OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 14 ...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 December 2017

4159

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 14 December 2017

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 14 December 2017 4160

THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S. THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P. THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.


4161

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H. DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P. IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P. THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN 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 SHIU KA-CHUN


THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H. THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P. THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H. THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


4163

MEMBERS' MOTIONS PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Morning. This Council now continues with the joint debate on the 12 proposed resolutions and 23 amending motions under Article 75 of the Basic Law. Ms Tanya CHAN, please speak. PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS UNDER ARTICLE 75 OF THE BASIC LAW OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 7 December 2017 MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount. 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) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, please continue with your speech. MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, good morning. The meeting continues today after we voted last night on the adjournment motion moved by Mr Alvin YEUNG, the party leader of the Civic Party. I do not know how many Members did pay attention to my speech yesterday. I saw many people present, but how many of them really listened, and how many truly knew the contents of the amendments? The Secretariat has done lots of work for us since we proposed the amendments. As I said yesterday, I am grateful to the Secretariat for its observations and attention at meetings of the House Committee concerning the amendments from Members, and the subsequent ruling made by the President, etc.


I myself proposed four amendments, but two of them were deleted following the President's ruling. So, finally, I can only move two amendments. That said, we can do nothing today as the President has ordered a joint debate. In fact, 15 minutes are barely enough for me to speak on simply one amendment. So, I will first talk about the relevant background today, especially the part relating to Rule 6(5A)(a) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). As stated in the document prepared by the Legislative Council Secretariat for Members' reference, the amendment is about advancing the time of reviewing whether some closed documents or records of the Legislative Council should be made available for access. It is proposed that a review should be conducted within 20 years, instead of 25 years, of the existence of the documents or records concerned. I do not know how many Members know of this Rule. Many people know of the existence of the Legislative Council Commission ("LCC") chaired by the President. People also know that there is a Deputy President, and a House Committee with a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman. But there is quite an interesting committee under the Legislative Council called the Committee on Access to the Legislature's Documents and Records. I am not sure how many Members know that such a committee exists. This is my second time to be a legislator and I am a member of LCC, so I of course know of this committee. Members may think that the Legislative Council is already highly transparent, as there are minutes of meetings for all meetings of the committees or the Legislative Council. But if Members wish to request access to old documents, they will know that certain documents are still unavailable for access under certain circumstances. Of course, some documents are not open for access for legal reasons, and the period of their closure may last 50 years or over. I would like to explain to Members how documents are categorized. At the very beginning when I worked on this amendment, I had to spend quite some time on the categorization of documents, because some of them are open and others are not open, of course. But if Members think that documents which are not open are all classified, I must say this is not the case. Actually, documents can be further divided into unclassified and classified documents. So, there are three types of documents in total. Of course, people and Members can access open documents. However, some "unclassified documents" belong to the "non-open" category, while certain "classified documents" also fall into the same category. It seems complicated, but actually it is not.


4165

Non-open documents can be categorized into unclassified and classified documents. I cited an example before. As Members may have noticed, my amendment relates to RoP 6(5A). People who studied law or who frequently read legislative provisions will know that a provision with the letter "A" in the numbering is an added provision. So, when seeing the letter "A", in the numbering of the Rule, Members will wonder when it was added. If Members have the printed copy of RoP on hand, they may check it out. The Rule was added in 2014. It is quite a long story here in 2010 when the Council had not yet moved into the Legislative Council Complex, Members wanted to review if more records and documents of the Legislative Council could be released to enhance its transparency. At that time, the Secretariat undertook to adopt a new Access to Information Policy after relocating to the Legislative Council Complex with a view to enhancing the transparency of the Legislative Council. In fact, some of the documents involve the Government, so we also wish to have more openness and transparency. As we all know, the Legislative Council moved into the new complex in 2011. The Secretariat kept its words and promptly reviewed the policy. The review was not an ordinary internal review, as they even conducted public consultation and held a series of briefing sessions. If I remember correctly, eight briefing sessions were held. As for the public consultation, the aim was to consult different social sectors, including Members, on the length of the closure period for non-open documents, and how we should handle those documents that were already categorized. As I have just explained, non-open documents that are unclassified include documents and records which are non-open but not classified, such as the meeting agendas of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, most discussion papers and minutes of meetings. Another type of documents is truly classified. I mean the restricted and confidential documents and records, namely internal discussion records of the Public Accounts Committee and select committees, or even the files of complaint cases handled by Members sometimes. These are categorized as classified records. We of course understand that we cannot possibly do anything with those documents the access to which is prohibited by the law. But we also wonder why classified documents must be closed for 50 years. If Members read the Rule, they will see that it is not easy to understand, and I myself also had to read it over and over again before I managed to understand it. As the Rule comes with the letter "A" in its numbering, we actually need to read it together with Schedule 2, perhaps even several times over, in order to make sense of the whole thing. The point here is that unless the law otherwise specifies a closure period


of 30 years, non-open records that are classified must be closed for 50 years before they can be accessed by the public. Members can see from time to time that some newspapers like to examine declassified documents in the United Kingdom involving Hong Kong, especially records before the reunification concerning former governors or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or newly declassified records of some very controversial incidents. Through these documents we can know the decision-making processes of governments then. Hence, some of the documents, the declassified documents in particular, are extremely important historical records to governments or people who respect the history and facts about Hong Kong. Members have heard that there is a 50-year closure period, and they may more or less understand that the documents concerned cannot be made available for access, unless a shorter period, say, 30 years or 34.5 years, is otherwise specified. However, how about those documents which are non-open but unclassified? Let me explain a bit further here. In the case of non-open documents that are classified, a review shall be conducted within 25 years after the existence of the documents or records, so as to see whether the time of opening them for access can be advanced. If it is decided that access not be made earlier, then a further review should be conducted once every four years from the last review. However, coming back to documents which are non-open but unclassified, such as minutes of meetings of the Committee on Rules of Procedure, how are they handled? These documents will be made public after a closure period of 20 years. But does this mean that nothing can be done within the 20-year period? This is not really the case. I do not know if Members know that I have recently lodged an application through a form titled "Application form for access to closed documents and records of the Legislature/the Legislative Council Commission". How many Members have seen this form before? I do not mean to request access to the minutes of LCC meetings. Instead, I wish to have access to a clear array of the documents of the Panel on Security relating to the Shenzhen Bay Port. But then, some of these documents were submitted by the Government and categorized as "restricted". Even serving Members like us cannot access these documents. Well, maybe, members of the Panel on Security at the time can do so. As Members may know, although I am a legislator, I may still need to visit the library if I want to access some "restricted documents" of the past. I mean if we


4167

want to access such documents now, we still have to file an application. The above mentioned committee must first examine the application to see whether the documents concerned can be opened to Members, or to me, the applicant. Why is this application procedure required? This is a requirement of RoP, and apart from this, there may be the reason that certain documents really contain sensitive information and it may not be appropriate to open them for access at certain junctures. Let me now return to my amendment. I have already said that the Legislative Council has prepared an information paper containing the amendment I want to move. This amendment seeks to specify that the Clerk to the Legislative Council shall conduct a review within 20 years, rather than 25 years, after the existence of the documents or records kept by the Secretariat, so as to confirm if access to these documents or records should be advanced. I have actually mentioned several periods of time, namely 50 years, 25 years and 20 years. Why? Because some documents are reviewed within 20 years, one example being the non-open but unclassified documents I have mentioned. As for those documents mentioned in my amendment, I actually want to advance the time of review also to within 20 years. As I have pointed out, some documents which were confidential at first are subject to review 20 years after their existence, so we hope that these two kinds of documents can be reviewed in accordance with the same schedule. It is of course better if the documents can be made public earlier. Since a decision was made at that time after public consultation, and probably debate and discussions, Members may wonder if it is at all appropriate for me to propose an amendment so very suddenly now (There was indeed a debate back then). If Members are at all interested, they may check the many public opinions collected back then. Did the public support advancing the time of reviewing whether such documents should be opened for public access from within 25 years to within 20 years? As far as I understand it, a 20-period was not an option offered. The shortest period offered as an option was 25 years. That said, I notice that many people actually wanted to read, or at least check, such documents at an earlier time. For example, people thought that the period for conducting declassification reviews should be reduced from the proposed 25 years to 5 to 20 years after records creation. This proposal was listed in Annex


A to the document, which contained people's opinions collected after the briefing sessions. Members can note that the respondents put forward certain suggestions concerning the declassification period. These suggestions appeared more than once indeed, as subsequent sessions received similar opinions too. It was because unclassified files would go through declassification reviews 20 years after their creation, so the reviews on classified files should be conducted earlier. This means that all unclassified and classified documents can be reviewed on the basis of the same schedule, that is, 20 years after creation, so that we do not have to wait 25 years before reviews can be conducted on those documents we consider more important. We all know that this year marks the 20th anniversary of the reunification. I believe many people, including me, are eager to know more about the information relating to the discussions done by the former Legislative Council, the Provisional Legislative Council or the Legislative Council around the time of the reunification. The discussions are probably recorded in the non-open and classified documents mentioned above. If we can advance the time of review for such classified documents from 25 years to 20 years and review the unclassified and classified documents altogether, I believe the media will be very interested in the information recorded in the documents. On the one hand, this can save the Secretariat's time as it is no longer necessary to distinguish between documents with 20 years' or 25 years' review period. All types of documents can be reviewed at the same time. Furthermore, in case some documents are in fact ready to be made public, only that they were categorized as classified when put to custody in the past, these documents can possibly be made public, so as to unveil the post-reunification arrangements for Hong Kong made by the former Legislative Council before the handover, the work done by the Provision Legislative Council and how the Legislative Council took over the tasks. I believe this part of the history is very important to members of the media or the public who respect the history of Hong Kong, especially legislators. We will have to keep on waiting if the practice is not changed. So, President, I have explained only one reason for moving this amendment, and I have not talked about anything else, but I have already used up the 15-minute speaking time. I also notice that many pro-establishment Members have listened carefully to my speech, so they should not know of the existence and origin of this committee in the Legislative Council, and how this committee can be made use of. I have another amendment today, but regrettably, I will have no chance to speak on it. I will give response in


4169

connection with my amendments later on. I hope Members can spend a little time to study the amendments moved by the opposite camp or their own camp. Thank you. I so submit. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, Ms Tanya CHAN has meticulously and thoroughly explained her amendment. In the Council, Members are duty-bound to carefully and seriously handle the amendments. Is it not right for us to do so? Ms Tanya CHAN's speech has clearly explained her arguments and the reasons for the proposal to change the closure period of relevant documents. I urge Members to consider her amendment. That said, I of course understand the circumstances today. How would the hardliners in the royalist, pro-establishment camp consider the merits of our opinions? My amendment relates to two issues which seem like something rather straightforward and simple. For example, we propose a minor amendment concerning the precedence of Members. At present, the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") provides that the precedence of Members is determined according to the continuous period of time for which the Member has held office. However, all of us will probably come and go for various reasons. After all, the nature of Members' precedence is a question of experience and qualifications, and these qualities are unrelated to whether the Member has served continuously or has left the Council in-between the terms of office. However, this is currently the mechanism for determining Members' precedence under RoP. So, this minor amendment proposes that a Member's precedence does not have to be determined according to a continuous term. Should two or more Members have held office for an equal period of time, we will determine the precedence in accordance with the present arrangement. The second amendment is about days and hours of meetings. We know that many royalists and pro-establishment Members present are both Members of the Legislative Council of the HKSAR and representatives of the state working on tasks relating to the state. During the sessions of the National People's Congress ("NPC") and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference ("CPPCC"), the President usually makes an arrangement under which the


Legislative Council will hold no meeting during the two weeks, allowing pro-establishment Members peace of mind when they participate in the NPC and CPPCC sessions. With a view to demonstrating the Council's fundamental functions, we should give top priority to fulfilling the functions of the Legislative Council and the tasks of serving Hong Kong people. Therefore, we should lay down the broad principle expressly: "Meetings of the Council shall continue to be held during the annual plenary sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference." This is a question of priority. Of course, the amendment adds a condition: "unless the President orders otherwise." In other words, we can show Hong Kong people that we take the functions of the Legislative Council seriously, while giving the President the flexibility via the texts "unless the President orders otherwise". The President certainly can handle this the way he does today, only that he does not have to adopt such a method at present, and … (Mr Jeffrey LAM stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please hold on. Mr Jeffrey LAM, what is your point of order? MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Why are the people not here? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please continue with your speech. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, so if Members read carefully, they will know that my amendment will not affect the Council's proceedings at all, but merely makes some practices clear in this Council. However, in the course of making things clear, we still have to ensure that the functions of the Legislative Council have the first priority. Members can either agree or not agree to my proposals. Actually, perhaps it was not difficult to get Members' endorsement for these amendments if we were able to comprehensively discuss them at meetings of the Committee on Rules of Procedure. However, as regards the


4171

detailed discussions held by the Committee and whether thorough debates were conducted, or whether the amendments are in order or conform with the consensus reached in the Council, we submitted all the proposals before we had a chance to really discuss these questions carefully. We dealt with my amendment in the same way as we handled the one relating to the word "擧". It is because Mr Paul TSE, the Chairman of the Committee then, had hastily closed the discussion without permitting any meaningful deliberation on every other issues, except those issues concerning the word "擧 ". As a result, the amendments to RoP are stuck in the stage which involves only the Government's unilateral push to bulldoze them through. President, "A Companion to the history, rules and practices of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region" ("Companion") illustrates the values and principles of RoP. One of the key principles is the spirit of fairness. This is essential to the protection of the rights of minority Members. Can we demonstrate any fairness in amending the RoP this time? I quote one example. Under Rule 20 of the Rules of Procedure relating to the presentation of petitions, currently we need no less than 20 Members to stand up in order to establish a select committee, but 35 Members will be needed in future. In other words, only Members in the majority can invoke the Rule by presenting a petition, and the minority Members in the Council are basically unable to do so. Has this not violated the principle of fairness? The presentation of petition merely takes a few minutes' time, but it functions as an investigation mechanism of the Legislative Council. Despite lacking the extra authority to summon witnesses under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance, this investigation mechanism still enables Members to investigate the incidents and try to retrieve the facts by setting up select committees, thereby pressing the Government to face the questions raised by the people and the Council without dodging from them. However, the royalists now attempt to raise the threshold to the level applicable to the select committees formed under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance with the power to summon. From this perspective, they cannot even stand the existence of this toothless tiger. They cannot accommodate even a toothless tiger, so much so that they are unwilling to let the minority Members form a select committee by means of a petition to express our opinions on issues involving the Government's dereliction of duty or imbalance actions. I mean, improper actions.


Therefore, can such an amendment to RoP objectively demonstrate fairness? Or, does this amendment simply intend to turn RoP into a convoy of the Government, or the executive authorities, so as to ensure the timely completion of scrutiny of all motions moved by the Government to the Legislative Council? If this is the purpose of this amendment, then how can the Legislative Council discharge the function and mission to monitor the Government stipulated under Article 73 of the Basic Law? In fact, the pro-democracy camp and the pro-establishment camp seem like confronting and opposing each other. We even noticed the rigid orders delivered to them yesterday as over a few hours' period none of them dared to leave their seats even for the washroom, all because they had to ensure that the discussion on RoP can start today. Do they really have to go so far? Have things developed to a degree that we cannot even discuss and negotiate the contents of the amendments in a bid to reach an outcome? Or, they actually want to fundamentally produce an unfair position through this amendment to subvert the Council's power or undermine Members' capacity to monitor the Government? If so, it is not surprising that they must rush this through when there is a gap after six of our Members were disqualified. President, the Companion also mentions another piece of history. It reads: "After reunification, there has been an understanding among Members that, where possible, the general philosophy and principles underlying the way Council business is conducted should be maintained and existing procedures should remain unchanged." That said, over the past two decades, the Legislative Council has nevertheless amended the RoP a few times in some very rigorous circumstances. This exactly demonstrates that consensus can be reached in the Council. If Members can recall, the pro-democracy camp once fiercely debated and questioned whether the President's power to drive Members away from meetings should be extended to Panel Chairmen. We all considered that Members should find common grounds. Therefore, despite criticisms from fellow Members from the progressive democratic camp, we pro-democracy Members still endorsed the arrangement. It was because we believed that the power is in order if it is exercised reasonably. This example shows that, even if an issue is highly controversial, we can still solve it by way of deliberation. However, they are not willing to resolve the problems through deliberation. After all, they have already set their minds to seize the golden opportunity during the window period before the by-election on 11 March to amend the RoP in whatever ways they wish after the disqualification of six Members. Having long


4173

been the majoring in directly elected seats in geographical constituencies in the Council, the pro-democracy camp now loses this advantage after the disqualification. But what are the consequences of their move? The pro-establishment, royalist Members must understand that the Rules, once changed, will be in place afterward. Today, they are fortunate enough to be entrusted with certain tasks by the "Western District", and Mr Paul TSE even confesses that he is the "godson of the Western District" and regards himself the leader of the hardline section, siding with the pro-establishment camp and the royalists. But he can be abandoned anytime tomorrow if he loses his value after becoming useless to them. As a Chinese proverb goes: "after the hares are killed, the running dogs will be cooked." Being one of the running dogs in the group, how can Mr Paul TSE escape the fate that he will one day be discarded by the Central Government at last? (Mr Paul TSE stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please hold on. Mr Paul TSE, what is your point of order? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): I can tolerate this for the first time, the second time, but not the third time. What does it mean by "running dog"? Can he define "running dog"? If he cannot explain why his wording is not offensive, I will ask him to withdraw his remark and apologize. As he is the chairman of a political party, I request his apology. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I have made myself clear. I have merely quoted a Chinese proverb which reads "after the hares are killed, the running dogs will be cooked." I do admit saying that he is one of the running dogs in the group, so of course he should have the body parts of a "running dog". (Some Members spoke loudly in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, I clearly understand that you referred to Mr Paul TSE.


MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I have unequivocally expressed my words already. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, I hope you can withdraw you remark. (Some Members spoke loudly in their seats) MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I have made myself very clear. Any dog will naturally have the body parts of a dog. (Some Members spoke loudly in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, this is not the wording you used. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I do not mean to debate with him. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, please withdraw your remark referring to Mr Paul TSE so that the debate in the Council may go on. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I have clearly expressed the arguments in my speech. I do not think there is any offensive remark. (Some Members spoke loudly in their seats) MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I have already said all I have to say. If someone wants to fit oneself into the picture, and if you believe you have to handle this, then I request your ruling. (Some Members continued to speak loudly in their seats)


4175

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting so that I can review the audio-records and make a ruling. 9:29 am Meeting suspended. 9:50 am Council then resumed. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please withdraw your remark directed at Mr Paul TSE just now. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I have reviewed the video records. While I quoted the Chinese proverb which reads "after the hares are killed, the running dogs will be cooked", I did direct my attention at Mr Paul TSE during the latter part of my speech. I believe this is inappropriate. Therefore, I withdraw the three words "Mr Paul TSE", as so to make my overall argument clear. I only intended to explain the process of how the running dogs will be cooked when all the hares are dead. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please continue with your speech. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I continue now then. I was referring to the amendments to RoP. In fact, Members must understand that RoP serve to facilitate the Council's effective operation. We should not be inclined to undermine our own power and weaken our long-held function to monitor the Government. It is even more unacceptable that they turn the RoP into a tool to suppress the minorities in the Council.


Actually, I have said in many different occasions that, in the face of the challenges from minority Members, pro-establishment camp is indeed equipped with a very powerful weapon. Say, in connection with the present RoP amendment exercise, the President has already stated that, if necessary, the meeting will be held consecutively on Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday and next Monday until the motion is done. It is like a marathon. The athletes taking up the challenge of this long distance race will of course reserve the stamina for a marathon. How on earth with they not get themselves prepared for the long distance, but expect the organizer to shorten the distance of the race to only 5 ft or 10 ft? This is totally illogical and unusual. Therefore, I hope (The buzzer sounded) … MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, the time is now 9:45 pm. Do they not need a break? President, the debate about the word "running dog" just now is rather regrettable. Many pro-establishment Members were extremely serious and enthusiastic in discussing the matter during the meeting's suspension. In comparison to the scene now where only a few Members are taking part in the discussion on the amendments to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), the debate earlier was much more intense and heated, looking like all of them had woken up. In fact, it is understandable that one will stand forward to defend oneself against criticisms. This is something normal and instinctive. But key point is how people think about the criticisms and whether they believe the words. Some people do not fear any criticisms and will just laugh them off, thinking that people will not believe such criticisms anyway. Some people, in contrast, are very concerned, probably because the allegations are in fact true, so they are offended. As regards whether the accusations are true, I believe the people concerned are the ones who know best. So, does it really matter at all, even if you prevail or have to withdraw your remark? After all, for both the accusers and the accused, "what is true will always be true, and what is false will always be false". We all know this very well. President, I propose four amendments to the RoP, but they have been treated in three different ways. Two of them are allowed to be moved today, but one amendment is not approved by the President. I would like to say a few words here. I proposed that the Legislative Council should not have the power


4177

to change the days or hours of meetings to an earlier time, and this proposal involves RoP 14(3). But the President seems to think that he should not approve any amendment which seeks to limit his power, but amendments moved by the pro-establishment camp seeking to increase the President's power or give him the final say can all be put forward. So, regrettably, this amendment of mine and many other similar amendments proposed by fellow Members are not even given a chance to be moved, not to mention the fact that, later on, the pro-establishment camp will certainly vote down all these amendments even if we can really move them now. Nevertheless, another amendment proposed by me has luckily been approved. This is an amendment relating to the word "擧" in RoP. At the beginning of the debate, Mr Paul TSE read out his script amid the chaos of some noisy complaints. I simply could not hear his words. In fact, this involves my amendment too. In this connection, while Mr IP Kin-yuen has distributed an article written by him to all Members, I believe we should talk about this here too. Mr IP holds different opinions on this word. As already pointed out by him at meetings of the House Committee, if we merely change the old version of the word "擧" to the new version "舉", problems involving other possible or existing variant forms may arise in practice. He thinks that once a precedent is set today, we will have to face the trouble of having to make amendment each time such problems appear. I have a different view on this issue. The old version "擧" cannot be shown on many computers or display systems. So, how can we deal with problems like this? Should similar problems happen in the future, given that the procedures for handling a consensual amendment to the RoP are so simple, we can easily make similar amendments if necessary as this will not take much effort anyway. However, I find that one paragraph in Mr IP Kin-yuen's article is really meaningful. It deserves to be mentioned here. It reads: "By means of a resolution, the Legislative Council seriously handles a textual issue which is so frivolous that it is almost meaningless." That said, I do not think the issue is really "so frivolous that it is almost meaningless". However, he believes that "this is probably an unprecedented task. If we wish to take it seriously, we should be serious to the largest extent possible! The Committee on Rules of Procedure strangely held a closed meeting in this regard, and I as a Member "―this is talking about Mr IP here―"had requested to observe the meeting on


23 October. Yet, to my surprise, my request was denied! Therefore, no one has seriously consider the reasons for the Committee's discussion on the word '擧' and the kind of reference materials they have checked or the arguments made. We only can rely on the documents submitted by the Committee to the House Committee. Unfortunately, the documents only contain the conclusion but not any brief explanation." He then asks: "On what basis can Members cast their votes?" Frankly, updating the old version "擧" to new version "舉" is nothing so important. I believe Mr IP's key point is: how did this Committee on Rules of Procedure chaired by Mr Paul TSE discuss other amendments? Perhaps Mr Kenneth LEUNG can tell us when he speaks later, but we, including Members who proposed the amendments, will not only denied the details of the discussion but also the eventual conclusion. It was all decided by the Chairman alone, subsequently leading to such a rather messy situation, though I do not wish to describe it like this. What is the point of all these? The pro-establishment camp controls all the committees of the Council, including Council meetings. They have sufficient votes to pass any proposals. Will Hong Kong people be convinced by such a situation in the Council? Will they hope to see this go on? Is this fair? So, the problem is not only about the word "擧". President, the other two amendments proposed are lucky enough to have your approval for being incorporated into today's agenda for discussion. I must reiterate that the amendments proposed by the pro-democracy camp are fundamentally very different from those moved by the pro-establishment camp. On one hand, the difference lies in our wish to enhance the Council's power of monitoring the Government through each amendment, unlike those moved by the pro-establishment camp which aim only to further turn the Legislative Council into something like the Provisional Legislative Council or the National People's Congress. On the other hand, we also wish to improve the Council's transparency and promote its modernization. Therefore, my first approved amendment for discussion exactly involves the Legislative Council's meeting records, in which I propose that video recording of the proceedings be regarded as official documents. The amendments relate to RoP 6(5) and newly added RoP 8(d). I will speak on the newly added RoP 8(d) later on. At this moment, I will refer to RoP 6(5) which stipulates that the Clerk of the Legislative Council shall be responsible for the custody of meeting records. RoP 6(5) states that: "The


4179

Clerk shall be responsible for the custody of the votes, records, bills and other documents laid before the Council, which shall be open to inspection by Members and public officers acting in the course of their duties relevant to Council business at all reasonable hours, and by other persons under arrangements approved by the President." As pointed out by Ms Tanya CHAN this morning, many people believe that the Legislative Council is already highly transparent. Of course, if compared to many governmental departments, the Council is indeed highly transparent. Apart from the example above concerning the closed meetings held by the Committee on Rules of Procedure, most of the meetings in the Council are open. So, the Council is much better than the Government in this sense. That said, Ms CHAN has already pointed out earlier that, through her amendment, she wishes to address the problem of the lack of public access to various forms of documents in the custody of the Legislative Council. Today, video recordings of meetings of the Legislative Council, Panels, Bills Committees are available on the Legislative Council website. This service has been added since the Fifth Legislative Council in 2012. As for meetings of the Fourth Legislative Council or earlier, only text records are kept. Members may consider that video broadcast is already in place, but I believe that expressly stating in the RoP the Clerk's responsibility for the custody of these recordings can provide a clear policy and mandate for the staff of the Legislative Council Library and the Legislative Council Archives to fulfil their duties to properly put these video recordings under their custody. Without this arrangement, in case of any unforeseeable events or negligence which may lead to improper maintenance of the materials, then these important records will probably be lost forever. Some people consider that we already have verbatim records of the proceedings, but this only covers Council meetings instead of all meetings of Subcommittees or Panels. The cost will be exorbitant should we seek to provide verbatim records for all meetings. Therefore, it is important that we incorporate these video recordings into the archive of formal documents under the custody of the Legislative Council. In the meantime, President, there is another important issue. While Members' speeches and relevant video recordings between the points when the President announces the start and the adjournment of meetings are put on record, video recordings are not available for the periods when meetings are suspended,


as in the case just now. However, people may be interested in the events during the suspension. Even in the course of the meetings, more than one Members may speak simultaneously, so if my words have now enraged certain Members, some of them may stand up instantly and censure me with some abusive language, but then, these words will not be recorded. Although the microphone may not be turned on while Members make these remarks, we sometimes can still hear the words, and the situation will still be shown on video recordings. Moreover, we may have more than one records of the same situation on the videos. Members all know that there are many cameras in the Chamber. We may only save one version of the recordings after editing, but then, as some recordings may not be kept in the files, should we consider whether we have to keep all the recording? For example, the video recording of my speech at this moment will be kept, yet can we also save the other recordings of another Members, if any, who stand up accusing me suddenly? This sounds good, as the scene will certainly not be described in the text records. In this case, as the Legislative Council is a solemn place for the public, it is essential that we keep records of all the events in the Chamber. President, a few Members mentioned the international declaration relating to parliamentary operation, such as Mr Alvin YEUNG. The declaration states that the digital age has totally changed the landscape of parliamentary openness and global citizens' expectation for good governance. The newly emerged technologies have shown great potential for analysis and good use of parliamentary information, which facilitate the development of sharing economy, knowledge sharing and building of representative democracy. Many examples are found overseas, including Canada and the United Kingdom, etc. Owing to time constrains, I will not go into detail now. Today, I have to discuss my second amendment which proposes that RoP 8(d) be added to the RoP, thereby giving the Legislative Council additional power to invite the Chief Executive to attend meetings of the Council and other committees. The existing RoP 8 concerning the attendance of the Chief Executive stipulates that the Chief Executive may at her discretion attend meetings of the Council, or any committee or subcommittee for purposes including addressing the Council at any time as she shall think fit, during a special meeting; or, during sessions like Members' oral questioning time, answering Members' questions put to her on the work of the Government; or proposing any policy, measure, bill, resolution, motion, etc., which mean tasks


4181

that the Government has failed to deliver recently. However, this is entirely controlled by the Chief Executive herself. She can address the Legislative Council only when she deems appropriate. Therefore, in the amendment, I propose adding RoP 8(d) to stipulate that the Chief Executive shall attend meetings upon the invitation of the Council, any committee, subcommittees or Members, so as to take back the power to initiate an invitation to the Chief Executive. Fair enough, I understand that the Chief Executive is busy and sometimes she may have genuine reasons not to attend meetings and answer Members' questions, so the Chief Executive may at her discretion decide whether to accept the invitation and attend the meetings of the Council or any committee or subcommittee thereof. This is an example of enhancing the Legislative Council's power and capacity in monitoring the Government. Given the numerous cases of black-box operation over the last few years, including the Wang Chau development, the Hong Kong Palace Museum and the "co-location" agreement, should the Council fight for more power so that we can invite, albeit non-mandatorily, the Chief Executive to visit the Council and attend meetings? Of course, should we extend an invitation, yet she refuses to accept it with all the excuses, she will then have to bear herself the political consequences arising from the perception generated among the people. Can we not even empower the Council in this regard? Therefore, I hope pro-establishment Members can really think about it. The amendment will strengthen their power to hold the Chief Executive accountable to the Council when issues arise in future (The buzzer sounded) … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, please stop speaking. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members. Before I speak on various amendments, I would like to say a few words on another subject. I have no intention of commenting on the ruling just made by the President concerning Mr WU Chi-wai's remarks, but I want to talk about some concepts about animals in Chinese culture. Chinese people are particularly fond of certain animals such as dragon, tiger and phoenix. For instance, if a Member says that the Council President has demonstrated the vigour and vitality of a tiger when chairing a meeting, this will


not give rise to any problem, and tigers are a kind of animals. However, if a Member describes the Council President as a dog, this will be viewed differently, as dogs and tigers are truly two different kinds of animals. I wonder why Chinese people will have different perceptions of certain animals such as dogs and tortoises, and I think we have to consider why different kinds of animals are treated differently. I really do not have any idea. Speaking of the 12 Chinese zodiac signs, many people of course hope that they could be born in the year of the dragon or the year of the tiger. I would think that these perceptions are irrational. We should keep an open mind and be accommodating, as in fact, all animals are equal. I believe that Dr Elizabeth QUAT will also agree with me. President, in regard to this topic of discussion, Members of our democratic camp have proposed 24 amendments to the Rules of Procedure. Of course, this number is now drastically reduced after the President has made a ruling. Frankly speaking, these amendments are the result of other unfair amendments hastily proposed by the pro-establishment camp. I honestly admit that, as the amendments from the pro-establishment camp are hastily proposed and they have not been deliberated by the Committee on Rules of Procedure ("the Committee") during the meetings. As the Deputy Chairman of the Committee, I will observe the existing practice and tradition of the Committee, and that is, I will not speak on the deliberations in the Committee meetings. However, with the consent of Mr Alvin YEUNG, I will disclose some of the remarks made by Mr Alvin YEUNG and me in the Committee meeting or the approach adopted by the Committee on that day. As a matter of fact, the several dozen amendments from the democratic camp were only under discussion for one hour in the Committee meeting. Despite our great efforts in explaining to the pro-establishment Members of the Committee our purpose of putting forward these amendments, all amendments, apart from the one concerning the Chinese word "擧" of course, were vetoed by the pro-establishment Members. Admittedly, they were vetoed unreasonably. If anyone has the opportunity to read the letter dated 18 October to Mr Paul TSE, Chairman of the Committee, from three Members of the democratic camp, including Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and me, he will know that on the whole, the amendments from the democratic Members are proposed in the hope that the Rules of Procedure can be updated to catch up with the times as well as the needs of Hong Kong as a modern and democratic society in the 21st century.


4183

The amendments are grouped under seven directions. For one group of amendments to the Rules of Procedure, its direction is to take care of some people with special needs and people with disabilities, and these people will of course include Members as well as the colleagues in their offices. Since these people have special needs, we have to take care of them. The direction of another group of amendments is to restrain the President's way of chairing meetings so that he can perform his duties in an orderly manner and will not make decisions so arbitrarily. When exercising his discretion, he has to take into consideration all the facts, the legal provisions concerned and the related provisions in the Rules of Procedure. If the Rules of Procedure are so loosely written that the President can make all the decisions, it is absolutely possible that he will abuse his power. The direction of another group of amendments is that the public and media can be provided with more information about the Legislative Council, and this was briefly mentioned by Mr Charles Peter MOK earlier. The direction of the fourth group of amendments is to make the Council procedures more open and transparent, and I will elucidate this point with an example. I do not understand why the Committee's meeting records and papers on discussion items have to be kept in such a confidential way. I was not a member of that Committee in the last session, but I am the Deputy Chairman of this Committee in this session. Due to our discussion on the amendment to the Rules of Procedure, not long ago, I requested to read the Committee's meeting records in the last session, as these records are relevant. However, the Secretariat says that I do not have access to reading such records. Is it very weird? The Rules of Procedure aim to specify the relationship between Members and the President, but why do the records have to be kept in such a confidential way? What are the reasons? Apart from the reason of being the tradition, I cannot see any justification for keeping the meeting records and papers concerned in such a confidential way. In regard to the other group of amendments from the democratic Members, it seeks to enshrine the spirits of four existing anti-discrimination ordinances in Hong Kong into the Rules of Procedure. To be exact, it aims to enshrine the spirits of four existing anti-discrimination ordinances, namely the Sex Discrimination Ordinance, the Family Status Discrimination Ordinance, the Race Discrimination Ordinance and the Disability Discrimination Ordinance, into the Rules of Procedure. There is, of course, a kind of spirit of utmost importance,


which is related to the direction of another group of amendments. This group seeks to have the basic rights and interests of the Hong Kong people under the Basic Law expressly provided in the Rules of Procedure. This is significant as the amendments from the pro-establishment Members have also incorporated the most fundamental legal concepts in the Basic Law which everyone, including the President, must follow. And we also want to incorporate into our amendments the concepts in the Basic Law concerning the protection of Hong Kong people's rights and interests as well as freedom. The direction of our seventh group of amendments is highly important. It seeks to demonstrate the functions of the Legislative Council such that the Government and the executive authorities can be accountable to the Legislative Council in a more effective way. These seven directions are, of course, fully recognized by the democratic Members, and I also think that the pro-establishment Members will not oppose them. It is, however, very unfortunate that we have no time to discuss these amendments, which I also feel helpless and distressed. In fact, these amendments are all feasible and reasonable. President, concerning my two amendments which have been approved, the first amendment is proposed to amend Rule 6(7) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). The existing RoP 6(7) reads, "The Clerk shall be responsible for providing every committee and subcommittee of the Council with a clerk." President, my amendment to this rule is that: after "with a clerk", add "and, unless the Clerk orders otherwise, a deputy clerk". It means that every committee and subcommittee of the Council should be provided with a clerk and a deputy clerk, unless the Clerk orders otherwise. President, this amendment of course has to do with the manpower and financial resources of the Legislative Council Secretariat. I also hope Members or President will agree that the Legislative Council indeed needs more resources. It is hoped that the Government can provide more resources to us to ensure a smoother operation of the Legislative Council. Why do I say that? Why should this rule be amended? It is because I notice the heavy workload of many committees. It is true that the type and nature of work in each committee are different from the others. But in certain committees with very heavy workload, we surely need a deputy clerk, who can exercise the power on behalf of the clerk when the latter is on leave or sick leave. In some committees such as the Public Accounts Committee, the clerk really has


4185

to put up with the heavy workload and hard work. I am not saying that there should be a deputy clerk in each committee, as it will be the responsibility of the Clerk to decide whether a deputy clerk will be needed in certain committees or subcommittees. Of course, the workload of some committees is not too heavy and a deputy clerk will not be needed. One example is the Committee in the last session, which only held a meeting bi-monthly. Therefore, I hope that this logical and reasonable amendment can gain the recognition and the supporting votes of the pro-establishment Members. This is an amendment pertaining to RoP 6(7). I would ask Members to look at it in detail and give due consideration. President, my other amendment concerns RoP 14(2), which seeks to amend the days and hours of meetings. The existing RoP 14(2) reads, "Written notice of every meeting of the Council, other than the first meeting of a new session and meetings held within 14 clear days of the commencement of the first session of a term of the Council, shall be given by the Clerk to Members at least 14 clear days before the day of the meeting". Of course, in cases of emergency, the President may dispense with such notice given to Members at least 14 clear days before the day of the meeting. Given that the President has the power to dispense with such notice given to Members at least 14 clear days before the day of the meeting, I propose a change to RoP 14(2) to the effect that written notice of every meeting of the Council, other than the first meeting of a new session, shall be given by the Clerk to Members at least 12 clear days, instead of 14 clear days, before the day of the meeting. Members may note that the notice period will only be shortened by two days. Why do I think that the notice period must be shortened by two days? I do not propose to amend this rule for the sake of amendment. Firstly, if there are some sudden developments or cases of emergency in society, the new items concerned can be incorporated into the agenda for discussion by the Council. Secondly, why should the notice period be shortened by two days? My consideration is that the Secretariat can have greater autonomy or flexibility to deal with their work in relation to the Legislative Council meetings. This is not an amendment arbitrarily proposed by me, as the President can dispense with such notice anyway. I hope that the pro-establishment Members can support my two amendments.


DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, you allow me to move a proposed resolution on two amendments to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). I hope that Members will later listen attentively to my first amendment and all of them will support it. This amendment concerns RoP 2. It seeks to allow Members to use sign language when they speak in the Legislative Council. I will later explain in detail my reasons for the amendment. The other amendment concerns RoP 5(1). It seeks to specify that the chairman of the House Committee must be a Member elected from the geographical constituency. And I will also explain my reasons later. President, first of all, I want to say that I have proposed four amendments to RoP, one of which is to add RoP 86A to require the Legislative Council to use accessibility and inclusiveness as a priority consideration, so that disabled Legislative Council Members, staff members and members of the public can access the Legislative Council Complex, and that no Members will be prevented from executing their Legislative Council duties due to their physical disability. President, you say that this amendment falls outside the scope of RoP. You hold that the policy on disabled persons is within the terms of reference of the Legislative Council Commission. I disagree. While I agree that the Legislative Council Commission can formulate rules and procedures, I wish to point out that my amendment seeks to set out in RoP of the Legislative Council the principle that disabled persons also enjoy equal rights like others. I thus wish to express my dissatisfaction, disagreement and regrets to your ruling. Let us come back to my amendments. First, my amendment to RoP 2 simply seeks to allow Members to use sign language in this Council. This is right and proper. We talked about the rights of deaf children and education for deaf people in the meeting this June of the Subcommittee on Children's Rights under my chairmanship. A few dozen members of the public (including deaf children) attended the meeting and some of them used sign language to express their views. We had no difficulties in communication. They used sign language to communicate with us, and a sign language interpretation service was provided at the meeting. We understood each other and freely expressed our views at the meeting. It is a manifestation of our equal rights.


4187

At present, a sign language interpretation service is provided for all Members speaking at Council meetings. I think this is commendable. The Hong Kong SAR is quite ahead of its other Asian counterparts, and does not lag behind the international community too, in that its Legislative Council can provide simultaneous sign language interpretation for its Council meetings. Yet, our RoP does not allow Members to use sign language to speak. That is regrettable. As a matter of fact, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006 and China became a signatory in 2008. Hong Kong is a SAR of China, so the Convention is also applicable to Hong Kong. Article 1 of the Convention states its purpose, which is to promote the equal enjoyment of all fundamental rights by all persons with disabilities; and Article 2 states its definitions, defining "language" from the very outset under "For the purposes of the present Convention" that "'language' includes spoken and signed languages and other forms of non-spoken languages". Article 9 is about "Accessibility". It states that "to enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas. These measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, …". The Article goes on stating the scope of application, which includes many public facilities and public meetings. Article 21 is about freedom of expression and opinion, and access to information. It states that "States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities can exercise the right to freedom of expression and opinion, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas on an equal basis with others and through all forms of communication of their choice, as defined in Article 2 of the present Convention, including" among others, "by accepting and facilitating the use of sign languages, Braille, augmentative and alternative communication, and all other accessible means, modes and formats of communication of their choice by persons with disabilities in official interactions", and also "recognizing and promoting the use of sign languages".


