OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 15 May ...

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2014

11159

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 15 May 2014

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT: THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P. THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P. THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 15 May 2014 11160

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


11161

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


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


11163

MEMBERS ABSENT: THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P. DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING: THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE THE HONOURABLE EDDIE NG HAK-KIM, S.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION MR KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION MR JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE: MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL


BILLS Committee Stage CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members. Committee will now continue to examine the Appropriation Bill 2014. We will now continue with the second joint debate. APPROPRIATION BILL 2014 CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount to confirm if a quorum is present before the meeting commences officially. CHAIRMAN (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) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak? MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Good morning, Chairman, good morning Members. Chairman, yesterday, I was talking about the various problems of the Information Services Department (ISD), including overspending, unsuitable use of provision and inadequacies in public education activities, which are not cost-effective.

I will continue to express my concern about this, and I have proposed a resolution requesting reduction of the relevant expenditure of the ISD under Amendment No 375, being $43.2 million in respect of subhead 000. Chairman, let us look at the expenditure in this respect. The major part is certainly on civic education relating to the civic responsibility of the public ― it should be civic


11165

responsibility but not civic education. The scope of such education includes poverty alleviation, anti-drugs efforts, environmental protection, road safety, crime fighting and fire prevention, and so on. A total of 32 full-time staff are responsible for the relevant publicity work and activities, which is quite exaggerated. Their targets next year are to launch 95 major and minor publicity campaigns, produce and display 125 designs of posters, and produce 370 sets of announcement in public interests (APIs). I do not know how many Members or members of the public had expressed concern for or pay attention to these issues in the past year, and I am not sure about the outcome of such large-scale publicity drives.

The programme is focused on civic responsibility. It is interesting that it only mentions responsibility. In general, when we address or discuss civic responsibility, rights and responsibility will be paired for comparison. For if only civic responsibility is emphasized, people will consider it unconvincing, thinking it unreasonable to have only responsibility but not rights. For this reason, the stress and focus of the progromme is debatable. When genuine civic responsibility is not linked with civic rights, and in the absence of a strong foundation for the responsibility, the public will not accept it. Even when they hear certain APIs or the relevant information, they will only find them boastful and untrustworthy, or even offensive. The authorities spend tens of million dollars on publicity, yet it has provoked negative feelings, sentiments of opposition and discontent, which is not the desirable result of such publicity.

Let us look at the plans under the Programme again. The messages of many plans are related to the fostering of a harmonious society, which follows closely the instruction of the Central Authorities in achieving harmony in all aspects. Since the era of HU Jintao, we have heard of this target many times. Be it in the numerous Beijing visits and speeches made by Donald TSANG or the Policy Address of the Chief Executive, emphasis on the establishment of a harmonious society in Hong Kong has been made repeatedly. Therefore, the publicity work in this aspect is in actuality an instillation of political ideas on the pretext of promoting a greater sense of civic responsibility. As in the translation of or dissemination of information by certain publicity departments in the Mainland, publicity and government information are often translated as "propaganda". However, in Western society, I seldom notice that they would use the English term "propaganda" when they mentioned the publicity conducted by the government. More often than not, they will use terms like "public education" or "public relations", and so on.


It is evident that the Hong Kong Government's publicity work is inclined more towards "Hong Kong communization" or "communization". These areas of education which should otherwise be balanced and in-depth have often been turned into one-way political publicity and instillation of political ideas. I believe this is unacceptable according to the core values of Hong Kong.

