General Election next year, we are still in the dark about any new proposals for improvement. If law enforcement officials request that certain documents containing electors' data be retained for examination, what guidelines are in place for implementation by frontline staff? REO has not given any information. Therefore, it is unnecessary for REO to tell me about any trial measures of sorts for advance polling. If they are incapable of properly managing even the Registers of Electors, records of electors' data and computers, we really have no confidence in those ballot papers for advance polling.


Let us pick up on SCMA, who introduced the National Anthem Bill and refused to conduct any consultation on it, thus depriving Hong Kong people of an official channel to express their views, which is a step backwards. Originally, the National Anthem Bill was planned to undergo First Reading in July last year and then scrutiny and enactment at the end of last year, but the Government was reluctant to conduct public consultation, claiming repeatedly that there was insufficient time to do so. As a result, the Bill did not undergo First Reading according to plan and was not tabled to the Legislative Council until the end of January early this year. If the period of time before First Reading had been used for public consultation, the time should have been quite abundant, but the Government shamefully ignored even the basic procedural justice in order to steer clear of disputes in society. In this regard, SCMA can hardly escape censure. CMAB has completely forgotten the bitter lessons of the year 2013, when the Government failed in introducing legislation to implement Article 23. The Government has previously established seven principles on public consultation, including timeliness, a wide scope, sufficient time, adequate publicity and preparation of a consultation report. Today, however, there is no public consultation on the National Anthem Bill, which affects 7 million Hong Kong people. The responsibility has been shifted onto the Legislative Council. This is a piece of political buck-passing. Of course, no public consultation as such has been conducted on the current amendment of FOO either. It has only been put on the Internet for 20 days to invite public views. The consultation work is going from bad to worse. Therefore, I seek a deduction of the annual estimated expenditure on the Secretary for Security's emoluments in that regard, and on SCMA's emoluments in this regard. Moreover, the oath-taking process of the Legislative Council itself does not include any section for playing and singing the national anthem, but the present provision requires that the oath-taking ceremony be included in the list of occasions on which the national anthem must be played and sung. If such a provision existed in the past and such requirement remained in the new provision, then I would say that there is nothing disputable about it. But if, conversely, there was no such provision in the past and now this procedure is additionally imposed, such a practice will be quite problematic. We are not the only ones who have brought up this issue. The legal adviser to the Bills Committee has also brought up the same issue. After all, is it an appropriate practice to suddenly require an originally non-existent section to be incorporated into the oath-taking process of the Legislative Council? Setting aside whether or not it is


10051

appropriate, the Secretary has not consulted Members of the Legislative Council. Besides, he scapegoated the President of the Legislative Council by saying that as he had not received opposition from the latter after private discussion, he added this provision to the draft Bill. How is that even a thing? What exactly would be beyond his possibilities? With only a few minutes of speaking time left, I certainly wish to speak on equal rights for sexual minorities. We have been talking about anti-discrimination legislation for more than two decades, but the Government still says today that as this issue is highly controversial, we should not be too precipitate in dealing with it. Does the Government know that Anna WU Hung-yuk and LAU Chin-shek proposed a bill in the former Legislative Council before 1997 and they were just a few votes short to pass it? I do have a bone to pick with the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood ("ADPL") over this failure because if not for the lack of just a couple of votes from ADPL, we would have enacted anti-discrimination legislation instead of getting stuck in these two decades. The findings of an opinion poll jointly conducted by the Equal Opportunities Commission and The Chinese University of Hong Kong show that more than half of the people of Hong Kong support legislation against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity. Even among those with religious beliefs, support reaches 48.9%, compared to 91.8% among those aged between 18 and 24. If I run into Carrie LAM, I will definitely point a finger at her and ask: if this is not acknowledged as receiving broad support but still considered to be controversial, which piece of legislation can she enact? Which piece of legislation can garner support from more than 51% of the people and 91.8% of those between 18 and 24? I am not asking the Government to enact legislation right away. I only ask the Government to move forward and conduct public consultation immediately, but the Government has been dragging its feet all along. The latest development is that the Government intends to study the practices of all jurisdictions around the world. I have no idea about the number. It may be in the hundreds. Neither do I know whether they have conducted a study on where extradition legislation is in place and where not. In this way, the delay has lasted more than a year. Now that no further delay is possible, the Government says that it will complete the report in June. Upon completion of the report, the Government still has to move forward. Time and again, the Government just conducts studies and discussions, followed by studies and discussions again and again, so the legislation will not be enacted in 10 generations, not to mention one.