The Convention has stated its position very clearly. However, our RoP obviously fails to meet the requirement of the Convention in this regard. As I said just now, the Convention was adapted to Hong Kong in 2008. If we do not amend the Rules of Procedure at this stage to meet the requirement in Article 2 of the Convention, we may violate the principle of the Convention. In fact, many places in the world have already allowed their congressmen or members of different councils to speak in sign language at meetings. Recently, Dawn BUTLER, a member of the United Kingdom Parliament, used sign language to demand the Parliament at its meeting to expeditiously and extensively promote sign language and allow members to use sign language to speak. At present, some European countries … for example, a female member of the Belgian Parliament who is also a member of the European Parliament uses sign language to speak. Moreover, a member of the Hungarian Parliament who is also a member of the European Parliament also uses sign language to speak. Austria has adopted sign language as a formal language. Even the Republic of Malta, a relatively backward country, has adopted sign language as a formal language and allows its council members to speak in sign language. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair) Deputy President, I believe all Members here would agree that this simple amendment does not contain any political inclination. It only seeks to align the rules of this Council with those of other signatories. Besides, this is not an impossible request. It is technically feasible. Is it possible that deaf people or people with hearing impairment who can only express themselves fully with sign language may be elected into this Council one day? It is absolutely possible. In fact, some very outstanding people with hearing impairment have attended open meetings chaired by me in the past. The meetings were not Council meetings of course, but meetings of other panels where they spoke in sign language. Among them, a deaf teacher named LAU Hiu-tung made a very good speech; and back in June, a deaf form-5 student named LEI Ka-yau also used sign language to express his view. I believe he absolutely has the ability to become a future Council Member. Fellow Members, I hope that we can set aside our political prejudices and at least take a deeper look at this amendment I proposed today, that is, to add the term "sign language" in RoP 2, so that Members can use sign language to speak


4189

in this Council. If Members oppose it, they evidently are taking things personal. I hope that they will consider their voting decision prudently. My second amendment is to require that the chairman of the House Committee must be a Member elected from the geographical constituency. It actually concerns the dignity and legitimacy of this Council. Deputy President, you are returned from a direct election. Or, I should say, you are at least elected by many people, though regrettably you are returned from a functional constituency ("FC"). To the public, the only convincing option is to lead this Council towards the goal of allowing only directly-elected Members to be the President, be it the President of the Legislative Council, or the chairman of the Housing Committee or Finance Committee. FC exists as a tradition in this Council. FC Members are far less represented in society as compared to their directly-elected counterparts. It is thus a cause for concern if we do not lay down any rules to prevent people poorly represented in society to take up important posts in this Council, including the post of House Committee chairman. In the 2016 election, 12 Members were elected uncontested. They all came from FCs. In fact, we can see that FCs have a small number of electors. For example, Heung Yee Kuk had 147 electors; the Agriculture and Fisheries FC had 154 electors and the Insurance FC had 134 electors. I am talking about the number of electors here. And the Transport FC had 195 electors. The Labour FC, which is rather special, had 668 electors and three Members were elected from this FC. Over the years, the three candidates in this FC were returned uncontested … (Mr CHU Hoi-dick raised his hand) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please hold. Mr CHU Hoi-dick, you want to raise a point of order? MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Yes, Deputy President. Since this is the first time you took the Chair as the President's Deputy after we entered the main debate, I wish to point out that you are highly involved in preparing the 20-odd proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure submitted by Mr Martin LIAO and also in engaging an external counsel to provide legal advice conducive to your proposals. In order to avoid presenting a bad image to the public, you


should stop presiding over this meeting and hand the Chair back to President Andrew LEUNG or to the person he thinks fit to act as Deputy President, irrespective of whether relevant requirements are laid down in the Rules of Procedure or the relevant ordinances. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, yours is not a point of order. But I wish to say that the Rules of Procedure does not contain any rules on the President or Deputy President who has a clash of roles when presiding over a meeting. Different Members, including all Members here, may have a different stance on every bill. The same goes for me when I act in my capacity as House Committee chairman. Mr CHU should know very well that Members have different political stances as can been seen not only in this debate on amending the Rules of Procedure, but also in past debates concerning the Energy Efficiency (Labelling of Products) Ordinance and the Legal Aid in Criminal Cases (Amendment) Rules 2017, and I also presided over those debates. I may have my own political views on those policies, but I have, as always, followed the Rules of Procedure in presiding over those meetings in my capacity as Deputy President of the Legislative Council, and the whole process of the meetings are open. So, I will not stop presiding over this meeting. You have already made your point clear through this public forum. Since what you said just now is not a point of order, I will not debate with you here. I will not handle the issue you just said unless you have a valid point of order. Do you have any point of order to raise? MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I do not expect you will respond to me. But I wish to say that there is a fundamental difference in the way you participated in amending the Rules of Procedure and in the way you handled past bills. For instance, you have jointly signed a statement and jointly engaged an external barrister. I hold that your deep involvement in this issue is unique and unprecedented. President Andrew LEUNG is not as deeply involved in this issue as you are. He has expressed his neutral stance, but you are not neutral at all in this issue.


4191

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, as I have already pointed out, now is not the time for debates. Moreover, I have already explained my decision. You have pointed out your observation and I have also explained mine. When this Council considered the political reform package back then, the Deputy President at that time also had a strong political inclination. In fact, Members at that time knew that it was impossible for this Council to find a Member who did not have any political inclination to preside over the meeting. Mr CHU, I will not debate with you any further on this issue. My elaboration and clarification serve only let the public better understand the whole picture of this issue. (Mr Dennis KWOK stood up) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, what is your point of order? MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, pursuant to Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), I wish to raise a point of order. Why do I cite RoP 92? It is because RoP does not explain what should be done when the President or Deputy President has serious conflicting roles but continues to preside over a meeting. RoP does not expressly provide for this scenario. But RoP 92 allows the President to be guided by the practice and procedure of other legislatures. I now invite the President to refer to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice of the United Kingdom. It states that when the speaker (that is, the President) has serious conflicting roles, he or she should adopt the following practice: "Confidence in the impartiality of the speaker is an indispensable condition of the successful working of procedure, and many conventions exist which have as their object not only to ensure the impartiality of the speaker but also ensure that his impartiality is generally recognized." What does this mean? Although RoP does not expressly address your problem of having seriously conflicting roles, such as the fact that you have engaged a senior counsel to give advice on this issue, as Mr CHU Hoi-dick has just point out …


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please be precise with your point of order. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): … regarding whether the Basic Law is constitutional. If it is, in order to ensure the normal operation of this Council, I hope that you can make reference to the practice of the United Kingdom Parliament regarding the speaker and do not preside over this meeting. I base my point of order on RoP 92. I hope Deputy President would at least adjourn the meeting to handle this issue. (Mr Abraham SHEK stood up) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, are you raising a point of order? MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, everyone says that he is raising a point of order, so I believe mine is also a point of order. Just now, Dennis cited the example in the United Kingdom, and I wish to cite what the Court of Appeal has said in a case in Hong Kong between our ex-Member LEUNG Kwok-hung and the President of the Legislative Council. Meanwhile the Court of Appeal held that the President has the constitutional power and function to exercise proper authority over the process and that the orderly, fair and proper conduct of the proceedings must be within the province of the President. Furthermore, the Court of First Instance held that in presiding over meetings, the President did not simply sit in his seat listening to the speeches of the legislators but had the constitutional function and power to exercise proper control over the process to ensure that orderly, fair and proper conduct of the business in legislature was not derailed. However, with these judgments, it is apparent that Legislative Council President has the power to regulate our meetings and may set limits whatever it is … so and so. Hence, Deputy President, when you sit on that seat, you represent not your good self; you represent a constitutional position. You are the President when you take the Chair in your capacity as the President's Deputy. So, whatever political inclination you may have, you shall handle things in a fair and impartial manner.


4193

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK raised a point of order pursuant to Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure, discussing my arrangement made in my capacity as Deputy President when I preside over this Council meeting. I have listened to Member's view and referred to the relevant Rule in the Rules of Procedure. Given that Legislative Council meetings are open meetings, whether I act fairly and impartially when I preside over these meetings will be subject to public scrutiny. I will, as always, continue to act in accordance with the requirements of the Basic Law, Rules of Procedure and the relevant standing practices when I preside over meetings of this Council. However, Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure, under which Mr Dennis KWOK raised his point of order, states that "the practice and procedure to be followed in the Council shall be such as may be decided by the President who may, if he thinks fit, be guided by the practice and procedure of other legislatures". If the President of the Legislative Council thinks that I am unfit for presiding over meetings, I will accept his decision. I thus will suggest Mr KWOK to discuss later with the President of the Legislative Council on his point of order. I will now continue to preside over the meeting in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. This Council now continues. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please continue with your speech. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): I raised a point of order pursuant to the Rules of Procedure. If you think that you should consult the President on whether you should continue to preside over the meeting, should you not do it now? (A number of Members spoke in their seats) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, I do not see I will violate the requirement of the Rules of Procedure if I preside over the meeting. Given that it is you that raised the point of order, I invite you to communicate with the President now. I do not see I am out of order if I preside over the meeting. This is my ruling on whether I should preside over the meeting. (A number of Members spoke in their seats)


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, I have made my ruling on whether I should preside over the meeting. You can consult the view of the President of the Legislative Council on Rule 92 of the Rules of Procedure. As I have already made my ruling, I do not allow any further discussion on this subject. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please continue with your speech. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I said just now that the chairman of the House Committee should be a Member elected from the geographical constituency. But, Deputy President, I notice that there is not a quorum now. Please do a headcount. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG requested a headcount. Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in this Council. Will Members please return to your seats. The meeting now continues. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please continue with your speech. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I was talking about the number of electors of FCs just now. The Labour FC has 668 electors. In other words, of the three-odd million workers in Hong Kong, only some 600 organizations can take part in electing the Member to represent them. Moreover, the candidates in the past years were returned uncontested. Of course, the best example is Andrew LEUNG, the President of this Council, who has been a zero-vote Member for fourth times, meaning that he does not need any elector to elect him to become a member, or even the President.


4195

Deputy President, regrettably, you are returned from a FC, the FC of District Council (Second), or the so-called "Super District Council seats". As we can see, this Council has been led by people with poor legitimacy. This will actually belittle the Legislative Council, making it a totally unconvincing Council to the public. Hence, this amendment is justifiable. I even think that the President of the Legislative Council should (The buzzer sounded) … also be elected from the geographical constituency. Thank you, Deputy President. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, your speaking time is up. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, this time, I move an amendment on adding Rule 11A of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") to provide that all Council meetings shall be conducted in an open manner, subject to RoP 88 or otherwise as required by RoP or by law. Deputy President, the plain meaning of my proposed amendment is rather clear and easy to understand, which being to make sure that Council meetings are held in public. I propose the amendment for two reasons: First, I do not trust the royalists; second, again, I do not trust the royalists. Although all meetings were held in the Legislative Council Complex in the past which were open to members of the public and press reporting was allowed, it is not stipulated in RoP that such arrangements are a must. Otherwise, the current incident in which President Andrew LEUNG reduced the number of members of the public attending the meeting would not have happened, right? Deputy President, according to my observation, two trends have emerged in this Council these days. I thus came up with the idea that my observation must be taken down in writing for fear that the royalists may require every meeting to be held in camera some day and so they can get the job done by passing all bills in an expeditious manner. By then, it will be impossible for the public to check any video recording or minutes of the meeting of the Legislative Council. If this is the case, it will be impossible to ascertain the contents of meetings. The first trend I have noticed is that the abuse of power by the President is becoming more and more serious, as he has forcibly decided on matters not


stipulated in the RoP. In particular, when being queried by Members, he is fond of quoting the judicial review case involving Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung in order to illustrate his power of decision-making while citing RoP 44 which states that the President's decision on a point of order shall be final and allows no debating. This is always the case. The President keeps emphasizing that his decision "allows no debating" because the decisions he made are becoming increasingly unreasonable. Therefore, he has become less and less keen on defending his rulings. He did not even want to say anything for he was not able to provide any reasonable explanation. By the way, the President's decision shall be final, but it does not mean he is empowered to act arbitrarily. On the contrary, it is so written to remind him that he must exercise prudence in making rulings as any one single slip may bring lasting regret. Yet, President Andrew LEUNG has totally failed to recognize this and he is definitely a President "of poor quality". I want to remind President Andrew LEUNG that he is also a Member of the Legislative Council and is on an equal footing with other Members, only that he happened to be the President who is tasked to chair Council meetings. He should, therefore, remain neutral rather than "play corrupted referee" or "played foul" because he is the President. In fact, he was elected President only because the pro-establishment Members outnumbered the pro-democracy Members. Does he regard himself as really competent for the job? Would he have managed to deal with the various situations in the Council alone if not for the day-to-day assistance rendered by the Secretariat staff? He does whatever things he likes and even takes weird deeds as normal precisely because he is forgetful of the fact of his abuse of power. This is one of the trend which I have noticed. The second trend is: Members of the pro-establishment camp are showing less and less respect for the different voices in this Council, who would indiscriminately seek to restrain Members' speaking time and speech content in a bid to "protect the ruler" and help the Government. And even yourself, Deputy President, had also requested members of the House Committee to discuss certain issues in only 30 seconds at the meeting, whereas some of the issues concerning people's livelihood not dealt with by the Government were put aside. Worse still, items on the agenda could be altered at will. If the situation continues, it will only give rise to even more conflicts. And it is still fresh in our memory that it has never happened before that agenda items had to be altered or cancelled for the purpose of amending the RoP, but now there is even not any agenda set. That explains why Members of the pro-establishment camp can simply ignore the huge voice of opposition and the successive waves of local community


4197

movements outside this Council. They purely want to secure passage of bills or whatsoever with the support of their cronies and it is no big deal even they may have to remove Members from the meeting, adjourn the meeting, withdraw from the meeting or even forcibly continue the meeting in the worst case. Actually, given their strenuous efforts made to help the Government, they can seek to become government officials by sitting for the civil servants recruitment examination instead, through which all of them are appointed to the Government. As a matter of fact, monitoring the Government is the most basic task of legislators, but it seems that Members are not very interested in this. Or perhaps the pro-establishment Members only want to seek expeditious passage of motions or amendments. This is a very common phenomenon particularly at meetings chaired by pro-establishment Members who often told Members that the pace of the meeting must be speeded up or the numerous outstanding items for the day could not be dealt with at the meeting. And the meeting soon ended after Members had made very brief speeches. Given this, why do they not join the Government to become government officials then? Well, the reason is very simple: It is no easy task getting appointed as government officials because one must succeed in passing the recruitment exam beforehand, right? Certainly, we do find quite a lot of Members who are of good quality, such as Mr Paul TSE. With his unrivalled courageous act of showing his naked body to the public in Central and his ability of stammering when getting emotional, he may be regarded as a person of significant talent by the Government and finally appointed as a government official. Yet, is our legislature supposed to forbid Members from making their speeches this way … (Mr Abraham SHEK stood up) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, do you have a point of order? MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): I want to clarify that Mr Paul TSE did not show his naked body in public as he had underpants on him then. (Some Members burst into loud laughter)


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, what you have raised is not a point of order. You may respond to other Members' remarks later in your speech. Please continue with your speech, Mr Jeremy TAM. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Thank you, Deputy President. Thanks to Mr Abraham SHEK for making the clarification for me. I now clarify: Mr Paul TSE was then wearing underpants when he showed his strong masculine body. This is a more accurate statement. Was he wearing trunks? Sorry, was it a swimming brief? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): I wish to clarify that it was a pair of swimming trunks. I hope Mr Jeremy TAM can be more exact when making his speech. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): I see, it was a pair of swimming trunks. I am sorry, but was it a swimming brief? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There shall not be any direct conversation between Members, Mr Jeremy TAM. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Yet, I want to make sure, because Mr Paul TSE care so much about this. I am just seeking clarification from Mr TSE, so could you please stop the timer for a little while? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, you should have asked Mr Paul TSE before delivering your speech in order to ensure accuracy of your speech contents. Please continue with your speech, Mr TAM. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Oh no, Deputy President. I see your point. Thank you. Why did I say I could not be sure―well, it is fine if this will be counted as my speaking time―I could not have told the details accurately because that part of his body was covered with card board and I could not see


4199

what he was wearing. (Members laughed) I just saw the photo and was not present at the scene then. Thus, I thank Mr Abraham SHEK for telling us that actually he had put on swimwear―but of course, I wish to know whether he wore a swimming brief, boxer trunks, skirt or swimsuit. If Mr Paul TSE said that he would like to wear his trunks at this meeting now, I will be a bit scared since I think it is not appropriate for him to clothe himself in swimwear for attending meetings in this Chamber. However, there will be some special effects if he does this in the Public Gallery. Deputy President, I will not digress too far away from the topic so that the need of your ruling can be obviated, okay? However, I must ask other Members not to keep talking during my speech. You may rise to tell your stories if you like, but never interrupt other people's speeches. Well, apart from boot-licking and helping the Government strengthen its foothold, they even arbitrarily attack legislators elected by the people, expel Members from the meeting when they are in a disadvantageous position in the debate, adjourn the meeting or change the venue of meeting in an attempt to pass certain motions forcibly. I proposed to amend the RoP in the hope of preventing the royalists from getting more and more aggressive in actions as it may happen one day that they will forcibly say that the Legislative Council is not suitable for holding meetings and we had better move over to a remote meeting venue where neither live broadcasting facilities nor room for press reporting is available. Everything will then be controlled by their cronies. What else can we do by then, may I ask? And if the royalists do not agree to what I have just spoken of them, they should support the amendments that I proposed. All Hong Kong people understand my point and here is my advice for the pro-establishment Members: "When flying birds are all killed, the good bow is put away." Never did the Communists treat loyal people with mercy. Their motto is: "People still of use can stay and those of no use should be dumped". For example, former legislator Mr Christopher CHUNG is precisely someone being "dumped after use". And you, the pro-establishment Members, are too naïve if you think you can take full control by changing the rules of the game. By the time when there emerges "foster sons and daughters" who do better than you in currying favour, your seats in this Chamber will become theirs. As we can see, the approaches taken by "foster sons and daughters" to "slay" one another is getting more and more violent.


Therefore, the resolution moved by the royalists is a reflection of their true nature as royalists who are really lazy and really opt for filibusters. Among the focuses of the resolution is the issue of petition. Deputy President, apart from seeking to push up the threshold for presenting petitions by increasing the required number of Members rising in their places in support of the petition presented from 20 to 35, the royalists are also seeking to undermine drastically the intended effect of petitions. This was also mentioned in my speech yesterday. Originally, petitions are made to request the appointment of select committees to deal with particular matters, but the royalists are now suggesting that matters brought forth by petitions be dealt with by the House Committee instead. In other words, no one knows how the House Committee will deal with the matters, which may probably be included as items of meeting agendas and concluded after discussions by the House Committee. In particular, as I have told just now, Chairman of the House Committee Ms Starry LEE did once give members only 30 seconds to speak and conclude the business soon afterwards. This might sound "speedy, immaculate and admirable", but can this approach help achieve our purpose of presenting petitions to this Council? As a result, it is likely that Members' request for investigating the Government in relation to certain matter will be in vain, while the royalists can once again manage to accomplish loyally the task of protecting the ruler by doing nothing at all, and they can go on performing their role as royalists for as long as can be. They claimed that their current effort is made in opposition to filibustering, but it is in fact aimed to protect the ruler by colluding with the Government to nullify the powers of this Council. And so, is it not our responsibility as legislators to stop this from happening? Another issue is about quorum. Do you think it is really that difficult to secure the presence of a quorum of 35 people at a Council meeting? In fact, it takes only half of all Members of this Council to form a quorum, so do they still want to reduce the number to 20? Deputy President, as they claimed to have attached a great deal of importance to major affairs of the State, they should see for themselves if only half of the members are present at the meetings of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference then. Actually, the existing threshold is relatively low. Some Members of this Council also "wear dual hats", that means they hold both offices of member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress and representative of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. When they travelled to Beijing to attend relevant meetings, they had no problem remaining seated stably in the meeting venues, and never had they risen from


4201

their seats to demand that the quorum be revised to the effect that a 90% attendance rate is not required. Did they ever dare to voice out the demand of reducing the number of members attending the meeting to half of all members? They did not dare to do so at those meetings held in Beijing, but they did go ahead to propose amendments in Hong Kong's legislature. Deputy President, it is utterly illogical, right? In addition to their true nature as royalists who are really lazy, the royalists really opt for filibusters. They did have the nerve to prevent bills from being submitted to this Council in an attempt to nullify its powers as a legislature. For instance, the Bill on banning the import and re-export of ivory has yet to be dealt with so far, which has been dragged on indefinitely because they do not want to submit it to this Council. Some Members often speak of their love and care for animals while telling us that they are determined to bring an end to the killing of elephants. Then why do they not say something here today? Do they consider the political struggle triggered by the resolution proposed to amend the RoP to be far more important than the lives of living elephants that are teetering on the brink of extinction? Besides, the public hearing to be held under the Subcommittee on Children's Rights has also been called off by you the royalists and must be rescheduled. Is the political struggle of greater significance than children's welfare? Why do members of these committees not come out to explain? Is it not true that you treasure family values? Does the Party's nature rank higher than human nature? Is politics really more important than our children? Today, Mr WU Chi-wai has, of course, taken back his words of depicting someone as a "liveried flunkey", and I, of course, will not describe Members as flunkies because I think it might be more appropriate to use adjectives other than this term in order not to cause too much embarrassment. For example, will the same effect be achieved if I describe you as "very Paul-TSE"? No way, because they have different meanings. Why do I consider the term "Paul-TSE" a better adjective then? It is because he represents the kind of value which is entirely dependent on "the Western District", or perhaps the kind of value under which he took over his wife's duties of a Member of the District Council. And this may be the reason for his winning a seat in the Wan Chai District Council. This kind of value is the value of gaining without pain or getting reward with little effort made, which is the value of securing a higher position mainly by receiving outside help. Will you find it easier to accept if this is the case? Well, I have no idea.


Deputy President, one last thing I want to say is, if you the royalists are really that eager to conclude meetings so quickly, there is actually a way to this end, that is, to abolish quorum calls in order to save 15 minutes. Is that right? Or you may consider reducing the 15 minutes to 3 minutes and this will be even more meaningful in the sense that you leave the Chamber every 45 minutes and return within 3 minutes, thereby saving much more meeting time. Actually, it is not hard to come up with this solution, but why do the royalists not put forth such a suggestion? Well, the reason is that they are even not able to secure the presence of sufficient pro-establishment Members in the meeting, and the quorum bell was thus rung to call them in. However, meetings had to be cancelled quite often because most of them were absent. Look here, now Members even have to make arrangements for going to the washroom together at a particular time. Why? Instead of requesting to shorten the duration of bell-ringing, they seek to add another 15-minute bell-ringing when Council resumes from the Committee of the whole Council as they deem the bell-ringing time during the whole Council not long enough. It adds up to a total of 30 minutes. In fact, they are not just seeking to reduce the quorum. Genuine filibustering is also something they are after. What a good job they did as royalists! Finally, I must reiterate: When our legislature is relegated to what it looks like today with the royalists' attempts, the pro-establishment Members' seats will eventually be taken over by many more "foster sons and daughters" of the "Western District" who will continue your role as puppets. All of you will become "Paul-TSE" in the end. Thank you, Deputy President. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please mind your language? Verbal exchange is inevitable during the debate sessions of Council meetings, but please avoid personal attack in your speeches so as to facilitate smooth conduct of the debate. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I do not think what Mr Jeremy TAM has said just now is a personal attack against any Member. To me, his speech is only an objective account of some decisions made by certain Members in their lives and for their careers. His remark is rather an objective description of someone's personality and work style only. Why some Members


4203

have to bear the nicknames of the "godchildren of Western District", they should have the answers themselves. If he thinks he is under the personal attack of some Members, he can request the President to listen to the relevant tape recording, and ask the Member concerned to withdraw his remark. If he dare not do so, then, so be it. If … (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) (Mr Paul TSE spoke in his seat) President, please request Mr Paul TSE to keep quiet. (Mr Paul TSE still spoke in his seat) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, please keep quiet. (A number of Members spoke in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quiet. (A number of Members still spoke in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quiet. Mr Dennis KWOK, please continue with your speech. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, thank you for maintaining the order of the meeting. As I have said just now, Members who feel offended may raise their dissatisfaction under the Rules of Procedure, otherwise please be seated properly and stop speaking. Please do not make a noise. President, before we discuss the proposal to amend RoP, we should definitely first talk about a judicial review case to disqualify, or "DQ", some Members. As we all know, in an unprecedented move, the SAR Government


filed a judicial review to disqualify some Members last year. Finally, six Members were disqualified in the judicial review. Following the "DQ" incident, the democratic camp loses its veto power in the direct election group under the separate voting system, making it possible for the pre-establishment camp to exploit the situation and propose RoP amendments at this juncture. Actually, we all know that the whole process is under careful planning over a long period of time. Many Members, especially those from the pro-establishment camp, often claim that there is a need to combat filibustering. They campaigns during the election that they will properly handle this problem when they return to the legislature. But what are the problems arising from a filibuster? We may look back on the past term of the Legislative Council for an answer. During the period, the Government tabled 90-odd bills to the Legislative Council, 93 bills of which were passed. Besides, the legislature also considered and passed all the 200-odd pieces of subsidiary legislation. The funding applications totalling more than $100 billion were endorsed by the Finance Committee, while the annual budget was approved every year. Hence, when they claim the filibuster is a problem, what are the actual problems? The Legislative Council has already given green light to over 90% of the Government bills. What role do they want this legislature to perform? Do they wish to see that when the Government submits 98 bills, Members simply raise their hands and pass all the 98 bills? If so, what is the use of the legislature? Is the so-called "filibustering problem" really as serious as what they have claimed? As in a football match, what democratic Members can see is six of our players are sent off while the referee, assistant referees, the Hong Kong Football Association, and the Asian Football Confederation are all sided with our rival. What can we do then? The democratic camp will not give up and lie down on the job to let the RoP amendments be passed. Since October, we have tried every means to put forward amendments to RoP. In this war of RoP, we take every step to our best ability and exert every effort in the battle in accordance with the procedures. I have to stress that everything we have done is in accordance with the procedures. Regrettably, we can only see that in his every ruling, the President tilts towards the pro-establishment camp; in his every decision on points of order, the President does not uphold fairness and justice; and in his dealing with every motion, he refuses to follow the proper ways.


4205

The democratic camp took the lead and filed 39 RoP amendments to the Council in October. These amendments, while need to be first discussed at the Committee on Rules of Procedure, should still be put before other RoP amendments during the Council debate according to the usual practice. We thus think that in upsetting this usual practice, the President's ruling is favouring the pro-establishment camp. The ruling basically seeks to deny the democratic camp of an adequate debate time and the higher order of priority for its amendments. Members should have the right to propose amendments, and the amendments as proposed should be adequately debated in the Council as well. But regrettably, the President decides to bundle all amendments in a joint debate, limiting a debate time of 15 minutes for each Member. What can be put into the debate then? How much detail can we go into? Is this a correct way of dealing with the issue? Of course, we all well understand that the President's decision aims to facilitate the expeditious passage of these amendments. So, … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, I want to remind you that first, you have breached RoP 44, and second, you have speculated on my motive. Please focus your speech on the subject. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I am not speculating on your motive, as I am pointing out your motive instead. I know you seek to give the pro-establishment camp a favour. President, I will not hesitate to say so even you consider my remark as breaching RoP or guessing your motive. President, you know very well that we are really angry about this. I have reflected our dissatisfaction to you time and again. If you still stop me from airing my grievance and putting this in record, I do not know what I can do in these 15 minutes. The speaking time is already so insufficient. (There was laughter from among Members, while some other Members spoke in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quiet. (Mr Paul TSE indicated a wish to raise a point of order)


MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): I will let you raise a point of order first. Please stand up. (Mr Paul TSE stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, what is your point of order? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, you have stated very clearly that Mr KWOK's remark has obviously breached the rules. I hope that the President should not be excessive accommodating. Nor should the President allow Members to repeatedly and unduly breach the rules in order to save time. The remark made by Mr Dennis KWOK just now is obviously the tricks played by some tricky barristers. They will refuse to admit what they have said. Instead, they will seize on an incident to exaggerate matters and also take every opportunity to breach the rules. This is a complete disgrace to the profession. (Some Members yelled in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quiet. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, this is not your speaking time. Please do not yell in your seat. (Mr CHAN Chi-chuen still spoke in his seat) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please do not speak in your seats without my consent. This is my first warning to both of you. Mr Dennis KWOK, please continue with your speech. (Mr Jeremy TAM stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point of order?


4207

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I also want to raise a point of order. I think Mr Paul TSE's remark offends all barristers, including Mr Dennis KWOK. As he has described Mr Dennis KWOK as a tricky barrister, I want him to clearly explain what a tricky barrister is. Is the withdrawal of a previous remark immediately tricky? Mr Paul TSE often withdraws his remarks right after making them, or even before sitting down. Is he tricky then? I think Mr Paul TSE's remark is offensive, and I seek the President's ruling on this. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, please sit down. (Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I seek clarification of the first warning you have given me. In these two days, many Members have spoken in their seats in the course of the meeting, but you have not given them any warning. I want to know how many warnings you will give me after the first one, and the number of warnings you will give before taking actions. What are the actions to be taken? Can you explain them clearly? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will make an appropriate decision in due course. Mr Paul TSE, can you please clarify if you have use offensive language against Mr Dennis KWOK. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, I hope you can first deal with your perception of being offended, Members' speculations about your motive, and also their challenges on your decision on this point of order. I say so because I tried to offer some help to you just now and give you the power, hoping that you could make a decision without having to fear those noisy voices and views which were out of order.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, I wish to ask you to clarify one point first. Did you call Mr Dennis KWOK a "cunning barrister"? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, I did say that. But I request you to first deal with the insults to you. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TSE, please withdraw the relevant remark first. Are you willing to withdraw it? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, in order to avoid complicating matters, we have actually tolerated all this for quite some time. Many Members … The earlier speeches of Members were totally devoid of any concrete contents, and they merely levelled personal attacks. President, I will withdraw any of my remarks which is out of order. Sorry. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, I already pointed out just now that your remark was in breach of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). I already gave you a warning. Please continue with your speech now. (Mr IP Kin-yuen stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, what is your point of order? MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, you quoted RoP 44 just now, saying that no debate on the President's decision was allowed. But I cannot see the four words "no debate is allowed" in that Rule. As stipulated in RoP 44, "[d]ecision of Chair Final". A final decision means that a decision is final. But this does not mean that it cannot be debated. In my view, it is totally alright for Mr Dennis KWOK to criticize the President's final decision in his speech. But the point I am driving at is that while your final decision shall remain in force at the meeting, and Members must abide by your unreasonable decision and cannot do anything about it, it is totally permissible to challenge, discuss and question your decision.


4209

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with RoP 44, the President's decision shall be final. Members should not comment on the President's ruling during a Council meeting. If Members have any views on the President's ruling, they may raise their views with me after the meeting, or express them on other occasions. Mr Dennis KWOK, please continue with your speech. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, thanks for your ruling just now. And, I also wish to thank Mr IP for raising this viewpoint. It is precisely the viewpoint that I want to discuss. President, you actually gave us a perfect illustration of the reason why the present issue of amending RoP was such a serious matter. It is because the present amendments to RoP seek to increase and expand the President's power indefinitely, such that the President may exercise his power to actually decide on the conduct of meetings, the scope of discussions, the arrangement of Agenda items, the grouping of motions for joint debate, the voting arrangements, and so on. All such powers will be concentrated on the President alone. There is even the addition of the provision that "My ruling shall be final and indisputable", meaning to say that no discussion, criticism and objection will be allowed. This is precisely where the problem lies. Why should the President be given these powers? Actually, the President is likewise a Legislative Council Member, just like the 70 Members. I will not say that you are a Functional Constituency ("FC") Member because I am also a FC Member. Neither will I say that you were returned with zero votes. But the point I am driving at is that we are all Legislative Council Members and stand on an equal footing. Why can you alone control the operation of the entire legislature through your decision after assuming the Presidency? And, why should your decision be indisputable? When Deputy President Ms Starry LEE took the Chair just now, I pointed out that Erskine MAY's publication on British parliamentary practices already elaborated on the question of how the Speaker of their Parliament sought to gain the confidence and trust of the entire Parliament for the effective conduct of meetings. President, I know that you gave me the room for speaking just now, and I also know that you did not want to stop me from speaking either because you were aware that your various rulings on the RoP motions this time around were actually unacceptable to many Members as they considered you to be partial. I know you would allow me to speak and give


me the room for doing so. Actually, I know you can accept these criticisms with your breadth of mind. But sadly, many Members in the Chamber do not allow you to show any breadth of mind and even want to stifle it. This will further belittle your status in our hearts. This is not fair to you either. Actually, the Legislative Council already sought the legal advice of a Senior Counsel and also a Queen's Counsel. According to them, no changes shall be made to the quorum because of an express stipulation in the Basic Law and our clear practice before the reunification. Why did the President completely overrule the legal advice obtained by the Legislative Council after the pro-establishment camp had sought the legal advice of outside Senior Counsel this time around? How can this possibly stand to reason? Besides, they have proposed to increase the threshold for presenting a petition from 20 to 35 Members as a means of preventing filibustering. How is this related to filibustering? The Legislative Council spent less than five minutes on handling two petitions yesterday. How is this amendment proposal related to filibustering? Let me talk about the past practice. In 1968, there were merely 26 Members in the legislature, and the threshold for presenting a petition was only 10 Members, or 38% of all Members. In 1976, there were 46 Members, and the presentation of a petition merely required the rising of 15 Members, or 35% of all Members. In 1983, there were 48 to 58 Members, and the threshold for presenting a petition was 20 Members, or 34% of all Members. Why should we raise the threshold to half of all Members now? This is unprecedented. If we look at other parliaments, we will see that the number of Members required for presenting a petition is even lower. The presentation of petitions is an important procedure. Why doesn't it require majority support? The principle is simple. It is because no livelihood issue is trivial. If anyone expresses to a Member his wish of following up or inquiring into a certain matter, and if the Member concerned also agrees to the conduct of an inquiry into that matter, the Member concerned should be entitled to present a relevant petition to the legislature. This is our established practice over the years. I remember that in the previous term of the legislature, former Member Cyd HO and I participated in the presentation of a petition calling for an inquiry into Timothy TONG. That was probably the first time of presenting a petition for the purpose of setting up a select committee. All pro-establishment Members raised objection, refusing to render their support. But after the setting


4211

up of the Select Committee, they strove to participate in it one after another and even competed for its chairmanship. The extent of their shamelessness … As I remember, the Chairman of the Select Committee, who was a pro-establishment Member, did not allow us to ask questions. Some have told me that even though it will cause damage if they succeed in barring us from forming select committees through the presentation of petitions, we can comfort ourselves by saying that even if a select committee is formed, it will still be dominated by pro-establishment Members. But we can likewise comfort ourselves by saying that without the Select Committee to inquire into the UGL incident involving LEUNG Chun-ying, the "editing scandal" involving Mr Holden CHOW would not have happened, and the public would not have been able to see clearly for themselves the low level of moral ethics among those so-called "professionals" or their lack of integrity. Mr Paul TSE dismissed me as a "cunning barrister". I believe there are many such people in this legislature. I will not name them because I do not want to offend any Member. But I know which Members are cunning, and which Members are totally ripped of any integrity. As they claim to have received legal training, they should know the meaning of "due process". But they are utterly ignorant about it. However, a select committee set up under a petition, as in the case of the Select Committee now inquiring into the UGL incident involving LEUNG Chun-ying, is vested with limited power, so the actions it can take are likewise limited. The reason is that it is not given the power under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. But I am glad that the pro-establishment camp is unable to get rid of certain things, one example being our Public Accounts Committee ("PAC"). I am also glad to see the dedication of PAC members to their duty of monitoring the Government with the impartial use of their power. The unveiling of Timothy TONG's entertainment and corruption problems back then was the result of the efforts of PAC members. For these reasons, we can comfort ourselves by saying that even if they unjustifiably rip us of the power of presenting petitions, the Legislative Council will still strive to perform its functions and duties by other means. We will still strive to monitor the Government even if they refuse to let us do so. If they try to hinder our resistance to the passage of draconian laws, we will resort to all our might, willpower and means. Instead of giving up, we will pay them back three times for what they have done. They must remember this: Do not think that after the passage of the amendments to RoP, they can do whatever they want in the future. As I have said many times, Members with the slightest bit of intelligence, Members who are not "godsons or god-daughters of Western


District", and also those with the slightest bit of individual thinking should realize that even if the amendments to RoP are passed, the ills and distrust sown by them in this legislature will only return. By that time, it will only become more difficult for this legislature to operate. President, I speak in opposition to Mr Martin LIAO's amending motions. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I have proposed a few amendments this time, and the first one is about the asking of an urgent question. Under the existing practice, the permission of the President may be sought for asking an urgent question on the ground that it is of an urgent character and it relates to a matter of public importance. As a result, most of the applications made for asking an urgent question were rejected over the past few years. In 2012-2013, five applications were submitted by Members for asking an urgent question but only one was approved. In 2013-2014, 8 of the 19 applications submitted were approved. Among 27 applications submitted in 2014-2015, 14 were approved, while only 9 of the 53 applications submitted in 2015-2016 were approved, accounting for a record low of 17% only. Were all the urgent questions which Members sought to ask related to matters of no importance and no use? Let me try to list some of them out as follows: there was among them a question Ms Claudia MO wanted to ask about the refusal of entry of Benedict ROGERS, which has undermined the principle of "one country, two systems"; a question I sought to ask about the decision made by the Chief Executive and the Secretary for Justice to deprive the legislature of its dignity by seeking judicial review against the validity of the oath taken by Sixtus LEUNG and YAU Wai-ching; an urgent question Mr WU Chi-wai sought to ask about the interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress concerning the oath-taking incident; and questions concerning the MTR arson attack, the collapse of seawalls in the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road project and some issues which are definitely livelihood related, such as the safety of meat products imported from Brazil, the escalator incident at Langham Place and the safety of exterior wall of buildings. All these issues are closely related to the people's livelihood, but applications for asking urgent questions about them can now mostly be rejected by the President for some incomprehensible reasons.


4213

Hence, my amendment in this respect is very simple, and it only serves to achieve the effect that permission should be given for putting an urgent question to public officers at meetings of the Legislative Council as long as it can meet one of the two conditions specified, that is, it is either of an urgent character or it relates to a matter of public importance. There will thus be no need for the President to act as a watchdog of the Government and screen out all questions which he considers the Government will find embarrassing, so that they cannot be raised in the Legislative Council. The existing practice has often rendered it impossible for us to ask questions without notice, and when such questions can finally be raised, the matters concerned have already become things that are no longer of interest. Secondly, I also propose to amend the quorum requirements of the Finance Committee ("FC") as well as the House Committee, so that instead of forming a quorum of FC with the chairman and eight other members at present, the quorum requirement will be amended to one third of the total number of Members. Items discussed by FC involve the spending of public money totalling hundreds of billions of dollars on projects associated with costs overrun, "white elephant" projects and projects linking Hong Kong up with the Mainland, and members of the public count on our efforts in deliberating on such funding proposals. If eight members and the chairman shall form a quorum of FC to endorse all of these items, the pro-establishment camp and the royalists will just take advantage and shy away from work. People who have time to observe FC proceedings via live telecast will notice that they often leave the meeting room after they have checked in without even asking one single question. FC meetings and meetings of the House Committee have already become occasions for checking in, because there is no need for Members to ask any question when they are just required to put a rubber stamp on all funding proposals submitted by the Government, regardless of how huge the amount of public money is involved. They do not consider it necessary to raise questions on these proposals since it is not Members' money we are not talking about, but the hard-earned money of taxpayers and Hong Kong people. If we raise some more questions on the proposals under discussion, the chairman will challenge us and impose a time limit, so that we will not be given even a few minutes to raise our questions. My amendments to the Rules of Procedure serve to acknowledge what the pro-establishment camp and the royalists have always said about the paramount importance of parliamentary operations, so that Members will have to attend every FC meeting to participate in the deliberation of funding proposals with us, and do something strenuously and whole-heartedly for the people of


Hong Kong. Why let everybody down by leaving the meeting room soon after checking in every time? President, a lot of people braved the cold weather to participate in the public assembly held on Tim Mei Avenue yesterday after the Council meeting was over, so as to indicate their support for our confrontational actions in the Legislative Council. They stated very clearly to us that they did not wish to see that Hong Kong would gradually fall low and Members of the Legislative Council would be deprived of their functions granted under the Basic Law to monitor the performance of the Government and resist against draconian laws. Yet, there is something called "instant karma". The President and the Government have put up a show for the latter to withhold submission of all Government motions, and Carrie LAM has even made some unrealistic remarks to praise the President for making a "well-balanced and reasonable" final ruling. Buddy, this is really outrageous, and I wonder how she could utter such sickening remarks. However, she has got her "instant karma" when her popularity rating keeps declining and has now even dropped to below 50%, a level almost comparable to that of "689". Hong Kong people should look ahead, and with this government of ours … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, do you have your mobile phone with you? I can hear the sound of signal interference. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I have already switched off my mobile phone. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): But I can hear the sound of signal interference. Will you please move your mobile phone further away? DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright, let me move it further away. President, as we can see, there is something extremely outrageous … (The sound of signal interference could still be heard in the Chamber, and a number of Members spoke in their seats)


4215

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): … some Members have described other Members as animals just now, using such wordings as "running dogs". However, some people promoting animal rights and interests have indicated to me that dogs should not be used to describe such persons, since this is an insult to dogs when some of these people are even worse than dogs. How can they be compared with dogs? I have also read an article written recently by a columnist, who pointed out that a lot of people in the Legislative Council were trying to castrate themselves. Eunuchs in the old days actually did not castrate themselves, but were sold to the palace when they were small and then forcibly castrated with their hands and feet all tied up. This is a very sad story which we do not wish to talk about. However, how about the Legislative Council now? People are fighting to become eunuchs and castrate themselves, and what kind of people are they? Hence, when mentioning animals, sometimes I have the feeling that things are becoming more and more like what George ORWELL has described in the book Animal Farm, that is, a number of pigs have gathered together here. But I am worried that I would once again be reminded not to insult pigs by saying so, since some people are even worse than pigs. They are expected to monitor the performance of the Government, but we can just see what the Government is trying to do now. We rose in our place yesterday and requested through the presentation of a petition the establishment of a select committee to inquire into matters relating to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road project, because it is a good example to illustrate how things can be handled in an obscure manner. The project is implemented at the request of the National Development and Reform Commission, but no one knows what exactly are the reasons for constructing the Bridge and what use will be made of it. How many people will actually use the Bridge upon its commissioning? Its construction costs are as high as $120 billion now, but the account is not in order. There is also a costs overrun of RMB 10 billion, and Hong Kong has to bear over 42% of the costs. This has confirmed that we do have the need to monitor the performance of the Government, so that it would not be allowed to continue to mess things up.


When Mr Jeremy TAM proposed to inquire into matters concerning the Link Asset Management Limited ("the Link"), Mrs Regina IP has risen in support of the petition and done what a person should do. There are so many "dogs of the royalists" criticizing the Link for mistreating the people and causing the problem of surging prices, but they are exactly the ones who have voted in support of the idea to divest public assets back in those years. Why did they not rise to criticize the Link with us yesterday? Not a single one of them has done so, but Mrs IP has shown her integrity. As for those who are even worse than animals, I do not even want to talk about them. These eunuchs who have castrated themselves have deprived the Legislative Council of its functions, and have held the red flag high only to oppose the cause of the red flag. I doubt very much whether those who hold a doctoral or master degree here understand the meaning of the expression, but these Members of the Legislative Council have … (Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point of order? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please continue with your speech. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, some Members are standing up.