Members may look at the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign implemented last year as an example. If Members have paid attention to it ― I do not know how many Members have paid attention to the campaign, yet certain Members or organizations may have participated in the campaign and received subsidies, so this may be another campaign for transfer of benefits. In the past year, the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign was divided into four themes, namely "Vibrant HK", "Hip HK", "Caring HK" and "Fresh HK". The promotion of these activities was not undertaken by the 32 staff members alone. The authorities had launched a partnership programme concurrently, under which the number of "Partner Organizations" had increased from 170 in last April to 249 by the end of last year. The calendar of events also showed that the number of events for the same period had increased from 450 to 1 115, which meant that there were more than three events in a day. It was quite exaggerated. However, I do not notice the effect of such publicity in this respect. The situation is just the opposite. Political division and opposition, the constitutional reform, the behaviour of people from strong China and tourist concerns have driven society into division and damaged the harmony of society, and this phenomenon has overshadowed all the others.

Therefore, in respect of initiatives of governance, speeches made by senior government officials on general occasions also have a bearing. The speech made by Secretary Eddie NG yesterday is a case in point. His remarks have driven the education sector as whole into division and prompted opposition against the senior echelon of the Government among the younger generation. So if the authorities want to foster harmony by means of such programmes as the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign, the programmes should carry some specific meaning and messages which can convince Hong Kong people, particularly the younger generation and people who are resistant or opposed to governance, thereby building up their trust in the Government and their sense of belonging to society and local districts. Such as the programme "Below the Lion Rock" and many other series produced by Radio Television Hong Kong (RTHK) back then, they had fostered a sense of belonging and the identification of Hong Kong people to Hong Kong. In other words, there is no need to engage in


11167

hard-selling, bureaucratic and fossilized publicity activities. Certainly, with the backing and support of the many people striving to protect the Government and the pro-government camp, these programmes, like the Hong Kong Dragon and Lion Dance Festival, will definitely attract a large number of people to apply for funding provided that the authorities are prepared to grant the funding… CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, most of the content of your speech has strayed away from the question. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am definitely speaking on the causes of failure of the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign in a focused manner, pointing out that provision should not… CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You should not express your views on a single item continuously, for this is the 32nd time you are speaking. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have just started speaking on this amendment, and I have spoken for less than five minutes ― or six to seven minutes ― on this issue. Chairman, I wish to point out how ridiculous and irrational this item is. In fact, $40 million or so can be used to buy numerous cans of fried Dace with salted black beans. So, $40 million or so is not a small amount of money. These items are absolutely inappropriate and lack theoretical support. If the authorities want to conduct activities, particularly when it seeks to instill political ideas, this should be complemented by relevant concepts and theories. Members may refer to the French Revolution. Back then, the revolution advocated liberty, equality and fraternity. After 200 to 300 years, these values are still commended and promoted by societies and academic organizations all around the world. Therefore, if the programme lacks a well-founded theory and convincing arguments as the basis but only count on pecuniary subsidy and hard sold programmes, the spending will hardly be value for money and the programme is doomed to miss the aims or targets set for the provisions. Certain academics, including James SUNG from the City University of Hong Kong, have criticized these promotion approaches inappropriate and is a waste of public money. SUNG once criticized that the objective of the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign was vague, which made it hard to foster a sense of


belonging among the public, nor inject any positive energy. The approach reflected that the Government had failed to learn from the failure of the "Sports for All" programme in the past, and SUNG was thus pessimistic about the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign. Another academic, CHUNG Kim-wah, Director of the Centre for Social Policy Studies of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, pointed out that programmes like "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign had not been launched at a right timing and the objectives were unclear. As I mentioned earlier, CHUNG Kim-wah shared the view that this type of activities would bring negative impacts. He also pointed out that in view of the dwindling authority of the Government, it would definitely backfire if officials hope to foster positive energy through this type of activities. Moreover, many spectators have criticized this type of campaigns as mere shows and a waste of public money. Other comments say that activities like the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign cause nuisances to the public. As in the case of the Fire Services Department, which organized the Ambulance Pioneers On-car Attachment Scheme to complement the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign to allow 300 young people to observe on board ambulances from nine in the morning to five in the evening … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, in what way is this related to the work of the ISD? MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): … it is related, Chairman. The ISD was responsible for co-ordination of the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign, and I mentioned this at the beginning of my speech. There are 32 staff members in the ISD incurring an expenditure of $43.2 million, Chairman, whereas Amendment No 375 resolves that head 74 be reduced by $43.2 million, which is the ISD … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): In what way are the activities conducted by other departments related to the amendment in question? MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): …other departments? Chairman, I am criticizing this programme for involving a massive number of people. Take the three Secretaries for Departments and Directors of Bureaux whom I mentioned earlier as an example. They had to visit various districts for three days in a row