Therefore, we all see that CMAB has accomplished nothing in the areas of election, political system and human rights. Now CMAB knows best how to take forward the Greater Bay Area plan. At the Establishment Subcommittee meeting this morning, it obtained approval to create the post of Commissioner for the Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. So, even if three quarters instead of 100% of the estimated expenditure on the Secretary's emoluments are deducted, it will be enough for CMAB to take forward the Greater Bay Area plan. I request him not to shy away, but promptly conduct consultation on legislation against discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity, so that the public can decide what to do next. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, do you wish to speak again? MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I hope I can further explain my views in this debate session on several amendments. Since I note that the Under Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury is present, while I hope the public officer can listen to my speech during his presence at the session, I want to explain matters relevant to him, including Amendment No. 40 which seeks to reduce the annual estimated expenditure for the Financial Services Development Council ("FSDC"). I support the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. However, I consider that I should explain why this amendment does merit our support. I wish to ask a simple question. That is, should financial policies be handled by the Government instead of outsourcing them? If they are outsourced, sometimes, it is difficult in terms of regulation. For example, the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") has issued a number of rules but they are not issued by way of legislation. At the end of the day, it will be difficult to achieve genuine regulation. Now, FSDC has become a very interesting institution in that it is responsible for some policy advocacy work―to advocate financial policies―and then see if various financial regulators accept its recommendations, if the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited ("HKEx") accepts, if SFC accepts, or if the Government should amend the relevant ordinance and so on. However, I wish to raise a question here. Has a balance been struck between welcoming new business opportunities in the financial market and safeguarding Hong Kong's system? Have the rights and interests of small investors been safeguarded? This point is very important.


10053

This year I raised 2 questions on the budget―I am not sure if the Under Secretary has noted that. It is strange, not too many Members have asked questions relating to the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau. Of all the meager 10 to 20 questions, I raised 2 questions about new economy. What is new economy? Hong Kong has seen significant changes in the recent year or two―people who are familiar with the financial market should know well that HKEx has accepted the arrangement of "weighted voting rights" in its listing rules in the hope of catching up with the new economy era. I understand that, because traditionally, Hong Kong's stock market has been mainly relying on blue chips, in which the property sector has been doing well in particular. Comparing with other major markets in the world, for example, new economy stocks account for about 60% of the stocks in NASDAQ, New York Stock Exchange 47%, London Stock Exchange 14%, while HKEx was 3% only in 2017. The difference is actually really huge. Many people will ask, are we unable to maintain the competitiveness to meet the challenge of the world if we do not allow the listing of new economy stocks? People will also make comparison between Hong Kong and Singapore. Nevertheless, we should ask a question, that is, while we should adapt ourselves to the size of the market and to safeguard the listing regime of Hong Kong, how many rules or standards are actually maintained? Let us return to my two supplementary questions. I have mentioned "weighted voting rights". That is, several types of stocks are listed at the present moment. Very often, people will talk about the three major IPOs. But sometimes we should question that as far as the nature of operation is concerned, some stocks were originally claimed to be Internet stocks, but they turned out to be engaging in other processing and manufacturing business. Another example was about those stocks which were claimed to be bio-technology stocks. One of my questions is―I have also asked the same question last year and this year―the authorities have said that they would accept the listing of bio-technology stocks. A dozen of bio-technology companies have been listed in Hong Kong, but what exactly are the objective standards for the valuation of these stocks? The authorities' answer was very interesting. My question was what exactly were the objective standards for the valuation of these stocks? The authorities replied that taking pharmaceutical technology as an example, reference has been drawn from the standards of China and the United States. It was a totally irrelevant answer. I maintain the view that the Government should not evade these questions. While it will accept the listing of some new economy stocks, it has done very little to ensure an accurate valuation, which may put the rights and interests of


small investors at risk. For example, it certain stocks involved pure speculation of a concept, their prices would not reflect their actual economic and market values. Consequently, the rights and interests of investors would not be protected. We always criticize that a problem of the new economy is that such stocks are losing money each year. In spite of losing money every year, people keep on buying them. How can they prove that those stocks will be profitable one day? It is a mystery that nobody can resolve because these stocks keep on losing money. Besides, another question has derived, that is, should we allow the listing of some stocks which keep on losing money. The authorities said that they belonged to the new economy or they were bio-technology stocks and we should embrace the opportunities by allowing their listing, but SFC has been combating listed shells over the past two years, which has led to the suspension of some listed shells. My another question was related to other standards. While the authorities were combating so many listed shells, according to the Listing Rule 13.24 of HKEx―the authority (not the Government, but SFC) was combating listed shells based on these standards. Those shell companies had to prove that they had sufficient level of operations, while "sufficient level of operations" was the key word. These companies were suspended because they could not prove that they had "sufficient level of operations" and the authorities had to conduct investigations. The authorities also pointed out an appeal mechanism in the reply. As to the appeal mechanism, the authorities indicated that a new listing committee would be established and a new appeal mechanism would be put in place by the middle of this year in order to improve the arrangements for the suspension and resumption of stock trading after an appeal. However, how do the standards operate? Many people will compare Hong Kong's regime with that of China, while many do not know the basis for Hong Kong's standards. Should they be decided by SFC or the Listing Committee? On the contrary, Mainland China might have spelt that out clearly. That is, the authorities have to prove that these companies have been losing money for three years in a row before a suspension order can be issued. Why others have laid down unequivocal rules but we have not. Will unequivocal rules be set down under the new regime? This is very important. As to the two questions that I have raised, I consider that they should be included in the policy considerations of FSDC. No matter new policies or the fact that we should embrace new opportunities, one of the cornerstones of Hong