4217

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members are just returning to their seats. Dr KWOK, please continue with your speech. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): By criticizing someone for holding the red flag high only to oppose the cause of the red flag, that someone is accused of being a thief but crying out for help to catch another thief. What the select committees established previously have done? They have investigated into the Timothy TONG incident, the costs overrun of the construction of the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and the incident related to LEUNG Chun-ying and UGL. All these were incidents which the public wanted us to inquire into, but these "rubbish" Members did not support. However, they were eager to compete for the chairmanship of these select committees after their establishment, not for the purpose of conducting inquiry of course, but to exclude the matters into which we should investigate and exhaust every means to rewrite the terms of reference of such committees. An example is the UGL incident, where LEUNG Chun-ying and Mr Holden CHOW have ganged up to amend the terms of reference so that it would be tailor-made to suit the needs of LEUNG Chun-ying. Such despicable and outrageous tricks have provided adequate evidence to prove that the major objective of the pro-establishment camp in this Council today is to perform the role of the royalists. Why do I say that they are holding the red flag high only to oppose the cause of the red flag? They claimed that filibustering will bring harm to public interests, but it is exactly these Members who have refused to monitor the performance of the Government that have put public interests at stake. The Government has already been given very great powers, because under the existing constitutional arrangements, half of the Members here are returned by functional constituency elections, and apart from a few of them from the pro-democracy camp who do have integrity, what have those elected by zero vote and those "rubbish" Members done? When the Government is in trouble, they will definitely try to cover up its faults, and the Legislative Council is dominated by these scums. There will be many more pointless expenses we have to meet, including the development of artificial islands in East Lantau, and the project costs of which may go beyond $500 or $600 billion. Someone can definitely be benefited from these projects, as in the case of many "white elephant" projects implemented


previously to link Hong Kong up with the Mainland when the contracts were often awarded to state-owned construction companies of an extraordinary large scale. They just want to carve up the money we Hong Kong people have and seize as much money as they can. This is what we can see in the Legislative Council today. Yet, this Government of ours which has no conscience at all can shamelessly propose to increase the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance by $50 and the "fruit grant" by $20, when the costs overrun of those "white elephant" projects can be as high as billions and even tens of billions of dollars. We should not expect these people to safeguard the interests of Hong Kong people. Their existence and the amendments currently proposed to the Rules of Procedure are meant to serve only one purpose, but they are not the ones to be benefited. The ones to be benefited are the big bosses behind them and those who have helped them get elected as Legislative Council Members, including the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong, big consortia and state-owned enterprises. These are the units which have supported them financially so that they were elected Members of this Council, otherwise where can they get the money to provide free offers of seasonal delicacies like snake feasts, vegetarian meals, cakes and glutinous rice dumplings? Where can they get the money to sponsor free trips and conduct lucky draws? Do they really know how to make the money needed for these activities themselves? (Some Members spoke in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong people must keep their eyes wide open to see the true face of these people clearly. It is the people on my left hand side who deprive the Legislative Council from this day onwards of the powers it should have, so that all evil deeds done and all draconian laws enacted by the Government, which is not elected by the people, will be endorsed smoothly like a through train. Members of the pro-democracy camp are not the ones who lose when Members returned by functional constituency elections and those belong to the pro-establishment and royalists camp vote in support of and pass the amendments proposed to the Rules of Procedure in this unfair and distorted legislature. Instead, the ones who lose are all people in Hong Kong


4219

who look forward to keeping a check through the Legislative Council on the Government as well as the various draconian laws to be introduced. These draconian laws will be introduced with the only purpose of making Hong Kong people kneel down and obey an autocratic government, so that it will be allowed to maintain stability in accordance with such draconian laws on the excuse of safeguarding national security, thereby taking away the freedom and democracy that Hong Kong people should enjoy. With these remarks, I oppose to the amendments proposed by Mr Martin LIAO. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): As regards the amendment exercise concerning the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), I submitted a resolution to amend five Rules. The President only approved four, rejecting one which aimed to amend RoP 4(2) in order to require that the President of the Legislative Council shall be a permanent resident of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region with no right of abode in any foreign country in the last seven years. The President rejected my amendment with the justification that the proposed requirement of having no right of abode overseas in the past seven years was inconsistent with Article 71 of the Basic Law. For instance, Article 71 of the Basic Law stipulates that the President of the Legislative Council shall be a person no less than 40 years of age, and if I propose an amendment to change it to 30 years of age, this of course violates the Basic Law and is inconsistent with the provision. But this is not the case now. I proposed to add one requirement on top of the requirements under Article 71 of the Basic Law; how can this be inconsistent with the Basic Law by adding one more requirement? Can I not add anything not mentioned in the Basic Law? I will cite an example. Mr Paul TSE once added certain requirements for candidates in the "super District Council" functional constituency ("FC") election in the past. The requirements included: a height not taller than 5 feet 4 inches, monthly income not exceeding $10,000 and academic qualification not higher than the Hong Kong Higher Level Examination. Many regarded this amendment as one of the most silliest ever moved by a Member. The quality of the amendment aside, former President Jasper TSANG ruled that the amendment was admissible.


However, now that Mr Andrew LEUNG is the President, and he does not allow me to move this amendment. I feel weird about this. What does it mean by inconsistent with the Basic Law? As for the amendment moved by the pro-establishment camp in which Mr Martin LIAO proposes a reduction of the quorum of a committee of the whole Council to 20 Members in spite of the express requirement under the Basic Law that the quorum shall be not less than one half of all its Members, that is, 35 Members, is it obviously not consistent with the Basic Law? Yet, Andrew LEUNG approved it anyway. Contrarily, he rejected my amendment on the basis that the Basic Law does not have the relevant requirement proposed in my amendment, that I had added some extra requirements. Of course, according to Rule 44 of the RoP, the President's decision shall be final. Nevertheless, I am duty-bound and entitled to introduce some alternate views. President, now I hope you can pause the timer, as I would like to raise a point of order. Will the Secretariat please stop the timer. I will raise a point of order under Rule 84(1) of the RoP. Please pause the timer. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Secretariat staff please pause the timer. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I believe that it is not right to have you scrutinizing the said amendment as you have a direct pecuniary interest. Please allow me time to explain this. According to RoP 84(1), I move a motion for the withdrawal of Mr Andrew LEUNG, the incumbent President. I do so because I am going to submit the amendment again now without notice. I request that my amendment without notice be handled by a person having no connection and no direct pecuniary interest in this respect. RoP 84(1) stipulates that a Member shall not vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest. I know that the President will then say that he will not vote, that he has not voted. However, President, do you know that, by ruling this amendment inadmissible, you have effectively voted down this amendment?


4221

Why do I say that the President has a pecuniary interest in connection with my amendment? It is because, on top of the requirements under Article 71 of the Basic Law, I proposed in my amendment the introduction of a requirement of not having any right of abode in any foreign country in the last seven years. Should this amendment be passed, I am literally sure Mr Andrew LEUNG will admit that he may not fulfil this requirement that the President shall have no right of abode in any foreign country in the last seven years, if this is truly added to the Basic Law; we will then have to elect another President in case he does not meet the requirement. If so, he will earn a monthly remuneration of around $100,000, instead of the double amount of $200,000 currently. Therefore, I believe there is a direct pecuniary interest involved. So, I wish to request the withdrawal of Mr Andrew LEUNG under RoP 84(1), so that another suitable person can handle my amendment to be moved now. I urge Mr Andrew LEUNG to avoid suspicion. In my opinion, RoP 84(1A) also applies to the circumstances today. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, as I have explained time and again, Rule 84 of the RoP aims to regulate Members' voting or withdrawal in case of direct pecuniary interest. The RoP do not cover issues concerning the President's interest or role conflict in presiding meetings of the Legislative Council. In fact, with regard to motions on the amendments to RoP handled by the Council at this moment, I do not have any direct pecuniary interest, nor do I consider that any issues about role conflict or pecuniary interest will arise if I am the one who presides at the meeting handling this agenda item. Therefore, I will go on presiding the meeting. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I do not mean to demand a recovery of the remuneration. My amendment does not have retrospective effect. You can rule that we leave this motion for Members' decision. As you pointed out before: "I do not know if reducing the quorum from 35 Members to 20 Members will violate the Basic Law, so I leave this for the committee of the whole Council to decide." How come you cannot let the committee of the whole Council decide on this motion, leaving it for them to reject it, but prohibiting me from moving it under such circumstances that you have a pecuniary interest?


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, I have made it very clear. RoP 3 states that when, in the President's opinion, he is unable to act or preside a meeting, the meeting shall be presided by the President's deputy or another Member. I consider that I am suitable for presiding the meeting. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please continue with your speech. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): A Member wishes to raise a point of order. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I would like to make things clear. You emphasize that the RoP has no rules concerning your role conflict, and so on. But the problem is, while you claim or believe yourself that you are fair and just, you have to show us that this is truly the case. You cannot just claim on your own that you are clean and innocent. A fundamental principle applicable to the present case is that you should avoid any suspicion lest your integrity will be queried. And you have to explain whether you veto this amendment because of your role conflict? In fact, there is really a role conflict as you were actually a British citizen in the last seven years. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Already I have repeatedly explained this, and the Deputy President has also illustrated the issue again and again. The meetings of the Legislative Council are always open, so the public will monitor whether I and the Deputy President have presided the meeting fairly and impartially. As always, I and the Deputy President will preside Council meetings and issue our rulings in accordance with the Basic Law and RoP, as well as drawing reference from previous precedents. Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please speak. (Ms Claudia MO spoke in her seat) MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, should we turn on Ms Claudia MO's microphone?


4223

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If the public believe there is a problem, they will of course have other channels to express their stances, including judicial means. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, what I heard from Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's speech just now was that he did not mean to challenge your decision not to approve his motion. If he merely wishes to propose an amendment under RoP 29, and if this amendment involves a possible role conflict in connection with you, then should you withdraw when the Council decides whether to exercise discretion to dispense with the notice of the amendment? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, as per my understanding, this is not what Mr CHAN Chi-chuen meant, though he more or less mentioned in his speech his intention to propose an amendment. But as the debate has to continue, and I believe that I am suitable for presiding the meeting, I will not allow Members to proposal any new amendments or other motions at this stage. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you want to continue with your speech? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Of course. But Mr Alvin YEUNG wishes to raise a point of order. (Mr Alvin YEUNG indicated his wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, what is your point of order? MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, perhaps allow me to help. In fact, the logic here is that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen wishes to move an amendment under RoP 29 without notice, or wishes that the President can in his discretion dispense with such notice, while he at the same time considers that the President is probably not the person most suitable for handling this decision. Therefore, the logic is indeed whether the President should, in his position, exercise in accordance with RoP 29 …


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, I have already illustrated the issue. First, I consider myself suitable for presiding the meeting. I will continue presiding this meeting in accordance with RoP 3; second, I will not dispense with the notice of amendment proposed to be moved by Members. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, before I continue with my speech, I only have one more question. You just said that you would adhere to the Basic Law, RoP and past precedents, so can you explain, regarding the case pointed out by me earlier in relation to Mr Paul TSE and candidates for the "super District Council" FC election … (Many Members spoke in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Secretariat staff please pause the timer. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please go on. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): … Mr Paul TSE once proposed such requirements for candidates as height, monthly income and academic qualification. And after referring to all the articles in the Basic Law, I found none listing these requirements. However, had the President or the Secretariat at that time refuse to allow this amendment to be moved with the justification that the requirements were inconsistent with the Basic Law? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, this is not a point of order. You can consult the President then as to why Mr Paul TSE's amendment was ruled admissible. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): You said that you had referred to previous precedents of the Council. If so, had you referred to that particular precedent?


4225

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already made a ruling. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please continue with your speech. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I am moving a few amendments today. Firstly, I propose to add Rule 1B to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") to provide that the President, in carrying out his duties at the Council, shall respect the fundamental rights of Hong Kong Residents. In fact, this provision which is comparable to the undeniable statement of "mothers are women" does not need to be written out, but why do we have to spell it out? I believe that Hong Kong people can understand very well. Secondly, I propose to amend RoP 2. Thirdly, I propose to add RoP 9A to the Rules of Procedure to provide that foreign dignitaries may be invited to attend our meetings. Finally, I propose to amend Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure in order to protect Members' right to raise urgent questions. Of course, due to limited speaking time, I can only focus on one of these amendments first, and which is amending RoP 24(4) in order to protect Members' right to raise urgent questions. Under the existing RoP 24(4), a Member can raise an urgent question only if it is in line with the principle that it relates to a matter of public importance and is of an urgent character, and by urgency, it implies that if this question cannot be raised today, there may be irreversible consequences. Nevertheless, different Presidents have different definitions on "relating to a matter of public importance" and "of an urgent character". Mr Jasper TSANG, for example, would think that the question on student suicides is in line with public interests, and that if this question cannot be raised today, there might be irreversible consequences, as more students might commit suicide. However, following the latest Chief Executive Election, the pro-establishment camp and the non-establishment camp―that is the democratic camp and some other Members … I am afraid that Miss MO will reprove me―proposed to raise an urgent question on the loss of the notebook computers during the election. But this incumbent President did not approve because he viewed that it was not of an urgent character and could be followed up by the Legislative Council in future. I remember that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan wanted to raise an urgent question on the collapse of the balcony of an old building, but it was also disapproved by the incumbent President.


In fact, under the incumbent President, not a single urgent question has been approved, and RoP 24(4) is virtually being annulled but only exists in name. Against this background, I propose a very fair amendment which provides that each Member can ask a question without notice every year and each meeting can only deal with two questions without notice. Besides, the principle that the question without notice can only be asked on the ground that it relates to a matter of public importance and is of an urgent character will be deleted. Last year, actually all urgent questions, no matter proposed by the pro-establishment camp, the pan-democratic camp or other political parties, on cases of emergency like the leakage of personal data of citizens, were rejected by the President through invoking RoP 44, "Decision of Chair Final". I am not speculating on your motive and I even think that you did this out of good intention, as you are very concerned about the meeting time. You are afraid that if an urgent question is approved too easily, this precedent will lead to a flood of urgent questions beyond his control. However, if we look at it from the opposite angle, this actually is abuse of power, and is not addressing the pressing needs of the public. This also shows that it is dangerous to have the power rested with the President in judging which question relates to a matter of public importance and is of an urgent character, because the President is not subject to any control and can arbitrarily abuse his power into making irrational judgment. In my view, this power of judgment should be vested in Members who will decide whether a question relates to a matter of public importance and is of an urgent character. I also think we have to ensure that Members will not abuse their power of asking urgent questions and hence, I set a line of balance by which each Member can only ask one urgent question per year. Naturally, a Member will raise his urgent question only when he finds it really necessary to do so. A Member will be very careful in considering when to exercise this right if he can only raise one urgent question per year. I have conducted a survey and compiled some statistics on the situation over the past few years. In fact on average, each Member has only raised one urgent question and in reality, not every Member has done so. Therefore, it is unnecessary for us to spend a lot of meeting time in dealing with this kind of urgent questions. On the other hand, in order to make sure that each Member will have time to raise his question without notice, I propose that a maximum of two urgent questions can be dealt with in each meeting. For example in this session with 32 meetings, a maximum of 64 urgent questions can be dealt with, and on average, each Member can raise one urgent question.


4227

Of course, some people may ask whether I am planning for filibustering with this arrangement. I do not think that this will happen. Please do not judge a person without hearing his words. This amendment is beneficial to all Members, and even more beneficial to the pro-establishment camp, because this camp consists of a lot of Members and they are the majority. Let us think about it. How nice it will be to have this rule? The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong or the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions will surely has its own mechanism to prevent its Members from abusing the power to raise urgent questions. Hence, I really hope that Members can consider supporting my amendment, so that this Council can take the power of raising questions without notice back from the President in order to address the pressing needs of the public. Such phrases of "serving the public" and "addressing the pressing needs of the public" can often be seen in their banners. If we really want to address the pressing needs of the public but are unable to raise any urgent questions, how can we achieve this goal? Nevertheless, there is a weird arrangement as the amendments today will not be voted separately but will be voted in a bundle under a resolution instead. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan may find the amendment proposed by "Slow Beat" is reasonable and consider supporting me, as with this rule, she might be able to raise an urgent question on the collapse of balcony incident back then. But on second thought, she may not be able to do so, because if she supports this amendment of mine, she will have to support my other three amendments as well. This is very ridiculous indeed. Well, we may compromise like this. If the pro-establishment camp supports this amendment, I will ask the President to exercise his discretion of removing my other three amendments so that there will only be one amendment proposed by me. As advised by the President, we can discuss adopting any appropriate approach. I truly think that this amendment is purely proposed on how this power of raising urgent questions vested in Members under RoP 24(4) can be exercised properly. As Members can see, in explaining one single amendment in order to win support from Members, I have already used so much time. It is absurd that each Member is only allowed to speak for 15 minutes in this debate. During the rest of my speaking time, I am unable to discuss my own amendments, as I have to talk about one very important amendment. Mr Martin LIAO has contravened the Basic Law by moving an amendment to revise the quorum of a committee of the whole Council from 35 members to 20 members. I think we can see how inconsistent the rulings of the President are. At the beginning, some reporters asked me whether Mr Andrew LEUNG would approve


the amendment asking to revise the quorum of a committee of the whole Council from 35 members to 20 members. I was really so naïve and silly that I have to apologize to myself and to all because back then, I thought Mr Andrew LEUNG might not approve Mr Martin LIAO's amendment. This was based on the two sets of legal advice which we have sought, and both sets of legal advice are of the view that he cannot move this amendment. I was pondering on a situation that at least, he would have spent some money seeking another two sets of legal advice. If these sets of legal advice were of the view that this amendment could be moved, there would have two sets of views for the amendment and two sets of views against the amendment. If the President had been unable to make a decision, he would have left the decision to the Council. However, this is not the case at present, as Mr Martin LIAO has a new trick. What is that? The trick is that a committee of the whole Council does not actually refer to the Legislative Council itself but refer only to a select committee which has to submit a report to the Legislative Council after its deliberation on a motion, which will only come into effect if accepted by the Legislative Council. Since Mr Martin LIAO has coined this new trick, the two sets of legal advice which we sought with a few hundred thousand dollars have become irrelevant―I at first said that they were invalid, but President advised that this was not described as invalid but was described as irrelevant―because when we paid to seek these two sets of legal advice, there was no such a trick. I asked why we did not pay to seek legal advice on whether his amendment, with this trick, was in line with the Basic Law. If we asked for further legal advice from the lawyers that we employed in the first place and they also said that there was no problem or said that it was hard to judge, the President might conclude that the amendment would be left for discussion by the Council. This would be the situation acceptable to me. However, the situation is different now. With the addition of this trick or wrapping paper, the President says that our two sets of legal advice with authority have become irrelevant, because when the legal advice was sought, there was no such a trick. The President can do anything, and our money has gone down the drain. I wonder whether the President would really seek further legal advice on Mr Martin LIAO's trick from our lawyers if this motion did not need to be hastily passed before Christmas. I think he might not do so. The term "a committee of the whole Council" clearly consists of the words "the whole Council". What is meant by "the whole Council"? As the term also suggests, it is basically indisputable that "the whole Council" in the Basic Law refers to the 70 Members, who constitute the whole Council.


4229

Secondly, if a committee of the whole Council is a select committee, its Chairman has to be re-elected. But now the President is also the Chairman, and the same group of Members are holding meetings in the same Chamber. If a committee of the whole Council is a select committee, the agenda of the latter should be dealt with separately, and it will be better for the meeting to be held in another meeting room on another day. Members should withdraw from this Chamber, move to another place and slip into their costumes or uniforms to turn themselves from Legislative Council Members into members of a committee of the whole Council. They should select a Chairman in another meeting room on another day and this can―in fact, I also wonder whether they can do this. I think legal advice has to be sought and I am not a legal expert. In fact, Mr Andrew WONG, ex-President of the Legislative Council, and other people in the legal field also think that the President's approval to Mr Martin LIAO to move this amendment is actually doing injustice to Members as they are forced to debate something which is unconstitutional. The powers of the Legislative Council include amending government legislation. If a committee of the whole Council does not refer to the Legislative Council, from where does it derive this power? What is meant by the convention of the Legislative Council? The President often mentions the Basic Law, the Rules of Procedure and the convention. At present, since the minority can be bullied by the majority, they are taking this advantage to propose amendments to the Rules of Procedure. The convention cannot be amended, as it has already become a fact or part of the history. The Basic Law can also not be amended, but they can resort to interpretation of the Basic Law. As they say, even if some people in the legal field of members of the public apply for judicial review against the passage of this amendment from Mr Martin LIAO based on the reason that it is against the Basic Law to revise the quorum to 20 Members, they are not a bit scared as they can resort to interpretation of the Basic Law by the Central Authorities on the quorum as well as the words "舉行" (hold) as in holding a meeting. They wonder if these people dare to seek judicial review. By that time, we cannot even ask for a quorum … by that time, we will have to use tactics other than quorum calls. We really have to think about how we can pay them back threefold or even tenfold. (Mr Kenneth LEUNG stood up and indicated his wish to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, what is your point of order?


MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I wish to raise a point of order under Rule 30(3)(c) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). This is about one of Mr Martin LIAO's proposed amendments to amend RoP 12(3) and Schedule 1 to the Rules of Procedure. All in all, the amendment seeks to task the Clerk to the Legislative Council with the responsibility of conducting the election of the President. In fact, the amendment has three violations. Allow me to spend a little time on explaining the violations. The first violation is that the amendment violates the Rules of Procedure because RoP 12(3) will be amended to the effect that the meeting will be adjourned after Members have made or subscribed an oath or affirmation. Mr Martin LIAO's amendment is in serious conflict with other related Rules in the Rules of Procedure. For instance, RoP 12(2) states that after Members have made or subscribed an oath or affirmation, the election of the President shall be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Mr Martin LIAO has exercised great prudence in that he has also correspondingly proposed an amendment to Schedule 1, so as to enable the Clerk to the Legislative Council to conduct the procedure of electing the President. But the problem is that after the provision is amended, the election of the President will not be conducted in a Council meeting, causing the Rules of Procedure inapplicable to this procedure. That means the Rules of Procedure will be all thrown out in the drain. Schedule 1, or RoP 4 will be inapplicable to this procedure. This is the first serious conflict, or the first violation I said. The second violation, President, concerns the Basic Law. Article 71 states that … PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, what you said is not a point of order. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): It is a point of order. Mr LIAO's proposed amendment violates Rule 4 and Schedule 1 to the Rules of Procedure. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is not a point of order. You have entered the actual debate on amending the Rules of Procedure. Please directly state your point of order.


4231

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LIAO's amendment to RoP 30(3)(c) is out of order and not in line with Article 71 of the Basic Law. That means the second violation. The third violation concerns the Clerk to the Legislative Council and the contract terms of the Legislative Council Commission. This is because if he is to conduct the election of the President, he is given a very important function. Mr Martin LIAO's amendment basically violates the contract law, that is, the Employment Ordinance, since this is an anticipatory breach of a fundamental term and condition of the employment contract of the Secretary General. Thank you. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will first make a ruling on this matter. Mr Kenneth LEUNG, this is not a point of order. Of course, you may express your view when you speak in a debate, but what you just said is not a point of order. Moreover, I have already listed the amendments I have, or have not, approved in my ruling. If Members want me to explain my ruling, I can do it on another occasion. Mr Martin LIAO, please speak. MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, pursuant to Article 75 of the Basic Law, I now propose the resolution to amend the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council. President, the Legislative Council is an important constitutional body of the Hong Kong SAR. It has its solemn constitutional powers and functions under the Basic Law. However, in recent years, some Members have ignored these constitutional powers and functions and social responsibilities. They abused the Rules of Procedure. Plagued by Members' filibusters, many bills and funding proposals were left unhandled and public money was wasted. This has seriously hindered various policy initiatives that seek to improve people's livelihood and facilitate the development of Hong Kong … (Mr CHU Hoi-dick rose to indicate his intention to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point?


MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I wish to ask Mr Martin LIAO to clarify what he meant just now when he said many bills were left unhandled. Would he please clarify this point. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you want Mr LIAO to clarify, you just need to make such a request, and you do not need to mention other matters. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Would he please clarify. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, please sit down. Mr Martin LIAO, do you want to clarify? If not, please continue with your speech. MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): I do not want to clarify. I will continue with my speech. Bills and funding proposals were left unhandled, and public money was wasted. It has come to a point that the vitality of Hong Kong is at stake. In the last Legislative Council, quorum calls and meeting termination reached a record high. There were almost 1 500 quorum calls made, which used up 10% of the Council meeting time and resulted in 18 times of meeting termination. The public money that was directly lost … President, I am only talking about the direct loss … amounted to over $90 million. Since the start of this Legislative Session, we have witnessed different kinds of appalling procedural abuse. Almost half of the Council meeting time has been wasted on handling misconduct issues, procedural motions and quorum calls, with the latter eventually led to two times of meeting termination. The negative impact of filibusters infuses every corner of society. Numerous public works projects are delayed and project prices have soared. One such example is the project on the extension of three landfills and construction of an incinerator. An extra $1.3 billion has to be paid for this project due to this reason. The construction industry, as well as the whole society, is affected. Another warning sign that society can no longer ignore is that filibusters in this Council have become irrational and out of control. A large number of quorum calls can paralyse this legislature and a few Members together can topple


4233

a bill. One such example is the long-awaited Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 2016 tabled in the last Legislative Council to speed up investigations of medical incidents. Members who filibuster have reached a frantic stage and are now guided by their emotions rather principles. Those who filibustered in the Finance Committee meetings in the last session frankly said that they filibustered because they were upset about Members being disqualified in the oath-taking incident. They thus readily resorted to filibusters, having no regard of the consequence. Funding proposals for education purposes and for the extension of the operating theatre block of Tuen Mun Hospital were sacrificed, and almost toppled, for filibustering. In fact, the entire legislature has been politically hijacked by the minority Members in this Council. They irresponsibly disregard the interests of the majority using various tactics characterizing dictatorship of the minority, dragging down the progress of Hong Kong. Resentment in society has reached a critical point. (Mr CHU Hoi-dick rose to indicate his intention to request a clarification) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LIAO, please hold. Mr CHU Hoi-dick requested a clarification. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Will Mr Martin LIAO please clarify what he meant by "majority". Was he referring to Legislative Council Members or Hong Kong people? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, you only need to raise your clarification request to Mr LIAO and you do not need to go into the details. Mr Martin LIAO, do you wish to clarify? If not, please continue with your speech. MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, I will not clarify. I will continue with my speech. President, for the sake of responding to public notions, of our future, of the overall interest of society, and of the vitality of Hong Kong, today, the pro-establishment camp has decided with greatest resolution to lead the Legislative Council out of this predicament.


President, the decorum of this Council is now in tatters; to put it back on the right track, we must first restore the decorum and keep the Rules of Procedure up-to-date; we must reduce the abuse of the Rules of Procedure to a level that will not harm the overall interests of Hong Kong and restore the operation of this Council to a relatively smooth stage. This is the expectation of people from different echelons and backgrounds. Here below, I will highlight the proposed amendments set out in this resolution. I believe other Members from the pro-establishment camp will make good use of the time to further explain the content of the proposed amendments. President, this resolution jointly supported by at least 38 pro-establishment Members contains 24 proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure. In drafting each amendment, thorough consideration has been given to the Basic Law and other principles of law, relevant practices of Councils in other countries, and social and constitutional responsibilities of the Legislative Council; and each amendment is only proposed after making sure that it is well justified. The amendments seek to strike an appropriate balance between Members and their right to expression in this Council and the Legislative Council and the effective exercise of its constitutional powers and functions and the discharge of its social responsibilities. These amendments are not rooted in private interests, nor are they targeting at anyone. They are not completely anti-filibustering and are consistent with our principle of balance. They have appropriately balanced between the two extremes of completely regulating procedural abuse and totally conniving at such procedural abuse in this Council. President, in order to restore the decorum of this Council, we should first set the rules right. We propose that the constitutional origin and legal basis of the powers and functions of the President of the Legislative Council should be clearly set out in the Rules of Procedure. In other words, apart from the powers and functions enshrined in the Basic Law, the President of the Legislative Council may also be empowered to exercise other powers for the efficient discharge of Council proceedings. And in order to ensure the smooth discharge of Members' important duty to elect the President of the Legislative Council, we propose that the Clerk to the Legislative Council is to assist Members in conducting the election on occasions other than formal meetings of the Council. President, another common procedural abuse is to propose a multitude or thousands or even tens of thousands of amendments. With reference to overseas experiences, such as those of the United Kingdom and Canada, their Rules of


4235

Procedure were amended long ago to give their President the power to select amendments. In this connection, we propose that the President of the Legislative Council be given the discretion to select and combine amendments, so that when he considers or rules on a motion or amendment, he can request the proposing Member to explain the subject matter of his motion or amendment and select more effectively and better drafted ones from the multitude of cognate motions and amendments for consideration by Members. We also propose that the President be given the power to direct motions or amendments to be combined; and in the event that there are more than one Member proposing the motions or amendments to be combined, the President may designate which Member to propose them. Moreover, regarding frivolous or meaningless amendments that are in a series, we propose that the President or the Chairman of the committee of the whole Council may … (Ms Claudia MO indicated her intention to raise a point of order) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point? MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Are there members in the United Kingdom and Canada who are returned by zero votes? Please clarify. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, this is not a point of order, please sit down. Mr Martin LIAO, please continue with your speech. MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): I will not engage in any meaningless dispute. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO requested a clarification from Mr LIAO. Why is her request not considered a point of order? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please sit down. Ms MO has expressed her opinion. She did not raise a point of order. I do not allow frequent interruptions when another Member speaks. Mr Martin LIAO, please continue with your speech.


MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): Regarding frivolous or meaningless amendments that are in a series, the President or the Chairman of the committee of the whole Council may order them not to be moved. Moreover, quorum calls have also been abused. To address this problem, we suggest to set things right and that separate arrangements be adopted for meetings of the committee of the whole Council and meetings of this Council with the quorum for the former be set at 20 Members. President, why do I say that we are setting things right? It is because the two are of different natures, of different powers and functions, and of different levels and operation modes despite the fact that they are held in the same venue. The Basic Law only provides for the quorum for Legislative Council meetings. The Rules of Procedure sets the same quorum for meetings of the Legislative Council and those of the Committee of the whole Council; in other words, no less than one half of all its Members should be present (i.e. 35 Members). This is a decision made by the legislature, not a request of the Basic Law. Hence, our proposal does not violate the Basic Law. In fact, there was a time before the reunification in 1997 when different numbers of Members were adopted as the quorum for Council meetings and for the meetings of the Committee of the whole Council. Our research proves that the Committee of the whole Council is tasked with the duty to scrutinize in detail bills handed over from Council meetings which have gone through Second Reading, and then report to the Council again the result of the scrutiny. In respect of functions, it is not part of the Council meeting. On this basis, we studied the quorums for meetings of the House Committee and the Finance Committee; and we propose that the quorum for the meetings of the Committee of the whole Council be consistent with that for House Committee which has a higher threshold (i.e. 20 Members). Moreover, in order to handle in good time the outstanding business on the Agenda after the Council has been adjourned due to a lack of quorum, we propose that the President of the Legislative Council be empowered to order a Council meeting to be resumed for the continuation of the unfinished business on the Agenda at any hour or on any day before the next meeting, so that time will not be wasted due to termination of Council meeting. I believe this also meets the expectation of the general public. President, another aspect of the Rules of Procedure which desperately needs to be updated is our age-old system of petition. The petition system of the Hong Kong Legislative Council follows the Westminster tradition in the United Kingdom dated back to 159 years ago. Yet, even the Parliament of the United Kingdom has repealed this system, and petitions are now submitted by their members of the public. For the part of Hong Kong, even if we want to preserve


4237

this nineteenth century system, we should at least amend it, but we have not done so, with reference to the practical conditions changed. First of all, in relation to the increased quorum for a Legislative Council meeting, we should correspondingly increase the required number of Members who rise in support of a petition to be referred to House Committee, so as to tally with the practice before 1997 where the two numbers were the consistent with each other. Moreover, given the matured development of the committee system in the Legislative Council, a select committee is no longer the only type of committee where a petition is referred to. We should refer the petition to this Council for collective debate and consideration as to whether a select committee should be appointed to handle the matter raised in the petition. Hence, we propose that if 35 Members rise in support of a petition at a Council meeting, the petition shall immediately be referred to House Committee; and if House Committee concludes that a select committee be appointed to handle the matter raised in the petition, the chairman of the House Committee shall move a motion in the Council to decide the manner of consideration of the petition. President, at present, motions moved without notice are frequently abused, such as adjournment motions and motions to shorten the ringing of the division bell. These procedural motions lack a specific subject matter. Councils in many countries do not provide any time on debating these motions, such is the case of Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. But the Rules of Procedure of this Council treats procedural motions as motions with specific subject matters and allows debates to be conducted on these motions. This creates opportunities for filibustering Members to stall Council proceedings with aimless speeches. We thus propose that the question on these two types of motions can be put to vote without debate; and for adjournment motions, if the Chairman of the Committee of the whole Council is of the opinion that moving such a motion is an abuse of procedure, he may decide not to put the question to vote. Regarding other motions that can be moved without notice, they should be propose only at very unusual times or out of necessity. These include the motion that a bill or the bill returned for reconsideration be not referred to House Committee and the motion to request members of the press and of the public to withdraw. However, recent examples prove that some Members will filibuster at any cost and will even sacrifice freedom of the press to move the relevant motion. In this connection, we propose that a prerequisite be laid down for these motions, such that these motions can only be moved with the consent of the President.


President, we also propose an amendment to provide that a Member who explains the part of his speech which has been misunderstood shall only speak on the part that has been misunderstood. President, apart from Council meetings, committees' meetings have also been plagued by filibustering. However, unlike President of the Legislative Council, chairmen of committees do not have the power to decide the agenda or regulate meeting order. As to powers to reduce speeches that dwell on irrelevance and verbosity, only President of the Legislative Council, chairmen of standing committees and select committees have such power, but chairmen of House Committee and other committees do not have such powers. Yet, these are justified powers that can help maintain orders in meetings. In this connection, we propose that the scope of application of the power to stop Members from dwelling on irrelevance or tedious repetitions be extended to all committees' chairmen, and all committees' chairmen be empowered to decide the items to be included on the Agenda. President, I call on fellow Members who treasure the effective exercise of the powers and functions of the Legislative Council authorized in the Basic Law to support our proposed amendments, so that this Council can be restored to its right track, and that Members can be given the room to make sensible speeches and society can embrace a sensible and dignified legislature again. I wish to respond to some arguments raised by pan-democratic Members, but I do not have the speaking time now. I will respond to them in may overall reply. President, I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon the Members who have proposed amending motions to Mr Martin LIAO's proposed resolution to speak one by one. Mr Alvin YEUNG. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Before I speak, I observe that the number of Members present in the Chamber has started to decrease. President, it may be time to have a headcount.


4239

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (While the summoning bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair) (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members made noises in their seats) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in the Chamber. Members please keep quiet. Mr Alvin YEUNG, please speak. MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Mr Martin LIAO has compared the effort to restore decorum, proprieties and music with the proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). I think we might as well look into the purposes of the promotion of proprieties and music. Guoyu, or Discourses of the States, says: "Music is that by which the airs of the mountains and rivers are laid open and that by which virtue is made to shine far and wide. Virtue is sung of in airs to spread it abroad; the mountains and rivers are sung of in airs to make virtue go far; things are sung of in airs so that virtue can be heard; songs are crafted to sing about virtue; rites are crafted to give virtue from. When virtue is spread far and wide and has timeliness and form, the distance will submit and the nearby will not waver." To put it simply, the main purpose of proprieties and music is to make virtue shine far and wide, so that people will adhere to the heavenly principles. If the current RoP amendments really seek to enable people, particularly Hong Kong people, to adhere to the heavenly principles, it is a good idea for us to see if Mr Martin LIAO's proposed amendments could really adhere to the heavenly principles. Deputy President, after reading Mr Martin LIAO's motion, or after listening to Mr Martin LIAO's eloquent speech which appears to be very sensible, I am afraid that he does not genuinely seek to restore proprieties and music. He rather seeks to seize power under the name of flourishing proprieties and music. Who is the target? He actually seeks to seize the power from Members and from people of Hong Kong as well. Before I go into details, Deputy President, it


may be a good idea for us to first review the history. I am afraid that the pro-government Members may not know much about the major developments of RoP, an inseparable part of its history since time immemorial. Perhaps, let me give a brief account of the history of RoP, from which Members can judge if their proposed amendments are really great, open, and fair, or otherwise perverse and regressive. Deputy President, the Standing Rules and Orders for the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, the first version of RoP, was adopted on 18 December 1844. Next Monday is thus the 173rd anniversary of its adoption. This RoP was adopted over a hundred years ago to provide guides to both the Executive Council and the Legislative Council. With only 11 provisions, its first rule gave the Governor the right to pass or veto any bills. We can see how powerful the Governor was that time. However, after a rather short period of 14 years, the Legislative Council and the Executive Council were governed by their own RoPs respectively in 1858. More liberal and democratic elements were introduced in the legislature's RoP. The most remarkable amendment was to restrict the absolute power of the Governor, thus removing the Sword of Damocles hanging over Members' head. Besides, it also incorporated a number of provisions to protect Members' right to freedom of debate. RoP 16 of this old RoP stipulates: "Members of the Legislative Council enjoy the freedom of speech". This is the prototype of Section 3 of today's Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance ("the P&P Ordinance"), which stipulates that "There shall be freedom of speech and debate in the Council or proceedings before a committee". The RoP was amended again in 1884 to give Members the right to freely express their views. Deputy President, the spirit of freedom of debate forms the legal basis for Article 77 of the Basic Law which reads "Members of the Legislative Council shall be immune from legal action in respect of their statements at meetings of the Council", as well as Section 4 of the P&P Ordinance which stipulates that Member will be free from civil and criminal liability for words spoken before, or written in a report to, the Council or a committee. We can see that the numerous amendments to RoP introduced since over one hundred years ago are all intended to refine the rules and make them more liberal. After the 4 June Incident in 1989, the Government introduced directly elected seats in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong in 1991. With the participation of Members elected by the public for the first time, the Council was no long made up of Governor-appointed Members only. Two years later, the Governor handed over the Presidency of the Legislative Council to a Member


4241

elected from among the Members, and Mr John SWAINE eventually became the first elected President. The first picture hanged on the right hand side of the wall outside the Chamber is his portrait. Hence, in the course of the development of the Council, it has granted Members the right to freedom of speech, the public the right to elect their representatives to the legislature, and Members the right to independently elect the President to be their representative in the Council as the head of the executive authorities ceased to take up such a role. There was separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers with checks and balances. Hence, as we can see, a civilized system of checks and balances has already taken shape as early as in the 1990s. Besides, I want to highlight that "the right of Members to propose amendments" is the very right which was laid down as early as in the first RoP. Deputy President, since the Legislative Council was first established and the first Member proposed the maiden amendment over a hundred years ago, the colonial Governor, in his role as the President of the Legislative Council, had neither bundled Members' amendments into a joint debate nor rejected their amendments under the pretext of trivia or meaninglessness. Whenever Members put forward amendments, the Legislative Council would deal with them one by one with certainty under the established procedures. Today, however, the pro-Government camp seeks to amend RoP 19 to give the President the power to direct amendments to be combined. This is a total disregard for the traditional right of Members to propose amendments to refine the quality of the debate on policies. Deputy President, the history of RoP is basically a history of returning political power from the Government and the President to the people. Before the moving of these uncivilized amendments by the pro-Government camp, all amendments to RoP so far have been along the lines of developing a more democratic Legislative Council by restricting the power of the Government and the President on the one hand, and putting heavier weight on Members' freedom of debate on policies and their role to monitor the Government on the other. It is just satirical that when the RoP is approaching its 173rd anniversary, the pro-Government camp takes an unprecedented move to reverse course from a civilized legislature to an all-powerful President through giving him the power similar to those held by the colonial Governor over one hundred years ago, in an attempt to make today's Legislative Council become more totalitarian and authoritarian than in the colonial times.


It is obvious enough that the Government's denial to submit any bill to the Legislative Council for scrutiny is to make way for the RoP amendments. Even though we have already scrapped the ex-officio Member appointment, we can still witness the collusion between the executive authorities and the pro-Government camp in the legislature, as the two fish in troubled waters and collaborate to push for the arbitrary passage of the RoP amendments. While the Chief Executive does not take up the Presidency of the Legislative Council, the pro-Government camp is actually the marionette of the Government and the Central Authorities. It is unfortunate to see that Members with low attendance and those who often appear to nod off in Council meetings are present today in a concerted effort to pass the RoP motion, so as to give a prior green light to future motions. Deputy President, can these be regarded as an effective governance? In doing so, they have rather given up discussing policies, and thus betraying the trust of the public. The most worrying is that I am afraid this is just the beginning. Deputy President, Article 2 of the Basic Law stipulates that "The National People's Congress authorizes the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to exercise a high degree of autonomy and enjoy executive, legislative and independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, in accordance with the provisions of this Law". The executive, legislative and judicial powers are stated separately, and this forms the basis of the separation of powers in Hong Kong. There is absolutely no mention of the "cooperation of powers" in the Basic Law despite the fact that the Central Authorities have repeatedly called for its implementation. I have proposed in my amendment that "The President, in discharging of his duties, shall preserve and defend the autonomy of the Legislative Council at all times". I propose to make this amendment to RoP 1 because I am keen to remind the President at all times that on the basis of the separation of executive, legislative and judicial powers, it is not a must and there is no need for the Legislative Council to cooperate with the Executive Authorities. Instead, it is duty-bound for the Council to exercise the powers and functions provided for in Article 73 of the Basic Law to monitor the Executive Authorities. I hope the incumbent and future Presidents will bear this principle in mind. Besides, I also propose to amend RoP 3. The wording of my amendment is: "The duties of the President require the balancing of the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the Council and that the interests of all parts of the Council are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority". Deputy President, I propose this amendment as I want to put RoP back on the


4243

right track. Any amendments to RoP should be able to bring about a more transparent Council, in line with our unfailing effort to put the legislature on the path to civilization. Deputy President, Mr Martin LIAO's arguments frequently make reference to the practices in overseas countries of the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia. It appears that he has to seek elsewhere for the lost rites. However, it is unfortunate for him to cite the system adopted in the United Kingdom over a hundred years in defending his proposal to amend the rules on the presentation of petitions. The fact is the United Kingdom system has undergone a fundamental change from a petition by council members to a petition by the public. In this respect, may I invite Mr Martin LIAO and the pro-Government Members who are for the amendment to a challenge? Do they dare to revise the amendment and hand over the presentation of petitions to the public? When they always look up to overseas countries, why do they not follow the overseas examples and introduce a cyber-petition system? When the overseas countries are ready to permit a petition once the number of petitioners reaches a prescribed threshold, why Hong Kong cannot follow suit? When they are so used to drawing references from the United Kingdom and the United States, why do they dare not do the same? Deputy President, why do they not have the guts to do so? Instead of increasing the threshold of presentation of petitions to 35 petitioners, why do they not significantly expand it to, say, ten thousand, twenty thousand, fifty thousand or even one hundred thousand Hong Kong people? Once the number of petitioners reaches that threshold, the Legislative Council must deal with the petition. Does the pro-Government camp have the courage to accept the challenge? Instead of referring to the experience in the United Kingdom and the United States, they should focus on the situation in Hong Kong. They should rather have confidence in Hong Kong people than people in the overseas. I wonder if the pro-Government camp dares to accept this challenge. Deputy President, Mr Martin LIAO has delivered an impassioned speech on his proposal to reduce the quorum of a committee of the whole Council to 20 Members from 35 Members. According to him, the quorum reduction is justified because the nature, function and operation of a committee of the whole Council are different in the legislature and from the Council. Deputy President, I want to directly respond to his remark. A committee of the whole Council and the Council may not be the same in respect of the nature, function and operation, but we have to note that the Council itself also has different natures and


functions. Should we need to deal with each of its different functions under RoP separately and subject each of them to different RoPs? Despite the slight differences in the nature, function, and operation between the Council and a committee of the whole Council, the two share the same spirit. That is why the businesses of a committee of the whole Council are also dealt with in this Chamber. Why do we call it a committee of the whole Council instead of simply a clause-by-clause committee? Deputy President, it is because we hope that when we go through the Second Reading of Bills and enter the stage of clause-by-clause examination in preparation for the Third Reading procedure, all Members will join the discussion as ex-officio Members and the President will become Chairman of a committee of the whole Council. The reasons for and the spirit of this arrangement is to allow the clause-by-clause examination to capture as many voices of Hong Kong people as possible. This is the spirit of the arrangement. Mr Martin LIAO tries to use the different nature, function, and operation between a committee of the whole Council and the Council to defend his proposal to separate them, regardless of the fact that the two committees actually operate as a whole. I call on Members to return to the spirit of the existing arrangement. The fact that a committee of the whole Council deals with its businesses in this Chamber has reflected the original intent and design of the committee are to allow all Members to participate in the process, and the participation of all Members actually signifies the role of the Council. The two committees should operate as a whole. This is the main reason why democratic Members oppose adjusting the quorum of a committee of the whole Council. Deputy President, as many Honourable colleagues have already mentioned, what lay behind the many rhetoric speeches and remarks on the proposed quorum reduction is their laziness. I do not want to say so, and I do not want to mount an offensive on the pro-Government colleagues. If what come out of Mr Martin LIAO's mouth come from his heart, and he really wishes to exemplify proprieties and music and to put the Council back on the right track by means of the RoP amendments, I am confused by the justifications and logic. Deputy President, I cannot see why we have to reduce the quorum to such a low level. Deputy President, I also find it perplexing how we can exemplify proprieties and music by allowing Members to skip meetings. If so, why should we not further reduce the quorum from 20 Members as proposed to 8 Members, to be in line with the requirement of the Finance Committee? Deputy President, a further reduced quorum will make it easier to hold meetings as more Members will not be required to join. Is this the intention of Mr Martin LIAO? I do not want to guess his motive, but the effect of the proposed reduction is just obvious to all.