11169

to cleanse the streets, which had cost $3.94 million out of the $40 million or so designated for the programme. Though the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign was co-ordinated by the ISD, many departments are involved. As I explained earlier, there were 249 partner organizations and 1 115 events. It is the vast coverage of the campaign and the involvement of numerous other government departments that have attracted the criticism of causing nuisances to the public. Chairman, for this reason, the various aspects are related. Since the provision will cause nuisances to the public and affect the operation of ambulances, I must point out the problem in this respect through this debate. In fact, most friends and members of the public, particularly Members of this Council, may not necessarily understand this and may not have paid attention to these problems. Just now, I criticized that a programme called the Ambulance Pioneers On-Car Attachment Scheme under the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign will hold up the ambulances, affect the work of ambulancemen and undermine their morale.

Chairman, regarding the theme song for the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign, that is, "Sail On", there were some disputes affecting the freedom of creation and infringing on the dignity of the songwriter, and the authorities had been criticized for infringing on the freedom of creativity. The lyrics of "Sail On" had been rejected, Chairman, and a request was made to revise some of the words and phrases to present a less grievous and less negative mood. As I said earlier, in handling publicity of the Government, the ISD is often inclined to using a propaganda promotion approach rather than an objective and rational approach (the buzzer sounded) … or an approach that allows room for free interpretation by the public. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Good morning, Chairman, before coming to my speech today, I would like to make clear one point. Regarding the Ambulance Pioneer On-Car Attachment Scheme proposed by the Fire Services Department under the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign mentioned by Mr Albert CHAN earlier, it was not introduced subsequently due to the uselessness and stupidity of the Scheme. The Scheme attracted criticisms, mockery and rebuke from all sectors once it was announced, and it was withdrawn eventually. The case proves that when we consider certain schemes unreasonable and rebuke them, even though we have no authority to neither stop its implementation nor


meticulously reduce every single item of expense in detail, it will still achieve some effect at the practical operation level.

In my last speech last night, I briefed Members on the amendment pinpointing the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF). There are a total of 28 amendments relating to the HKPF, of which 14 amendments are proposed by me. Last night, I spoke on an item which a few people would mention or be concerned about, that is, the unfair and unreasonable treatment of sex workers by police officers. In this connection, I will put it into a different perspective in this speech. Some people ask why these sex workers do not lodge complaints, and this question will lead to the reduction of another expenditure item requested by us. The reduction is under Amendment Nos 570 and 571 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, involving "Head 121 ― Independent Police Complaints Council". One of the two amendments requests a reduction of $54,425,000, which is approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for the operational expenses of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) for the whole year. Another amendment requests a reduction of its estimated expenditure for six months, which is $27,212,500.

Before discussing the reduction of the expenditure items of the IPCC this year, I would like to provide some background information to Members. In 2008, the Legislative Council passed the Independent Police Complaints Council Ordinance (IPCCO) and the IPCCO came into effect in 2009. The former Independent Police Complaints Council, which used to be known as "投訴警方獨立監察委員會" ("警監會") in Chinese, became a statutory organization and was renamed as "獨立監察警方處理投訴委員會" ("監警會") in Chinese.