10055

Kong's success is an unequivocal and legally binding regime for financial transactions. As FSDC has invented so many new products and new rules, has it put such a regime in place? I consider that a balance should be struck. You should not ask people to accept new products A, B and C on the one hand and you have not put in place a regulatory regime to support them on the other. Of course we have to return to the question I have been raising repeatedly and I believe the two public officers who are present today will feel annoyed and that is Real Estate Investment Trust ("REIT"). As far as REIT is concerned, what I find the most baffling is why it is regulated under the Code on Real Estate Investment Trusts instead of a piece of legislation? My understanding is that back then when old TUNG―Mr TUNG Chee-hwa―introduced this policy, he did not want to regulate it under a piece of rigid legislation; therefore it was under the regulation of the Code. However, as the Code has been put in place for so many years, it has wounded so many people and the most formidable one is called the Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"), which has used up the money of Hong Kong people to procure shopping malls on the Mainland. It has made Hong Kong people suffer as so many shopping malls have been sold to some investors. I am not as awe-inspiring as Mrs Regina IP, as she has put forward a good recommendation lately. That is, she said that as a result of corporate social responsibility, letters should be sent to Standard & Poor's to request the credit rating company to downgrade the rating of Link REIT. It is not the case that I have not thought of the idea, as I have been badmouthing Link REIT and REITs because it has been lawless in this respect in Hong Kong. Although REITs are subject to regulation, the regulatory work has been poorly done. Nevertheless, I have never thought that it turned out that Standard & Poor's would listen to her recommendation. If Standard & Poor's is really willing to listen to her words, then she is truly awe-inspiring. And I will send letters to all stock rating companies to request them to lower the rating of Link REIT if it is unable to show some humanity. However, as far as I know, this is not considered normal market operation. But this is irrelevant. What is relevant is that I will exhaust all means, and I will welcome any measure as far as it can sanction Link REIT. Anyway, my key point is that the authorities have recommended certain products to the market but they fail to regulate them properly. For that reason, according to my observation, the financial market in recent years is changing rapidly and new things have come out―according to today's news report, HKEx


also wants to study the Hong Kong version of a trading curb mechanism. I am quite frightened about that even though the United States and other free markets have put in place a trading curb mechanism. But we could see that the trading curb mechanism on the Mainland was very fearsome and dangerous. It is because under the Mainland's trading curb mechanism, their markets have been curbed twice in one day. The Shanghai and Shenzhen markets shrank by $7.41 trillion, and each investor lost $110,000 on average. Do we wish to see that the Hong Kong version trading curb mechanism ends up like that? Of course nobody wants to see that. As to regulatory measures, the Administration should study that carefully. We do not want the mechanism to cause any panic in the market. I believe the Under Secretary knows the policy better than I do. I simply want to express my opinions. As I still have a little bit of time, I wish to speak on Amendment No. 43. That is the amendment moved by Mr IP Kin-yuen which seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority in the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"). In fact, he has spoken just now. But unfortunately, even we are talking about education policies today, we can do nothing as not all speeches must be relevant to the public officers present in this Chamber. Nevertheless, Mr IP has serious doubts about whether the funding is beneficial to the education sector. I also have doubts about this because of three simple reasons. First, we always ask the Government to provide us with the figures. Will it be able to provide figures of schools which have applied for full participation … even though the Government claims that schools may decide whether or not to participate in TSA and BCA on a voluntary basis, but at least should it provide a figure to illustrate the number of schools which have opted for a full participation? The Administration was unwilling to disclose the figure on the pretext that it would put pressure on them. It is simple; the Administration seems to have breached the Code on Access to Information, and it does not appear to care about the interests of school children. From an objective point of view, eventually schools will continue the drills in order to defend their reputation as the figures are good proof of their competitiveness, thus they are willing to participate in TSA and go on with drills. As a result, it will make students continue to suffer as a result of drills, which goes against the policy intent. We do not want to see all of these.