4245

Deputy President, Ms Margaret NG, former Member of the legal profession and also a member of our party, said in May 2011 that RoP should be above politics. Deputy President, I totally agree with her, and I totally embrace this saying as well. I believe that most colleagues here should also be aware of this. But unfortunately, politics has led us by the nose. Hence, many colleagues are forced to sit here and to finish their lunches in 10 minutes or so. This is also caused by politics. This is of course a dehumanized decision. I hope to tell Members an objective fact that the RoP amendments, if passed, would comprehensively and substantially reduce the power originally held by the 69 Members. All power would thus be vested in the President. No matter who would take up the Presidency in the future, whether they are from the pro-Government camp or the democratic camp, the amendments will upset the proper balance between Members and the President in the Council. The vesting of all power in the President runs counter to the checks and balances system which should prevail in the 21st century. I call on Honourable colleagues to give a serious thought to this. Are we really ready to give up our power just for the sake of a temporary political reason? How can we check the power of the President in his Chamber then? I call on Members to think over this carefully. Deputy President, I so submit. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, is a quorum present now? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, there is now a quorum in the Chamber, please speak. MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I do not know whether you agree that we have had some adequately in-depth discussions in the past few days, but I am going to devote my speaking time to setting out one by one whether I will vote for or against each proposed amendment, and I believe a speech so delivered is in compliance with the relevant requirements. The current debate covers 12 proposed resolutions moved under Article 75 of the Basic Law to amend the Rules of Procedure. The first resolution moved


by Mr Paul TSE seeks to substitute "舉" for "擧", which is currently used in the Chinese text. As it is just an amendment in wording, I do not consider it a controversial issue and have no particular view on this. Mr Alvin YEUNG proposes several amendments, such as adding a provision on "3A. Autonomy of the Council" after RoP 3 to stipulate that "The President, in discharging of his duties, shall preserve and defend the autonomy of the Legislative Council at all times.". I wish to express support for this proposed amendment. He also proposes to add a provision on "79C. Committee and Subcommittee Meetings be Held Openly" to stipulate that "Notwithstanding Rule 88 (Withdrawal of Members of the Press and of the Public), all meetings of the committee and subcommittee shall be conducted in an open manner, except those held by the Legislative Council Commission, the Committee on Rules of Procedure, customarily held in camera or otherwise as required by the Rules of Procedure or by law. If a meeting is to be held in camera, it shall be so decided by two-thirds majority of the Members of that committee or subcommittee.". Deputy President, I wish to give my agreement to this proposed amendment. Besides, he proposes to amend RoP 92 (Procedure if Rules of Procedure do not provide), so that "consult the Committee on Rules of Procedure and" will be added after "if he thinks fit,". Deputy President, this proposed amendment also has my support. Ms Tanya CHAN proposes two amendments, including an amendment proposed to RoP 6 (Duties of the Clerk), so that "25 years" in RoP 6(5A)(a) will be repealed and substituted by "20 years". Deputy President, I wish to express support for this proposed amendment. She also proposes to amend RoP 83AA (Claims for Reimbursement of Operating Expenses or Applications for Advance of Operating Funds), so that the Rule will be renumbered as RoP 83AA(1). It should not give rise to much controversy because a new subrule, which reads "(2) The Clerk must ensure that Members are provided with the necessary facilities and resources within the Legislative Council for the proper execution of their duties.", is proposed to be added after RoP 83AA(1). Deputy President, this proposed amendment also has my support.


4247

Mr WU Chi-wai also proposes two amendments, and the first one is proposed to RoP 1A (Precedence of Members). With regard to RoP 1A(1), he proposes to repeal "the continuous" and substitute "the", and repeal the semicolon and substitute "whilst it is not necessary for him to hold office for a continuous period of time; when more than one Member has held office for the same period of time,". As for RoP 1A(2), he proposes to repeal "continuous". Deputy President, I wish to express support for this proposed amendment. Moreover, he also proposes to amend RoP 14 (Days and Hours of Meeting), so that "(6) Meetings of the Council shall continue to be held during the annual plenary sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference unless the President orders otherwise." will be added after RoP 14(5). This proposed amendment also has my support. Mr Charles Peter MOK proposes two amendments, and the first one is proposed to RoP 6 (Duties of the Clerk), so that "video recording," will be added after "records," in RoP 6(5). Deputy President, I wish to give my agreement to this proposed amendment. He also proposes to amend RoP 8 (Attendance of the Chief Executive) to repeal "and" in RoP 8(b), repeal the full stop and substitute "; and" in RoP 8(c), and add "(d) upon the invitation of the Council, any committee, subcommittee or Member." after RoP 8(c). Deputy President, I also wish to express support for the amendment proposed here. As for Mr Kenneth LEUNG, he proposes two amendments, including one to RoP 6 (Duties of the Clerk) which seeks to add "and, unless the Clerk orders otherwise, a deputy clerk" after "with a clerk" in RoP 6(7). I wish to express support for this proposed amendment. He also proposes to amend RoP 14 (Days and Hours of Meeting), so that "14 clear days before the day of the meeting" in RoP 14(2) will be repealed and substituted by "12 clear days before the day of the meeting". This proposed amendment also has my support. Dr Fernando CHEUNG proposes two amendments, and the first one proposed to RoP 2 (Language) seeks to add "sign language," after "either". I wish to express support for this proposed amendment.


He also proposes to amend RoP 5 (President's Deputy), so that "The chairman of the House Committee must be a Member elected from the geographical constituency." will be added after "President's deputy." in RoP 5(1). Deputy President, I wish to express support for this proposed amendment. Then comes the amendment proposed by I myself to add RoP 11A. I propose to add a provision on "11A. Council Meetings be Held Openly" after RoP 11 to stipulate that "All meetings of the Council shall be conducted in an open manner, subject to Rule 88 or otherwise as required by the Rules of Procedure or by law.". As this is an amendment proposed by me, it will of course have my support. Mr Dennis KWOK proposes two amendments. RoP 3 (Presiding in Council and in Committee of the Whole Council) is proposed to be amended, in order to add "(1A) The duties of the President require the balancing of the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the Council and that the interests of all parts of the Council are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority." after RoP 3(1). Deputy President, I support this proposed amendment. The amendment he proposes to RoP 7 (Counsel to the Legislature) seeks to add "(3) The Deputy Counsel shall assist the Counsel to the Legislature in discharge of his duties under subrules (1) and (2)." after RoP 7(2). I support and agree to this proposed amendment. The proposed resolution to be moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki covers a greater number of amendments, and there are four in total. First of all, he proposes to amend RoP 24 (Notice of Questions) to repeal "character and" and substitute "character or" in RoP 24(4). I support this proposed amendment. Secondly, he proposes to amend RoP 44 (Decision of Chair Final), so that "If any decision is objected by more than one Member, the President or the Chairman shall allow the Members to explain the objection. The President or the Chairman shall then explain his decision and the explanation should be put on record. The decision shall not be binding on later decisions." will be added after "shall be final." in RoP 44. Deputy President, I wish to express support for this proposed amendment.


4249

As for the amendment proposed to RoP 71 (Finance Committee), "The chairman and 8 other members" in RoP 71(5A) will be repealed and substituted by "One third of the number of the members (a fraction of the whole number being disregarded), including the chairman,". Deputy President, I support this proposed amendment. He also proposes to amend RoP 75 (House Committee) to repeal "20 members" and substitute "One third of the number of the members (a fraction of the whole number being disregarded)" in RoP 75(12A). Deputy President, this proposed amendment also has my support. It then comes to the four amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. The first one seeks to add RoP 1B, so that a provision on "1B. Fundamental Rights" will be added after RoP 1A to stipulate that "All Members of the Council (including the President), in carrying out their duties at the Council, shall respect the fundamental rights of Hong Kong Residents enshrined in Chapter III of the Basic Law and give due consideration to the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other applicable international human rights instruments.". Deputy President, I support this proposed amendment. The amendment proposed to RoP 2 (Language) seeks to add "or chair a meeting" after "A Member may address the Council" in RoP 2. I wish to express support for this proposed amendment. He also proposes to add RoP 9A, so that a provision on "9A. Foreign Dignitaries" will be added after RoP 9 to stipulate that "The Council may invite foreign dignitaries to attend meetings of the Council, any committee or subcommittee from time to time when the President thinks fit.". Deputy President, I support this proposed amendment. As for the amendment proposed to RoP 24 (Notice of Questions), subrule (4) in RoP 24 will be repealed and substituted by "(4) Not more than two questions without notice may be asked at any one meeting, and a Member may ask not more than one question without notice in a session, the President may permit the question to be asked without notice, if he is satisfied that sufficient private notice of the question has been or is to be given by the Member concerned to the Government to enable the question to be answered.". Deputy President, I also wish to give my agreement to this proposed amendment.


It finally comes to Mr Martin LIAO's amendments. His first amendment seeks to add RoP 1B, so that a provision on "1B. The President of the Legislative Council" will be added after RoP 1A to specify that "There shall be a President of the Council whose powers and functions are set out in Article 72 of the Basic Law, the laws of Hong Kong and these Rules of Procedure.". I think there should be no big problem with this proposal because it seeks only to reconfirm the status of the President, and this is fine with me. Hence, I do not necessarily oppose all amendments proposed by Mr Martin LIAO. The amendment proposed to RoP 3 (Presiding in Council and in Committee of the Whole Council) seeks to repeal "There shall be a" and substitute "The" in RoP 3(1), and there should not be any particular controversy over this proposal. Besides, I also have no strong view on the proposal to repeal "who" in the English text. He also proposes to amend RoP 12 (First Meeting of Term) to repeal subrule (3) and substitute "(3) The meeting shall be adjourned after all Members present have made or subscribed an oath or affirmation.". I do not agree to and will vote against this proposed amendment. With regard to the amendment proposed to RoP 14 (Days and Hours of Meetings), I oppose repealing "on another day" in RoP 14(4). As for the proposal to repeal "continue on such other day" and substitute "continue at any hour or on any day" in RoP 14(4), I also wish to express objection. In addition, he proposes to repeal "business on such other day" and substitute "business at such hour or on such day" in RoP 14(4). Deputy President, I am not agreeable to this proposal. In the amendment proposed to RoP 17 (Quorum), it is first of all suggested to repeal "and of a committee of the whole Council" and "or Chairman" in RoP 17(1), but I oppose repealing both phrases. Besides, he proposes to add "(1A) The quorum of a committee of the whole Council shall be 20 members including the Chairman." after RoP 17(1), but I am not agreeable to this proposal. As for the proposal to add "the President shall count the Council. If a quorum is then present the Council shall again resolve itself into committee but if a quorum is not present" after "shall be resumed and" in RoP 17(3), I wish to express objection.


4251

He also proposes to add "(6) The President may call a meeting to complete the unfinished business on the Agenda after the Council has been so adjourned under subrule (2) or (3), and should the President consider that such a meeting has to be called the adjournment of the Council under subrule (2) or (3) shall be deemed to be a meeting ordered to be suspended and may be resumed for the continuation of business at such hour or on such day pursuant to Rule 14(4) (Days and Hours of Meetings)." after RoP 17(5). I wish to express objection to this proposal. Deputy President, there is indeed no way I can finish reading this, because there are only 2 minutes left in my speaking time. I wish to point out that I have not yet finished stating my stance on each amendment proposed by Mr Martin LIAO, and there are still 10-odd or 20 pages of amendments that I have not yet touched on. This can fully reflect the hypocrisy of the debate arrangement under which each Member is only allocated a speaking time of up to 15 minutes. I have made no elaboration just now and have only stated whether I would vote for or against each proposed amendment, but 13 minutes have been used with only 2 minutes left, and no more time is available for discussing other proposed amendments. I am doing this to highlight the fact that the decision to let us air our views freely with a speaking time limit of 15 minutes is absolutely wrong, and the President has definitely abused his powers. We can only see from the debate held in this Council in the past few days that after packaging the whole thing with a piece of wrapping paper, someone has torn it and unveiled the true face without any reservation. It is unimaginable that people can go so far both inside and outside this Council. There may be arguments between both sides in this Chamber, but we would usually forget about them afterwards. How come people can go so far as to threaten me outside, and what has exactly happened? Should things turn so ugly simply because they want to amend the Rules of Procedure? I have already adopted the most simple method to tell everyone whether I will support or oppose each and every proposed amendment, but a speaking time limit of 15 minutes is certainly inadequate if we want to have a debate of good quality. The so-called discussion we are having now is just a process created to tell the public that the proposals have already been discussed and a speaking time of 15 minutes is adequate, but is it really enough? I have not yet finished stating my stance on all the amendments proposed by Mr Martin LIAO, and have even not yet started my discussion on any single amendment proposed to an amendment. This is absolutely impossible for me to do so with just 15 minutes.


Deputy President, why should I handle it this way? I am simply doing this to tell everyone that the issue concerning the Rules of Procedure is actually very complex. In each attempt made to amend the Rules of Procedure in the past, only one or two amendments were proposed after thorough discussions and negotiations, and there was even absolutely no controversy at all for some proposed amendments. However, we can no longer deal with the issue in this way today, when the proposed amendments are set out here and we have to accept them all. No matter what, we can only speak for up to 15 minutes, and even though we find this unacceptable, there is nothing we can do. After we have used up our speaking time, what else can we do apart from sitting down? However, fellow colleagues, is this what justice should mean to us in this legislature? I so submit. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I really have to take my hat off to my fellow party member Mr Jeremy TAM, who has spent 12-odd minutes on the amendments from people like Mr Martin LIAO. Basically, you are wasting your time speaking to these useless people. Among 49 amendments, 24 amendments … DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please hold on. Please clarify whether you are saying that certain Members in this Council are useless. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): In short, if anyone thinks that he is useless after listening to my remark, he is a useless person. But I did not specifically say that any person is useless. I cannot prevent someone from seeing himself as a useless person. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has clarified that he is not saying that any Member in this Council is a useless person. Dr KWOK, please continue with your speech. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I hope that Deputy President will not take that description on yourself and see yourself as this kind of people after listening to this remark. At present, there are 49 amendments. I was really crossed


4253

when I heard Mr Martin LIAO's mentioning of the United Kingdom and the United States. The United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and New Zealand are countries running democratic systems. Their Members of the Parliament, apart from the Members of the House of Lords in the United Kingdom who have neither power nor influence, are all elected Members returned by "one person, one vote". How can we be comparable to them? Mr Martin LIAO himself is returned by a small-circle election. He is a zero-vote Member without going through any genuine election. In what position can he speak illogically here and mention the tradition of the United Kingdom and the United States? Pursuant to the Basic Law, Members of the Legislative Council should be elected by universal suffrage of "one person, one vote" in the dual elections in 2007 and 2008. If that had been realized, Members sitting here would all have been returned by geographical direct elections, and there would not have any dirty acts done by the royalist camp and the pro-establishment camp to the Rules of Procedure. Deputy President, not all of them will mention the United Kingdom and the United States, but their passports must be from the United Kingdom and the United States, Australia or New Zealand. Not long ago, our President gave up his British nationality just before he was sworn in as President of the Legislative Council, giving us the best demonstration. In essence, while they are sitting here showing their love to the country, they are keeping their passports from the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia or New Zealand at home as that is more important. This situation does not only appear in Hong Kong. Just look at where the children of our national leaders have gone? Look at where the money of our national officials, whose spouses and children are overseas nationals, have gone? They are in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia or New Zealand for sure. These officials reproach their enemies everyday, but their children and money are all in these countries. When it comes to parliamentary tradition, we have two kinds of tradition. One is the British parliamentary tradition passed to Hong Kong by the British, while the other one is the tradition from the National People's Congress ("NPC"). The NPC tradition is really impressive, as all Members are hand-raising machines and rubber stamps. What they do is to press the buttons so that all motions will be passed. From a system of an elected legislature, we are walking gradually towards the NPC tradition created by a totalitarian government. By this tradition, nothing is more important than the words from the boss, and we have to try our best to do what the boss says and achieve what he wants. In the Mainland, do you dare to scold the national leaders? In a news report recently, a


person in the Mainland was arrested for criticizing the national leaders in the WeChat group, a social platform. This is the tradition of our great nation, and the royalist camp and the pro-establishment camp are now implanting such practice into Hong Kong so as to turn our Council into another NPC. Hence, it is wasting our time to discuss any tradition with them. It may be better that we ask them to take out their passports being hidden at home or elsewhere. We find it most shameful that Mr Martin LIAO alone has proposed 24 amendments to the Rules of Procedure, but he should at least act better in this show. Frankly speaking, with only 15 minutes of speaking time, he does not even have enough time to read out his amendments one by one. Since his amendments will surely be passed anyway, why are we not given sufficient time to discuss them, and why do they, the majority, bully the minority? The shameless Members of functional constituencies, the royalist camp and the pro-establishment camp already know that they are in control of the situation, including when these amendments will be put to the vote, and this is obvious to all. I think in future, we should propose some amendments to provide that Members are not necessary to be present in the Chamber and that they can be replaced by puppets. For example, the Rules of Procedure can be amended to the effect that Members' images can be pasted onto the puppets―a better arrangement as Members are basically no different from puppets; or that some marionettes, with Members' images pasted onto them for sure, can be placed into Members' seats. The marionettes of Mr Paul TSE and other Members should be made better and they will be properly put into their seats. The marionettes sitting here will be no different from real Members. When Members are sitting in this Chamber, they need to take a short break of 15 minutes after a period of time so that they can go to the restroom or have something to eat. But puppets do not have such needs and these 15 minutes can also be saved. In this way, the motions can be passed more easily and expeditiously. In future, when the public and children come to visit the Council, they will be watching "The Adventures of Pinocchio". As a matter of fact, we can see the scene of "The Adventures of Pinocchio" here with a lot of puppets which do not need to speak or discuss anything. Therefore, the speaking time of 15 minutes for each Member is sufficient as they basically do not need to speak or discuss anything. The boss has already given an instruction that they have to play "The Adventures of Pinocchio", and thus they have to do it accordingly. However, do the Hong Kong people think that we deserve this kind of treatment?


4255

In my amendment, I propose a requirement that the President, in discharging his duties, must respect the tradition of the Council. Today, Mr Dennis KWOK asked Deputy President to take note of the Council tradition and decide whether she should withdraw from the meeting. But I wonder if he has overestimated the ability and knowledge of our President or Deputy President. We should not think highly of the pro-establishment Members who mention about British tradition. But I sometimes think that when they have difficulties reciting the NPC rules, will it be beyond their ability to talk about British tradition? It will be rather difficult indeed. Hence, my amendment is drafted in the hope that even if the President does not know how to discharge his duties properly, he can go back and do some studies on the parliamentary tradition of some democratic societies, democratic countries and democratic regions. He is not too old and still has time to learn. When a person becomes President in his 60s and 70s, he can still learn. I have also proposed an amendment to provide that a petition shall stand referred to the select committee consisting of all Members of House Committee if no less than a quarter of the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections or a quarter of the Members returned by functional constituencies support the request. This is one way to counter the amendments from Mr Martin LIAO. It is to demonstrate the only power possessed by the minority Members who represent the majority of the public. Even though these select committees will be set up, we all know that a majority of their members as well as their Chairmen will be from the pro-establishment camp. We have to put up with these people who serve as the protective shield in defending the interests of their boss. But it is fine to us and we will still work very hard. For instance, if a select committee concerning the Link REIT or the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project is set up, these Members from the pro-establishment camp will raise their hands to fight for the position of Chairman. Because the Chairman can set out the terms of reference concerned to make sure that the Government will feel comfortable and will not feel embarrassed, and to make sure that the boss, no matter the SAR Government or the Mainland authorities, will not feel embarrassed. They have to do their best for this purpose. Therefore, I propose these amendments in the hope to amend Mr Martin LIAO's amendments which are detrimental to the Legislative Council, the general public and the principle of "one country, two systems". It is clearly stipulated in the Basic Law that "one country, two systems" has to be implemented in Hong


Kong, and this is the original system. And now the Mainland authorities are getting unreasonable. They say that the Basic Law is in fact not what matters most, as the Constitution is above the Basic Law. Recently, people like WANG Zhenmin also say that principles like one-party dictatorship and democratic centralism, though not stipulated in the Constitution, are highly important and have to be implemented. Are these in line with the principle of "one country, two systems"? If DENG Xiaoping heard about this, he would turn in his grave and scold these disobedient party members. As you also know, the tradition of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong is not for the sake of Hong Kong, but for the sake of the entire China. The Mainland is already hopeless without any democratic voices because of the autocratic rule, the offences of picking quarrels and provoking troubles and subverting state power, as well as Internet and physical monitoring and repression. But for Hong Kong alone, there are still some remaining democratic voices under "one country, two systems", and these cannot be feigned. We can count how many children of high-ranking officials from the Mainland are working in Hong Kong. Apart from the daughter of CHEN Zuoer, the children, grandchildren and sons in law of many Members and retired Members of the Central Committee are all working in Hong Kong while the younger children are all studying in international schools. Why are they not going back to Beijing? Why are the children not going back to study in the First Party School or Second Party School? Of course, they will not do that, and do not joke with them at all. The daughter of XI Jinping is also studying in Harvard University. We all learn that not practising what it preaches is the great tradition of the Communist Party. But it is also very impressive here. What is mentioned by Mr Martin LIAO? He always mention about the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and New Zealand. I just wonder whether he will have the courage to meet those Members of the Parliament in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and New Zealand in the future, and tell them that he is only a Member returned by zero vote, and that half of the Members in the Legislative Council are returned by functional constituencies but he hacked the Council while other people could do nothing about it. He is serious in hacking the Council because he is backed by his boss who can defend him. Furthermore, what has Mr Paul TSE done? The Committee on Rules of Procedure has to deliberate a lot of amendments but he just dealt with them in a perfunctory manner. Some people are right in reproving him. He is after all a lawyer. He is sometimes seen to be staging a show hypocritically and speaking


4257

here in a gentle manner. But what kind of tradition is it? Can he deal with Council business in this manner? He was just rushing through all these amendments. Did he really study law in the United Kingdom? Everyone knows the result and they are going to win anyway, but do not put up this show so uglily. If it is head, they will win, and if it is tail, we will lose. This means that they will win whatever the outcome is. However, they are still acting so uglily and this is really far too much. In fact, the SAR Government is as dirty as him. On Tuesday, Mrs Carrie LAM came out to say that although the Government can act on its own will after the Rules of Procedure is amended, it is not for the sake of legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law. How can she tell us such a lie with her eyes wide open? In fact, LEUNG Chun-ying is not the only big liar. Besides, I also heard some sickening remarks like the rulings written by Mr Andrew LEUNG were well balanced. She also said that although all government motions were withdrawn by the Government, this would not help in bringing an earlier discussion on the resolutions to amend the Rules of Procedure. Would the withdrawal of all the government motions not be helpful at all? How could she tell us such stupid lies which even a three-year-old kid will not believe? When the Government is doing such dirty work, it is actually colluding with the pro-establishment camp to do harm to the Hong Kong people. However, we can see why it has to do that, because in doing so, the Government can continue to act on its own will unscrupulously. Deputy President, this Council is now in lack of a quorum. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has requested a headcount. Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. The meeting will now continue.


DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I was saying how disgraceful the Government was. First of all, the Government made use of the Secretary for Justice to disqualify a total of six Members. Later on, the pro-establishment camp colluded with the Government to propose amending the Rules of Procedure. Nevertheless, they should not be so carried away, as they are only the pawns in the game. None of them is the biggest winner in amending the Rules of Procedure, but they can make sure that their positions as Members can be safeguarded in the next term. When Mr Paul TSE is so conspicuous in showing his loyalty, he may be able to get the position of Deputy President. Besides, I also have to remind them that when they decide to be bootlickers, they have to do it in full instead of leaving things half undone. I just read a news report and what Venerable Master Yin Shun, Vice Chairman of the Buddhist Association of China, has done is really unbelievable. At a meeting recently, someone asked him whether he had read the report delivered at the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China ("19th National Congress report"). Surprisingly, he answered that the 19th National Congress report was the Buddhist scripture of the contemporary era. He has copied this 19th National Congress report three times but found that this was not enough, and has decided to copy it 10 more times. Hence, Deputy President, very soon, these bootlickers will incorporate the Constitution of the Communist Party of China and the 19th National Congress report into our Rules of Procedure. They have to remember copying it three times and then 10 more times in order to be on par with that Venerable Master Yin Shun. I so submit. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): As we all know, Mr Martin LIAO has proposed more than 20 amendments. That is quite a large number, covering almost one quarter of the Rules of Procedure. But the public never have a chance to know the details. I originally planned to read out the proposed amendments one by one to at least put them on record for people to follow, but I changed my mind. People can read them online which is a better way to do so. I wish to take this opportunity to discuss a few issues. First, Mr Martin LIAO made a solid speech just now. But his speech immediately became questionable when he said that the amendments to the Rules


4259

of Procedure he proposed on behalf of other Members were jointly proposed and agreed by 38 pro-establishment Members. This is the critical point of the entire matter. The Rules of Procedure can be compared to the rules of a football game. If only one football team in the Legislative Council requests changing the Rules of Procedure, this Council will of course become biased and the other team will certainly oppose the change, since playing football should be all about tactics and the physical strength of the football players. If the football rules can be changed because the players of one of the football teams are stronger or greater in number, it will be impossible to restore decorum and put this Council back on its right track according to the principle of balance Mr Martin LIAO so claimed. Deputy President, I find one of the amendments proposed in Mr Martin LIAO's resolution rarely discussed by other Members. It is about Rule 40(4) of the Rules of Procedure. The existing Rule 40(4) of the Rules of Procedure provides that "When the Council is in committee a Member may move without notice that further proceedings of the committee be now adjourned. Thereupon the Chairman shall propose the question on that motion. If the motion is agreed to, the Council shall resume; but if the motion is negatived, the committee shall continue its proceedings." Mr Martin LIAO seeks to add the following sentence at the end: "Where the Chairman is of the opinion that the moving of the adjournment of proceedings is an abuse of procedure, he may decide not to propose the question or to put the question forthwith without debate." Deputy President, this involves two issues. Certainly, the bigger issue is that many amendments to the Rules of Procedure will automatically give the President the power to rule on motions without notice. The President will be in control of greater power, making him even more powerful than he is now. In this context, I really want to ask him a question. First of all, can the President stop Members from exercising the constitutional power vested to them under the Basic Law to participate in discussion and scrutiny of laws? The Basic Law and the Rules of Procedure only provide for the power of the President to ensure the smooth conduct of meetings. The question is, if the powers vested to the President and Members under the Basic Law are balanced, is it legitimate for Member to add such a sentence, to the effect that the President may prevent Members from moving an adjournment motion if he is of the opinion that the moving of such a motion is an abuse of procedure? I hold that


we need to have a fundamental and thorough discussion on this point and should not carelessly empower, as if by a default mode, the President to decide how to handle motions without notice. This is a matter of principle. I do not think that moving an adjournment motion at the Committee stage can hinder the normal operation of the Legislative Council. I raised a point yesterday. I mentioned that Mr Jasper TSANG, our former President, chose to cut the filibusters when Members made an unlimited number of speeches in a Committee of the Whole Council. We learn from his logic and the subsequent judgment of the Court of Final Appeal that his action can be interpreted as an exercise of his power vested to him by the Rules of Procedure and the Basic Law. But how could an adjournment motion moved at the Committee stage make the Legislative Council inoperable? So, I hold that in this context, the powers vested to Members, whether under the Basic Law or the Rules of Procedure, should in principle be greater than the power vested to the President on restricting the moving of these motions. This is the first point. Deputy President, the second point is a matter of practicality. According to Mr Martin LIAO's proposed amendment, under what condition can the President disallow the moving of an adjournment motion? It is when Members abuse the procedure. The problem is that this is judgmental, a situation we often run into nowadays, in which we have to speculate on another person's motive. But the Rules of Procedure does not allow us to do so. Without clear elaboration or definition of a proposed adjournment motion, the President basically has to speculate on a Member's motive of moving the motion to decide if it is "an abuse of procedure". I will still be allowed to rise and propose an adjournment motion when the Council is in Committee. Like what the pipa player Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok said earlier, this is just a matter of procedure. But I do not understand on what ground the President can say that I, or any Member who rises and proposes an adjournment motion, abuse the procedure, except that he gets such an idea from what I have said outside this Chamber or in newspapers, and then concludes that I intend to filibuster, or that I want to mess up the procedure with a malicious intent. But all these are not solid grounds for him to make such a judgment. If the President is to make a convincing judgment, he may have to bring the matter to court and find witnesses to prove that Mr CHU Hoi-dick moved the motion out of ill intention and then go through other steps. But the President will not have the opportunity to do so. Hence, "an abuse of procedure" will


4261

become an abuse of power to arbitrarily stop Members from exercising their power to move adjournment motions, a power that they are vested with. Moreover, I wish to further respond to Mr Martin LIAO's proposal to lower the quorum for a Committee of the Whole Council. Here, I wish to quote an article Dr Margaret NG, a former Legislative Council Member, wrote at a website not long ago. The article is titled "減低法定人數是否違反《基本法》: 比較雙方法律意見 " (Whether lowering the quorum violates the Basic Law: a comparison of the legal views of the two sides) In my opinion, former Member Dr Margaret NG has raised two very important points. First, she says, "Mr Martin LIAO holds that the Committee of the Whole Council is the same as other committees, but I hold that there is no solid ground to say that a Committee of the Whole Council is part of the committee system of the Legislative Council." She adds, "A Committee of the Whole Council is established to meet the need of the legislative procedure; it does not independently exist or operate outside the meeting of the Legislative Council. Rules concerning a Committee of the Whole Council are not listed under 'Committees' (Part M) of the Rules of Procedure, but only under 'Procedure on bills' (Part K) which defines the procedures applicable only to Council meetings … The critical point is that Article 75(1) of the Basic Law should not be understood in fragments. Article 75(1) is talking about 'the quorum for the meeting of the Legislative Council' and not 'the quorum for the Legislative Council'. It clearly defines the meaning of Legislative Council meeting and the items to be included in the agenda of Legislative Council meeting." This is the reason why I oppose Mr Martin LIAO's idea of lowering the quorum of a Committee of the Whole Council. Dr Margaret NG's second point is for the interests of this Council. Why? She says, "Once the resolution on the amendments to the Rules of Procedure (Mr Martin LIAO's version) is passed, any subsequent legislative procedure will be conducted according to the revised Rules of Procedure. If the amendment to lower the quorum to 20 Members is unconstitutional, and if a Member requests a headcount after a bill enters the Committee stage and there are less than 35 Members present, it becomes questionable whether the passed bill is legally in effect since legally speaking, the Council does not have sufficient Members to constitute a Committee of the Whole Council." Once again, I think the President Andrew LEUNG has been very irresponsible on this matter. He has actually shirked the responsibility to the whole Legislative Council. He did not make himself clear in the ruling he made


on approving Mr Martin LIAO's proposed amendment to lower the quorum for a Committee of the Whole Council. As I pointed out yesterday, he used a double negative to express his statement. In other words, he is unsure whether he has violated the Basic Law; that is to say, he can propose the amendment as long as he has not definitely violated the Basic Law. He let Members decide. This practice is very irresponsible because the scenario Dr Margaret NG described will soon happen in the Legislative Council. After the passage of Mr Martin LIAO's amendment, as long as there are 20 Members present at a Committee of the Whole Council, the meeting can be continued even if I make a quorum call. If the Rules of Procedure violates the Basic Law, the validity of the bills considered at the Committee stage becomes questionable in court. This issue is indecipherable, and even the President himself is not that sure. But he did not make any prior consultation or seek a resolution at the court. In fact, there are precedents that this Council sought prior opinions of the court. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, a former Member of this Council, sought a decision from High Court on how he should take his oath when he was first elected. I think this is a prudent approach. To prevent this Council from falling into any constitutional crisis, I hope that fellow Members will oppose Mr Martin LIAO's resolution, especially concerning the amendments on a Committee of the Whole Council. (The buzzer sounded) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, speaking time is up. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think we ought to take the last point raised by Mr CHU Hoi-dick seriously. This not only concerns the governance crisis of the Legislative Council, but also strikes at the very foundation of Hong Kong, especially in the economic aspect. If we are uncertain about the validity of laws passed by the legislature, and if the laws so passed are ultimately ruled invalid, the long standing practice will then be … It may be better if we can seek an authoritative court decision now. Otherwise, it will be catastrophic if all laws, whether they are complicated or simple, passed by committee of the whole Council under the quorum rule of 20 Members are finally ruled null and void several years later. The serious consequences will even spill over into the strategic developments of the nation. Last time, I quoted XI Jinping as saying that the Belt and Road Initiative is a very important national


4263

strategy in his version of "China Dream", while Hong Kong will be a very important investment arbitration centre for the Belt and Road Initiative. In this respect, the destroying of Hong Kong's rule of law and the shaking of Hong Kong's foundation are no different from bringing ruin to the "China Dream", to the Belt and Road Initiative, as well as to the China city designated to be the future investment arbitration centre for Belt and Road countries. In the future, when there are needs to formulate new provisions for arbitration activities, which cities can take up this task? If it is not Hong Kong, which cities can do so? Can this be done in Beijing? Will any country give the nod to this arrangement? Hence, the consequences will be far-reaching and will affect the major national strategies as well. Deputy President, I will explain each of my arguments clearly and carefully. I will also give my points from various perspectives, including from the standpoint of Hong Kong people, the rule of law, the "one country, two systems", the higher strategic level of the nation, and the Taiwanese's impression of the implementation of "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. Why I have to do so? I am happy that at least two persons responded to my speech yesterday. They asked me to continue to speak on this topic because as long as I could clearly express my views, someone would pay attention to it. This feedback comes from former Member Mr Martin LEE and a Mainland businessman who has long settled in Hong Kong and who, as I reasonably believe, has a profound relationship with the Communist Party. Having lived in Hong Kong for many years, this Mainlander understands well the value and spirit of the city. Deputy President, I have to deliver my speech seriously because in 2016, several hundred thousand people voted me to the Legislative Council and asked me to continue to clearly speak out my beliefs. It is incumbent upon me to explain any policies which will affect Hong Kong people and let them know their situations. In a joint statement issued recently, 29 scholars have warned that the amendments to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") would turn Hong Kong into a totalitarian regime. I did not associate the amendments with the totalitarian regime from the outset. But as I understand more about their arguments, I think we really need to give this a serious thought. The signatories include some political scientists. In respect of this joint statement, they have to … among the signatories are some respected professors, including Mr MA Ngok. He will not causally raise the concern that the amendments to RoP may turn Hong Kong into the totalitarian regime.


Deputy President, in reply to this allegation, our Chief Executive said: "Chief Executive Carrie LAM will never do harm to you". Why I find this assertion so familiar? It is because Mrs Regina IP had also said so when she was Secretary for Security. But I think we should believe in the system itself instead of individual officials. Besides, how long can Carrie LAM assume the office of the Chief Executive? Only 10 years at the most. Perhaps, she could not even finish this five-year tenure. However, Carrie LAM just told us that: "You have to trust me. I will never do anything like that. I had been a civil servant for 37 years. I will never do harm to others. Even though the Legislative Council will be deprived of its power to monitor the Government, you still do not need to worry about this." However, it is precisely due to her civil servant background that she should have more trust in the system than any individuals, and thus should not have asked us to believe that "Carrie LAM will not do anything to harm you". Actually, from the personal experience, I also do not believe that former Chief Executive Mr TUNG and former Secretary Mrs Regina IP's proposed implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law seek to do harm to society. I do not think they have such an intention. Nevertheless, when the Government tries to push through some laws against the will of the majority of citizens, Members who are their representatives in the Council should strive to thwart the passage of those draconian laws in accordance with RoP. This is what the system for. This is the system of checks and balances. This is also the essence of the Basic Law as former Member Jasper TSANG has talked about. I would like to say more about this point. The Central Government or the Chinese Government has made a pledge to the whole world, including vowing to Hong Kong people and telling the Taiwanese that Hong Kong will remain unchanged for 50 years. However, we now seek to introduce fundamental changes to RoP. We have to bear in mind that the changes do not simply involve one or two provisions, but they are essentially an upheaval to RoP, an attempt to amend those provisions which enable the minority Members to effectively check the passage of draconian laws. This is precisely going back on the promise of Hong Kong remaining unchanged for 50 years, and thus a violation of the "one country, two systems" principle. Hence, in proposing the amendments, our colleagues will give the Central Authorities a bad name and put it on the spot. I will elaborate this later. Is this the idea of the Central Authorities? Is this the idea of XI Jinping?


4265

Deputy President, a totalitarian regime can hardly win the confidence of international investors. RoP was of course drafted on the basis of the Westminster model and thus has its origin in a democratic system, not a totalitarian one. The characteristic of a democratic system is that a country is ruled by political parties in rotation by means of elections. Under this rotation system, a ruling party will not be carried away by the election victory because its rule is subject to monitoring by opposition parties. Equally, if the ruling party holding a sufficient number of votes seeks to amend the whole set of RoP, this may not only be unconstitutional but also in violation of the parliamentary practices. The public will thus question the justifications of the proposed amendment and doubt if the ruling party actually seeks to pave the way for totalitarianism by turning the country into a totalitarian state. Besides, this ruling party or ruling coalition is well aware of the principle of the rotation of ruler. It is impossible for the party to remain in power eternally. Once it becomes a minority party, it may need to invoke RoPs to filibuster against some draconian laws or funding applications which it genuinely believes are detrimental to the public. Hong Kong has indeed modelled on this practice. As far as Hong Kong is concerned, when I studied the article written by Jasper TSANG, I did ponder the question: was RoP the essence of "one country, two systems"? I have finally figured it out. I understood what he was talking about and what was the very essence he referred to in the article. From the beginning to end, the design of "one country, two systems" is to have patriots as the pillar of the ruling party, according to the words of DENG Xiaoping. Under DENG's manoeuver, the Basic Law was designed on the assumption that Hong Kong was ruled by the pro-establishment camp sitting opposite me, acting as the representative of the Communist Party. DENG also understood that many people in the world held different political views other than communism, and that due to the historical factors, Hong Kong people would elect some persons who were strongly against communism as their representatives to monitor the Government. After all, Hong Kong is an international city which will need to have minority parties or democratic parties. The entire idea is to have the pro-establishment camp as the ruling party with minority parties or what they now call the opposition camp taking the monitoring role through RoPs. This design is to allow the Government to show more respect for public opinions, and to be mindful of whether its policies would trigger strong reactions from the public. It is a system of checks and balances. However, the current Government has already turned its back on the intent of the original design.


Why do I say so? We have witnessed changes all the way through the past decade. Deputy President, as a usual practice, the Public Accounts Committee should have been run by Members not in the ruling coalition, and the scrutiny of bills by panels and committees should have been handled by the minority Members as well. However, the current Government has … over the past decade, Members of the Executive Council could do whatever they wish, including taking over the chairmanship of committees. Deputy President, it is even more absurd today to see "paparazzi" outside the Chamber when the Government has told us that it has nothing to do with this motion, and that the motion debate is an internal affair of Members of the Legislative Council. If so, what the "paparazzi" are doing outside? Is it a Government motion? No, it is not. So, why Government officials outside the Chamber are accompanied by the "paparazzi"? Are they employees of the pro-establishment colleagues? No, they are not. In what way is this motion related to the Government? Why does the Government say it has nothing to do with this motion on the one hand, it sends its staff to closely follow Members when we are doing a headcount on the other? (Some Members made noises in their seats) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quiet. Mr TO, please continue with your speech. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Besides, as Mr Martin LIAO is a Member of the Executive Council, someone would question if the moving of the amendments is the idea of the Central Authorities, the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG"), or the Chief Executive. I think many people are aware of what the pro-establishment camp has done. They can also see that Chief Executive Carrie LAM's denial to submit any bills to the Legislative Council is to make way for the deliberation of the amendments, and that the deployment of the "paparazzi" outside the Chamber is to ensure this non-Government motion will meet the quorum requirement and be passed. If the public reasonably believe … (Mr CHAN Hak-kan stood up and indicated his wish to raise a point of order) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TO, please wait for a moment. Mr CHAN Hak-kan, what is your point of order?


4267

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I do not intent to interrupt Mr James TO. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan, are you requesting Mr TO to make a clarification? MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): I want him to clarify that among the government officials outside this Chamber, who are the "paparazzi"? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please wait for a moment. Mr TO, Mr CHAN seeks your clarification. Do you wish to clarify? If so, I will ask Mr CHAN Hak-kan to point out what he would like you to clarify. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I wish to finish this point first. I do not have much time left. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech. MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I will continue with my speech. Yes, there were "paparazzi" outside the Chamber when we were doing a headcount. Deputy President, if the public reasonably think that this is the idea of the Central Authorities or the LOCPG, and that the Chief Executive is only getting the message from or implementing the policy of the Central Authorities, the proposed amendments have actually put the Central Government in direct confrontation with the public. Deputy President, if the pro-establishment camp could secure more than half of the seats in the Legislative Council through direct election, it would not have taken advantage of our precarious position. If during the last 20 years, the pro-establishment camp could ever win over half of the seats, they would have had the mandate to amend RoP. By taking advantage of our precarious position to do so, the pro-establishment camp is in direct confrontation with the public.


Deputy President, it is shameful that the pro-establishment camp does not have the confidence to secure the public mandate through a democratic system in order to amend the relevant rules. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The next Member to speak is Dr Helena WONG. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now, I listened to Mr Martin LIAO's vehement speech on the various amendments to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") on behalf of pro-establishment Members. All his arguments sound like non-sense and falsehood to me. My speech aims to express strong objection to the various amendments to RoP proposed by Mr Martin LIAO on behalf of pro-establishment Members. Deputy President, we are now discussing the amendments to RoP, namely, the proposed resolutions under Article 75 of the Basic Law ("BL 75"). I think Members should read BL 75. People who are watching the television or listening to the radio should likewise try to understand the issue under debate. In accordance with BL 75, "[t]he quorum for the meeting of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be not less than one half of all its members." And the line which follows reads, "The rules of procedure of the Legislative Council shall be made by the Council on its own, provided that they do not contravene this Law." (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) President, my speech first aims to raise objection to your approval for Mr Martin LIAO and pro-establishment Members to propose their amendments. One of the amendments proposes to amend a requirement which has been adopted for over 20 years ever since the time before the reunification. The requirement is that the quorum for the committee of the whole Council shall not be less than one half of all Members (that is, 35 Members). Now, the pro-establishment camp wishes to unpeg the quorum for the committee of the whole Council from the quorum for Council meetings, in an attempt to reduce the former from 35 Members to 20 Members. In my view, this contravenes the Basic Law. Apart


4269

from me, the Democratic Party, the general public or some academics invariably think that unpegging the quorum for the committee of the whole Council from the quorum for Council meetings is in breach of the Basic Law. The President should know very well that on 20 February this year, the Legislative Council commissioned two outside Senior Counsel to offer legal advice, including Mr Ambrose HO, SC, and Jonathan CHANG. Their legal advice to Legislative Council points out that speaking of Legislative Council's quorum, whether in the case of the committee of the whole Council or Council meetings as mentioned in the Basic Law, there should not be two separate requirements. President, I do not know why you refused to take on board the legal advice offered by these outside Senior Counsel and instead adopted the legal advice sought by pro-establishment Members from outside counsel, including the advice offered by Jimmy MA, former Counsel to the Legislature before his retirement. In my view, the proposal of pro-establishment Members is actually a defiance of the relevant concept. Of course, Legislative Council may decide on its own the quorums for its committees, including the quorums for the House Committee, various Panels and the Finance Committee. However, can Legislative Council standardize the quorums for the committee of the whole Council in the course of scrutinizing legislative proposals and the House Committee to 20 Members? Even if we are entitled to make such a change, Members should not forget that under BL 75, our amendments to Legislative Council's RoP should not contravene the Basic Law. While I also agree that it is not stipulated in any Basic Law provisions or RoP that Council meetings are the same as meetings of the committee of the whole Council, Members should be well aware that the committee of the whole Council actually holds its meetings at the same venue as Council meetings, with its membership comprising all Legislative Council Members and its Chairmanship assumed by the President who presides over Council meetings. Therefore, those outside the legislature may not be able to draw a clear distinction between the two. When will the committee of the whole Council form? Actually, it is a procedural arrangement for scrutinizing or amending bills during our performance of the functions and duties under the Basic Law. Upon resumption of the Second Reading debate on a bill, we will scrutinize and amend the bill clause by clause. We will undertake these tasks at meetings of the committee of the whole Council (meaning in this Chamber) and subsequently proceed to the important legislative procedure called "Third Reading of the bill".


President, Mr Martin LIAO asserted that the quorum for the House Committee was likewise 20 Members only, so it would also be possible to reduce the quorum for the committee of the whole Council tasked to scrutinize bills. However, the first Legislative Council set up after the establishment of the SAR Government made the decision of bringing the quorum for the committee of the whole Council on par with the quorum for Council meetings. What were their considerations for so doing back then? Certainly, they must take account of the Basic Law. In that case, why does our understanding change suddenly now after the passage of several terms of office? Certainly, Members should consider the justifiability of the present proposal put forth by pro-establishment Members to remove the link between the two and reduce the quorum for the committee of the whole Council to 20 Members in the course of scrutinizing legislative proposals. In my view, it is not justifiable. Why? I think this amendment is in breach of the Basic Law. While the Basic Law has not stipulated the quorum for the committee of the whole Council, it does provide for the quorum for Council meetings. Actually, scrutinizing bills is an important function and duty of Legislative Council. If the President conducts business according to the Agenda, he will also first deal with bills before proceeding to motions with no legislative effect. Therefore, can Members actually notice anything illogical with the lowering of the quorum for the committee of the whole Council from 35 Members to 20 Members in case the pro-establishment camp's trickery is successful today? When Members ask oral questions or propose motion debates (meaning debates on motions with no legislative effect), a quorum of 35 Members must be present at these proceedings, so as to fulfil the Basic Law requirement. But when we handle issues with legislative effect, including legislative amendments and enactment of new legislation, the required quorum is instead reduced to a level which is even lower than the quorum for debates on motions with no legislative effect. This is illogical and utterly contravenes the spirit of the Basic Law. Why should BL 75 be enacted to expressly provide for the presence of half of all Members? A quorum has been stipulated for not only Council meetings but also elections held by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress. Right? The reason is that we consider it to be something important. Nevertheless, we now instead seek to lower the threshold for the most important proceedings and only follow the Basic Law requirement when conducting proceedings which are not quite so important. In my view, this is tantamount to contempt for the Basic Law. All Members present here have sworn allegiance to the Basic Law. However, certain Members have nonetheless asserted that the most important legislative procedure―the procedure of scrutinizing bills during the Committee


4271

stage―is not quite so important and it is therefore alright for fewer Members to be present. In my view, this will contravene the Basic Law. Some Members have exploited the loophole and used the former Counsel to the Legislature as the pretext, thinking that the proposal can spare them the need to sit in the Chamber all the time and enable them to slack off or be absent from certain proceedings. But actually, they cannot explain why the quorum for the important procedure of the committee of the whole Council should be lower than the quorum for proceedings for dealing with matters of lower importance. For these reasons, President, we strongly oppose the proposal put forth by the pro-establishment camp. Actually, their proposal is based on the only reason of laziness, and it also shows contempt and disrespect for the Basic Law. (Some Members made noises in their seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. Dr Helena WONG, please continue with your speech. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I also wish to ask you a question. What are the consequences if Legislative Council passes certain RoP motions in contravention of the Basic Law? Are we willing to bear such consequences? Perhaps, they think that during the Committee stage, they may sneak out of the Chamber and slack off outside. But I must tell them that apart from scrutinizing laws, a Council meeting also comprises many other proceedings where the quorum requirement for Council meetings must be fulfilled, and they must likewise be present. They want to take a stroll outside instead of staying in the Chamber during certain proceedings. However, are they courageous enough to amend the quorum for Council meetings to 20 Members? I will definitely commend them if they succeed in making this change. Now, they try to exploit the ambiguity to their advantage. Therefore, we must leave a record in history and tell people that pro-establishment Members in the Chamber of this Council have failed to comply with our rules and conventions. Claiming to support the Basic Law, they have actually tried to exploit the loophole in the Basic Law. They are very irresponsible. President, you are of course the Legislative Council President. Why do you fail to command … (Dr Elizabeth QUAT stood up and indicated a wish to raise a point of order)


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please hold on. Dr Elizabeth QUAT, what is your point of order? DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): I wish to seek a clarification from Dr Helena WONG. When she said just now that certain lazy Members did not show up at meetings, was she referring to opposition Members from the pan-democratic camp near her seat who are not present at all now? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, do you wish to give a clarification? If you do not wish to do so, you may continue with your speech. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I think a speaking time of merely 15 minutes granted by you to each Member in this debate is far from enough because I do not even have sufficient time to finish my discussion on the first proposed resolution alone in my present speech. And, I have even been interrupted. (Some Members made noises in their seats) President, please manage their order. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): I have finished this part of my discussion. We will hold pro-establishment Members responsible for their non-compliance with the Basic Law and attempt to amend RoP for the purpose of reducing the quorum for the committee of the whole Council. President, I have also proposed an amendment. In the following part of my speech, I also wish to discuss … (A number of Members made noises and laughed in the seats) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. Dr Helena WONG, please continue with your speech.


4273

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please continue with your speech. DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, in the following part of my speech, I wish to briefly discuss my amending motion on RoP. Initially, I did not see any need to propose these amendments. If pro-establishment Members had not proposed their unreasonable amendments, it would have been unnecessary for me to propose my amending motion to amend their unreasonable amendments. Having said that, I know that actually, the passage of my amending motion is definitely impossible because Members are aware that this legislature is not returned through democratic elections and is ripped of a fair platform for deliberating policies. I wish to mention once again the arrangements for petitions which I discussed in my speech yesterday. All along, we have adopted RoP 20 as the basis for Members to present petitions whereby issues of public concern or those involving dereliction of duty on the part of the Government, such as its suspected involvement in bribery, cost overrun relating to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, and also problems with the Link REIT, can be referred to a select committee. If a matter involves injustice or warrants an inquiry, a Member may present a petition, and it will be referred forthwith to a select committee after no less than 20 Members rise to their feet as a show of support. We have adopted this arrangement over all these years. But now, pro-establishment Members have proposed an amendment to drastically raise the threshold for presenting a petition from requiring the support of no less than 20 Members to 35 Members. Even if 35 Members rise to their feet to show support, the petition will only be referred to the House Committee. President, this actually means that the power of presenting petitions will become exclusive


to pro-establishment Members, and democratic Members will be unable to present any petition in the future. Unless our legislature undertakes democratic reform to reverse such an unfair parliamentary system, any petitions which are presented thereafter will actually be referred to the House Committee to seek its endorsement. And, the House Committee is also predominated by pro-establishment Members. If we support the amendments proposed by the pro-establishment camp this time around, this legislature's power of monitoring the executive or voicing people's grievances on their behalf and conducting inquiries will be further weakened. For these reasons, I strongly oppose this amendment. We do so because we have noticed that pro-establishment Members are pushing the Hong Kong legislature further towards dictatorship and autocracy while attempting to undermine the power of democratic Members on all fronts. We express strong opposition to this. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, just now when Mr Martin LIAO moved his amendments to the Rules of Procedure, he used the term "dictatorship of the minority" to describe the pro-democracy camp in the legislature. His description is really absurd. We are the minority in this legislature. We are obviously the underdog here. But they now use the term "dictatorship of the minority" to describe us. President, I believe we can hardly hear in this very Chamber any remark which is more absurd than this. Pro-democracy camp Members occupy most directly elected seats in this legislature, but we are instead the minority. More ridiculously, the pro-establishment camp even uses the term "dictatorship of the minority" to describe us. In what ways are we dictatorial? How can we possibly have the ability to dominate and control this legislature? Which camp of Members are now in the majority with respect to the administration of this legislature and the chairing of its various meetings? Which camp is now occupying the chairmanships of most Panels and committees―the pro-establishment camp or the pro-democracy camp? At present, the most important Panels, committees and subcommittees, including the Finance Committee, the Public Works Sub-committee, the Establishment Sub-committee and the House Committee, are all controlled by your people. How can you use the term "dictatorship of the minority" to describe us? Actually, you people have full control of the legislature.


4275

Actually, the Legislative Council itself is already an organization devoid of any power to exercise checks and balances. What is more, most of the seats in the legislature are occupied by pro-establishment Members (that is, Members who defend the Government), and this structural feature attributable to functional constituency elections is not going to change. There is a total power imbalance in the legislature. There is no equal participation at all. The public are already unable to have any equal representation of their voices in this legislature, but now, you people still want to tighten the Rules of Procedure, limit Members' right to speak, shorten the voting procedures, simplify the proceedings of three readings and tighten the pre-requisites for presenting a petition. And, besides all this, you people even accuse us of "dictatorship of the minority", saying that your intention is to restore smooth operation and balance in the legislature. I fully agree with Mr CHU Hoi-dick, who says that it is now all like a soccer match in which our team already has fewer players than yours. But then, you still want to disqualify and expel some more players of ours. The captain, the referee, and the staff of the football association are all your people. But you are still not satisfied and want to move the goal further back, daring us to shoot and saying that we can only blame ourselves if we cannot make a score. Is this what you people call a balance? You pro-establishment Members must honestly ask yourselves why you should still say such things to cheat the public. Actually, you people already have all the power in your hands. Nevertheless, despite all the power in your hands, can you people really check and monitor the Government? Intrinsically, … President, we are the Legislative Council, and making laws is naturally our paramount duty. We of course have other tasks, and they are stipulated clearly in Article 73 of the Basic Law. These tasks include the approval of the budgets introduced by the Government. All appropriation approvals are important, and carry legislative effect. And, the legislation enacted of course carry legislative effect. All these are the most important tasks of the legislature. Actually, the pro-establishment camp will always win in voting. Most Government bills and motions put before the Legislative Council will be endorsed. As for Members' motions, their passage will require the majority support of both Functional Constituency Members and those returned by geographical constituencies. This inherent feature of the voting system therefore enables us to vote down any motions moved by the pro-establishment camp, because we always manage to win majority support in geographical constituency elections and thus occupy the majority of directly elected seats. Similarly, Functional Constituency Members


of the pro-establishment camp can also vote down any motions moved by the pro-democracy camp. Owing to this inherent feature of the voting system, the respective voting powers of the two groups of Members simply cancel each other out, thus rendering the legislature unable to achieve anything. But should we succumb to this system? Well, if this legislature is to work for the well-being of the people and reflect their voices, we should realize that with the present economic achievement made possible by successive generations of people, we are now in a very good position to make things much better than before. But, as we can see, at this very time when five pro-democracy Members have been disqualified and we have become the minority in the group of directly elected Members, the pro-establishment camp has simply hastened to seize this very rare opportunity. They want to change the rules of the game, push the goal farther away and reduce its size, daring us to shoot. But we cannot even dribble the ball to anywhere near the goal. They will be the only winner. But they still accuse us of "dictatorship of the minority". Indeed, when our society or legislature is plunged into such as state of partiality and total imbalance, the dictates of the power or people with vested interests can always be implemented smoothly, and everything will run smoothly once again. But in that case, they will never hear any opposition voices, because such voices will become very rare in the legislature. We will be unable to block the passage of draconian laws or prevent undesirable happenings, and we will find it very hard to influence government decisions. As this imbalance worsens, I bet the wider community outside of the legislature will surely find it necessary to step up resistance, thus aggravating the social cleavage and social conflicts, right? How are you people going to deal with such conflicts and cleavage? Suppression? Authoritarianism? Can people protest? No way. The Government will throw them into prison any time. How about staging protest in the legislature? No way. They even invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to threaten us, saying that we violate the Rules of Procedure and may have to face criminal charges and imprisonment. President, it is now the 21st century, the year 2017. As a city with such a high level of economic achievement that calls itself a world city, should we employ all such means? Since you people attaches such great importance to fair competition, since you say you are sensible people, you should all reason things out properly. Is it very difficult for you to do so? Carrie LAM says that the amendment of the Rules of Procedure and the enactment of legislation to


4277

implement Article 23 of the Basic Law are two unrelated matters. She says she has been involved in public administration for more than 30 years and asserts that the Government has never done anything that will harm the people. I think it is admittedly true that the Government seldom intends to do anything that will harm the people. But it is equally true that it will always protect people with vested interests, including the consortia represented by the Functional Constituency Members present here today. Behind these Members, benefits are apportioned secretly. It is true that the Government will not do harm to the people purposefully. But the thing is that it will look after people with vested interests only. And, as it concentrates solely on looking after such people, it is often likely to forgo the well-being of the people. Is she right in saying that the Government has not done anything wrong? I do not know. We are sure to face a series of issues next in the line, including the enactment of local legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law and the National Anthem Law, which will restrict our freedom, and also the co-location arrangement, which may contravene the Basic Law. Also, Members should remember how the Link REIT in the past has come to cause widespread public resentment and grievances. Can all these be called good deeds? We have been criticizing TSA for so many years, but now she plays dumb when asked about if it is to be shelved. There was also the case of the brain-washing national education. And, Carrie LAM ordered the demolition of the Star Ferry Pier and the Queen's Pier as soon as she assumed the office as Secretary for Development. Can all these be called good policies? Honestly speaking, President, the problem with the Government does not lie in what it has done. Rather, the biggest problem with it lies in what it has not done. And, its inaction in some areas will plunge many people into plight and hardship. For example, as we can see today, the poverty rate has reached 19.9%. Almost one fifth of Hong Kong people live in poverty. Even after the policy intervention of giving cash assistance to some people, 14.7% of the people still live in poverty. The problem is that the present operation of our capitalism under the rules of the game has come to favour just certain social strata, and other people are never able to extricate themselves from poverty no matter how hard they work. What should the Government do? As the modulator, the Government is duty-bound to allocate resources for improving the people's livelihood through the political system, various policies, the enactment of legislation and different institutions. On the part of this legislature, we are


precisely supposed to uphold all such principles, and look after different social strata as much as possible based on the rules of the game (the Rules of Procedure), so as to ensure a more even distribution of livelihood resources to the people, reduce the wealth gap, and do away with the high ratio of people having to live in appalling conditions. We can all see the many subdivided units. We can all see the field hospital-like conditions in the Accident and Emergency Departments of public hospitals. We can all see the long waiting time for specialist outpatient services. We can all see that many school children do not even have a desk for doing homework, and that many patients are waiting for life-saving medicines. But the biggest of all problems is the Government's inaction. We are not saying that the Government has done something wrongful. We have never accused the Government of doing something wrongful on purpose. But we must say that by doing nothing and turning a blind eye to people's suffering and livelihood difficulties, it is in fact doing something very wrongful. Why does the Government turn a blind eye to all such problems? The only reason is that it is influenced by those with vested interests, by all those consortia possessing power and financial resources. Many years ago, we already described all these syndicates with vested interests as a manifestation of Government-business collusion. The high land prices in Hong Kong nowadays are the result of developer hegemony. Mr Martin LIAO is right in saying that we need to restore balance and right the wrongs in this very Chamber. But the correct meaning of righting the wrongs, I must add, should be to make our society less tilted, to make the wealth and power in society less concentrated in just a few people. But their present attempt to tighten the Rules of Procedure will instead widen the wealth gap. The problem with Hong Kong now is the increasing concentration of wealth and power in a handful of people. I am afraid authoritarianism will only worsen the problem. To sum up, I would say all the amendments Mr Martin LIAO puts forward are attempts to obstruct the expression of opinions. We are already the minority in this legislature, basically having neither any power nor any influence. Most of the people we represent likewise have neither any power nor any influence. But they all hope that we can at least speak for them and put forward their views in this legislature if possible. In case anything undesirable happens, they expect us to employ all civilized means under the Rules of Procedure to reason things


4279

out and fight for the righteous cause. If they cannot even allow this, if they even want to suppress this fundamental right and minority voices, negative reaction will result. President, the cleavage and confrontation in this legislature is sure to be mirrored in the wider community. As the animosity and hatred in this legislature intensify, the same sentiments will be mirrored in the wider community. Hong Kong deserves a better governance system. Hong Kong deserves a better legislature. We should not waste time and energy to attack and stamp on each other until our opponents are completely knocked down, because that will only lead to negative reaction. Lastly, President, I am afraid the intensity of the negative reaction will surprise the pro-establishment or the present Government. I do not wish to see the continuation of incessant confrontation and waste of time. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, Dr Junius HO and I attended the Westminster Seminar on Parliamentary Practice and Procedure, which was about the conventions of British parliamentary politics. Towards the end of the seminar, someone asked me what Hong Kong could learn from the content of the seminar. I frankly replied that there was basically none. Why? The reason is that the British parliament is elected by the people. Everyone is very clear about how they should treat the Standing Orders and the functioning of the parliament, well aware that while the ruling party today is the Conservative Party, the Labour Party may become the ruling party in the future. All people know that political parties will take turn to govern, so they all respect the rules they made as a gentlemen's agreement. But this is absolutely not the case in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Legislative Council is not a democratic Council and we cannot see any chance of democratic reform in the near future. For this reason, the pro-establishment camp, which is the majority in the Council, thinks that the functional constituency system can last forever, and they can continue to hold the majority seats and safeguard their vested interest. As result, whenever they see any opportunity, they will make full use of it. Once they see that there is a chance of amending the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), they certainly will not miss it. President, I know pro-establishment Members may think that the normal functioning of this Council is affected by the frequent attempts of certain pro-democracy Members to invoke Council procedures to block or delay


controversial motions. I can appreciate their concern. But I must add that this is precisely the only power with which the minority can counterbalance the majority in this undemocratic Council. Will the deprivation of this power really enable the pro-establishment camp to totally control this legislature? No. As I already said yesterday, the pro-establishment camp may amend RoP in any drastic way they want, but they cannot possibly eradicate all procedural issues. Such tactics of filibuster or stalling Government motions will not come to an end with the amendment of RoP. What is even more regrettable is the act of Mr Martin LIAO, who is supposed to be very clear about the importance of our system as a representative of the legal profession. Besides enabling Members to fully express their views, our system also aims to allow Members to seriously look into the Government's scandals or policy blunders. But to our disappointment, Mr Martin LIAO, on behalf of the pro-establishment camp, proposes changes to the practice of presenting a petition for forming a select committee, raising the threshold substantially from 20 Members rising in support to 35 Members. Not only this, even with 35 Members rising in support of the petition, the issue must still be referred to the House Committee for follow-up. We all know that the House Committee is likewise primarily made up of pro-establishment Members. As result, the pro-democracy camp will in effect be rendered unable to form a select committee through the presentation of a petition for the purpose of investigating major government scandals or issues of important public interest. What has this procedure got to do with filibustering, which the pro-establishment camp has been lashing out at? I have asked many pro-establishment Members in private, but no one can say how it is connected with filibustering. The reason is that there is simply no connection at all. Mr Paul TSE, can you say something more when you speak later on? President, presenting a petition to form a select committee will only take a few minutes in a Council meeting. Afterwards, the select committee will work on its own, having no impact on Council meetings and the work of the Finance Committee or other important committees. Some argue that a select committee will waste huge resources and manpower of the Legislative Council Secretariat. But I frankly cannot follow this argument, because this is the price we must pay for monitoring the Government. Just ask members of the public, and we will know how they think about spending just a tiny amount of public resources on investigating alleged corruption case involving LEUNG Chun-ying's dealing with


4281

UGL Limited. I find such use of public resources perfectly justified. President, I know some Members will resort to various specious arguments. But specious arguments are specious arguments, and they cannot convince people despite all the elegance that seeks to present them as the truth. Mr Martin LIAO uses the term "dictatorship of the minority" to describe the pro-democracy camp. Dr Fernando CHEUNG has already refuted this view. What exactly is dictatorship of the minority? We are the minority, but how can the minority become dictators? Mr Martin LIAO's argument is kind of funny. How can we be any dictators? Mr Martin LIAO, the President is from your camp and the Government is on your side. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, which is your immediate supervisor, holds the power to interpret the Basic Law. The political system in Hong Kong is an executive-led one, so how can the minority become dictators? This comment is unimaginable, and even a gross misrepresentation. Actually, the attempts of the minority to check the Government with RoP and other procedural means are permitted under "one country, two systems", as also admitted by former Legislative Council President Jasper TSANG. The use of rules of procedure by the opposition to stall the passage of government bills is not unique to Hong Kong. This is also found in other parts of the world, a very common and normal practice. Pro-democracy Members are not the only ones who have filibustered, and pro-establishment Members themselves also did so before, only that they were rather inept at this. When this Council voted on the constitutional reform package last time, they wanted to put up some delay in order to wait for Uncle LAU Wong-fat. Practically all of them thus left the Chamber, and just several of them stayed behind. Ms Starry LEE even burst into tears afterwards. You were inept, so you could only blame yourselves. Devoid of any independent thinking, you people only knew that you must follow the order. But you did not know how to do a good job as royalists and ended up failing to vote for the constitutional reform package. When LAU Kong-wah was a Member, he also said that the pro-establishment camp would also employ filibuster as a tactic. In fact, this is a tactic that all of us may use one day. Even the pro-establishment camp will filibuster if they want to stall the passage of certain resolutions or bills. Their amendments will smash the last remaining and fragile balance in this off-balance legislature. But what is the big deal with this? Just let it be. Meanwhile, I think protracted protests will surely ensue in the next few years, and clashes in the Council will only worsen.


President, you have told the press that the arrangement of having additional meeting days is meant to enable the Council to resume normal functioning as soon as possible. You also say that since the pro-democracy camp has likewise put forward many amendments, meaning that both sides have raised amendments, the amendments proposed by the pro-establishment camp should not be regarded as the direct cause of this meeting arrangement. This saying also confounds what is right and what is wrong. Why? The bulk of our amendments are made in response to Mr Martin LIAO's amendments. And you know very well that our amendments stand absolutely no chance of getting passed. Only those of the pro-establishment camp can be passed this time. The truth is that you are supposed to be the referee, but you have become one of the pro-establishment players in the pitch, and you even accuse the pro-democracy camp of foul play. You have totally brushed aside the veneer of neutrality that a referee must at lease show. President, I must also criticize Mr Martin LIAO's for moving an amendment to vest the Secretary General with the power to chair the meeting for electing the President in a new Legislative Council. By convention, such a meeting is to be chaired by the most senior Member. This is a time-tested practice. Why do they want to change it? Is that because the most senior Member at present is from the pro-democracy camp, and out of a sense of insecurity, they insist on asking the Secretary General to chair the meeting? I am of the view that asking the Secretary General to chair the meeting will involve a serious role conflict, because the President of the Legislative Council chairs the Legislative Council Commission, which oversees the Secretariat. The Secretary General reports closely to the President, who is his immediate supervisor. Role conflicts will arise if a subordinate is asked to chair the meeting for electing his or her future immediate supervisor. Why does Mr Martin LIAO, with all his solid professional training in the law, put forward such a proposal? To me, this will ruin the convention of this Council. President, yesterday, I called upon Mrs IP to change her mind and support the presentation of petition. I expressed the hope that although Mrs IP could not persuade Ms YUNG Hoi-yan to side with her, she herself would still consider making a U-turn, having regard to the significance of presenting petitions as a means of monitoring the Government. Of course, it will be even better if she can ask her fellow party member, Ms YUNG, to also express the same stance clearly.


4283

But Ms YUNG told the media that as Mrs IP herself was already a political heavyweight, she did not need to stand up yesterday. Ms YUNG, please listen to my advice. You are also a Member of this Council and you should not underestimate your own significance. You are sitting next to Mrs IP and the seat you hold carries equal weight as that of Mrs IP. If you stand up, you will have the same significance as Mrs IP. Why do you shirk all the responsibility to Mrs IP? You should not do so unless you disapprove of Mrs IP's stance, unless you do not support the use of petitions as a means of investigating Link's incessant sale of assets. If that is the case, you should say clearly that you disapprove of Mrs IP's position and will not stand up, rather than saying that Mrs IP herself is already a political heavyweight. You are also an elected Member, representing the New Territories East constituency. Mrs IP does not represent New Territories East and she does not share your pay. I hope you can understand that every Member must be responsible for his or her own decision. I so submit.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I talked about the principles and values of RoP this morning. One very important point is the spirit of equity which safeguards the rights and interests of minority Members. I also pointed out this morning that we can tell the difference between the democratic camp and pro-establishment camp from the rights and interests of minority Members. But it is possible that one day, some other motions will prompt the New People's Party to join force with the democratic camp to propose motions on the rights and interests of the minority. After all, the pro-establishment camp is also made up of a few different political parties, so is the democratic camp. Actually, democratic Members may also have different views and opinions towards the approaches adopted by different Members within the camp. For instance, on the issue of filibustering, the Democratic Party all along holds that we should only resort to this means when highly controversial issues concerning society and the public are at stake. Only when such issues are at stake will we filibuster at all costs, such as the co-location issue and the upcoming legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law that we are concerned about.


However, as can be seen from Members' speeches on record, our views are often different from other pan-democrats. And because of this reason, there are often heated debates within our own camp. But will we do something to stifle the rights and interests of minority Members because of such difference? Absolutely not. As the saying goes, "My body turns to dust today, and so will yours in the future". Everyone may run into this situation some days. We just do not know when, nor do we know whether the prize, support or assistance we get today can be everlasting. After all, amendments to RoP are irrevocable. Given that we have a system of separate voting, royalists and pro-establishment Members want to seize the opportunity of the disqualification of six democratic Members to amend RoP. Will they propose to amend RoP if there is not such an opportunity? Even if they will, they know that it will be unsuccessful and thus they probably will not do so; or, even if they do propose to amend RoP, they should know that their proposed amendments will have to be thoroughly considered in the Committee on RoP before submitting to the Legislative Council, since any changes to RoP should first secure a consensus among different political groups before implementation. Only by so doing will RoP be trusted by different Members of this Council. This will also show that this Council can discharge its duties vested under Article 73 of the Basic Law under the precondition that this Council still manages to operate independently, so that we have the ability to monitor government policies. In fact, "one country, two systems" has been implemented for 20 years since the reunification. If we think about the original intention, do we know why the Central Government had to implement "one country, two systems" when it resumed the sovereignty of Hong Kong? It is because it knew that many people in Hong Kong had personally experienced the political struggles very common in the post-liberation China in 1950 and the many problems stemmed from the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. They thus had a strong sense of fear of the Communist Party. They were afraid that the Communist Party of China would implement its system in Hong Kong. This resulted in a confidence crisis. The confidence crisis eventually brought about the idea of "one country, two systems", which formed the backbone of our constitutional system after the reunification. Hence, we are vested with different powers under the Basic Law.


4285

Under an executive-led system, the Government has to, among others, face and report to the Legislative Council, and let the latter monitor its policies and have the power to vote down government motions. The Legislative Council acts as a monitoring tool to check and balance the Government, and prevent it from rolling out policies that are unacceptable to Hong Kong people. This is the advantage of checks and balances. However, the proposed amendments to RoP today seek to disturb this balance. In the past 20 years since the reunification, this Council has been dominated by royalists and pro-establishment Members and we are the minority. The situation can be compared to a football game. Their team has more players on the field. Well aware that they outnumber us, we thus make full use of the rules to safeguard our goal and at least prevent our team from losing the game. It is justified for us to do so. This is applicable to football games, and to our requests as well. However, this is not the case in reality. When the pro-establishment camp noticed that a few of our players were carried off the field, they immediately asked the referee to change the rules; worse still, when the referee was changing the rules of the game, he decided not to suspend the football game until the change was over. It is impossible that we do not find this way of rule changing, or this way of conducting the game, flawed. If Members do not consider this Council flawed, we may have reached the stage of "one country, one system" where Council Members no longer care about the rights and interests they deserve, and they are unaware that after the rules are changed, they might even be persecuted if there is any major changes in the Central Government. Actually, this has always been the way things are. When the minority is deprived of their rights and interests by the majority, some Members in the majority side may become the minority, just like the way Beijing Government downgraded some people into low-end population today, and it may downgrade the middle- or high-end population as well the next day. Who knows? You and I don't. How can you be sure that you will not be treated the same way? The only thing you can do is to rely on and uphold this system, which is the core of "one country, one system" and also the foundation that makes the public, and society as well, retain a glimpse of dream and hope on Hong Kong.


President, at the end of the day, the very nature of RoP is but a tool, a tool that enables the smooth conduct of Council businesses. Objectively speaking, the two elections this year and the opinion polls show that the right to discourse of this Council seems to be seized by those radical Members who used to behave in a spirited way. But this Council began to adjust its proceedings after some incident took place. This is just normal. When the attitude of the voters changes, the way this Council conducts its businesses changes. This is the best statecraft because we all respect the choice chosen by the people, and this chosen choice is reflected in the conduct of Council businesses. But they do not treasure this leeway and choose to amend RoP at this stage. As I said, they think they belong to the middle- and high-end population today, but only to find out the next day after introducing the amendments to RoP that they are classified as the low-end population. By then they will regret what they have done because they realize that they have no dwellings nor nothing to protect themselves. So, if this Council cannot perform its function to monitor the Government, perhaps the pro-establishment camp or royalists will say that they can, just that they will not adopt the democratic camp's approach. I agree. I still remember eight political parties did join force to express their views to the Government in the past. When all Council Members focused on the same goal and find out a solution to address a social or livelihood conflict, we can successfully pressurize the Government to face the issue squarely. But as far as I know, after that incident, pro-establishment Members and royalists were asked to go and listen to "instructions". They have not taken any similar actions ever since because doing so is against the Basic Law. The Basic Law upholds an executive-led regime. How could the regime be dictated by the legislature and be forced by Members to adopt their proposal? Isn't this their political ethics? But our Members are accountable to the people. We are now facing this problem. How could we let public money be blatantly wasted? How could we ignore, or just casually scrutinize, the cost overruns of the high speed rail and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge? We must keep in mind the fact that not every Member comes from the engineering sector; and not every colleague is


4287

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok. We come from different sectors, and naturally, we have different views. You may think that the co-location arrangement is good, convenient and time efficient; but I may have our concerns. I am concerned that the arrangement may open up a "backdoor". What is wrong with that? If Rimsky YUEN is willing to come here and promise us that he will never come here again making other requests after the passing of the co-location arrangement, the democratic camp may consider the co-location proposal differently. But the Government is unwilling to make this promise. Rimsky YUEN is unwilling to do so. Today, the Central Government even said no to Rimsky YUEN's proposal of invoking Article 20 of the Basic Law. This arouses the concern that the "backdoor" will become even larger. We simply do not know what other actions to take. We would rather pay the price of turning the high speed rail into a low speed rail than undermining the principle of "one country, two systems". This is a matter of values. But they put economic interests before anything. They care about nothing else, not even the principle of "one country, two systems". They could not care less even if all "backdoors" are opened. They would go for any short-term interests and efficiency. President, if "one country, two systems", the very core value of Hong Kong, is lost, can we still become the most attractive place in the world? Can Hong Kong still meet the description often mentioned in the context of Belt and Road that Hong Kong, together with its "one country, two systems" principle, can act as a bridgehead for investors to go to the Mainland and grasp all the job opportunities offered in the Belt and Road Initiative? Without these edges, Hong Kong will have to face even greater pressure from Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou. These are all our competitors. Hence, when we talk about the changes made to RoP, we are saying that we should not let these changes take away the power of the Legislative Council to monitor, or check and balance, the Government; we should ensure that this core value of Hong Kong is preserved, so that "one country, two systems" is continued to be adopted without any distortion or misrepresentation.


With these remarks, President, I urge the pro-establishment camp to turn around before it is too late. I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, please speak. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): President, here in this solemn Chamber today, all Members are discussing the Rules of Procedure. We are all aware that what this solemn Chamber is supposed to inherit is a parliamentary tradition of immense significance. But this kind of discussion today saddens us a great deal. We all wonder why a legislature inheriting such a tradition should have degenerated into such a state. The Rules of Procedure was written after the accumulation of long years of parliamentary experience. With a set of rules governing our speaking order and time, the handling of every type of motions and the rights of every Member here, it can help us avoid a state of having no rules to follow. The Rules of Procedure forms an important basis governing the rights and obligations all of us once we are elected as Members of the Legislative Council. Therefore, any changes to the Rules of Procedure must be preceded by a very prudent process. A couple of days ago, the legislature received several former Members, including former President Mr Andrew WONG. He told us how we should proceed if we were to amend the Rules of Procedure. He said that the process of translating the Standing Orders from English to Chinese years back was a long and prudent one. According to him, a long and prudent process to mull over the whole thing was very important. However, in the case of the 49 amendments to the Rules of Procedure now, for how long have we mulled over them? How many of them are in fact put before this Council without any prior discussion? How many rules have disappeared during the process? Actually, these are


4289

important signs of how the legislature has degenerated. We oppose the proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure this time around because we want to reverse the situation. I really hope all the Members present in this Chamber now can seriously consider the effect of what we are doing right now, whether it can really help the legislature get back to the right track as claimed, and whether it will in fact damage the legislature further. Speaking of amending the Rules of Procedure, I think there are at least three principles we should observe. First, we should respect the minority. In a legislature, there are inevitably a majority and a minority. A legislature will not be a normal one if its majority members think that once after entering the legislature, they can amend the rules in any way to add to their advantage and suppress the minority. This is because one important function of a legislature is to perform checks and balances. Hence, a legislature needs the participation of many people instead of just a handful, because it is hoped that a large number of participants can reflect public opinions. The legislature is unlike the executive, in the sense that the latter must make a single decision, but here in the legislature, we need the expression different voices to achieve checks and balances. Thus the first important principle is to respect the minority. Second, we must respect our existing workings prescribed by the law. The process of making amendments this time around has breached many basic rules of our workings and even various provisions of the Rules of Procedure. I believe this is unprecedented in the history of our legislature. Third, as I have said, we must spend enough time on mulling over the proposed amendments and seeking a consensus through negotiations. This process should a long time. Why must we complete the scrutiny of all the 49 amendments before Christmas? Who says we cannot have our Christmas holidays if we cannot complete the scrutiny of all the amendments? We should give ourselves sufficient time for interpreting and discussing the amendments. Moreover, each of us is given only 15 minutes to speak on the 49 amendments. This is really a very absurd arrangement. President, I have moved two amendments to Mr Martin LIAO's resolution, including the threshold for supporting a petition to stand and the procedure of Third Reading. These two issues are so important, but I can only spend four to five minutes on each of them, so I naturally cannot make my points clear.


First, about the threshold of supporting a petition, I maintain that Mr Martin LIAO's proposed amendment, which seeks to increase the number of supporting Members to 35, is totally inappropriate. I maintain that the number should be reduced to one quarter of all Members of the Council. My reason here is very simple. This morning, Mr Martin LIAO explained his amendment. He gave an important reason, but his explanation was totally inappropriate. According to him, the Parliament of the United Kingdom already dismissed this practice as outdated and abolished it accordingly. Petitions are to be presented by members of the public instead. If Mr Martin LIAO really thinks that the presentation of petition is already outdated and we should not retain it, then I must ask him to apply this line of reasoning consistently. If he thinks that we should follow the practice of the United Kingdom, he should support the idea of further liberalizing the presentation of petitions, instead of putting forward a proposal of tightening the requirements. He says that the United Kingdom has adopted the practice of allowing members of the public to present petitions. But in our case now, the pro-establishment camp instead seeks to concentrate all power and possibility of presenting a petition to itself. Can others present a petition in that case? If he says our practice is outdated, can I ask him whether what he proposes is even more so? Besides looking at the United Kingdom, we may also look at Germany. Under Article 44 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, the Bundestag is empowered to set up committees of inquiry. What is the number of Bundestag members required for raising one such proposal? Only one fourth of all members. The reason for this is very simple. Suppose only the majority in the legislature can invoke the power of inquiry, how can it be expected to investigate itself? If we are to check those in power and uncover government corruption and maladministration, the minority in the legislature must be vested with certain real powers to make such proposals. Germany attaches a great deal of importance to the powers of the minority, and so do the legislative assemblies in Europe and North America. Basically, all legislative assemblies marked by openness and civilized practices will attach a great deal of importance to the powers of the minority. The power of the minority to make proposals on setting up inquiry committees is indeed a very important one. We are already unable to set up a committee of inquiry under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. So, if they strip us of even this very small power of presenting a petition with 20 supporting Members, the power of the Legislative Council to monitor the Government will be further


4291

curtailed, very drastically. The pro-establishment camp says that it wants to combat filibuster. But what has this petition thing got to do with filibuster anyway? Nothing indeed. They just want to curtail the monitoring power of the Legislative Council, so that the pro-democracy camp cannot monitor the Government anymore in the legislature. In that case, it will not be possible to conduct any inquiries similar to the case of Timothy TONG or the UGL incident involving LEUNG Chun-ying in the past. I have talked a lot about these cases, so I am not going to repeat what I have said. President, I hope the pro-establishment camp can accept my advice. I hope that instead of raising the number of Members supporting a petition to 35, they can pitch at just one fourth of all Members. The second thing I want to discuss is the amendment that seeks to forbid any debate during the Third Reading of a Bill. But President, before going into the arrangement Mr Martin LIAO proposes, I first want to say a few words on how you have handled the matter. The reason is that Mr LIAO's proposed arrangement has not gone through the three steps you require. President, as we said in the discussion this morning, your rulings are certainly final, but that does not mean that they cannot be criticized and discussed. We think we can always express our views on your rulings when we speak. In the case of the amendments proposed by the pro-democracy camp, you insist that they must go through the three steps you require. But then, you do not insist on these three steps when you deal with certain other amendments. How can you be so unfair? President, you owe us a clarification here, and you must rectify the mistake. President, these motions have never been submitted to the Committee on Rules of Procedure, nor have they ever been discussed at all. Basically, they have not been mulled over for any periods of time at all. How come they can be put before the Council for scrutiny and even have the sure prospect of passage, as we all know? Is there any consensus on them? Why is process so shoddy? When discussing the proposal that no debate may arise during the Third Reading of a bill, I must point out that the Third Reading is a very important part of the legislative process. It will be absurd of us to let the proposal get through so very easily. But then, we are precisely faced with such an absurdity right now. President, we know that under the existing arrangement, the scrutiny of bills by the Legislative Council is marked by very long discussions. As a result,


when a bill eventually comes to the Third Reading, Members will no longer have much to say anymore, usually. But they are still allowed to discuss the issues involved. In fact, there were cases in which pro-establishment Members still spoke during the Third Reading of a bill. For example, during the scrutiny of the Peak Tramway (Amendment) Bill 2015, former Member Mr Tony TSE―he is no longer a Member now, but he was a pro-establishment Member at that time―was the only Member who spoke during the Third Reading of this Bill. Former Member Mr IP Kwok-him and incumbent Member Mr WONG Ting-kwong likewise spoken in the Third Reading of some other bills. President, during the Third Reading of a bill, each Member is allowed to speak for 15 minutes only. The duration is so short, so why should they still be barred from doing so? I am not saying that the amendment must not be accepted. Suppose we have gone through a long process of negotiations, discussions and examinations and are thus positive about making some amendments, and suppose we have thus studied the experience of the legislatures in different places, we can of course go ahead with the amendments. But have we done so in this present case? Has there been any such process in this present case? Pro-establishment Members and the esteemed President, can you tell us whether there has been any thorough and in-depth discussion on the issue? Can they answer this question? If the answer is no, why are they allowed to put forward the motion to the Legislative Council meeting today to decide the way that the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council should be amended? Where is the dignity of this book of Rules of Procedure? (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair) Deputy President, I earnestly hope all Members, including all Members from the pro-democracy camp, can adopt a serious attitude in dealing with amendments of the Rules of Procedure. Besides, we should make any amendment (The buzzer sounded) … only after thorough discussion. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, your speaking time is up.