10057

The Administration says students and school would remain anonymous, and examinations are only conducted on a random sampling basis, but some schools will participate under a full and voluntary participation mode. Eventually, all students have to sit for the assessment examination. Some large-scale sponsoring bodies always emphasize that students participate on a voluntary basis, but they will make use of the figures of voluntary student participation to compare the performances among various schools under their administration. These schools will feel great about the comparison, but that will hurt the hearts of the students. For that reason, it is all about the problem of drills. It ends up that the problems of comparisons and drills have not been resolved at all. We should not forget another thing, that is, the education sector considers that as the papers of the first few TSA examinations are too easy, it is difficult to assess the academic levels of students. As a result, the exam questions are becoming more and more difficult as they think the more difficult the papers the easier for them to assess the levels of students. But as the exam questions are getting increasingly difficult, school children have to bear a heavier burden of drills and additional classes. After all is said and done, will the comparison among schools which seeks to highlight the competitive edge of schools lead to forcing students to receive the education they should not receive and doing drills for TSA? This is absolutely not something the Hong Kong education sector wants to see. For that reason, the Education Bureau has been emphasizing a happy learning environment, but we question if the Administration should let primary three students participate in this kind of basic competencies assessment? Does it mean that its sole purpose is to fulfil the assessment desire of the Education Bureau in the grown-up world, therefore the next generation has to suffer the systematic and inhumane assessment results in the end? If we are to achieve happy learning and alleviate the pressure of learning on students, deferring the problem to a later stage cannot be considered a genuine solution. Instead, we should address the problem of drilling students by completely rescinding TSA for primary three students. This is the reason why I support Mr IP Kin-yuen's proposed amendment which seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority in TSA. I so submit. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, do you wish to speak again?


MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Chairman, I wish to speak again. Chairman, I would like to convince Members with my final lobbying efforts at the current stage, because according to the Script, voting on the proposed amendments will be conducted one by one later. As a matter of fact, throughout the entire debate, be it Amendment No. 2 proposed by me or the focal point of our discussion (i.e. Amendment No. 1 which seeks to reduce the estimated expenditure for the emoluments of the Chief Executive for the whole year), now is almost the last chance for us to lobby support from Members, in the hope that fellow colleagues will not follow the advice of the Government to vote against our amendments, so that we can make the necessary changes. In particular, I wish to point out that after more than 10 hours of debate, not only democratic Members but also some Members of the pro-establishment camp have indicated their willingness to consider supporting my amendment. I will of course explain why it is necessary to support the amendment, and why my proposal should be passed and the actual risk is really not that high. As many of us are aware, we are only allowed to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Government at the current stage, we cannot increase it, and after the reduction, the Government will not have the financial resources to do its work. The objective of Amendment No. 2 proposed by me is to cut the estimated expenditure of about $1.3 million earmarked for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") to euthanize animals. As I have pointed out in my first speech, the amount involved in the funding applications submitted by the Government in recent years for the same purpose has been ever increasing. When a debate was held last year on the same occasion, the Government asked for an allocation of around $1 million, but the amount has increased to $1.3 million this year. If I am fortunate enough to obtain support from fellow colleagues this time and at least succeed in voting down the allocation of funding for this purpose, AFCD will suffer a rather severe blow, because it has to seriously consider what it should do when it can no longer adopt euthanasia to manage stray animals in the community. I do not know if my proposed amendment will be put to vote later tonight, but I wish to solicit Members' support with the greatest sincerity, because every vote is in Members' hands, and their voting decision can even be interpreted as an indication of their support or otherwise for euthanizing animals. Hence, I have to make my greatest efforts to persuade fellow colleagues and let them know what is going on.


10059

As I have already mentioned in my previous speeches, it was indeed too convenient and handy now for the Government to adopt euthanasia in handling animals. The incident which happened a few months ago involving a dog from Thailand has already embarrassed Hong Kong in the international community. Having mistakenly entered Hong Kong, that dog was euthanized in less than 24 hours, and people in Thailand were astonished by the fact that the Hong Kong authorities would go so far as to treat animals in this way. Coincidentally, as revealed in another news report a few days ago, a cat was on board a cargo ship and arrived in Italy after a sea voyage of over 40 days, and being safe and sound now, it has been put under the care of the relevant authorities there. During a debate held on the Budget, the subject in question is after all the allocation of financial resources, so why not do something to rescue animals instead of killing them when the Government has no lack of money? I hope fellow Members would understand that the key point of exercising their vote is to convey to AFCD the message that a funding application for the same purpose should be submitted next year with a lesser amount, and the amount of funding earmarked for animal euthanasia should be ever decreasing. I want to send a strong and powerful message to AFCD, urging for a gradual phase-out of euthanasia year by year, even though it is not possible to adopt a no-kill policy and achieve the objective of zero case of euthanasia all at once. Taiwan has already adopted a no-kill policy, and although it does give rise to a number of problems, efforts can still be made to resolve and tackle them one by one. Why must we follow a convenient course and handle the issue in this way year after year? Chairman, without this amendment, AFCD will only apply for financial resources year after year to euthanize animals. By proposing the reduction of the estimated expenditure earmarked for this purpose, the Government is urged to enact an animal welfare law, while at the same time take the lead to promote the message of caring for animals. It is inhumane to euthanize animals. According to the information obtained from our enquiries with a number of sources, when performing euthanasia on animals, a dose of drug will first be injected into their muscle, and another will then be injected into their hearts, which will stop beating within a few seconds and the animals will pass away. There are more than 300 days in a year, and if it is necessary for AFCD to euthanize 1 000 to 2 000 cats and dogs each year, its veterinary surgeons will have to perform euthanasia and put down several cats and dogs with their own hands nearly every day, excluding Sundays and holidays. I do not think these veterinary surgeons will feel good about it.


However, it seems that the existing policy is unshakable. Having said that, I still wish to have the problem resolved step by step, starting with the allocation of financial resources, because AFCD will be faced with a very practical problem when the expenditure earmarked for euthanizing animals is deducted, and it must try to identify ways to solve the problem. Its current work in promoting animal adoption is obviously very disappointing, when a large number of stray cats and dogs are sent to animal management centres ("AMCs"), where they will be killed after the four-day observation period if they are assessed by a veterinary surgeon as not suitable for adoption. This is a cycle which I would like to break through by first reducing the expenditure in this respect, thereby compelling AFCD to consider what it should do. AFCD will definitely claim that the situation in AMCs will get out of control, and such centres will be overcrowded with animals. In this connection, let me provide some very interesting figures. While attending a function hosted by AFCD earlier for the public consultation on the enactment of an animal welfare law, I was told that the number of animals sent to AMCs under AFCD had been decreasing in recent years, and when compared with the need to euthanize several thousand animals 10 years ago, there was a big improvement last year when the authorities had put down 1 000 dogs and 300-odd cats only. On hearing this, our immediate reaction was: Where had all the cats and dogs gone? The answer is that they will never be caught by AFCD, because it is already known to all that by informing AFCD, these animals will only be euthanized. Hence, people will neither report these cases to the Police nor notify AFCD, so where have all the cats and dogs gone? They are sent to kennels and cattery rooms run by animal rescue organizations formed by animal lovers in the civil community, and these are the places where stray animals can take shelter. Nevertheless, we cannot solely rely on community efforts. In a tragedy case uncovered recently by some media reports, a few dozen cats and dogs were found dead in a kennel operated with community resources, while another 100-odd animals found at the scene were still alive and taken to AMCs under AFCD. I went to the scene that day to get a grasp of the situation, because only by doing so could I follow up on the case, and I really found the incident heartbreaking. Many fellow colleagues are well aware that I care very much about animal rights, and on many occasions when discussions were held on the subject, some Members of the pro-establishment have even let me speak first. They did so because they understand that I take the matter very seriously.


10061

These are genuine feelings from the bottom of my heart, and I really hope that we can at least make some improvements in the current term of the Legislative Council and take half a step forward. How important it is to take this half a step forward? Hong Kong is a civilized city, but animals have been treated very badly, and some people even hide themselves in the dark to repeatedly abuse animals physically and kill them, challenging the Police's capability in combating such crimes. However, the relevant legislation fails to achieve the necessary deterrent effects and these offenders have not been arrested, and even though they are arrested and prosecuted, they will only be put under Community Service Orders. Some may ask what has this got to do with animal euthanasia? Animal euthanasia is the crux of the problem, because the Government is still adopting a method which has been in use since the 1950s or 1960s to manage the animal problem. When it comes to animals, they are often treated as non-living objects, but they also have feelings and the will to survive, and they do not mean to bring nuisance to human beings. Straying itself is not a sin, and it is not their wish to become stray animals. What is the source of the problem? It stems from abandoned animals. If this funding of $1.3 million can be devoted to adopting measures to prevent the abandonment of animals, what will happen? The Government should educate the public that it is a lifelong commitment when they decide to take a cat or a dog home, and no animal keeper should abandon his/her animal halfway. When construction has started in a working site, more than 10 dogs will usually be kept to perform the gatekeeping role, but these dogs which have performed their functions dutifully will become stray animals overnight when works in the site have been completed. They will naturally search through garbage for food when they get hungry, thus causing a so-called environmental nuisance. The problem is entirely caused by abandonment of animals, and if the same amount of public money can be devoted to protecting animals and preventing the abandonment of animals, the situation can really be significantly improved, thus avoiding the need to put down animals lightly. If we follow the routine arrangements and allocate the funding to AFCD, everything will remain unchanged, and AFCD will apply for the same or even a higher amount of funding next year for animal euthanasia. I am therefore very angry with it sometimes. Worse still, some fellow colleagues know little about the truth and think that AFCD is endeavouring to improve the situation. But AFCD is just exploring the adoption of certain alternative measures, such as the implementation of the trap-neuter-return scheme, which seeks to catch and neuter