4293

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, what many colleagues have said just now are remarks from the bottom of our hearts. I hope the Deputy President can demonstrate the greatest tolerance possible when chairing the meeting, and will not criticize us lightly for making repetitive arguments. After all, we can only speak for up to 15 minutes, is that right? Anyway, you only need to listen to me for just 15 minutes, so please handle with leniency. I also wish to say a few words for the vindication of our Party Chairman, Mr WU Chi-wai, who has used the Chinese idiom "兔死狗烹" (meaning that a worthy person will be discharged after he has outlived his usefulness, just like the hounds will be slaughtered when the hares are hunted) in his speech delivered this morning, and quite a number of colleagues have reacted very strongly to this. He subsequently withdrew the remark, explaining that he was not referring to Mr Paul TSE or any other colleague, and it was thus not an offensive expression. Deputy President, I think Mr WU Chi-wai was being overly cautious, and this can actually reflect his personality. There was indeed no need for him to withdraw the remark, because Mr Paul TSE and other colleagues deserve to be described that way, and why do I say so? I have made reference to the book Records of the Grand Historian and notice that there is a well-known saying in Chapter 41, House of King Goujian of Yue, which goes: "When the birds are gone, the bows are cast away; and when the hares are hunted, the hounds are slaughtered". This is where the Chinese idioms "兔死狗烹，鳥盡弓藏" originate, and they actually possess commendatory sense and imply that something unfair does exist. In other words, as "the hounds of that Mr LEUNG", they have made a huge contribution to both the party and the country, and after so much has been done through legal or illegal means, it is hardly justifiable if they can eventually get nothing in return. Is that right, Deputy President? I can therefore hardly understand why some fellow colleagues reacted so strongly this morning? It seems that Mr Paul TSE is cool-headed now, and his anger may have vented after hearing my explanation of the allusion of that Chinese idiom. It is therefore my opinion that there was no need for Mr WU Chi-wai to withdraw his remark, since fellow colleagues including Mr Paul TSE deserve to be described that way. I have not brought along the "black whistle" with me, and judging from the way in which the Deputy President has chaired meetings of the House Committee, the "black whistle" also suits you well, though you are acting in your


capacity as the Deputy President today. As I have previously indicated, the "black whistle" is mainly for the President, but when asked by reporters for the reasons why I have not brought it along today, I replied that this might not be necessary, since the President's style of chairing Council meetings is well known to all. We all know very clearly how biased he can be when he is using a "black whistle". I will illustrate with examples later how he has used two sets of standards and a flexible tape measure to handle amendments proposed to the Rules of Procedure throughout the whole process, with a view to forcibly amending the Rules of Procedure. More important still, I notice that colleagues from the pro-establishment camp, the President or the Deputy President are exercising a little more patience now. This may due to the fact that everything is already under control, and there is no need for you to play such tricks any longer when you are confident enough. Deputy President, our Party Chairman, Mr WU Chi-wai, has already cited the contents in A Companion to the history, rules and practices of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region earlier to illustrate how he feel distressed about the current scene of political and moral degeneration, where nearly all the respective standards are violated. It is true that we did make amendments to the Rules of Procedure previously, but I think the biggest difference is that unlike the amendments proposed this time, amendments to the Rules of Procedure were usually made with consensus among the majority of Members or political parties previously, and the proposals were often submitted by the Committee on Rules of Procedure for deliberation at a Council meeting after negotiations and discussions. By amending the Rules of Procedure forcibly without any consensus and even under a polarization of views this time, some Members have totally forgotten that the Rules of Procedure should theoretically be a neutral tool, because all Members-elect have the chance to chair Council meetings and become the chairman of panels, committees or subcommittees, and they should act in accordance with a standard procedure so as to ensure the orderly conduct of business in this Council. I feel very regrettable that the application of the Rules of Procedure is now often dominated by subjective judgments, and the problem is so serious that the decisions made by the President are open to doubt. His rulings are sometimes laughable, and they even vary among different meetings. However, it does not matter since we at least have a standard procedure to follow, so that Members


4295

have the right to protest against such decisions made by the President, and members of the public also have the right to sneer at the President when he has made rulings recklessly. Nevertheless, the situation has become very undesirable now when some Members are trying to pass all of the 24 amendments proposed by Mr Martin LIAO forcibly and quickly like a through train, which will only dwarf and undermine our powers and functions to monitor the Government in this Council in the future. I am particularly concerned about the question of unconstitutionality and the problem of inconsistent standards adopted by the President, which I have already mentioned just now. Many colleagues have stated just now that with regard to the amendment proposed to lower the quorum requirement of a committee of the whole Council to 20 Members including the Chairman, there are actually two schools of thoughts. I have to admit that there are indeed supporting views for the proposed amendment, and I also have to say fairly that there are always people holding different views and this should not be a problem. However, should the Legislative Council stick to some conventional ways or established practices when making decisions, so that it can develop a code of practice and avoid swaying among different stances? Deputy President, we have received two legal opinions which reflect that the proposed amendment contravenes Article 75 of the Basic Law, and is unconstitutional, unfeasible and inappropriate. Yet, when Mr Martin LIAO put forward the proposed amendment, even the President has to give face to him, perhaps because he is really a person of considerable standing. According to another legal opinion which he has sought on behalf of colleagues from the pro-establishment camp, it is perfectly fine to lower the quorum requirement because a committee of the whole Council is a stage of a completely different nature. With the backing of this legal opinion, he insists on putting forward the proposed amendment, even though it has the risk of unconstitutionality. I really cannot see why they would find it so hateful to maintain the status quo. Although some people consider that there is a derogatory sense in being regarded as a member of the pro-establishment and royalist camp, some think that it carries a commendatory sense. Frankly speaking, the Chinese Communist Party may be very happy if you are willing to admit that you are royalists, and the "Western District" will definitely be the first to applaud. As royalists, how can


you slack in your work? Since there are 40 of you, there is indeed no room for us to call for the quorum bell if all of you stay here in the Chamber. We have also experienced the same thing these few days, when some of us queried that a quorum was not present and requested a headcount, the President indicated otherwise and ordered us to sit down. We can then say no more, is that right? What is so scary about the quorum requirement, and why are you so determined to have it amended? It is as clear as daylight that they just want to slack off. People may then ask us why we do not stay in the Chamber, but we all should know that this is what we should do when two camps are confronting each other. Furthermore, we have not left the Legislative Council Complex, otherwise they should be very happy since no one will request a headcount any more. As we all know, when a Council meeting is in progress, fellow Members are always closely monitoring the progress of the meeting, and to be fair, just like Mr Abraham SHEK is nodding his head now, we can often meet and greet each other in the Ante Chamber. Therefore, we are actually forced to participate in this political wrangling which takes place at the same time in separate venues, so please be fair and do not play with words. We are just asking Members of the royalist camp to fulfil their responsibility, but they refuse and they can in fact hardly justify themselves. However, in order to make things easier for them, the President agree to let 35 of them leave this Chamber, so that a Council meeting can still go on as long as there are 25 of us here to endorse many proposals which, in our opinion, should not be passed or would affect people's rights and benefits. They are not even willing to discharge their most basic responsibility, and have actually failed their superiors. Deputy President, there are also two other characteristics in the amendments proposed by the pro-establishment camp this time. The first one is the considerable expansion of the President's powers, and it is really puzzling that the President has on the one hand rejected all amendments which seek to reduce his powers on the ground that they are unconstitutional, but is of the opinion on the other hand that amendments proposed to expand his powers are constitutional and very desirable. The second one is the serious undermining of the legislature's functions to monitor the executive authorities, including the amendment proposed to the presentation of petitions, which a number of colleagues have already mentioned just now.


4297

With regard to the amendment concerning the presentation of petitions, I do not want to speak too much because much has already been said by many colleagues earlier, but there is one point I would like to raise. What happened yesterday is a very good example to illustrate to those who have watched the live telecast of the Council meeting that with the setting up of a select committee through the presentation of a petition or the invocation of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance so as to launch an inquiry, the Legislative Council will be able to monitor the Government and uncover the truth of major incidents that have aroused public concern. Without the arrangements concerning the presentation of petitions, I believe a select committee could have never been set up to inquire into the UGL incident involving LEUNG Chun-ying, and the subsequent incidents and disputes would have never occurred and arisen. I got very agitated and rebuked Mr Paul TSE last week, and I still have to contain my emotion today to make it clear that my views remain unchanged: We cannot on the one hand conduct an inquiry through this channel and claim that the matter is very important, but criticize afterwards on the other hand that there is no use setting up select committees to launch an inquiry, and that it is undesirable to refer a petition to a select committee when 20 Members have risen in their place and so requested. If the arrangements concerning the presentation of petitions do not exist, the powers of this undemocratic legislature to monitor the Government will only be undermined further under the existing unfair electoral system. What happened yesterday is a very good example, because Mrs Regina IP also agrees that RoP 20 should be invoked to set up a select committee to inquire into matters concerning the Link Asset Management Limited, and has risen in her place to support the petition so presented. Therefore, I now call upon her to at least cast a vote of conscience when the amendment concerning the presentation of petitions is put to vote later. Deputy President, I have mentioned just now that there are examples about how the President has been acting unfairly, and I would like to speak briefly on such examples which fellow Members have not talked about, so that members of the public would understand that we just want to have a set of reasonable rules in place for us to follow. For example, both the President and the Secretariat have been behaving very strangely. I am sorry that I have to mention the Secretariat, since I do not want to put the blame on the Secretariat. However, I always wonder whether the Secretariat has been put under immense pressure and forced to do its job under tremendous pressure, be it the pressure to avoid making mistake or the pressure comes from the orders it has received.


For example, an amendment proposed by the Chairman of the Democratic Party, Mr WU Chi-wai, has been ruled not in order for a very strange reason, that is, the inconsistent numbering sequence for the relevant provision in the Chinese and English texts. According to Mr WU Chi-wai's proposal, if two or more Members have held office for an equal continuous period of time, precedence shall be given to the one who received the highest number of votes in election. This is a very simple amendment, but it has been ruled not in order due to the inconsistent numbering sequence for the relevant provision in the Chinese and English texts. I have the impression that our colleagues in the Secretariat have always been handling matters like this in a very professional manner and reminding us of such inconsistencies, which have sometimes occurred when mistakes in numbering were spotted in, for example, the oral and written questions we submitted. However, what happened this time to Mr WU Chi-wai's proposed amendment is unprecedented, especially when an important amendment exercise is involved. Yet, I do not want to put the blame on our colleagues in the Secretariat, and would like to face it with a more understanding attitude, since they might have been subject to immense pressure. Deputy President, when elaborating on how the President has been acting unfairly, it is hard to ignore that in this battle on amending the Rules of Procedure, the excuses of anti-filibustering and enhancing the efficiency of the legislature have always been used by colleagues from the pro-establishment camp as strategies and means to lead or mislead the public. However, no one has ever pointed out why some Members have to filibuster on certain issues sometimes. With regard to this point which no one has ever mentioned, let me briefly set out some issues for which we, as alleged by colleagues from the pro-establishment camp, have resorted to filibustering or spent a lengthy time on deliberation in the past year. We have repeatedly posed questions on the funding applications for Wang Chau development when they were vetted by the Finance Committee, with a view to forcing the Government to produce more information and uncovering the truth. With regard to the application for a funding of $5.3 billion for the expansion project for the Hong Kong Disneyland, we opine that the proposal is tantamount to dumping money into the sea and should not be approved. Although our views are shared by many colleagues of the pro-establishment camp, they are now accusing us for engaging in filibustering, and are of the view that there is a need to amend the relevant rules. As for the proposed pay rise for principal officials, a lengthy time has been taken for questioning the Government, and I have also


4299

participated in the process, particularly in the last term of the Government when LEUNG Chun-ying was still in office. In our opinion, the proposal is not worthy of our support, and it has taken us quite some time to obtain some related figures, but we were accused of filibustering again, and the proposed pay rise was subsequently endorsed. The motion on the co-location arrangement was passed just two weeks ago, and there is no need for me to say too much since we all know very well what has actually happened. Besides, when funding proposals were submitted to the Legislative Council in order to meet the additional costs of many "white elephant" projects, should we deliberate thoroughly on behalf of the people of Hong Kong, ask for more information and at least demand a clear answer? Was it not right for us to handle the matter this way? It seems so. I think this legislature is already in a very dangerous state, because all our efforts to reason with various parties are futile, including the endeavour made to argue that it is impossible to lower the quorum requirement of a committee of the whole Council to 20 Members including the Chairman. It would indeed be very dangerous to do so, and I am afraid that this will get them into trouble in the future. We all know that with the scene remains unchanged in this legislature, members of the public may not find it comprehensible that the quorum requirement in different stages can vary and switch back and forth when it is the same group of Members we are talking about. It is highly possible to see the recurrence of similar incidents in which Members have to wait for a particular person before a joint action can be taken, and what should we do if anything unexpected happens then? I really do not know to whom they can shift their responsibility under such circumstances. Finally, Deputy President, I would like to sincerely advise colleagues of the pro-establishment camp once again that they should not go too far and plunge Hong Kong society and our people into an abyss of misery. I hope our President and the "godchildren", "god daughters" and "god brothers" of the "Western District" can work for the benefits of Hong Kong people. Thank you, Deputy President. MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the amendments proposed to the Rules of Procedure by Members of the pro-establishment camp. I have listened attentively to the speeches made by colleagues from the pan-democratic camp in these two days, and I understand that they are very worried that the Legislative Council will be castrated once the Rules of Procedure are amended. They are also concerned that their powers will be


undermined in the future, since they will not be given adequate weapons under the Rules of Procedure to give full play to their functions of monitoring the Government and they will not be able to speak for the people. However, I find these concerns unnecessary because all Members, be they returned by geographical direct elections or functional constituency elections, are elected by the people. Even though the system of corporate votes is adopted, corporates are also run by people. In other words, all Members have to hold themselves accountable to their voters, and who will not be afraid of being fired four years later? Therefore, no matter how the Rules of Procedure will be amended, all Members will continue to speak for the people and exercise their monitoring functions as far as possible. Moreover, I consider that the amendments proposed to many provisions in the Rules of Procedure can indeed serve to enhance the efficiency of the Legislative Council while at the same time update obsolete provisions. As a matter of fact, many thresholds provided in the Rules of Procedure at present are too low because provisions in the Rules of Procedure are originated from the Standing Orders in the colonial days, when we had fewer Members in the Legislative Council. Hence, a number of thresholds provided in the Rules of Procedure are too low and should be amended to suit the needs nowadays, including the threshold required for referring a petition to a select committee. I will elaborate this point in detail later. Furthermore, I think some provisions as amended can help Members put in more efforts to serve the public. For example, Deputy President, as we all know, in the event of abortion of a Council meeting, Members will just leave like school children going home after school. We will be free to attend to other businesses until another Council meeting is convened next week. However, after amendments are made to the relevant provisions, if a Council meeting is unfortunately aborted due to unforeseeable reasons such as traffic congestion, the President may call a meeting any time to complete the unfinished businesses as long as a quorum is present. Under such circumstances, there will be no need to wait until next week, and Members can serve the public better. Besides, amendments are also proposed to the procedure for the election of the President of the Legislative Council to hold the Secretary General responsible for conducting the election in the future, and I consider the arrangement very reasonable. For example, when we needed to elect the President at the beginning of the Sixth Legislative Council last year, a few senior Members have


4301

taken turns to preside at the election, and all of us have been thrown into confusion during the process. Although senior Members have gained wide public support and got elected to this Council repeatedly, this does not mean that they have extensive experience in chairing a Council meeting. Therefore, it is a good idea to hold the Secretary General responsible for this. I would also like to respond to the views expressed by a number of colleagues from the pan-democratic camp on the amendments proposed to the provisions concerning the presentation of petitions, and in this connection, we have already set an example yesterday. Will colleagues from the pan-democratic camp be really castrated by the proposals to raise the threshold for the presentation of petitions from 20 Members to 35 Members and refer them to the House Committee, and be deprived of the chance to request for the setting up of a select committee through the presentation of a petition in the future? This will in fact not be the case, because as long as significant public interests are involved and it is fully justifiable to present a petition, Members will definitely give their support. For example, why would I not support the proposal put forward yesterday to inquire into matters concerning the Link Asset Management Limited ("the Link")? In fact, I realized only in the last minute yesterday that a petition would be presented for this purpose. What has happened yesterday is that I felt really excited when I heard that a proposal was put forward to inquire into the Link. I then saw many young people waving to me on the opposite side, asking me to rise to support the petition. I could see no reason why I should not do so, but it was not possible for me to call upon Ms YUNG Hoi-yan then to rise to support the petition too. Mr Jeremy TAM came afterwards to thank me for rising to support his petition, and asked Ms YUNG Hoi-yan why she did not do so. The problem is that we knew absolutely nothing beforehand about his intention to present the petition, and there was thus no communication between us on the matter. Ms YUNG Hoi-yan indicated to him that he should take early actions to solicit support from Members, and she would then also rise to support the petition. We can therefore come to think about the undesirability of the existing provisions under the Rules of Procedure, which allow the giving of a notice of only one day for the presentation of a petition, meaning that a Member can inform the President all of a sudden of the wish to do so. If he has formally solicited Members' support for the presentation of the petition, would Members


not rise together to support inquiring into the Link? There is also one more interesting story which I would like to share with Members. Mr Steven HO asked me just now during lunch time why I did not inform him earlier so that he could rise to support the petition, and I could only reply that I knew nothing about it beforehand, and that I was asked to rise to support the petition by some young people waving to me on the opposite side. Mr CHAN Han-pan also said that he would have risen to support the petition had he known about it earlier. Hence, Members of all political parties and groups will unite together and support a petition if a major issue is involved. I believe all Members of the Legislative Council are here to serve the people of Hong Kong, and they will focus on the issue involved rather than taking things personally. Therefore, the chance of setting up a select committee in the Legislative Council through the presentation of a petition will still exist after the threshold is raised. As for the two petitions presented yesterday, they will be referred to the House Committee for discussion on the establishment of select committees, and I think a lot of Members will signify interests to join the committees. It is therefore my opinion that the proposals of amending the relevant provisions to raise the threshold for the presentation of petitions and refer them to the House Committee will in no way affect our monitoring of the Government in the future. As long as a matter of common concern is involved, all Members will actively take part in an inquiry, because we all have to face public opinion squarely and there is no reason why we do not respond proactively. My brief speech on these two parts of the current amendments to the Rules of Procedure is made with a view to assuring to fellow colleagues that after passage of these amendments, we will continue to attach much importance to our functions of monitoring the Government and reflecting public opinion, and use the appropriate mechanism in the Legislative Council for conducting inquiries or asking questions. Deputy President, I so submit. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, before I start discussing this agenda item, I would like to express my strong dissatisfaction towards the President's arrangements on our debating time and on voting. There are a number of resolutions proposed to amend the Rules of Procedure. The pan-democratic camp and the pro-establishment camp have proposed a total of 12


4303

resolutions which consist of 49 amendments and 54 further amendments. If each Member is only allowed to speak once for 15 minutes at the most, as criticized by many colleagues earlier, he will only have about 17 seconds to express his views on each amendment. Is that not very ridiculous? Besides, I have to talk about the bundled voting arrangement. As we all know, the President always say that this is an established practice and the arrangement has been applied to certain other motions in the past. But this does not mean that it is fair and equitable, nor does it mean that this arrangement should be applied to this motion. In fact, under this bundled voting arrangement, if I am in support of certain amendments but oppose certain other amendments, what should I do? I have been pursuing this question but Members are not willing to make any amendment to the arrangement. In my view, amendment is warranted for this arrangement, otherwise, the voting under this arrangement will be an insult to this Council and to Members. As regards the amendments concerned, some Members just mentioned that the Rules of Procedure have been put in place for many years and it is understandable that many rules need to be amended. However, what is the direction of amendment? In my view, since Hong Kong is a society pursuing democracy, our Council also needs to keep on democratizing itself to reflect public voices and to exercise its function of monitoring the Government fully and effectively. Hence, I feel that amendments should be and even need to be proposed to the Rules of Procedure as long as they can make this Council more progressive and more in line with the spirit of democracy. This is the best approach in my opinion. Besides, how can Members' voices and proposals be fully respected? I would particularly emphasize how the views of the minority Members can be respected. Deputy President, under this premise, I will therefore definitely support most of the amendments proposed by the democratic Members. One of them is particularly proposed to provide that the President, in discharging his duties, shall preserve and defend the autonomy of the Legislative Council at all times. This amendment has greater importance, as we see that the present Council is not fairly and equitably composed. When the pro-establishment camp and the royalist camp are the majority, a Council Pekingese culture will be formed as they will wag their tails like Pekingese. If it goes on, all motions or policies of the Government will not be subject to active and effective monitoring and regulation. The consequence is that the Government can act on its own will. This Council will then lose its monitoring role and function, and Members, being


unable to really take up their responsibilities and roles, will have no means to make the government policies transparent, open and accountable to the public. Nonetheless, Deputy President, with the extremely limited speaking time, I particularly want to talk about Dr Fernando CHEUNG's amendments. Dr CHEUNG's amendment to Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure is to allow a Member to address the Council in sign language. In fact, given that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("the Convention") has been in force in Hong Kong since 2008, Hong Kong shall have the responsibility to recognize and promote the use of sign language. It is also stipulated in the Convention that persons with disabilities shall be entitled, on an equal basis with others, to recognition and support of their sign languages and deaf culture. Although I know that many Members do not know sign language, there are at least 150 000 deaf and hearing impaired persons in Hong Kong at present and a lot of them take sign language as their mother language. Therefore, I think we should attach importance to sign language. I have once especially moved a motion on "Striving to make sign language an official language of Hong Kong" in the Council. Even though Members from the pro-establishment camp abstained from voting then, I heard many Members saying afterwards that they were not against the motion, but only felt that it was not an opportune time to make sign language official, as sign language interpretation services could not be sufficiently provided. They thought this plan should be shelved temporarily but would support it in due course. In that case, under the Rules of Procedure, why are Members not allowed to express their views by means of sign language, a statutory way of expression? If Members are in support of that, I hope that they can really support Dr Fernando CHEUNG's amendment when it is put to the vote. In regard to the amendments proposed by the pro-establishment camp today, I find that they are totally against the principle of democratization as I just said. Being reactionary and self-binding, they will castrate their own deliberation power, turn this Council into another National People's Congress, and undermine the function of the Council in monitoring the Government. If this Council supports all the bills and motions submitted by the Government, it will degenerate into a rubber stamp, and this will be pathetic indeed. In fact, each one of the amendments proposed by Mr Martin LIAO on behalf of the pro-establishment camp is alarming to me, especially his amendment to revise the quorum of a committee of the whole Council from not less than one half of all its members to 20 members. Many Members spoke on


4305

this earlier on and I am not going to repeat the legal advice of two Senior Counsel. We have divergent views towards this amendment, which involves no ordinary subject matter but is controversial and related to the constitutional system. It is not surprising that Members have different views on making sign language an official language, which I just mentioned. But we are now talking about the controversy over some constitutional matters. Why does he still insist to propose this amendment? This is the crux of the question. Members of the pro-establishment camp have been defending and upholding the Basic Law. When this amendment is being criticized for breaching the Basic Law, why do they persist in taking the lead to go against the Basic Law? What kind of attitude is that? Are they behaving like a sore loser, bullying the minority when they are the majority, and being regardless of all the consequences? Besides, many colleagues mentioned the number of Members required for supporting a petition. The pro-establishment camp asks for a drastic increase from 20 Members to half of all Members, i.e. 35 Members. Many Members keep on commending this amendment, which definitely is not good to me. Why? When a subcommittee is formed through the presentation of a petition, nothing can actually be done, as it has no privilege power or legal power to summon all the people concerned to attend the hearings. It has no such a power, and its formation is only better than having nothing. In fact, what is the best option? It is to set up a select committee which can have legal power to summon all the people concerned to attend the hearings, and this will be meaningful. Hence, I think this is already the minimum level of protection to the power of monitoring the Government by the minority Members. Mrs Regina IP just said that we should not worry too much. When half of all Members are required for supporting a petition, only if the subject matter is right and worth supporting, it can still be passed in the Council meeting. Why should it be like that? Many cases in the past were also related to the community and the public, but how could we have the support of half of the Members? This is absurd indeed. Even if the support of half of the Members can be gained, instead of presenting a petition in order to set up a subcommittee, I would invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance so that a select committee can be set up to provide protection. This is a better … (Mr Kenneth LEUNG stood up)


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please hold on. Mr Kenneth LEUNG, do you want to raise a point of order? MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Pursuant to Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure, I request a headcount. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG has requested a headcount. Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but Some Members did not return to their seats) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please continue with your speech. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I was talking about the amendment which asks to increase the number of Members required for supporting a petition from 20 Members to not less than one half of all Members, i.e. over 35 Members. Earlier on, Mrs Regina IP said righteously that if the substance of the petition was a concern to all, she would definitely rise in her place to show support. She also quoted from some other Members that they would also rise in their places to show support upon her request. Deputy President, the problem is that one should not indulge in his own wishful thinking or deeply believe what other people say. If there is really an incident of all Members' concern, they will still rise in their places to show support without any request from others. After all, I know that no matter how she asks, her fellow party members around her will still refuse to budge. Why? Because this is against the principle. What principle? Without any order from the boss to tell them to rise, how can they rise in their places? This is where the major problem lies.


4307

The amendment to the number of Members showing support to a petition is a highly significant issue. We know that on many cases, the support from 35 Members can hardly be gained. If the support can be successfully obtained, we should set up a select committee instead, as it will be under the protection of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Thus, it will be better to have the support from 35 Members. The problem, however, is that the minority camp, which wants to monitor the Government, usually cannot obtain support from so many Members. For the request concerning a petition to be granted, the support from 20 Members is the bottom line which makes it possible for the minority camp to monitor the Government. But when this power is also being undermined now, how can we monitor the Government? What will this Council turn into? It will turn into a flattering Council or a rubber stamp which only follows the Government's footsteps and cannot turn away from or even challenge or monitor the Government. I think the Government, instead of Members, is actually the most cheerful party, as when the monitoring power of the minority camp is taken away, it can act wilfully. Why did I say that? In view of the discussion on amending the Rules of Procedure, Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew CHEUNG has already explicitly said that the Government will not submit any motion to the Legislative Council during this period of time and will only submit after the Rules of Procedure has been amended. Why does it have to do this? We can see clearly that the Government can do whatever it wants after the amendment. Whatever it submits, the Government does not need to feel worried even if there is opposition from Members, and this is the most important point. Why do we say that amending the Rules of Procedure is tantamount to self-castration? It is because our power of monitoring the Government, the most significant power, has been taken away. Besides, one very unreasonable area is that the amendments have increased the power of the President indefinitely. Do we still need this Council? When the President says "I now make a final decision", "I have already made a decision" or "This is my ruling", is there any difference between him and an ancient emperor? When the emperor says no, we cannot argue, discuss or even have an opportunity to debate. What kind of Council will it become? Can this be called a Council? After the emperor has made a decision, he will give an order or decree to the effect that we cannot discuss and that is it. Has the Council given up its own functions? Why will it degrade itself as such? I


really cannot give an answer. How can Members from the royalist camp surrender their rights with their own hands and have the Council completely castrated? Moreover, Deputy President, we note that the pro-establishment camp has grasped the opportune moment, as they asked for amending the Rules of Procedure after a few Members had been disqualified. The pro-establishment Members speak so forcefully and eloquently of how important they are. If that is true, why did you not do this before those few Members were disqualified but propose to amend the Rules of Procedure when you clearly see this gap? Therefore, this is your purposeful, intentional and deliberate move. You propose amendments to the Rules of Procedure not because you think there are certain places which need amendment, but because you deliberately want to make use of this moment to belittle our Council by turning it into a rubber stamp and turning Members into "hand-raising machines". What advantages will it bring? Deputy President, this incident has made us see clearly that this Council has already fallen. The pro-establishment Members should not feel complacent for moving these amendments successfully. Why? Because this has actually undermined the monitoring power of the Council, and the community, instead of Members, is the most adversely affected. The dissension and disintegration in a Council will turn into social dissension and disintegration. Why do we not focus our efforts in dealing with the Government, in asking the Government to formulate some policies more beneficial to people's livelihood? Why do we have to take away and undermine our own powers as Members? Why do we have to turn the Council into one which cannot really monitor the Government effectively? I really hope that Members can, with mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, take a step back and consider how we are able to render the Council effective in exercising its power to monitor the Government. This will be better than having ongoing internecine conflicts. I have been in this Council for many years, and I really find the ongoing rivalries and contentions regretful and meaningless. Will they bring any advantages to us? And now our powers are being further weakened. What is the point of that? As a consequence, people with vested interests can be benefited as they can keep on accumulating their vested interests whereas social conflicts are still unresolved. We all know that Hong Kong is at present facing deep-rooted social conflicts (The buzzer sounded) … I hope that with mutual understanding and mutual accommodation, we can really try our best to solve the problems.


4309

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up. Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please speak. MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, before beginning my speech, I request a headcount. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, a quorum is now present in the Chamber. Please continue with your speech. MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my original intention was to speak in protest against the President's decision to delete 14 proposals from the 38 amendment proposals put forth by the democratic camp and to group various unrelated amendments to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") under a joint debate. How can Members debate so many issues with a speaking time of merely 15 minutes for each Member? However, something happened today, and now I want to mourn the death of a person instead of raising protest. Mr YU Guangzhong, a heavyweight in the poetry circle and a literary giant, passed away this morning when Mr Martin LIAO was delivering his speech. I wish to mourn the death of this prominent poet. One of his poems is related to our situation today. Entitled "Nostalgia", it reads, "When I was a child, nostalgia was a tiny postage stamp. I was on this side; my mother was on the other. When I grew up, nostalgia became a narrow ship ticket. I was on this side; my bride was on the other. Later, nostalgia was a squat tomb. I was on the outside; my mother was on the inside. And now, nostalgia is a shallow strait. I am on this side; the Mainland is on the other." I am thinking that if I can add two lines to the end of this poem, I will say, "Today, nostalgia is a high legislature. I am on this side; the royalists are on the other." What is happening to the legislature? An article has gone viral on the Internet, and it is entitled "Hong Kong will soon pass a Law to Remedy the Distress of People and the Country". The Hong Kong legislature in 2017 as depicted in this article bore a strong resemblance to the German Parliament in 1933. HITLER was returned as Chancellor of Germany on 30 January 1933 with the support of various right-wing political parties. Even though his political party merely occupied 34% of all seats and was not the majority party,


he wanted eagerly to enact an Enabling Act, or a Law to Remedy the Distress of People and the Country. This Enabling Act sought to empower the Chancellor to enact rules and laws on his own without involving the Parliament. But a two-thirds majority was required for endorsing the commencement of this Enabling Act, and he only had the support of 34% of all parliamentary members. At the time, the left-wing Social Democratic Party of Germany and the third largest political party called the Communist Party of Germany respectively occupied 20% and 17% of all seats, and these two parties opposed the passage of an Enabling Act. So, he came up with a stratagem, the stratagem of creating social panic through a vigorous campaign propagating that Germany was facing the critical moment of a Communist-initiated revolution, and only an Enabling Act could stop the Communist Party from starting a revolution; without it, Germany would fall under the terrorist rule of the Communist Party. On 27 February 1933, an arson attack took place at the Parliament building, giving HITLER the best chance ever. At the time, a 25-year-old unemployed Dutch construction worker from the Communist Party was arrested for arson. HITLER immediately denounced this arson attack as the Communist Party's signal of starting a revolution. After the arson attack at the Parliament building, the Storm Troopers of the Nazi Party occupied all the bases of the Communist Party in the country and mounted massive arrest operations against members of the Communist Party while oppressing members of the Social Democratic Party. In the parliamentary election on 5 March, the Nazi Party won 44% of all seats in the end. An Enabling Act was passed on 23 March 1933 at long last with the support of over two thirds of all members in the German Parliament, including those parties which had been intimidated by him before. On the day of voting, 81 and 26 parliamentary members respectively from the Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were absent. Armed with the Enabling Act of 1933 as the mandate, the Nazi regime could accomplish a totally executive-led system and pass any laws without parliamentary constraints. As a result, the Nazi regime enacted legislation to stipulate that the Nazi Party was the only lawful political party and merged the office of Chancellor with that of President to create a new post called "Leader and Chancellor". HITLER formally assumed dictatorial rule, and it can be said that his dictatorship was perfect.


4311

This page in history resembles the situation of Hong Kong society. In Germany, the arson attack at the Parliament building was used as a pretext to disqualify parliamentary members of the Communist Party; in Hong Kong, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress promulgated its interpretation of the Basic Law to disqualify Members of the Legislative Council ("LegCo"). In Germany, they exploited the advantage brought forth by the disqualification of their opponents to pass unconstitutional laws and disempower the Parliament; in the case of the Chinese Communist Party, its successful disqualification of opposition Members through the interpretation of the Basic Law, together with the Government's deliberate delay in presenting bills, has created a once-in-a-century opportunity whereby the pro-establishment camp can force through the amendments to RoP by drawing on its advantage of having the majority of directly elected seats and Functional Constituency seats, in a bid to further deprive LegCo of its power to exercise checks and balances on the Government. Actually, how can the amendment of RoP deprive society of the power to exercise checks and balances on the Government? As repeatedly mentioned by many Members, one example is Mr Martin LIAO's proposed amendment to RoP 20(6) with the objective of raising the threshold for presenting a petition from 20 Members at present to half of all Members, that is, 35 Members. A higher threshold means greater difficulties in presenting a petition, and this will undermine LegCo's power of inquiring into the Government. Just now, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung reminded Mrs IP, saying that she was too naïve, and while she was not a youngster, she was still too naïve. Does she really believe in their mere words? But we rather believe that after the threshold is raised, the presentation of petitions will honestly become more difficult. Yesterday, democratic Members presented a petition concerning the Link hegemony. Only Mrs IP among those pro-establishment Members who had all along publicly criticized the Link REIT rendered her support. Members can imagine this. We even failed to satisfy the 35-Member threshold for presenting the petition on the Link hegemony, a social issue of cross-party concern. If they succeed in amending RoP, we will be unable to present any petition forever after, and the presentation of petitions will become virtually extinct. That is why we call the petition we presented yesterday the final petition. What is even more noteworthy is that Mr Martin LIAO's amendment proposes that a petition should be referred to the House Committee. This is a change over the current practice of referring it to a select committee. Deputy


President, you are the Chairman of the House Committee. You know better than I that a general function and duty of the House Committee is to make preparations for Council meetings and discuss matters relating to Council business. I am a bit confused about how the House Committee will deal with petitions. Do such amendments really seek to counter filibustering rather than depriving LegCo of its power to exercise checks and balances on the Government? Actually, the intention of the pro-establishment camp is to counter the forces which exercise checks and balances on the Government, rather than exercising checks and balances on the Government. This means to say that they want to curtail the power of the democratic camp to exercise checks and balances on the Government. Mr Martin LIAO has also proposed an amendment to RoP 17 to amend the quorum for the proceedings of the committee of the whole Council from no less than one half of all Members to 20 Members. Actually, in accordance with the Basic Law and RoP, a government motion, bill or amendment will be passed if a majority of the LegCo Members present at the meeting render their support. What does this mean? The quorum requirement in RoP aims to ensure as far as possible the presence of half of all Members at the time of voting and sufficient representativeness of debates and voting results. After all, Members are people's representatives. The presence of a sufficient number of people's representatives is necessary for ensuring adequate legality and propriety of motions seeking the passage of bills. At present, the legality and propriety of handling bills and motions in LegCo with its seats returned through coterie elections have already come under question. If RoP is further amended out of mere political intentions without any regard for the original intent of its design, the propriety of LegCo's voting results will be further hindered and its functions will be undermined in the future. Is the pro-establishment camp aware of this repercussion? Before the reunification in 1997, the quorums for Council meetings and the committee of the whole Council were both one third of the 60 LegCo Members, meaning 20 Members. During the drafting of the Basic Law, members of the Drafting Committee considered that the quorum thresholds for Council meetings and the committee of the whole Council should be raised to half of all Members at the same time. Evidently, they wanted to show that with a higher threshold, the post-reunification Hong Kong would do better than the colonial Hong Kong. After the passage of 20 years since the reunification, pro-establishment Members


4313

intend to lower the quorum from 35 Members to 20 Members. The proportion is even less than one third of all Members and lower than the threshold in 1997. This is what we call "self-castration". Article 75 of the Basic Law stipulates that the quorum for the meeting of LegCo shall be not less than one half of all its Members. This requirement should be applicable to the proceedings of the committee of the whole Council instead of being confined to Council meetings. The two lawyers concerned asserted that Mr Martin LIAO's amendment was inconsistent with the Basic Law. However, the President indicated that there was no sufficient ground to show that Mr LIAO's amendment was necessarily inconsistent with the Basic Law. So, he considered that the appropriate course of action was to approve a debate. The President did not believe the counsel commissioned by LegCo and instead took on board the views of pro-establishment Members. This is paying heed to only one side. LegCo is the body tasked to enact legislation. It should undertake its work and perform its functions and power in accordance with the Basic Law. Now, the pro-establishment camp has taken the lead to distort the intent of the provision on the quorum requirement. What they seek to do will definitely set an appalling, appalling, appalling precedent. Those Members have likewise set a deplorable, deplorable, deplorable example. Their proposed arrangement is in breach of the Basic Law and also the spirit and values of RoP. The Central Authorities and the Government always talk about the need to comply with the Basic Law and learn more about the Basic Law. Honourable Members who are parents or teachers, what should we say if our children ask us questions about the purpose of the Basic Law and the functions of LegCo in the future? If the spirit of Basic Law provisions can be distorted wantonly to reduce the quorum for the proceedings of the committee of the whole Council, thus plunging its legality and propriety into further doubt, how can we give a satisfactory answer to our children? How should our children learn more about the Basic Law if it is amended every year? I must point out that it is already difficult for LegCo to exercise checks and balances on the Government due to the executive-led principle and its coterie election design. Now, the pro-establishment camp even seeks to further undermine the functions of LegCo. Germany's history of dictatorship and the subsequent extermination of its Parliament has served as a valuable lesson to us.


Deputy President, we can see from the debate over these few days that it is honestly not difficult to ruin a legislature. We are now witnessing how our legislature is being ruined. Deputy President, I certainly cannot support the motions proposed by Mr Martin LIAO. At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned a poet called YU Guangzhong. At the end of my speech, I really wish to mention again a poem he wrote. It is another poem he wrote and is entitled "Waiting for you in the rain". Several lines of the poem read, "Eternity seems transient; transience seems eternal. I'll wait for you beyond and within our time. My wait, though transient, shall last for eternity." I sincerely wait for pro-establishment Members or the royalists to withdraw their amendments and turn back to do the right thing. Deputy President, the Hong Kong legislature is honestly facing a critical moment, literally a moment of life and death. Maybe this evening, maybe tomorrow, or maybe the day after tomorrow, we will see the passage of the draconian amendments to RoP. There is nothing I can do at this juncture indeed. Perhaps, I really have to sound the alarm, the final alarm, to tell those Hong Kong people who remain deeply asleep that we need to safeguard our legislature and Hong Kong. I must set off the final, final alarm to awake those people who are feigning sleep. I must even awake those who are feigning sleep, so that they can join us in safeguarding Hong Kong and LegCo. (Mr SHIU Ka-chun turned on a sound device and held it up) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, have you finished your speech? (Mr SHIU Ka-chun was still holding up the ringing sound device) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, if you have finished your speech, please sit down. Members have heard your signal. (Mr SHIU Ka-chun put down the ringing sound device but remained standing)


4315

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, have you finished your speech? (Mr SHIU Ka-chun remained standing and held up the ringing sound device again) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, if you have finished your speech, please sit down. (Mr SHIU Ka-chun remained standing while holding up the ringing sound device) (The buzzer sounded) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, your 15-minute speaking time is up. Please turn off the sound device in your hand. (Mr SHIU Ka-chun remained standing while holding up the ringing sound device and chanting slogans; Ms Claudia MO stood up at this juncture and chanted slogans with a number of Members who remained seated) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, your speaking time is over. Just now, I already adopted an attitude with maximum tolerance. Will Members please stop yelling in their seats now and keep quiet. (Mr SHIU Ka-chun remained standing while holding up the ringing sound device and chanting slogans; Ms Claudia MO kept standing and chanting slogans with a number of Members who remained seated) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, your speaking time is over. Please sit down. Will staff members please bring the sound device in Mr SHIU Ka-chun's hand out of the Chamber. (Security guards walked up to Mr SHIU Ka-chun, in an attempt to take away his sound device, during which time Mr SHIU Ka-chun put the sound device into his chest pocket; Ms Claudia MO left her seat at this juncture and walked up to the


aisle of the Chamber where she remained standing and chanted slogans; security guards came forward and surrounded Ms Claudia MO) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, you are the next Member waiting to speak. Do you wish to speak? (A number of Members kept chanting slogans, and Ms Claudia MO indicated that she could not hear the Deputy President clearly) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please stop yelling, so that Ms Claudia MO can hear me clearly. Ms Claudia MO, you are the next Member waiting to speak. Please return to your seat. Will staff members please bring the sound device out of the Chamber. Mr SHIU Ka-chun, here is my warning to you. Please turn off the sound device in your hand immediately. Members are not allowed to disturb the order of meeting. (A security guard took the sound device out of Mr SHIU Ka-chun's chest pocket and turned it off; at this juncture, another sound device began to ring) (Mr CHAN Chi-chuen threw out a sound device passed to him by Mr CHU Hoi-dick, during which time Ms Claudia MO fell to the floor near Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's seat, and a security guard also fell to the floor at the same time) (A Member left his seat, picked up the sound device from the floor and threw it around among other Members) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats. Members should know that they are not allowed to bring any sound device into the Chamber. Just now, I already dealt with the matter as leniently as possible and allowed Mr SHIU Ka-chun to put forth his views. Will Members please hand over the sound device to staff members. (Some Members continued to throw the sound device around among themselves)


4317

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I do not want to see continued interruption to our proceedings. Will Members please observe the order of meeting and return to their seats. (A security guard picked up the other sound device from the floor near Mr HUI Chi-fung's seat and turned it off) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, may I ask if you are not feeling well and cannot speak for the time being? (A Member indicated that Ms Claudia MO was unable to get back to her feet, and some Members were speaking aloud) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet. Ms Claudia MO, may I ask you once again whether you are not feeling well? If so, I will call upon Prof Joseph LEE to speak first. If Ms Claudia MO needs … MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): She wants to speak. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof Joseph LEE, do you wish to speak? (Prof Joseph LEE walked up to Ms Claudia MO to ascertain her condition) (Mr Charles Peter MOK indicated a wish to raise a point of order) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point of order? MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): The meeting is now in progress. Why is Dr Elizabeth QUAT doing a live broadcast here again?