stray animals, give them vaccine injections and then return them to the original places. Similar schemes are also implemented in other countries with proven effects, but the scheme we have in Hong Kong is ineffective. An elaboration on the reasons behind has already been provided in my last speech, and I will not repeat. Due to the ineffectiveness of the scheme, AFCD considers the option not feasible, and is of the view that it is only feasible to catch and euthanize animals. It is even suggested that a very humane method is adopted to carry out animal euthanasia. Much has already been said in my previous few speeches to vent my anger, and I now only wish to urge fellow Members to give the matter a second thought. No matter what your voting intention is, and whether you will vote for or against my amendment when it is put to vote later tonight or tomorrow morning, I hope you would give the issue some further consideration. Perhaps no one in the Legislative Council has ever raised the issue for discussion before, but we can start from the current term by first promoting the enactment of an animal welfare law, and then making a change in the policy adopted by AFCD to euthanize animals, as well as disseminating the message of animal protection in the entire community. As pointed out in many overseas researches on crime, children who are cruel to animals have a greater chance of killing people when they grow up, because according to the broken windows theory, they are audacious enough to do so with their experience in physically abusing animals. If we do share a common goal, and consider it necessary to protect animals, impose heavy punishment on those who abuse animals and start banning and gradually phasing out animal euthanasia, we should join hands to promote work in this respect. If Legislative Council Members were free to determine with their wisdom how this funding of $1.3 million should be used, and I were asked to provide my views on what we should do, I would say that everything should start from education by including the message of animal protection in text books. Children should be brought up to appreciate that animals also have feelings, they may also get hurt emotionally and they do not want to wander about, and what should we do then? The answer is that we should never abandon animals. I witnessed a very amazing scene last week when I went to visit a kennel. A couple walked towards me from the opposite direction as I entered the kennel that day, when the lady was in tears and the gentleman was comforting her, and I wondered what made her so sad during the visit. Upon arrival at the kennel, I took up some voluntary duties as usual, such as pacifying the emotion of animals


10063

and helping to give them a bath, etc. An hour later, I asked the owner why a Pekingese was sitting in a dark corner without moving the slightest bit. The owner told me that the dog was just abandoned by its keepers, a couple who had already kept the dog for 10 years. It is learnt that the mother-in-law of the lady did not want to have the dog, and after some bickerings, the couple had no alternative but to abandon the animal and bring it to the kennel. The owner of the kennel refused to take the dog at first, but the couple said that they would then be forced to bring the animal to AFCD, and it was a dog which they had kept for 10 years. I then tried to play with that Pekingese, which gave me no response but I could notice from its facial expression and reaction that it knew nothing about what happened. It was still sleeping peacefully at its home the night before, and it was a place where it had been staying for the last 10 years. The animal might think that it was just brought to a certain place where it could have some fun, and would be brought home later, but it had in fact been abandoned by its keepers. If it was taken to AFCD, it would be euthanized after four days when its keepers did not return to claim it back, and the problem would be resolved with death. The background story of such cases concerning the abandonment of animals can sometimes be very annoying. I asked the owner of the kennel if he had other stories to share, and he told me that there was a case in which a man brought a dog to the kennel, indicating his wish to abandon the animal. According to the man, he could not sleep at night because the dog kept scratching the ground surface and making irritating noise, and as a result, he was diagnosed with depression disorder. The owner of the kennel was deeply puzzled by what he said, and had therefore brought the dog to a veterinary surgeon, who advised that the dog had a problem with its leg joints, and hence could not help scratching the ground surface and making irritating noise. The problem was subsequently fixed by the owner of the kennel, who tried to return the dog to its original keeper and assured him that the animal would no longer cause him trouble at night. However, the man refused to claim back the dog. Yet, the man acted in a rather funny way because he came to visit the dog at the kennel a month later, saying that he had not seen the animal for a long time but leaving again in the end. The dog was in deep sorrow that night after its keeper had come to visit but left again, because it still remembered its keeper and thought that he was to bring it home. People often regard animals as goods and


abandon them without hesitation, even though they have to be taken to AFCD. They do not consider it a problem as long as they do not hear and see anything about the process of euthanizing an animal. If we go through all of these figures set out in papers submitted to the Legislative Council, we will realize that countless lives are actually involved in each of these figures. If AFCD is of the view that the situation has already improved because only 1 000 among the 1 500 dogs caught last year were euthanized, I regret to point out that 1 000 lives have after all been sacrificed, and in this connection, I still insist that AFCD should be held accountable. We should not let AFCD obtain the funding for animal euthanasia so easily, and should at least indicate clearly through the current debate that even though a request will be made again next year for the allocation of funding for animal euthanasia, AFCD cannot go so far as to shamelessly tell us that the situation has gradually improved. I have acted very seriously to propose an amendment during the current debate on the Budget to reduce the estimated expenditure earmarked for AFCD, and I am not having a battle of wills with the authorities. Rather, I do so because I firmly believe that an animal friendly policy can truly and finally be implemented in Hong Kong one day, and it should start with efforts against animal euthanasia. Chairman, I so submit. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, do you wish to speak again? MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am sorry. I could not hear you when the buzzer sounded just now. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, do you wish to speak again? MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): I would like to speak. The item that I propose to cut is the estimated expenditure of $50,800,000 for the Lands Department ("LandsD"). I already stated the reason in my first speech. In my view, the existence of small house concessionary rights is unfair to Hong Kong people. However, the government officials only gave a brief response that it


10065

was unnecessary to discuss this issue. I must point out that since the court has already made a judgment on the small house case while LandsD has also suspended the small house applications involving Government land or land exchange, or since there is already such a practice or a decision, why is it not reflected in this Budget? Of course, the Government can say that this cannot be reflected in time in this Budget or when preparing for this Budget, it was still uncertain whether any of the two parties would lodge an appeal. Hence, I need to propose my amendment here to remind the Government that it can no longer be oblivious to this issue or brush it aside. As I have already said, concerning the target of handling 2 300 cases of small house applications per year, how is this figure arrived at? Why has it to be 2 300 cases but not 20 000 cases or 200 cases? How does the Government arrive at this figure of 2 300 cases? No explanation has come from the Government so far. Of course, the indigenous residents will think that the more the merrier, or it is better that the number of cases handled in one year can be 20 000 instead of 2 300 cases. Some people who have small house concessionary rights are basically not Hong Kong people, but they can apply for the construction of small houses. I cannot understand why this can be allowed by the Hong Kong Government. I even query that when the Basic Law was being drafted back then―small houses and small house concessionary rights are not even mentioned in the Basic Law―whether the so-called residents with traditional rights and interests would include those people who are not Hong Kong people, or those who were not born in Hong Kong, do not have the right of abode in Hong Kong, have never paid any tax in Hong Kong or do not speak Cantonese. However, these people can enjoy small house concessionary rights. Is this reasonable? I call on Members to ask themselves. In my view, Hong Kong people in general will not consider this reasonable or think that such rights should even exist. For instance, the Government is now making a cash handout, but over the years, you have not been residing in Hong Kong. You cannot say that as long as your father or mother is a Hong Kong citizen, even though you do not have a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card, have never lived in Hong Kong or have not resided in Hong Kong for over seven years, you can still apply to get $4,000. This is impossible. In regard to this small house policy, was it a loophole, an


oversight of the Government or a policy deliberately formulated by the Government back then? This has never been properly explained by the Government. If this is a loophole, the Government should plug it. If it is not a loophole but a deliberately formulated policy, the Government has to clearly explain to Hong Kong citizens why this policy was deliberately formulated. As I have stressed many times, if this piece of land belongs to them and they have to build small houses on it, to a certain extent, we have to respect that the ownership of this piece of land belongs to them and not to the Hong Kong Government, which thus cannot use it. This is surely fine. Concerning whether they can arbitrarily build small houses on this piece of land, this concerns another discussion. But at least, you have to respect that the ownership of this piece of land belongs to other people. However, some Government land belongs to the Hong Kong Government or simply to Hong Kong people. Why is each one of these people allowed to construct on Government land a three-storeyed building with a floor area of 700 sq ft or a total area of 2 100 sq ft? As long as you are a male descendant of an indigenous male villager, you have the right to construct a small house. But why does the Government provide government land for them to construct small houses? The whole thing should not have happened in the first place. Of course, the court has already made a judgment that small houses cannot be constructed on Government land. We now go to the second point of the question, on which I wonder if anyone will apply for a judicial review. But this practice concerned really does not make any sense. Let us assume that the son of an indigenous resident in the New Territories was not born in Hong Kong, does not have a Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card, has not pay even $1 of tax in Hong Kong, has never studied in Hong Kong and has no relationship with Hong Kong at all. This situation does not only apply to his son, but also to his grandson who may have been growing up and living in the Netherlands, may have even married a foreigner and they have a child of mixed blood. But as long as their paternal relatives were indigenous residents as mentioned earlier, they can enjoy small house concessionary rights and can apply to construct small houses. I cannot make any sense out of it. Not long ago, there was a media report about the interviews conducted in Malaysia by a journalist on how the male descendants of some indigenous residents sold their small house concessionary rights. Neither can I recall any particular law of Hong Kong in which this right of succession is prescribed, nor can I think of such a welfare or entitlement ever provided by the Hong Kong Government. It is impossible that since he was a