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Just now a number of Members breached the Rules of Procedure. Members should remember that they must not bring any audible device into this Chamber. Just now I have exercised my discretion to permit Mr SHIU Ka-chun to sound his "alarm" during his 15-minuite speaking time. But soon after that Members threw around another audible device. I wish to remind Members that they should not use mobile phones during the Council meeting and should observe the Council's order. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, will you exercise your discretion to permit Ms Claudia MO to sit in the wheelchair and speak later? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, may I ask you if you wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): She indicates that she would like to speak. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In view of the current physical condition of Ms Claudia MO, perhaps she is not suitable to speak for the time being. Will Secretariat staff please assist Ms Claudia MO to leave the Chamber now. Prof Joseph LEE, do you wish to speak? If Prof Joseph LEE wishes to speak later, I can exercise my discretion to invite Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok to speak first. Prof Joseph LEE, do you wish to speak now? PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it just so happens that I am the next Member to speak. But what I am going to say below is not the content of my speech. I rarely raise a point of order, but now I wish to raise a brief point of order.


4319

The chaotic situation which took place earlier has passed. According to my professional opinion, I understand that Ms Claudia MO feels a bit dizzy and short of breath, so she needs to sit down and rest for a while. Under this circumstance, if Members agree, we may take a break so that Ms MO may take a rest outside this Chamber. I am just making a suggestion. That's all. I think that we should first deal with Ms MO's discomfort. Even if Members consider that the meeting should continue, Ms MO may sit down and rest for a while. Therefore, I raise this point of order and seek the Deputy President's ruling. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof Joseph LEE, you have expressed your view clearly, please sit down. I need to understand the situation of Ms Claudia MO with the help of our staff. If necessary, I can suspend the meeting. (Mr WONG Ting-kwong indicated to raise a point of order) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, what is your point of order? MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as the saying goes, safety first. Since a Member of the Council is feeling unwell, for the benefit of her health, should we call an ambulance to take her to hospital? DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, you have raised your point of order. Please sit down. I also note that our staff have brought a wheelchair for the Member who is feeling unwell, so as to assist her in leaving the Chamber. I will now suspend the meeting so that our staff may assist Ms Claudia MO in leaving the Chamber.


5:26 pm Meeting suspended. 5:37 pm Council then resumed. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I wish to remind Members again to maintain order in this Council. Ms Claudia MO, do you think you are physically fit to speak? MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I request a headcount. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO requests a headcount. Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is present in the Chamber now. Since Ms Claudia MO is not present, I will first invite Prof Joseph LEE to speak first. Prof Joseph LEE, do you wish to speak? PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am the first Member to speak in this session, but actually I cannot quite remember what I have to say. Anyway, let me continue with my speech. The speaking time is 15 minutes.


4321

Deputy President, what has happened just now is a typical example. We have dragged on for another 15 minutes. Why should I say that? I am sorry for jumping the queue of Ms Claudia MO. I hope that she can have 15 minutes to repose. Perhaps it was a false alarm just now, but I hope her condition will improve 15 minutes later since she was suffering from dizziness, short of breath and high blood pressure. Why should I say that? Actually, no matter it is true or false, we have 15 minutes extra time to repose in addition to the time on the counting of the quorum. We have 20 minutes extra time in total. We can see that as far as the amendments to the Rules of Procedure are concerned, pro-establishment Members say that they have to amend the Rules of Procedure because many things have come to a halt, the Government and the Legislative Council are paralysed, a lot of goals could not be achieved and people are living in the direst of circumstances because of our filibuster and our abuse of the Rules of Procedure. After the amendments are made, the public may think that there will be no problem. As Mrs Regina IP said in her speech just now, the Legislative Council would achieve greater efficiencies. I have doubts about it. Yesterday when I spoke in support of Mr Alvin YEUNG's amendment motion, I mainly spoke on the issue of urgency. Were these amendments really that urgent? My speech was ended subsequently. Today, I continue what I have said yesterday. We can see that this motion will be passed in any case. Be it by tomorrow night―the media said it would be tomorrow night, Saturday or even Monday, all the amendments to the Rules of Procedure will be passed after the voting. I should put it in this way, whatever they like will be passed, and whatever they dislike will not be passed. I hope all Members from the opposition camp and pro-establishment camp be magnanimous and allow the passage of Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion. That is, to allow the passage of the motion concerning the use of sign language, which is a rather neutral and good proposal. I hope Members will support it. Can we stop the filibuster upon the passage of these amendments? That is something I cannot see. I really cannot see that. According to the speeches of Mrs Regina IP or Mr Martin LIAO earlier, the efficiency of the legislature could be improved after the Rules of Procedure were amended. That is, there will be no more filibuster, thus the process will be more expeditious. As far as we are concerned, the Rules of Procedure amended in accordance with your proposals,


could shorten the time of the delivery of frivolous or meaningless speeches, filibuster, the nonsense talking and the waste of time in your view. I cannot see if that will happen. Just now the personal alarm is a good example. Actually we can drag on 20 minutes more. It has nothing to do with the Rules of Procedure. Therefore we need to let the public know that the amendments to the Rules of Procedure this time around are not necessarily related to the opposition to filibuster. The amendments cannot achieve the objective. Just now I have leafed through the Rules of Procedure. I have been in this Council for more than 10 years, but I have never been so diligent in leafing through this "little red book", no matter I was in the old Legislative Council Building or in this Legislative Council Complex. How often do we leaf through this "little red book"? This is supposed to be the work of the President. How can we possibly leaf through this "little red book" as it is so voluminous? After leafing through it, actually the most effective anti-filibuster move is to amend RoP 17(1). But they dare not to do that. Why? It is because that will contravene the Basic Law, thus they cannot amend it. Perhaps they can even leave RoP 17(1) alone and just amend RoP 17(2)? That is, the waiting time can be changed as soon as a Member has requested a headcount. We may repeal the 15-minute waiting time and substitute it with one minute, so that Members may return to their seats within one minute and thus we cannot use the headcount tactic to delay the proceeding. But I do not know why they cannot amend it. Perhaps Members will realize that after I have pointed out the issue and say "Yes, we can make such an amendment but never mind, we can amend it next time." Perhaps they can amend it some time in future after I am disqualified. Next time the big can bully the small and they can propose the amendment again as long as they are the majority. All I can see is that if we are going to curb or prevent a filibuster and to improve the efficiency of the legislature, we should go to the extreme by amending these rules. We should even seek the NPCSC interpretation of the Basic Law and amend the Basic Law, so that no Member can filibuster by way of requesting a headcount in future after you are allowed to amend that in the Rules of Procedure. That will be good. If we apply Mrs Regina IP's argument about the proposition of efficiency, actually it can be achieved by amending the rule. In future, no matter Members are absent or present, they can return to their seats within one minute as soon as someone requests a headcount. Nothing will happen. There is no problem at all. It can prevent us from filibustering―if we


4323

filibuster. I am not going to repeat that as I have spoken on that yesterday, Deputy President. How should we treat a filibuster? A filibuster is an approach to exercise checks and balances on the Government, to fight against draconian law and to monitor the Government. But you simply cannot ban Members from filibustering. Now we are still arguing so many things, can we really improve the efficiency after you have passed the amendments to the Rules of Procedure on Saturday or next Monday? I have doubts in this respect. But I have no say on that. It is because I have not read all the amendments in detail. I only know that you request to shorten the time, so that we can have even less speaking time. That's all I know. Our speeches will be limited. Notwithstanding that the efficiency is improved, will the improved efficiency enable a smoother operation of the legislature? I have doubts about that. If you say this is an anti-filibuster move, actually we are talking about two different propositions. Therefore, I want Members to know clearly that no matter you support or oppose the motion, sorry, you cannot curb the filibuster after the Rules of Procedure are amended. We can resort to other means to exercise the checks and balances on the Government. Please do not forget that it is only a means to exercise checks and balances on the Government, we do not want to make you people sit in this Chamber by resorting to this means. But unfortunately, it has a by-product or a side-effect that makes you sit in this Chamber, that's all. Nonetheless, you are unable to amend RoP 17(1) or RoP 17(2). On the contrary, the amendments to the Rules of Procedure this time around obviously cannot enhance efficiency―you can say that, in your words, the efficiency can be enhanced. But as far as its efficacy or effectiveness is concerned―what we want to say is the effectiveness―is unachievable, Deputy President. Why? It is because Members' right to speak is restricted, while the President's power is expanded, but the legislature's monitoring power is weakened. Under this circumstance, is it really effective to amend the Rules of Procedure? Can we achieve more effectiveness? Can the legislature achieve more effectiveness? In this regard, some Members said earlier that this "little red book" has a long history. It is inherited from the former British Hong Kong Government. It is more than 100 years old if I remember correctly. It is said to be a continuation of the history. Of course there were amendments and alterations. If anything is out-dated, it has to be amended even it has been amended before.


Right, we have to amend anything that is outdated. But the amendments this time around may not achieve the objective or the two objectives I have said just now. There are even setbacks. However, the "little red book"―originally, this "little red book" is put in its place disinterestedly, so as to let the Deputy President, I have almost mistakenly addressed you as the President―the President and the Deputy President to leaf through this book, to deal with businesses by the book, and to show to everyone that it is fair and equitable. This is the function of this "little red book". This is exactly the standard that we are talking about. It standardizes the operation of the whole legislature, so that everyone can deal with our business in accordance with these rules. This is the traditional wisdom, or political wisdom, as we call it. Nevertheless, we consider that the amendments this time around cannot achieve the objective of efficiency and they undermine the effectiveness of the rules. Eventually, the book of Rules of Procedure becomes partial. It is so partial that it is skewed towards those who amend it. This has caused the problem, Deputy President, let me use the petition as an example. I have mentioned it yesterday. That is, the amendment seeks to increase the number of Members presenting a petition to the Legislative Council from 20 to 35. Many of my colleagues have spoken on that, I will not further elaborate on that. But the question is, if we follow the tradition of the Rules of Procedure, we may fight for the causes of the public by exercising the power vested in us in accordance with the rules of the game. However, it turns out that we are not fighting for the causes of the public because the rules of the game have been changed from 20 to 35 Members. The result will come out soon, perhaps by Saturday or Monday. After it is changed to 35 Members, we can no longer fight for the causes of the public. Only those who propose the amendment can fight for the causes of the public if they wish so. It is because they have adequate number of people, they are the majority. The weaker side will never have the chance to fight for the causes of the public. Of course there are exceptions, just like Mrs Regina IP who had inadvertently stood up yesterday to support the petition. Yet there were only 24 Members and that would not be enough in any case in future. I have been serving the legislature for more than 10 years. In the very beginning, we seldom present petitions. Subsequently, more petitions are presented by us simply because we could see that the situation in Hong Kong is deteriorating. Particularly we could see some crucial events or matters


4325

involving major principles in the course of fighting for the causes of the public, and we will present the petitions. Nevertheless, after this book of Rules of Procedure is amended, it will no longer be impartial. It will only benefit the ones who amend it. Regardless of Members from the opposition camp or the pro-establishment camp, we should think about it. Actually, the power of the pro-establishment camp will expand after the amendments are passed. They can present petitions, but we are unable to do so because we are the minority. Even if we are lucky enough in March―hopefully the public will support us―when pro-democracy Members take the six vacant seats of the Legislative Council, we are still outnumbered and therefore unable to do that. In this circumstance, have we become a better or a worse legislature? As far as the two propositions are concerned: Your counter-filibuster tactic is not working; the alleged efficiency is not real efficiency, and yet the effectiveness gets worse. Why should we amend the Rules of Procedure? For that reason, Deputy President, I consider the motion this time around is unnecessary. I will put it in this way: No matter it is a game or a gesture, in any case, it is unnecessary. Nevertheless, I understand that the hostility is so intense in these days that we are taking it personally instead of taking it professionally. That is to say, we are not looking for a peaceful solution. Be it you, or me, we are just the same. Besides making things worse, the amendments to the Rules of Procedure under this circumstance, in my opinion, cannot achieve the objectives I have mentioned just now. Of course, some colleagues have pointed out that the Government is most pleased to see this. Now no one seems to take notice of the Government. But I do not think that is the case. I think the Government is unhappy. In case the Government forgets to communicate with the pro-establishment on a certain issue in future, but 35 Members stand up for the presentation of a petition, then the Government will be in trouble. Is it idea? The nastiest thing in Hong Kong is that a new term of Government will replace a previous term of Government once in every five years. But of course there is a continuity in the policies. Nevertheless, we have not enacted any political party law, and we do not have a ruling party in the legislature. In this case, the result would be more serious if the Rules of Procedure are amended. In case we inadvertently win. If the remotest hypothesis comes true, Members from the pan-democratic camp or the non


pro-establishment camp who represent the majority of public opinions, that is, 55% to 60% of them, as we have done before, win the election in 2020 when the new term of Government takes office, what should the Government do when the majority of Members who are from the pan-democratic camp propose to amend the Rules of Procedure? By that time, we will be very busy in amending this "little red book" again. How can the legislature operate when the rules are under constant changes? This is exactly the problem. However, I also understand that, we refuse to give way to each other in the midst of a political struggle in these days as the hostility is so intense. Nonetheless, we are less fortunate. You will surely win because we are the minority and you are the majority. We have to resort to every means, including the use of a personal alarm, to filibuster. But, in this case, I wish Members should think about it. As to the amendments to the Rules of Procedure this time around, some of the rules are actually really good ones. I have seen some amendments, as Dr Fernando CHEUNG has pointed out, sometimes―I am not being biased in favour of the amendments proposed by non-establishment Members, sometimes the amendments proposed by pro-establishment Members are quite good because certain out-dated rules would be amended. That is quite good. Nevertheless, as to some more controversial issues, such as the petition I have mentioned just now. They have to circumvent the problem because they cannot amend RoP 17(1)/RoP 17(2) or nobody dares to amend RoP 17(2), so they amend the quorum of a committee of the whole Council from 35 Members to 20 Members. This has caused the controversy because it is perhaps unconstitutional. However, I am not a legal expert, therefore I am not going to discuss this issue further in detail. However, in this case, there are certainly different arguments suggesting the proposal of changing the quorum to 20 Members will better prevent meetings being aborted or something else. Members need not worry about that. But at the same time, even a meeting is aborted at 5:00 pm today, the meeting can be resumed by 8:00 am tomorrow morning and Members may come back tomorrow because according to one of your amendments, the President is vested with great power to resume an abortive meeting and invite Members to return to the Council for attending the meeting again. Can it plug all the loopholes? In Mrs Regina IP's words, this can really enhance efficiency, because a meeting can be reconvened and no meeting will be aborted.


4327

Nevertheless, is this a good thing? After the Rules of Procedure are amended, such as reducing the quorum of a committee of the whole Council, we have only achieved the "book value gain", but not any gain in real terms. As a result, we cannot achieve any "anti-filibuster" objective. The fact that the expansion of the President's power is questioned by some colleagues. I am sorry, you are just the one who deputizes for the President. Members have questioned if any conflict of interest is present when the President of the Legislative Council is presiding the Council meeting. They considered that he should not preside the meeting. Have these unnecessary arguments really help the legislature to enhance its efficiency and effectiveness in dealing with its businesses? Can we achieve what the grade 3 kindergarten students asked me during the Guided Educational Tour yesterday, which I can still recall now, namely, how we exercise checks and balances on the Government, how we enact laws and how we approve public expenditure and budgets? Of course, Members will say that as the Financial Secretary will announce his budget in the Legislative Council in February next year, we should amend the rules as soon as possible and we should swiftly endorse it as soon as practicable. That is another story. Lastly, what I try to see is that after speaking on so many controversial issues, actually they will do no good to the entire matter, I mean they will do no good to the "little red book". Do we really need to amend it? For certain beneficial and less controversial issues, it is fine to amend them. Should we put a halt on certain issues that we consider controversial now? Just now Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung has been taking great pains to persuade us, perhaps that is why his hair is turning white. My hair is getting a little bit grey and white. Some Members said that it cannot be stopped, because it has been tabled at the Legislative Council. Members may abstain or to vote whatever, but shall we step back and make way for a compromise? Everything is negotiable in politics. In this Chamber, everything in politics is non-negotiable if we are under intense hostility and everyone is throwing things around. Everything is bundled up and every part is intertwined with others. After this incident, I hope that we should look into ways to make the legislature efficient and effective, or our three objectives or something else. I have used up my 15 minutes, I am going to pass it back to Ms Claudia MO. Thank you.


DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, are you physically fit to speak? MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): No need. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, you mean you need not speak or you can speak? MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I can speak. DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please speak. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): This Council is kind of immoral. This morning I heard the meeting spend a good few minutes discussing a piece of undergarment worn by Mr Paul TSE, debating whether it was a pair of underpants, briefs or swimming briefs. I also saw you grinning from ear to ear, beaming in excitement at that time. Such kind of debasement is hardly imaginable. Of course, this Council is swarmed with Western District "godsons" and "goddaughters" and of course, "god brothers" for sure. As a result, this Council of ours is now confronting with a constitutional crisis, a genuine constitutional crisis. After all, the current situation is actually like that of a triad society: whosoever empowered to handle the rules is the most powerful gang. And what exactly is the most powerful? The wealthiest. And who else can rival the golden egg-layers in Beijing when it comes to money? We say that the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") is now undergoing such amendments that it will even breach the Basic Law in the end. If we apply for a judicial review in order to right the wrong, we run the risk of inviting the National People's Congress ("NPC") to give an interpretation of the Basic Law. Similar precedents do have happened before. When it is found that certain goals are unattainable with the Basic Law, the NPC will be asked to provide an interpretation of the Basic Law and such an interpretation is meant to be final. This kind of authority is nothing but dictatorial. Meanwhile, people keep on


4329

saying filibuster is a hindrance to livelihood development as it impedes funding allocation. Mr Martin LIAO, for instance, has said that livelihood issues are indeed affected by filibuster badly. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) I used to dislike a certain person in this Council, but now I kind of miss him. He comes from a self-proclaimed pro-labour group. He is WONG Kwok-hing, a Member of the last-term Legislative Council, who is affiliated with the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions. He is well-remembered for his luncheon meat speeches. And in the tradition of WONG, I will use luncheon meat as a unit of measurement in this speech. We are now constructing a number of "white elephant" projects, each of which costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Costs of different projects vary but they all come close to a hundred billion dollars. How come these costs go as far as a hundred billion dollars? Overspending is the culprit. The project which makes the least sense to me is the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Hong Kong and the Mainland are already connected by sea, land and air transport, so why must we build the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge despite its serious cost overrun? I would say this is a bridge of the heart which enables China to bond with those Hong Kong people who are unpatriotic or who do not identify themselves as Chinese, it is a bridge that realizes our physical integration directly. But how much has this project overspent? $16.7 billion or one billion cans of luncheon meat. Other overspending projects include the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. We know it perfectly well that this Government is pathetically inadequate and we cannot put all the blame in this regard on the MTR Corporation Limited. The parties concerned are clueless about the number of old foundation piles at the Nam Cheong Station site. All they can do is to remove these piles one by one when building the rail link. Who is going to pay the cost? Taxpayers are to shoulder the sum which amounts to 1.2 billion cans of luncheon meat. The Shatin to Central Link also experiences cost overruns. We understand the antiquities found at the construction site have added to the difficulties in construction. But the overrun shoots up to $17.4 billion and among them, no more than one third of the cost is expended in the relevant archaeological works, as far as I understand. The rest of the construction cost is used on the extremely messy works around Wan Chai North. How many cans of luncheon meat can we trade for this amount? 1.1 billion cans. WONG Kwok-hing, can you hear this? And there also is the West Kowloon Cultural


District. It was once said that its construction cost had earlier been understated deliberately so as to deceive us into approving the project. After the successful deception, the project experiences an overrun of $11.7 billion, or 700 million cans of luncheon meat. All the above figures add up to 4 billion cans of luncheon meat, an amount enough to damage your brain if you have to eat them all. We all loathe cost overruns. But according to their logic, we must carry through the projects once they have commenced. The Hong Kong people, the taxpayers thus have to continue footing the bills. To them, future funding applications can go straight to the Finance Committee for immediate approval, bypassing discussion in the Public Works Subcommittee and the Establishment Subcommittee. How can these people be accountable to the Hong Kong people? Please also bear in mind other projects, and the Hong Kong Palace Museum being one of them. Have the Hong Kong people ever been asked if we want that museum? I will not object if the museum really has to be built. But they, out of the worry that we might refuse to give the green light, jump the gun and ask funding from the Hong Kong Jockey Club instead. Another project is 3RS, the three-runway system. Oh my Lord, it costs hundreds and hundreds of millions, or, a good $150 billion. They are not confident of securing this Council's approval for their funding application and hence turn to other financing sources. It is thought the project would thus have its ties severed with the taxpayers, as taxpayers' money is not used here. But even when the Government is seeking other sources of financing, they are using taxpayers' money anyway and how come the project is unrelated to Hong Kong people? Other smaller projects may have escaped our notice but their construction costs also amount to zillion cans of luncheon meat. Do you still remember the Liantang boundary control point? It is a remote area in the New Territories. The construction cost of that boundary control point quietly overruns the budget by $11.8 billion on the pretence of smooth sailing. You may like to ask Mr Martin LIAO about these repeated allocations, each of which amounts to tens of billions of dollars. The Central-Wan Chai Bypass similarly experiences $8 billion of cost overrun. How can we get the problem fixed? Well, just keep on approving funding applications then. We will be accused of filibustering if we do anything to stall it or criticize it. This is their attitude now. This Council has always been a circus to me as it is not lacking in "godsons", "goddaughters" and "god brothers". And who actually is the circus owner? I cannot say for sure as there are far too many puppets speaking insincerely in this Council. They are most excited whenever underpants, swim


4331

briefs or briefs are mentioned, people sitting over there do find such stuff most amusing. Let us talk about the President first. How did you take that seat? It is all because of this unfair election system. While we get more votes from the electors, you get more supporting votes here. Backed by an adequate amount of votes, you won the presidency without a doubt. And he even dares to say the situation has always been the same. Yet, people did usually find Andrew WONG impartial and respectable. Later, Rita FAN assumed presidency. I was still a full-time journalist at that time and was amazed to see Rita FAN frequently ranked first among the top 10 legislative councillors. In fact, the one who took that seat did not have too much to do. The Secretariat took up most of the work and she only put down her signature on papers to complete the formalities. I then came to realize that one could rise to the top without paying much effort, kept smiling and pretending to be impartial were all she did. But I was also told that was not the reality, the listing actually was not meant to be a ranking of the top 10 Members, it was not meant to be serious. But this is not my concern here. In the last-term, Jasper TSANG was the President. Do you trust Jasper TSANG? I cannot really say I fully trust him, maybe just 10%. But he gave the impression that he was fair and impartial. But was he really fair and impartial inside? No idea. Was he a smiling assassin? No idea. But at least, he put up an impartial front, hypocritically perhaps, as much as he could. The incumbent President is nothing like this. Certain simple requests, if made by the royalists, can surely be approved. Similar requests made by the pro-democracy camp will all be rejected. He told us, "Please sit down", "please sit down" every so often, leaving absolutely no space for negotiation. This is really unacceptable. And stop kidding about the top 10 legislative councillors. The problem is that the President cannot make it to the chart, even when the top 10 chart is not seriously credible. So far, we only have a few Legislative Council Presidents and people can tell which are fair and impartial, they can observe with their eyes. People are sharp-eyed and how can they be prevented from passing on their judgment? The conflicts of roles we see in these Members are numerous and omnipresent. The Deputy President sniggered once she returned to her own seat after taking chair. Is there really no conflict of roles? Is she able to sleep soundly at night after making such a statement? Can she at least compare herself with Jasper TSANG before claiming to be truly fair and impartial?


Among the amendments to the RoP, one of them is on RoP 88(1) which requests the withdrawal of the press and the public from the meeting venue. I was shocked when reading RoP 88(1) for the first time, as the rule should only exist in the last century. What is the purpose of having this rule? Of course there is none. If we do not like such a provision, we should have repealed it altogether so as to prevent such a scenario from presenting itself. But this is not the case. Those extremely despicable royalists and brown-nosers have the nerve to say that the provision is problematic because the consent of the President has to be sought in case the press and the public have to be shooed from meeting venues. So the President is again all-powerful. Since the President is said to be all-powerful, I want to discuss logic with him. The President incessantly denies involving in any role conflict. This is the answer he gives whenever we raise point of order every now and then. This copy of RoP is heavy, not a little red book, but it contains no provision on role conflicts committed by those who take the chair. Therefore, the President is all-powerful. When the President sees no role conflict, there cannot be any role conflict. Period. According to the spirit of the common law, it is true that "what is not disallowed, is allowed". Therefore, he can flex his muscles right in front of us, right? As such a regulating provision is absent from the RoP, he is free to do whatever he likes, wilfully and unruly. And he says at the same time that his decision is final and cannot be subject to any debate. A colleague from the pro-democracy camp has earlier asked why his decision cannot be subject to any debate, as such a word is not found in this book. He acted as though the question had not been raised, he pretended not to have listened to the question and provided no answer. When "not subject to any debate" is not stipulated, we should assume his decision is debatable, right? If it is not disallowed, it is allowed. But this is not the case. The President's outrageous application of double standard defies our imagination. He is betraying Hong Kong and thoroughly imperilling Hong Kong people all the time. He certainly is a decent businessman, why does he do this? I am clueless. But this is a council after all. As a meeting convenor, he bundles several amendments together and forces us to finish debating them in one go, ignoring that some of these amendments are unrelated to others. Then, what is more appalling is that, out of unfathomable spite, he told reporters clearly the relevant amendments must be passed before Christmas. How come we have such a deadline? Why do we have such an urgency to get it done? Having read a lot of books on political public relations, I suspect he was taught to do so and I hope


4333

not by the Secretariat. He must get all these apple-polishing amendments passed before Christmas so as to be accountable to Beijing. First, we will all be happy after returning from the New Year break and can no longer recall what have happened before the holidays, right? Second, in view of the 11 March by-election, he will never let the candidates get hold of any sort of topic or arm themselves with any sort of bomb, so that candidates from the pro-democracy camp cannot make a comeback to this Council. Such self-interestedness is just too conspicuous. When I posed the question to the President, his only reply was "no need to debate, no need to explain" and―period. I have asked the President to explain if there is any role conflict but he says such an explanation is not necessary. This is really unfair. I only have 10% of trust in Jasper TSANG, but 0% in this President. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, with regard to the discussions on the amendments proposed to the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council, I opine that Members from different political parties or with different political views should look at these amendments with a calm mind. The Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council are not immutable, but should be kept abreast of the times and constantly improved and enhanced. If it is considered that some provisions in the Rules of Procedure are unreasonable, or some requirements contained therein would possibly affect the normal operations of the Legislative Council, why not consider making the necessary improvements? This is not the first time we propose amendments to the Rules of Procedure, and I believe this will also not be the last time for us to do so. There is no reason why we should take such amendments as some great scourges, let alone trying to hinder the progress of the meeting by resorting to every possible means to disrupt the order in the Chamber. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair) Deputy President, it seems that when handling the issue, Members from the non-establishment camp are confused with logic, and it is baffling that they are simply contradicting themselves. For example, when Mr Dennis KWOK spoke at the Council meeting held on 30 November, he opined that by proposing


amendments to the Rules of Procedure, Members of the pro-establishment camp would only create more resentment and hatred. In response, I have spoken that day and said that such remarks were really puzzling to me. If the logic of non-establishment Members can be established, and Members of the pro-establishment camp are really creating hatred by seeking to amend the Rules of Procedure, how come non-establishment Members are proposing a number of amendments to the Rules of Procedure at the same time? What makes them so confident that they can criticize Members of the pro-establishment camp like this? Is it not an example of the adoption of double standards? As a matter of fact, a number of amendments have now been proposed by both sides, and this point alone can prove that there is a genuine need to amend the Rules of Procedure. However, I am sure even with the passage of the current amendments proposed by the pro-establishment camp to the Rules of Procedure, it does not necessarily mean that we can eradicate filibustering once and for all, because as pointed out by Mr Dennis KWOK, non-establishment Members (I quote) "will only employ more tricky and more unpredictable tactics which outsmart the previous ones." Indeed, Deputy President, it is easier to destroy than to create. If the non-establishment camp is determined to filibuster, disrupt the order in this legislature and undermine governance of the Government, it would be impossible for us to guard against the influence of such actions. However, we should not be afraid of the endless tricks they play, and should amend the Rules of Procedure if there is a need to do so. Under Article 75 of the Basic Law, the Legislative Council shall formulate the Rules of Procedure on its own in order to fulfil its constitutional responsibility, but they shall not contravene the Basic Law. The Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council absolutely have legislative effect, and there is no reason for Members from the non-establishment camp to query the rulings made by the President. With regard to a total of 12 proposed resolutions moved respectively by 12 Members to amend the Rules of Procedure, as pointed out repeatedly by the President, it has been an established practice of the Legislative Council to adopt a three-step procedure to process proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure. Specifically speaking, the Committee on Rules of Procedure will first deliberate on the amendments proposed, and a report with recommendations will then be submitted to the House Committee, which will


4335

subsequently seek the approval of the President of the Legislative Council for moving the proposed resolutions accordingly for consideration by the Council. When making a ruling, the President will only consider whether the proposed resolutions have undergone the three-step procedure; whether they contravene the Basic Law, the existing legislation or the provisions of the Rules of Procedure; and whether they contain any inaccurate or incomprehensible information. Hence, when the President ruled that the 12 proposed resolutions could be moved, this is obviously not a biased decision made simply on the basis of the identity of their movers, that is, whether they are Members from the pro-establishment or non-establishment Members. As for the 88 amendments proposed by 22 Members subsequently to the proposed resolutions, the President has also adopted a lenient approach and, after giving comprehensive consideration to various factors mentioned above, approved 23 motions involving 54 of these proposed amendments. At the same time, given that all of the 12 proposed resolutions and their amendments are moved on the same subject under Article 75 of the Basic Law to amend the Rules of Procedure, arrangements have been made to debate them together in a joint debate according to the previous practice adopted by this Council to handle resolutions proposed by Members or the Government. It can thus be seen that the rulings made by the President are both legitimate and reasonable. Deputy President, in quite a number of amendments proposed to the Rules of procedure by Members from the non-establishment camp, the matters involved are actually administrative issues. For example, the amendments proposed to RoP 83AA are related to the facilities and resources of the Secretariat, while those proposed to RoP 6(7) are about the manpower deployment of the Secretariat, and instead of amending the Rules of Procedure, such issues should be referred to the Legislative Council Commission. As for the amendments proposed to RoP 2 on the use of sign language, I think we should first endeavour to make sign language an official language, so that it can be justifiably included in the Rules of Procedure. It is a pragmatic approach to use sign language in the Legislative Council now through administrative means. Deputy President, the Legislative Council is now permanently affected by the chaos created by filibustering, and people from all walks of life and different sectors will ultimately be the victims, since filibustering has seriously hampered economic development, the implementation of infrastructural projects, land


development and the supply of housing, as well as the introduction of measures to tackle numerous social and livelihood problems. As justice naturally exists in the hearts of the people, members of the public understand very well what is going on when they are witnessing all these. According to the survey results published recently by the Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of the Chinese University of Hong Kong, 53.2% of the respondents agree that filibustering has undermined governance of the Government and slowed down the pace of social development in Hong Kong, while only 19.8% of the respondents disagree. With regard to the suggestion of preventing filibustering by amending the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council, 49.4% of the respondents support such an idea, while only 30.1% of the respondents disagree. It is also worth noting that with regard to the actions taken earlier by non-establishment Members to filibuster on the motion relating to the co-location arrangement, 58.6% of the respondents has clearly expressed disagreement, significantly surpassing the support rate of 22.2% among respondents. It can thus be seen that public attitude towards the filibustering acts of non-establishment Members is very clear. The President has once pointed out that what Members say in this Chamber is not necessarily correct, but how can we confuse the public about some basic knowledge and information? For example, a number of non-establishment Members have employed sophistry in their speech and argued that it would only take a very short time for presenting a petition in a Council meeting and requesting its referral to a select committee by 20 Members who rise in their places, and this should not be regarded as filibustering. However, as we all know, considerable time, manpower and public financial resources will be required to set up a select committee after a petition has been presented, and we should therefore guard against possible abusive use of the arrangements for the presentation of petitions. For this purpose, Mr Martin LIAO proposes to amend RoP 20(6) to the effect that a petition shall stand referred to a select committee if not less than one half of all Members of the Council have so requested, because we really need to adopt a prudent and cautious approach when handling requests for setting up a select committee to launch an inquiry. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)


4337

President, there is a great deal of nonsense in the speeches delivered by non-establishment Members in this Chamber, and they have used extremely vulgar terms to recklessly attack and maliciously provoke Members of the pro-establishment camp. It serves only to reflect the poor performance of these non-establishment Members in policy discussions, and I do not bother to refute their arguments one by one. However, there are something seriously wrong with the wordings they have used, and in order not to mislead the public, especially students, I consider it necessary for me to point them out here. I will not name anyone, but it is wrong to say "曠持日久", and the correct term should be "曠日持久" (meaning that something have protracted for a long time), which is an idiom originated from Stratagems of the Warring States. It is wrong to pronounce the character "樂" in the term "禮樂" (meaning rites and music) in Cantonese as "lok6", and the correct pronunciation should be "ngok6". The source of the classical arts of rites and music can be traced back to the Dynasties of Xia and Shang, and the etiquette system of rites and music was established by the Duke of Zhou at the beginning of the Zhou Dynasty. The six classical arts of rites, music, archery, charioteering, calligraphy or literacy, mathematics or reckoning were later promoted in the Western Zhou Dynasty, and these are matters of common knowledge that we all know. I may as well spend a little time clarifying and explaining these terms here, lest the general public and fellow students might mistakenly think that all Members in this Council are ignorant and incompetent people. President, I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fellow Members, I have left the Chamber just now to watch a playback of the video recording of the meeting. When the Deputy President took the chair more than an hour ago, Mr SHIU Ka-chun activated a sound device while speaking, and the Deputy President ordered Mr SHIU to switch off the device. Subsequently, a few Members started throwing and catching another sound device among them, and some security personnel have tumbled and sustained slight injury in the course of dealing with the situation. I hereby appeal to all Members: As experts of the Rules of Procedure, you may have dissenting views on the amendments proposed to the Rules of Procedure, but please try to set good examples for the community. Besides,


Members have to bear consequences and responsibility for what they have done, and they should also avoid causing injury to staff members of the Secretariat, security personnel in particular. We have indeed got well prepared for what may occur in the Chamber, including the fainting of Members, and have therefore made the necessary arrangements in advance. Hence, Members may notice that a wheelchair has been timely delivered to the Chamber by staff members of the Secretariat, and other apparatus such as cardiac pacemaker are also available. Will Members please safeguard the dignity of the legislature, and continue to discuss everything on its own merits. Mr HO Kai-ming, please speak. (Mr KWONG Chun-yu stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Kai-ming, please hold on. Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point? MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. I hope you can enlighten me on this. Not too long ago, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok told Members not to speak irresponsibly. The President, however, told us a moment ago "not to set a good example". Was the President actually trying to say "not to defy the rules" instead? Thank you, President. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I made it perfectly clear just now. And what you have raised is not a point of order. Please sit down. Mr HO Kai-ming, please speak. MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, this is the quality of our colleagues. If possible, I would ask the cameraman to take a panoramic view of the whole Chamber to see who the lazy bones in this Council are. At present, there is only one Member from the pan-democratic camp … or two Members


4339

rather. For the opposition camp, there are only two Members here … well, there are three Members. Thank you for telling me that you are here. There are only three Members from the opposition camp in this Chamber. So who are wasting public money belonged to the Hong Kong people? President, a few days ago, I read a so-called digest online concerning the amendments to the Rules of Procedure. After reading it, I cannot help making a response here because there are too many unfounded allegations. Why did I say that? It is said in the digest that the pro-establishment camp is full of lazy bones. Why would it say that? Let me look at its description. A professional group, which is in support of the pan-democratic camp, has made a digest on the amendments to the Rules of Procedure. In regard to the amendment which is proposed to reduce the quorum of a committee of the whole Council from 35 members to 20 members, we see the following description, "The most fundamental responsibility of a Member is to attend meetings. It is unfortunate that the low meeting attendance rates of Members from the royalist camp form the main reason for the abortion of meetings from time to time. In order to fool the people, they propose to reduce the quorum of a meeting, and this is exactly putting the cart before the horse." President, I really think that this description is putting the cart before the horse and is full of blatant distortions. I would like to ask the cameraman to take a panoramic view of the whole Chamber again. I think at present, there are only three non-establishment Members in this Chamber. If it is really due to our laziness and low attendance rates that the meetings were often aborted, we have nothing to say. But now let us have a look. Who are the people who have low attendance rates? For those members of the public who have been following the business of our Council, they may recall that at the two meetings which were finally aborted, the attendance rate of the pro-establishment camp was actually over 80%. Despite our efforts, they were aborted at the end. But at these meetings, the attendance rate of the non-establishment camp and the opposition camp was only 0%. There was a time when only Mr KWONG Chun-yu from the opposition camp was present, accounting for only a few percentage points in the attendance rate. When we have the attendance rate of 80% but are regarded as lazy, we are really speechless. If the other party with an attendance rate of 0% are not regarded as having low attendance rate, I truly do not know what to say. Hence, I think the eyes of the general public are more discerning than those of the professionals, and the former can see who the lazy bones of Hong Kong are.


President, our predecessors have taught us that as Members, we should give a reasonable, sensible and legal consideration to everything we do. In fact, it is really not going too far by asking 35 Members among the 70 Members to be present in the Chamber. But on second thought, it is really difficult to count these paid but absent Members in that group of 70 Members. We can only have 41 Members present in the Chamber at the most. If 35 out of 40 Members are required to be present to form a quorum, the percentage is really high. We thus could not stop the meeting from being aborted sometimes. Therefore, given the situation that the opposition camp is paid but always absent from meetings, we actually have no other alternatives but to propose lowering the quorum of a committee of the whole Council from 35 members to 20 members. If the eyes of the public are discerning, I believe that they will also ask to revise the attendance rate in order to prevent the paid but absent opposition camp from acting on its own will in this Council. Another page of the digest mentions the debate on shortening the ringing of the division bell. The digest says, "A Member is returned by his electors to represent and speak for them in the Council, and the Council system basically manifests democracy. Through the amendment to streamline the voting procedures, the royalist camp destroys the system by silencing all the voices, thus condoning the Government to act wilfully." This is another unfounded allegation which cannot be untold. I would like to compare this with a rather common situation, the situation which Sister Ann always faces. Every day before dinner time, she will surely ask her son playing in the garden to come back, "Son, it is dinner time." She will allow him five minutes to come back. But when her son comes back, he may be asked to do this or that, like washing his hands before he can sit down. However, one day, before sitting down to have dinner, her son spoke to his mother, "Mommy, I need 15 minutes to discuss whether I should sit down immediately." I believe that Sister Ann would yell at him right away, asking him to sit down and have dinner, and there would be no more discussion, right? Hence, this amendment of shortening the ringing of the division bell is just like the case of a mother asking her son to have dinner and a prior discussion is unnecessary. It is unnecessary to spend any time discussing such questions. I think all members of the public will be just like Sister Ann and will not let this happen. One of the amendments proposed by Mr Martin LIAO is about whether the question on the motion to shorten the ringing of the division bell from five minutes to one minute shall be put without debate by Members.