10067

President of the Legislative Council, his son can surely be a Legislative Council Member. This cannot possibly happen. This highly ridiculous situation can be compared to an imperial family in which he is a member of that family so long as one drop of royal blood is still running in his body. The situation is just like that. However, there is no emperor in China or Hong Kong, and Hong Kong is different from Japan, Thailand or the United Kingdom as we do not have any royal family. But why is this situation allowed to happen? Therefore, I suggest slashing the funding of about $50 million for LandsD in my amendment, and this amount is only a drop in the ocean to the Hong Kong Government. Nevertheless, why do I have to propose this amendment? It is because I want to have a discussion on this with Members. The establishment concerned involves 100 people. I have asked a question at the special meeting of the Finance Committee about the number of people in the establishment and the answer is that it has 100 people. When they only deal with 2 300 cases of small house applications each year, the average cost of each case will be $20,000-odd. Why do taxpayers need to pay this exorbitant cost? Let us think about it. The entire small house policy is unrelated to me, but since I am a taxpayer, I am one of those to share the cost. Of course, some people will say that I may not be qualified to enjoy many kinds of social welfare. For example, I am not qualified to enjoy the $2 concessionary fare or the "fruit grant" at this moment. But this is only the situation at this moment and I may be able to enjoy such welfare in the future. In another example, although the female drugs in the Drug Formulary are unrelated to me, there are only male and female in this world and these drugs not required by me may be needed by my daughter in the future. There is still such a possibility. Nonetheless, since I am not an indigenous resident of the New Territories, I cannot have any indigenous resident's descendants. This is something impossible. Hence, why do Hong Kong taxpayers need to help the indigenous residents apply for and pay for the construction of their small houses? They are not a socially disadvantaged group. I do not apply for CSSA at this moment, but in future, I may need to apply for it. I am not eligible for public housing today, but you cannot exclude the possibility that I may have to apply for it in future. When I see the socially disadvantaged groups, I wish that I can help them. Although they are using social resources and spending public money, our taxpayers feel that it is all right because they are the socially disadvantaged groups that need help.


However, the small house policy is different. The indigenous residents do not need help from other people, as they have money, houses and land. From the Government's answer, we also learn that over half of the new small houses are already sold or rented out one year after they have been built. Hence, many small houses built by indigenous residents are not for self-occupation but purely for profiteering. The most unreasonable aspect is that the Hong Kong Government has to provide land for them. We thus give them money and land, and also have to take care of such rights of their descendants. Even though they are not residing in Hong Kong, totally have no connection with Hong Kong, cannot even speak any Cantonese or read any Chinese word, have not lived in Hong Kong for one day, and for a few generations, have been living and growing up in, for example, the Netherlands or Malaysia, they can still apply for small houses only if one ancestor in their paternal line is an indigenous resident. I have no idea whether this can be regarded as reasonable, but if it is reasonable, I might have to start my schooling again from kindergarten, as I do not know such kind of knowledge and principle. This is the reason why I have to propose slashing the expenditure on LandsD. In fact, I really want to propose slashing all its expenditure. Even if not all its expenditure can be cut, at least part of it should be cut. If someone thinks that this practice has legal basis and has to be followed, I would ask whether there is any law to restrict that the applicant must be a Hong Kong resident. This is the most fundamental requirement. Can it be dealt with along this line? Besides, the number of applications also has to be controlled. How does the Government arrive at the number of 2 300 cases to be handled each year? Can the number be reduced or be reasonably reduced by 15% to 20%? It is because according to the Government, among the small house applications, about 10% to 20% of them are applications for construction on Government land, and now the court judgment says that small houses cannot be constructed on Government land. Following the logic, the number of applications should be reduced. Do not think that this will slow down the construction of small houses. In fact, the process will be sped up for those who have land, because the Government only needs to deal with about 80% of these applications per year while the target of 2 300 cases will be maintained. By simple arithmetic calculations, the waiting time can actually be shortened by 20%. Hence, there is no reason for not making any adjustment. Although not one amendment to the Appropriation Bill has been passed in my impression, I think this issue is important. Today, my speech will be recorded verbatim. It has at least expressed that someone in this Chamber found


10069

this policy unreasonable and unfair. If we only look at the reasoning without considering any laws of Hong Kong or the Basic Law, I believe not a single public officer―I think every public officer is a reasonable person―will tell me that the small house policy is rational. Only if he is an indigenous resident of the New Territories, even though his children were not born and bred, and do not have education in Hong Kong, do not understand Chinese language, do not have Hong Kong Permanent Identity Cards or the Hong Kong SAR passports, he and his male descendants can return to Hong Kong to build and sell their small houses which are constructed on Government land provided by Hong Kong people. I believe that the SAR Government, public officers and people with common sense will not think that this is a correct way. Our society has changed gradually. I think if I had brought this issue up a decade or two decades ago, loads of New Territories residents would have already gathered outside the Legislative Council Complex. In my view, Hong Kong should not be afraid of discussing these thorny subjects. I agree that this is a difficult question left over from history, but it does not mean that we should let these questions continue to bedevil the land development of Hong Kong. I so submit. SUSPENSION OF MEETING CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow. Suspended accordingly at 7:57 pm.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 15 May 2019 … · 2019-08-02 · OFFICIAL RECORD OF...

Documents

Transcript of OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Wednesday, 15 May 2019 … · 2019-08-02 · OFFICIAL RECORD OF...