4341

President and members of the public in Hong Kong, the debate on the ringing of the division bell does not actually involve narrowing the freedom of speech, as it has no impact on the discussion of the main topic. In fact, all the excuses for retaining the debate are excuses for filibustering. President, there are only 52 weeks in a year and in fact, there are not many 52 weeks in our lives. Therefore, I hope that Members and the pubic in Hong Kong will treasure our time as well as Hong Kong. I support Mr Martin LIAO's amendments. Thank you, President. MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the current exercise of amending the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") initiated by the pro-establishment camp is based on the collective decision made by 38 Members of this Council instead of one single person or a handful of people only. Initially, it was me and Mr CHAN Hak-kan who, as its members, submitted to the Committee on Rules of Procedure the proposed amendments to the RoP on behalf of the pro-establishment Members. We pointed out in our submission that the purpose of amending the RoP is to ensure that the Legislative Council and its panels/committees will be able to deal with the council business smoothly while uphold the dignity and integrity of this Council. Before proceeding to elaborate on the contents of the amendments, I will first represent the Liberal Party to express our views concerning the current amendment exercise. The Liberal Party supports the amending motions currently moved by the pro-establishment Members as we trust that, in proposing such amendments, they have struck a reasonable and appropriate balance between safeguarding Members' right of speech and enabling them to perform their functions effectively. We also trust that the such proposed amendments will be conducive to improving the operation of this Council as well as its ability of dealing with the problem of abuse of procedure by Members, thereby steering the Council to return to the right track. It must be borne in mind that filibustering tactics can only cause procrastination but will neither be able to prevent the Council proceedings from taking place nor remove any funding application submitted to this Council. Filibustering scheme was first introduced to this Council by those radical Members back then in 2011 which has since been increasingly rife with filibusters. In the past, filibustering was only present at Finance Committee meetings or Council meetings, but now it is applied by Members in almost all the


meetings purely for the purpose of procrastination, including meetings of Panels, Bills Committees and Subcommittees on Subsidiary Legislation. Consequently, the progress of meeting has nearly become out of control. Time is money. For example, I took over the chair of the Finance Committee in the 2014-2015 legislative session and had to handle numerous stand-over funding applications of the previous session during the first three months. All such funding applications were eventually approved, but since they were dealt with after being delayed for one whole year, our taxpayers have to pay an additional sum of $2.8 billion in the end. Over the past, quite a number of bodies relayed to the Liberal Party that the problem of filibustering in the Legislative Council has been gradually taking its toll on Hong Kong's entire community. A number of bills, such as the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill 2016 of which passage was aborted due to the various filibuster tricks employed by a Legislative Council Member representing doctors, have to be tabled afresh this year. Besides, problems associated with delay in public works projects have kept emerging as caused by filibustering during meetings of the Finance Committee, thus resulting in a serious blow to the livelihood of those engineers having engaged in advance work planning. According to members of the relevant sector, the amount of advance work has reduced drastically due to the slowdown in the progress of the new project works approved in recent years. This has scared off the new blood or those young engineers aspiring to enter the field who then turned to take up other jobs or simply switched to other industries and pursued further studies. Judging from this, we can foresee the succession problem of engineers in future and the sustainability of the local engineering sector will be undermined. The work progress of the Legislative Council was greatly obstructed and there has been a huge backlog of work to do. And with the negative impacts surfaced gradually, it is impossible to make timely improvements to the economy as well as people's livelihood which has in turn harmed Hong Kong's vigour. People may think that the Liberal Party supports the current amendments because its members have no other choice or find the situation intolerable. We understand that Members have different calls to make and have no intention to steamroller anyone. However, when filibustering has become the norm where the time of this Council has been wasted on incessant ringing of quorum bell and repetition of questions by Members, it will be the Hong Kong citizens to suffer in the end. Therefore, it is necessary to strike a balance.


4343

Members of the pro-establishment camp proposed a number of amendments which can be broadly divided into eight categories. My following speech mainly focuses on issues such as expressly stipulating the discretionary power exercised by the President of the Legislative Council in allowing Members to move amendments, rationalizing the various procedures for the prevention of abuse of procedure, and deterring Members from behaving disorderly during Council meetings and meetings of Panels and Committees. President, as we all know, the fact that some Members have proposed thousands of amendments to the Appropriation Bill in recent years has become a major challenge facing the President of this Council. During the period from 2013 to 2017, the President of this Council ruled that a large number of such amendments moved were frivolous or meaningless of the RoP, in contravention of RoP 57(4)(d). In making the ruling, the President of the Legislative Council still had to conduct an overall examination of the proposed amendments to consider if those amendments were frivolous or meaningless. This had indeed cost this Council a great deal of time, manpower and resources. Despite that the existing RoP 57(4)(d) may be applied in dealing with such large number of amendments, it has its own limitations because sometimes it will be difficult to decide on reasonable grounds if an amendment is frivolous or meaningless. And so, it is better for this Council to decide, in accordance with a set of across-the-board criteria, whether amendments to a bill or motion are allowed. Therefore, the pro-establishment camp opines that there should be provisions in the RoP made in accordance with a crucial principle that the President is under a constitutional duty to ensure the orderly, efficient and fair conduct of business by the Legislative Council on the one hand and that the President should be given the power to select amendments on the other. In fact, presiding officers of legislatures in overseas jurisdictions are given the above selection power. By virtue of the newly added provisions, the President will be able to select the most effective ones from among those motions or proposed amendments moved for the same purpose and return the unselected ones to Members. This will help avoid repeated motions or amendments. In case Members moved numerous amendments in respect of the same or similar subject being dealt with, the President can pick out the more effectively and properly drafted motions or amendments for debate and voting by Members at the meeting.


We are also of the view that the President of this Council or the Chairman in committee of the whole Council should be empowered to give directions for a joint debate on two or more amending motions/amendments similar in nature moved by the same Member and putting to vote together those amending motions/amendments. In addition, we propose to amend the RoP to the effect that the President/Chairman has the power of disapproving of a Member's moving a series of two or more amendments which he considers frivolous or meaningless. Such a proposed amendment reflects the practical examples previously set by the Presidents of this Council in their rulings and we are just seeking to expressly stipulate in the provisions the relevant procedures taken. Regarding the various procedures aiming at rationalizing the prevention of abuse of procedure, the pro-establishment camp wishes to deal with the problem of Members' abusing adjournment of debate or proceedings of the Council. We must note that Rule 40(3) of the existing Rules of Procedure ensures that when a motion that the debate be now adjourned has been negatived, no further motion that the debate be now adjourned shall be moved during that debate, but as to the proceedings of a committee of the whole Council of the Legislative Council, RoP 40(4) does not stipulate such an arrangement. Yet, there were precedents in the past where the Chairman of the committee of the whole Council ruled that some Member was not allowed to move the same motion after a motion that the proceedings of the committee of the whole Council be adjourned had been negative. Although it is not expressly provided for in the RoP, the President of the Legislative Council has, like some of the presiding officers of the parliaments in some foreign countries, the power to disallow the same adjournment motions to be moved. However, we also notice one thing, that is, when the presiding officers of the parliaments in these foreign countries are of the opinion that the moving of the adjournment of proceedings is an abuse of procedure, they may immediately put the question forthwith. Therefore, we propose to amend RoP 40(4) to the effect that the where the President/Chairman is of the opinion that the moving of a dilatory motion is an abuse of procedure, he has the power of not to propose the question or to put the question forthwith without debate in order to deal effectively with dilatory motions.


4345

President, RoP 38(3) is another procedure that may be abused, which provides that a Member who has spoken on a question may again be heard to explain some part of his speech which has been misunderstood. To avoid possible misunderstanding by Members who think they are allowed to speak more than once, we propose to amend the rule by stating in express terms that Members can speak on the misunderstood part of whose speech only. Another headache for this Council being the frequent abuse of motions moved under RoP 49 to shorten the duration of the ringing of division bell. Some Members attempted to manipulate the motion for provoking discussions. Actually, the motion to shorten the duration of bell-ringing is a procedural motion for which no debate is required. To save the Council's time, pro-establishment Members propose to amend RoP 49(4) and RoP 49(6) to the effect that once such a motion is moved, the President/Chairman shall immediately proceed to put a question in respect of the motion which should then be put to a vote. Concerning the order in Council and Committee, Members of the pro-establishment camp are of the view that there is an urgent need to extend the scope of application of RoP 45(1) covering standing committees and select committees to include all Panels/Committees. For example, the House Committee is neither a standing committee nor a select committee, which acts as a forum for all Members of this Council, except the President, to exchange views on issues of different areas. However, it will be rather difficult for the Chairman of the House Committee to chair meetings effectively when a Member persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition of his own or other Members' arguments in the debate and yet the Chairman does not have the power to direct him to discontinue his speech. In that case, the only thing that the Chairman can do is to order that Member to withdraw immediately from the meeting. Nevertheless, it seems unreasonable to treat every case by taking this same action regardless of how serious the case is. President, referring to the elaboration above, Members should understand that in proposing the amendments, Members of the pro-establishment camp have already drawn reference from the practices adopted by parliaments of foreign countries in addressing similar issues. As a matter of fact, many of the rules in the RoP still in use in this Council today are adopted from those previously used in the British Parliament. However, the rules of procedure of the British Parliament had already been drastically revamped to enhance proceedings of the


Parliament and deal with filibusters. On the contrary, only minor amendments were introduced to the RoP of this Council over the years and quite a lot of the rules have become out of date. Actually, the amendments proposed by Members of the pro-establishment camp are only minor ones and should be acceptable. We never expect that the amendments proposed this time are meant to prevent filibustering by the pan-democrats. In fact, it is really hard to curb thoroughly their filibuster schemes which may be implemented in many different ways. Just as some Members belonging to the pan-democratic camp have remarked on various occasions, even if the amendments currently proposed by Members of the pro-establishment camp have successfully gained passage, they will not be able to completely stop them from continuing to filibuster at meetings. If so, why do they have to fear then? We must understand that members of the public are absolutely demanding of the Legislative Council who expect this Council to exercise its power conferred by the constitution and law to ensure expeditious implementation and enforcement of proposed legislation and funding applications that have undergone normal proceedings of deliberation. Meanwhile, it should ensure effective and orderly conduct of its meetings. We are just trying our best to meet the reasonable expectations of the public after all. President, I have been sitting in the Chamber for quite a long while listening to the speeches delivered by numerous Members. However, I was offended particularly by their oppressive language that I must express my disgust here. I recall that at least two or three Members have mentioned in their speeches something like "foster son", "foster daughter" and even two other derogatory Chinese expressions which I do not want to repeat simply because I cannot bear it. Those expressions are much too insulting indeed to us as Cantonese. In fact, I opine that using such abusive language at the Council meeting would only serve to disgrace the Legislative Council as a whole. I do not approve of such means taken by the pan-democratic Members, who have been incessantly attempting to pick a quarrel with other Members by saying extremely insulting words today. Nevertheless, I think it is no big deal even though they like to say something insulting. No matter what they say or do today, Members of our side are not going to strike back. If they slap my face on the right, I will let them slap my face on the left as well. This is the approach taken by all Members of our side today. Yet, Members have to think twice if their delivering


4347

speeches in this kind of language will cause the entire Legislative Council to suffer disgrace, in particular when female Members also spoke such abusive language. It is rather disgusting indeed that had embarrassed everyone present in this Chamber. Thank you, President. DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President―well, I just heard that time is up and so … (some Members spoke in their seats) … I still remember that there used to be a Ms XIN, a former member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPC")―Mr WONG Kwok-kin is leaving the Chamber and perhaps he knows who I am referring to―this lady had been a member of the Standing Committee from the first to the eleventh NPC and had never been absent from any session of the Standing Committee over the past 55 years. Besides, she had taken part in each and every voting session by raising her hand and never voted against any decision over the past 55 years. By citing this example, I only wish to make a point here, that is, I actually cannot understand why the issue of Members' attendance is taken by both the pro-establishment Members and pan-democratic Members as … (Mr KWONG Chun-yu stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please hold on, Dr CHENG Chung-tai. Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point? MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please continue with your speech.


DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Questioning in his speech just now why the pro-democratic Members are not present at the seat, Mr HO Kai-ming of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") suggested that a comparison of the attendance rates between the pro-establishment and pan-democratic Members be drawn. This reminds me of a story which, in fact, is the memoir of a former deputy to the NPC. Ms XIN, who is in her eighties now, was a deputy to the Standing Committee of the NPC of the People's Republic of China. She served as a deputy right from the first to the eleventh NPC. She mentioned in her memoir that she had worked for 11 terms at the NPC over the past 55 years during which she had never been absent from any meeting of the NPC. Moreover, she had taken part in each and every voting session of those meetings by raising her hand and had never voted against any decision. The interviewer went on to asked her what impressed her most during her years of service working at the NPC. In response, she emphasized once again that over the past 55 years, she had only voted in favour of NPC's decisions by raising her hand. By citing this story, I wish to make this simple point: Since we are discussing right now the amendments proposed to the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") and so I do not understand why the issue of Members' attendance is taken by both the pan-democratic Members and pro-establishment Members as the bone of contention while accusing each other of being lazy. Neither is this issue the focus of our discussion on the RoP nor is it the major underlying cause leading to the revision of the RoP, but why does everyone have most concern over it then? Before delivering my speech formally, however, I must reiterate once again: Since I have only 15 minutes to speak on the 12 proposed resolutions and 23 amending motions regarding the RoP, I must emphasize once again here that the speaking time of 15 minutes means nothing but an insult to me, to those Members who are present here as representatives of the public, to the entire Legislative Council, and even to the local society as well. Therefore, let me tell you that, Deputy President, I will definitely digress from the subject under debate during my 15-minute speech because I simply cannot comment on the amendments to the RoP one by one. I am so certain that I will not be able to finish commenting on each of the amendment proposed within 15 minutes. Of course, I think I have to deal with several points in the first place. This morning, Mr Martin LIAO mentioned that there are certain reasons for his


4349

moving the some 20 proposed resolutions to amend the RoP. One of the reason, as he stressed, is to enhance the efficiency of this Council by amending the RoP. I do not agree that this Council has to formulate policies or move bills with a view to improve efficiency. Actually, I seldom place emphasis on the efficiency of a parliament/congress when teaching or discussing with my students the theories of policy-making process. Who is responsible for improving efficiency after all? It is the responsibility of the executive branch of the Government because this is precisely what the Government should take care of. Relatively speaking, efficiency is, from the Council's perspective, of secondary importance. To make it clear, it means the legislature tends to be more concerned with the effects of a policy, where the efficiency of policy-making is of less concern to its Members. Let me give a simple example here so that Members will understand my point. Those having served as Members over previous sessions of the Legislative Council may still remember the 2011-2012 Budget prepared by the former Financial Secretary Mr John TSANG back then, under which a sum of $6,000 was intended to be distributed to every single eligible member of the public. Putting aside whether the sum of $6,000 should be distributed or not, the proposed initiative had, if you still remember, triggered controversies in society then because the Financial Secretary originally planned to deposit the $6,000 directly into the MPF (mandatory provident fund) account of each member of the public. During that period, several Members of the Legislative Council, including Mr WONG Yuk-man, Mr Albert CHAN and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, thus proceeded with filibusters at Council meetings for the very first time in opposition to the Government's Budget as they queried why the Financial Secretary did not directly distribute cash to the public. Eventually, the Government changed its mind and distributed $6,000 to each citizen instead. Afterwards, former Legislative Council Member Mr WONG Kwok-hing of the FTU came out and told the media reporters that our Government would really listen to and act in accordance with public opinion. This case tells us that this Council has to take into consideration the effect of a policy, that means we have to focus on whether policy implementation by the Government is in answer to the calls of the public. Therefore, as far as the case of the 2011 Budget is concerned, when only the efficiency issue is taken into account and nothing else in considering the Government's Budget and which is finally approved solely on account of efficiency, no one will benefit except those institutions managing MPF, such as fund management companies. This is a very simple example but


is good enough to help illustrate that we the pan-democratic Members have to make use of filibustering or various means in order to cause delays to meetings as there are no alternatives that can serve our purposes. People may consider us to be too shameful for having to resort to such means. However, we have to act so dishonourably all because the Government's failing to answer to the genuine calls of the public after all. Of course, you can accuse them of filibustering in such a despicable manner and even speak of their acts by using all sorts of vulgar terms, but in no sense should the RoP be amended to block filibustering since the effect of a policy is the most important of all. (THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair) Well, Members can certainly discuss the issue of efficiency in terms of the entire political system which has been mentioned by some Members just now. We can discuss the efficiency of the political system. The most efficient political system is monarchy, of course, Deputy President. Who do not wish to go back to the Qing Dynasty―well, the Qing Dynasty is far too close to the modern age. Shall we talk about the Middle Ages then? The Middle Ages was an era that saw the integration of the church and the state. During the medieval period, Pope Gregory IX came up with quite an interesting idea and created The Inquisition (i.e. a judicial procedure and later an institution similar to a court that was established by the papacy). Any person or Member present here who is a Christian should know that governance in those days was highly efficient. And what would happen to those people who were regarded as heretics or witches―it seems that both Mr Jeremy TAM and Dr Junius HO are Christians―it is so simple. They would be burnt alive to death right outside the court. This approach was very efficient indeed. Deputy President, just imagine and you will be very happy, right? You can burn any person to death in a very efficient manner if he dares to voice opposition. This is very similar to our present situation at this Council in which you can disallow me to speak, except that you will definitely not take away my life. However―what did you say, Dr Junius HO? Those are pieces of historical information. I can find out the book and give it to you if you want to read it. If you do not like it, I can provide another example―it was Pope Gregory IX, OK? I know you are a Christian and you are afraid of being burnt to death. This day may come and you will see on the day of judgment. That day will come, OK?


4351

Alright, stop disturbing me. Let me get back to our topic. My purpose of citing these examples is to illustrate a fact: The most efficient political system is either the monarchy or the integration of the church and the state specific of the medieval time. Am I right, Deputy President? Given this fact, however, why should we not place efficiency on the top of the agenda or even take it as the only priority in the entire social governance today? The reason is, we must also take into account other values since it is incumbent upon the Government to, in respect of the long-term development of our society, consider ways for safeguarding the most basic rights of every citizen irrespective of their backgrounds or origins, where the disadvantaged groups will be taken care of and have equal development opportunities. This is the most basic concept of modern democratic system of government. I believe everyone is also very clear about this. Therefore, Mr Martin LIAO's argument of enhancing the efficiency of the proceedings of the Council which he put forth at the beginning of his speech is totally unreasonable and out of date. We are not living in the medieval time during which people would be burnt to death for no cause. In those days, when people did not see eye to eye with one another, they would regard the other parties as heretics and were ready to take away one other's lives at any time. Yet, we are not in the Middle Ages now. The second point, as also mentioned by other Members just now, is about abuse of procedure. Actually, however, the RoP do not provide any elaboration on abuse of procedure. How to judge whether Members have abused the procedure then? This is neither decided by Deputy President nor myself, but instead, judgment should be made by each and every voter who had voted for us as to whether we have performed in compliance with the RoP, social norms and laws of Hong Kong, and whether we have met their expectations as well. Of course, people may have the impression that some Members seemed to have abused the procedure as those Members are not subject to scrutiny by voters under the abnormal system in Hong Kong. This is a correct perception because judging from their point of view, those Members do not have to consider whether their actions will incur any consequences as long as they are not subject to scrutiny by voters. Yet, Members like Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen are in a totally different situation. They have to ponder if their actions involve any abuse of procedure since their performance will be evaluated by their voters instead of President Mr Andrew LEUNG. In case they do not do things right, their voters will not give them their votes in the next election.


Nevertheless, in our current situation, the RoP will have to be amended because the President considers that Members on our side have abused the procedure and we strongly oppose this. In fact, he is not in a position to evaluate if we have abused the procedure or not. Thus, I hope Members will understand that neither the issue of efficiency nor prevention of abuse of procedure can reasonably justify the current act of seeking to amend the RoP. As to the third point which concerns "dictatorship by a handful of people", it sounds even more absurd. At the beginning of his speech, Mr Martin LIAO mentioned the present situation in which the RoP is manipulated by pan-democratic Members to exercise "dictatorship by a handful of people". If you ask me about my interpretation of "dictatorship by a handful of people", well, there is an example directly related to this, that is, today's Communist Party of the People's Republic of China, which rules a nation with a population of 1.3 billion under its oligarchic governance structure consisting only nine members in its Politburo Standing Committee. This is what a "dictatorship by a handful of people" is supposed to be, which is known as "oligarchy". However, this is dissimilar to the case of this Council and I think the analogy drawn by Mr Martin LIAO this morning is inaccurate. Thus, I am not going to elaborate on this. I would like to make a consolidated response to the above three points. When it is the effect instead of efficiency of this Council is in question, then some of the directions suggested by the pan-democratic Members are actually correct. For example, Mr Alvin YEUNG has raised the point that before adding into the RoP some specific contents concerning proceedings not yet expressly provided for, we should first consult the Committee on Rules of Procedure to proceed with discussions. By doing so, the Legislative Council will move towards answering the public's calls in a more effective manner. Therefore, I concur with him on this point. In addition, as proposed by Mr Fernando CHEUNG, it will be very ideal if the Chairman of the House Committee and the President of the Legislative Council are both Members returned by geographical constituencies in the Legislative Council election because this will enable the Legislative Council to answer the public's calls in a more effective manner. And I think the points raised by these two Members which are now under discussion in relation to the RoP have indeed added some meaning to my 15-minute speech. What I mean is, the room to make rational speeches that we have faith in―well, the way I put it now was also present in Mr Martin LIAO's speech of this morning―is not simply taken as a matter of the Council's order of business.


4353

Deputy President, perhaps you are also aware that Members' seats in this Chamber are very clumsy which allow only backward and forward movements but not leftward and rightward movements. The seats are arranged in a very orderly fashion that look so neat and tidy, yet we do not feel comfortable sitting on them. Deputy President, why are our seats fixed onto the floor and immovable? I have consulted relevant staff of the Secretariat in this connection and learned that the seats are fixed for fear that some Members may lift their seats and then throw them out. This arrangement was made upon the Legislative Council's moving in to the new complex which is different from the setting in the former Legislative Council building. And why is this so then? It is because of the worry that Members may throw their seats out according to the Secretariat's reply, right? By rational speeches, however, I am referring to something beyond the so-called order of this kind. I hope Members do understand what I mean. Therefore, we are actually referring to one thing when talking about the rational order in a legislature, that is, in this Council, we trust in a rational process that comprises procedures of giving evidence, questioning, disproving and verification of fact and apply what we have learned therefrom to improve our policies. We call this "rational policy-making process". However, given that the present Legislative Council has reduced to a place where benefits are doled out blatantly to people, it will even become a place for people to receive their share of benefits if amendments to the RoP are approved later on. In this connection, I will bring out one point only. In amending the RoP, the technology content involved is not that high―to use a term from the Mainland―and in fact, Members will no longer be required to sit in this Chamber. The system of representative government will be replaced by meritocracy, and meritocracy will then give way to a peasant economy, where Members' roles will be similar to that of the deputies to the NPC, just like the Ms XIN whom I have mentioned in the opening of my speech―we Members will no longer be required to sit in the Chamber. Hence, while Members on our side are removed from office, Members on your side will be also removed as well. This explains why Mr WU Chi-wai has remarked that all Members will be expelled altogether in the end (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Your speaking time is up, Dr CHENG.


DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, with quite a heavy heart, I give my views on the proposed amendments to RoP. In the current-term Legislative Council, a total of six colleagues have been disqualified, or "DQ", the largest number of Members being disqualified since the establishment of the Special Administrative Region. We have worked with four of the DQ Members in this Chamber for nine months. Irrespective of their political stances, I would first consider whether they have performed their duties as Members. They have debated on motions and scrutinized bills on behalf of their several hundred thousand voters. I would like say a few words about this DQ incident from an independent and neutral standpoint. In the last meeting of the House Committee, quite a number of Members said the DQ Members only had themselves to blame because they were the very makers of the trouble during the oath taking. Some other Members, however, thought that the President has already ruled the validity of the oath-taking of the four Members and allowed them to serve as Members for nine months. They were disqualified by the court only after the Government filed a lawsuit to challenge the validity of their membership and sought the interpretation of the Basic Law by the National People's Congress. Following the disqualification, the Legislative Council Commission had to ask the DQ Members for refund of their salaries and remunerations totalling $2 million to $3 million. This refund request, while with the legal backing, is not reasonable and justifiable. In particular, the President's confirmation of the validity of the votes casted by DQ Members' does somewhat acknowledge the work of the DQ Members in the Legislative Council over the past nine months. How come the toil is without wage? As a wage earner, I do not understand why axed employees will have to refund all their salaries and also bear the expenses of the whole offices. I am so confused that I cannot help but have a Confused Nick Young expression on my face. I have given a detailed account of the DQ incident not because I wish to digress from the subject matter, but because the disqualification of so many Members and the democratic camp's subsequent loss of the veto power in the geographical direct election group under the separate voting system is the trigger of the proposals to amend RoP. In this respect, please bear with me for reiterating the powers and functions of Members under the Basic Law. Among others, the main duties of Members are to monitor the Government's work, approve bills, as well as examine and approve Government expenditure. In the process, Members have to raise questions and carry out discussion in detail. Hence, RoP needs to give Members sufficient time to freely debate on bills during the scrutiny. Members will have to seek clarifications from the


4355

Government for any ambiguities and point out deficiencies of the proposed bills. They will need time to put forward amendments to bills and to propose motions. These are the very rights and duties of Members. Indeed, the filibuster tactic is not a monopoly of Members of a particular camp. In my first-year career as Member, I have witnessed some Members employing the tactic of filibustering. Yet, during the respective debates on the regulation of medical devices and the coverage of health warning for soft pack cigarettes, I have also seen some other Members representing the relevant industries who are very concerned about the issues skilfully filibustering, in their joint efforts to press for concessions from the Government. The Government eventually gave in. In the process, I understand that different Members are actually representing the interests of different people and voters, and I think it is just normal for us to negotiate with the Government for concession. Despite securing the support of the largest number of voters, the pan-democrats are a minority in the Legislative Council under the existing mechanism. In terms of the number of headcounts or votes, they are set to lose out in the voting. When they face some controversial bills or topics, the pan-democrats can only resort to filibustering because they understand they will definitely lose out in the voting. But if they go too far, they will come under criticism by not only other Members but also the voters who will naturally take this into consideration in their choices in the next election. The proposals to amend RoP are actually triggered by the disqualification of several democratic Members and the subsequent loss of their veto power in the geographical direct election group under the separate voting system. Hence, the amendments will further restrict Members' power to propose motions to a certain degree, and is thus rather controversial. Actually, whether the President of the Council or chairman of any committee, they are already given extensive powers under the Basic Law and RoP. They can limit the speaking time of Members and the number of times Members can speak as well. Although Members can dispute such decisions, they have to yield to the orders finally; otherwise they will be expelled from the meeting rooms. No matter how they filibuster, the democratic Members who are always a minority in the Council simply cannot thwart the passage of motions or bills. Should the Council President or any committee Chairman be impatient with the procrastination, they have various kinds of "imperial sword" in hands to cut off the filibusters. Hence, there is no need to amend RoP to restrict Members' power of debating on policies.


During the respective motion debates on the Replacement Mechanism and the Budget in 2012 and 2013, former President Jasper TSANG incited Rule 92 of RoP to cut off the filibusters. In response to the cloture, then Member Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung filed a judicial review, but the Court of Final Appeal ruled that the President had the power to impose restrictions on and put an end to debates. The court ruling further establishes the power of the President to cut off filibusters. When commented on the controversies over the current RoP amendments, TSANG did not expect any real winner in the issue as the proposal, if passed, is of little use in stopping the pursuit of filibusters. Another former President Andrew WONG took another perspective as he said in an interview that if it was for stopping filibusters, there was actually no need to introduce amendments. According to him, the crux is whether the President can use a proper yardstick for chairing Council meetings. The President has to take a tough line in some occasions, especially in respect of procedural motions for which he can strictly limit Members' speaking time, or he can even draw the line and then put the motions to vote. In his view, the crux is rather the yardstick of the President for chairing meetings than possible loopholes in RoP. I very much agree with this. I observe that when compared with his predecessors, the President of this term has taken a tougher line in response to the more frequent filibustering of pan-democrats. In other words, the President already has sufficient power to ensure the orderly conduct of Council meetings. In the process of amending RoP this time, we can also see how powerful the President is. As I pointed out in the last House Committee meeting, the proposal to lower the quorum of a committee of the whole Council from not less than one half of all its members to 20 members including the Chairman might contravene Article 75 of the Basic Law. The Secretariat has indeed reminded us of the risk, while the Government has also dismissed any room for discussion for issues in contravention with the Basic Law. However, the President simple turned a deaf ear to the diverse legal opinions and referred to the parliamentary rules of the United Kingdom and the United States instead to permit the Member to put forward such a controversial amendment. This decision is unjustifiable and may contravene the Basic Law. It is really strange for the President to use the parliamentary rules of the two countries as examples or references. The President used the examples of overseas countries to prove that he had the power to permit the submission of this amendment. However, when Members proposed amendments in a bid to clarify the power of the President, he


4357

said the relevant amendments would restrict the power of the President under Article 72 of the Basic Law, and thus ruled any Members' proposals in contravention with the Basic Law inadmissible. This is a good demonstration of his possession of real power. RoP has actually granted the President and chairman of any committee immense powers. Here are some examples of proposed amendments to RoP. The President or the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council shall have the power to direct two motions or amendments considered by him to be cognate to be combined. Regarding the right of a Member to move without notice that further proceedings of the committee be now adjourned, it is proposed to be amended as where the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council is of the opinion that this is an abuse of procedure, he may decide not to propose the question or to put the question forthwith without debate. Another example is the proposal that the President, the Chairman of a committee of the whole Council or the chairman of any committee, after having called the attention of the Council or the committee to the conduct of a Member who persists in irrelevance or repetition of his own or other Members' arguments in the debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech. I wish to point out that it is also not uncommon for the Government to persistently repeat its answer in response to our questions. Is it possible that we also ban the repetition of answers on the part of the Government? Actually, I am not against the Government's reiterating its position, as I think it is rather reciprocal. On the presentation of petitions, in order for a petition to be referred to the House Committee, we now need one half of all Members of the Council to rise in their places, increased from 20 Members currently. In respect of Members' right to move without notice a motion during the Second Reading of bills, it is proposed that Members can do so only with the consent of the President. These amendments actually seek to further increase the power of the President or reduce the power of Members to debate on policies. I thus could not support these amendments. I wish to reiterate here that the role of the Legislative Council is to monitor the Government's work, not to coordinate with its governance. By restricting the power of Members to debate on policies, the proposals precisely seek to undermine our ability to monitor the Government. Under the current rules, the President already had tremendous power in hands as he can ban Members from speaking or proposing motions wherever he deems necessary. If someone seeks to take advantage of the pan-democrats' losing of some seats to amend RoP, even though the RoP is successfully revised as proposed, this is essentially inglorious.


Actually, the two camps once attempted to negotiate for a solution but the effort was in vain. I think the best way is for the two camps to sit down and fully discuss the matter, and any amendments to RoP should be proposed only after they can reach some sort of consensus. The submission of amendments to RoP to the inharmonious Council will further tear society apart, defeating public expectations. The arbitrary amendments to RoP will only stifle any chance of compromise. How can the Council continue to operate under this circumstance? What benefits the general public can get from this? To finish my speech, I wish to quote the words of the two former Presidents. I hope the President and Members would stop for a while and consider their advices. Former President Jasper TSANG has said: "Irrespective of how justifiable the reasons are, it is just nasty to see the two camps engaging in a war of words, with both parties using every means to win over. In the end, the war can hardly improve the operation of the Council but only intensify the hostility between the two parties. Is it worthwhile to fight this war?" Andrew WONG, also former President, tried to convey this message: "If Members of the two camps wish to continue with the game in a civilized manner, they need to work under a RoP which is agreeable to both parties. I call for Members of the pan-democratic and pro-establishment camps to calm down and negotiate for a solution. If those get the upper hand refuse to give in, a resolution is impossible and the minority will then resort to resistance." Deputy President, I so submit. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first, I must condemn President Andrew LEUNG for his decision to give me only 15 minutes for making a speech on so many technical amendments. Of course, I cannot finish my speech within this time span. As counted by us and many members of the press, if only 15 minutes are allowed, Members can simply speak on each proposed amendment for eight seconds, and we have to stop before we can even finish bringing out the subject. So, with this flagrant match-fixing under which he restricts our speaking time like this, I can only make some general comments and reflect the magnitude of President's power abuse. When he can go so far as to squeeze all the totally unrelated provisions of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") into one joint debate, how can we possibly debate meaningfully today? Can we still explain to the people the merits and demerits of each amendment to the RoP? No. Other than discussing the amendments one by one, I had better spend the


4359

15 minutes to tell the public how ridiculous and deformed the Legislative Council is, as well as how the President has abused his power and the pro-establishment Members have undermined their own functions. (THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair) Of course, I do not know if the pro-establishment camp has received any order to stay in their seats throughout the entire process, which makes them bad tempered today. Judging from their speeches, it seems like they cannot keep their temper. When a Member talked of the Chinese proverb which reads "after the hares are killed, the running dogs will be cooked", many Members reacted strongly, making me wonder if they did actually fit themselves into the picture. Unless all of them believed that the remark were directed at them, they did not have to react so vehemently. This is merely a story about a proverb. Just now, some Members have said that amending the RoP will not affect freedom of speech. I would like to discuss this with the people. True, the amendments to RoP moved by the pro-establishment camp this time will not directly prohibit Members from talking about certain subjects, but in fact, if the amended RoP will grant the President more power to restrict the topics of motions to be moved by Members, this means that the amendments will in effect directly shorten the discussion time available to Members. So, if we have less time for discussions about certain bills which can practically affect freedom of speech, such as the bill relating to Article 23 of the Basic Law, then any words criticizing the nation in the future will possibly lead to convictions on the basis of one's expression, and that dissidents may be subject to oppression under some draconian laws. Will this not directly affect freedom of speech? Why does the pro-establishment camp say that amending the RoP is unrelated to freedom of speech? For example, the legislative amendment concerning the Copyright Ordinance aroused fierce controversies in society. If the legislative amendment will affect secondary creation and works carrying political connotations not favoured by the Government, and that the amendment exercise is not done thoroughly, will the Ordinance be used as a tool to suppress the minorities? Will this affect freedom of speech? Moreover, the local legislation for the National Anthem Law will take place soon. The current amendment exercise to


the RoP will reduce our power to monitor the Government. So, if the future ordinance stipulates that the national anthem must be played at schools, or prohibits other forms of creative works and expression in relation to the anthem, then the reduced chances for us to speak on the bill during scrutiny will be tantamount to weakening the Council's capacity to vet these bills which may likely become draconian laws. While the pro-establishment camp and royalists Members said earlier that their amendments to RoP would have nothing to do with freedom of speech, I doubt if this is true. One of the key functions of the Legislative Council is to scrutinize bills. If it were not for us to spend enormous time on meticulously studying the Government's proposals asking for trillions of dollars, such as the Kai Tak Sports Park, and without the sustained efforts and questions asked by fellow pro-democracy Members, society can by no means uncover the squandering nature of the Government's tendering procedures which have wasted such a substantial amount of public money. We can look back at the funding for the Hong Kong Disneyland project. Without the pro-democracy Members who exhausted all the room for making speeches, the public would not have known the humiliating and unfair conditions in the contract signed by the Government. Public money was squandered like this. Furthermore, there are numerous cases of budget overruns on a series of rail and infrastructure projects. Were it not for the RoP which gave us room for raising points of order and moving motions, does anyone believe the pro-establishment camp, as the Government's rubber stamps and lackeys, will genuinely query and monitor the Government? The above are examples of how the RoP can affect freedom of speech and the pro-democracy camp's power in monitoring the Government in the Council. But then, when we speak on these broad principles, they do not have the patience to listen. Mr Tommy CHEUNG said earlier that he felt offended by remarks about godsons and god-daughters. In fact, when we talk of "godsons and god-daughters of the Western District", there are indeed many of them in this Chamber. I do not know if Mr Tommy CHEUNG considers himself one of those mentioned, and of course many Members will pigeonhole themselves into the description. When he found this Cantonese proverb offensive, did he really think thoroughly about the meaning? Does the remark "godsons and god-daughters" refer to their close relationship and the brotherhood? Whom do the royalists Members maintain a close brotherly relationship with? Whose


4361

orders will directly decide their fate and survival, so much so that they are not even dare to leave their seats and excuse themselves briefly? Are these orders not from "the Western District", the Liaison Office? Even government officials do not probably give them such a sense of awe. Therefore, by saying that they are "godsons and god-daughters" … Mr Tommy CHEUNG is looking at me. So, let us check if there are any other Members who are now fitting themselves into the picture. In fact, the public truly think so. (Mr Tommy CHEUNG stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please hold on. Mr Tommy CHEUNG, what is your point? MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): If I wish to seek Mr HUI Chi-fung's clarification, shall I raise my point now or after he finishes his speech? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, you can make the request after Mr HUI Chi-fung finishes speaking. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am willing to give way so that Mr Tommy CHEUNG can ask for a clarification now. I can let Mr CHEUNG point out the issues he would like me to clarify. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please finish your speech first. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): All right. I go on then. (Mr Tommy CHEUNG was still standing) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, please wait until Mr HUI Chi-fung finishes his speech to point out the issues you want him to clarify.


MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I can let Mr Tommy CHEUNG speak first. (Mr Tommy CHEUNG continues to stand up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, I am the chair of the meeting, not him. Please sit down. Mr HUI Chi-fung, please continue with your speech. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Not to worry, whenever we talk about the sworn kinship, some Members will naturally think it is a nickname for them. They will then be too eager to clarify or seek clarification from others. It does not matter. The truth is just obvious to all. There is no need to go mad at all. We should rather come back to the discussion of the amendments to RoP, the issue which really matters today. In this speech, I also need to discuss the nature of the RoP amendments. Why some Members think the amendments will have far-reaching implications and affect our future generations. We all understand that we should not lightly subject RoP to amendments. It has been adopted for many years, and has its own meanings. The formulation of this set of rules aims to strike a proper balance among the different political parties, Members, and views in the Council, in order to safeguard minority Members' right to free expression. The proposed amendments, however, attempt to mute the opposition voices by giving the corrupt referee a louder whistle and enabling the President to continue to abuse his power. Of course, the pro-establishment President Mr LEUNG and all other pro-Government Members in this Chamber have to take care of the interests of the Government as well as their own interests. But the amendments, if approved, will affect our future generations. Hence, we have to let people know that once we weaken or destroy the constitutional role of the Legislative Council, we cannot undo the damage that has been done. We have heard how Mr Martin LIAO commented on the RoP amendments from media reports. According to him, the democrats have got the upper hand in the geographical direct election for years. Hence, there is no ground for them to oppose the amendments proposed by the pro-establishment Members who now have a majority of seats in the geographical direct election. In his words, the present-day situations are not caused by the pro-Government camp. They are of


4363

course not the culprit. The disqualification of Members is essentially the joint work of the pro-Government camp, the Government, and the Beijing Authorities. They are in an alliance. In this sense, there is no need for Mr Tommy CHEUNG to feel irritated. The godsons and god-daughters are in close relationship. This is as simple as that. Actually, do they feel a sense of shame in saying that the democrats have got the upper hand in the geographical direct election for years? Only through the small circle elections in functional constituencies can the pro-Government Members enjoy their political free lunches and take a majority of seats in the Council. They are way inferior to the democratic camp in terms of the number of votes secured. We are returned by direct elections, representing the choices of electors. Whom do the pro-Government Members represent? They are zero-vote Members from functional constituencies―You too, Mr LEUNG. What people do you represent and what interests do you represent as well? Now they hold a majority of seats in the geographical constituencies only by abusing and twisting the current system. They are well aware that they cannot represent the majority of people. Among them, many godsons and god-daughters can only represent the interests of the authorities. Even Mr Paul TSE has likened the amendments to the "seven injuries boxing", as he also admitted that these amendments would really undermine the monitoring role of the Legislative Council. But they do not need to worry. The roles of godsons and god-daughters are to … (Mr Jeremy TAM stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please wait for a moment. Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point? MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, a quorum is now present in the Chamber. Mr HUI Chi-fung, please continue.


MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I have just mentioned that the amendments will really undermine our monitoring role in the Chamber. The pro-establishment Member also admitted this in his speech. President, I request a headcount. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, a quorum is now present in the Chamber. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Is a quorum now present in the Chamber? PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If you do not want to continue with your speech, you can sit down. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): All right. But I can see some Members are very ready to leave this Chamber. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As I can see, Members in your vicinity are not present. (Laughter) Please continue. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Of course, the pro-establishment Members have received orders to remain to be seated. They dare not even go to toilets. Do they have a free will? Even a Member of the pro-establishment camp also has to admit that the amendments will compromise our duties to debate on policies and our role to monitor the Government. But why the pro-establishment Members still have to do so? Can they think of some other means that can really stand on the side of the public? (Mr LUK Chung-hung stood up) PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please wait for a moment. Mr LUK Chung-hung, what is your point?


4365

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): I seek clarification from Mr HUI Chi-fung. According to what he has said, a pro-establishment Member also thinks the amendments will undermine the effectiveness of RoP, but I have not heard any pro-establishment Member making such a remark. Does anything go wrong? Please do not wrongly accuse others and do not put words into others' mouths. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LUK Chung-hung, you have pointed out the part on which you seek an elucidation from Mr HUI Chi-fung. Please sit down. Mr HUI Chi-fung, Mr LUK Chung-hung seeks a clarification from you, you can decide whether you wish to clarify. If you do not wish to clarify, please continue with your speech. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Of course, I have to clarify. Seldom will he pay attention to my speech. In the Council meeting on 7 December 2017, Mr Paul TSE said he agreed that the amendments to RoP would somewhat deprive the Council of its tools or power as a whole. Indeed, why not ask Mr Paul TSE himself to clarify? He has acted so boldly today. Why do you ask me to elucidate instead? Are you fine with my answer then? I call on the pro-establishment camp not to dodge any more when one of its members has already made such a confession. The weakening of the power of the Council is not a big deal for pro-establishment Members as they simply do not care about this. Do you think they will monitor the Government? They are all puppets, joining hands with the Government to form an alliance for interests, or godsons and god-daughters. Hence, on the one hand, the Chief Executive assured us that though the Government might not be able to satisfy all of our aspirations, it would not do harm to the public. On the other hand, the Government cooperated with its close allies and partners by not submitting anything to the Legislative Council during the RoP amendments, leaving room for the pro-establishment and pro-Government Members to manipulate the Council. Over the past few months, they have caused a stir in the Council over the RoP amendments. What they have done are under the very eyes of the public. Mr LEUNG and I address him Mr LEUNG, not the President, I so submit.


PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, do you wish to elucidate the part of your speech which has been misunderstood? MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I have clearly pointed out that it is okay to use the nicknames of godsons and god-daughters. But Mr HUI Chi-fung was not present when I delivered my speech. He was also not in the Chamber when other opposition Members spoke. As far as I remember, at least two Members used another expression aside the nicknames of godsons and god-daughters in their speeches, and that Cantonese expression is extremely vulgar and also insulting. Even in men's talk, we will not use that expression. President, when I chat privately with you, we will also not use that expression. It is very disgusting to hear Members, particular female Members, to use this expression openly in the Chamber. This is a disgrace to the Legislative Council as a whole. I think the Members concerned should rise to apologize to public. PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, you have already clarified the part of speech which has been misunderstood. Please sit down. SUSPENSION OF MEETING PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The meeting is now suspended until 9:00 am tomorrow. Suspended accordingly at 7:43 pm.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 14 ...

Documents

Transcript of OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 14 ...