The University of Hong Kong conducted a survey this year on the independence, public awareness of and public confidence in the IPCC. It was found that the public awareness of the IPCC was 68%, which was on the rise, showing a significant increase in rating in comparison with the rating of 30% when the IPCC was first established. However, the public confidence in the IPCC has failed to exceed 50% after all, and the latest figure is 48%. It is true that there is a slight increase compared with the figure of 43% last year, yet the public still has great doubts about the capability of the IPCC in monitoring the operation of the HKPF. Why would so many Members propose a number of amendments to "Head 122 ― Hong Kong Police Force"? It is because the HKPF are one of the government departments on which supervision and monitoring can hardly be exercised. Not only can the public not monitor it, we


11171

as Members of the Legislative Council can hardly get any explanation at the Panel of Security, the Finance Committee or the special meetings of the Finance Committee. That is why we have to propose the many amendments. I will give a detailed explanation later on.

Why does the confidence of the public in the IPCC remain below 50%? There are many reasons. Though the IPCC is said to be an independent investigation committee, what it does are after all ineffective attempts comparable to scratching an itch from outside the boot. Though the IPCC may summon complainants, their conversations are not legally binding. Even if the IPCC identifies any irregularity on the part of the police in the investigation, it cannot impose any punishment. Therefore, for effective monitoring and checking of the powers of the police, it is necessary to set up an organization independent from the HKPF and give it powers of investigation, giving verdicts and imposing punishment, like the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) which was set up back then to curb the unhealthy culture of corruption in the Government. I believe Members must understand this point.

I think Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has proposed these two amendments to reduce the expenditure of the IPCC not because he considers the performance of the police is so good that monitoring is unnecessary and the police can be left unchecked. I think he has adopted the reverse logic that if the IPCC fails to fulfil its functions properly, it had better be dissolved, and the Government should then be pressed to establish an independent organization comparable to the ICAC to monitor whether there is power abuse by the police.

I would like to point out that when the statutory IPCC was set up in 2009, it was already criticized by some as old wine put in a new bottle, where only the order of two Chinese characters of the acronym of the organizations had been reversed, from "警監" to "監警". It seems that the reversed order sounds better, stating that the monitoring of the police is not conducted by the police but by other people. Nonetheless, the IPCC is still not given the three powers, namely the power of investigation, the power of giving verdicts and the power of sanction, and it remains a "three-no's". Besides, in terms of operation, it still has to rely on the investigation reports done by the police and the essentiality to obtain evidence in a balanced manner has been overlooked, and it suffers inadequacies in manpower and information.


The IPCC is always dubbed the "toothless tiger". When Mr JAT Sew-tong assumed chairmanship of the IPCC in 2009, he put forth a series of reform proposal, which included changing the mode of meetings, considering holding internal meetings of the IPCC and joint-meetings with the police separately, and opening joint meetings with the police to public attendance as far as possible. Moreover, he proposed meeting the media with the police at regular intervals to make announcements on issues relating to complaints against police officers. The IPCC would also consider taking the initiative to write to the complainants at regular intervals to update them on the progress of investigations, and to write to the complainants when a conclusion is reached after the investigation to explain the case.

Actually, these so-called reform proposals focus only on minor details. I think Members will share this view after hearing the proposals. Even if the IPCC can effect these changes, its authority or independence will not be enhanced significantly. The crux of the problem is that the department responsible for handling public complaints is actually under the Complaints and Internal Investigation Branch of the Service Quality Wing of the HKPF. For this reason, the public always consider that investigations are conducted by their own men. As in the present case of the investigation of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link which is conducted by the MTR Corporation Limited, it was presented with a tube of ointment as mockery of its act of investigating its own men.1 Since the credibility of the IPCC in investigating complaints is queried, I think there is no reason to spend public money on supporting a so-called statutory organization that fails to perform monitoring functions in actuality.

Another reason for reducing the estimated expenditure of the IPCC for the whole year is its manpower problem. The mode of operation of the IPCC is seriously restricted by its manpower shortage which has led to many problems. These problems include the over-reliance on investigations conducted by the police, the absence of direct collection of evidence in the course of complaint investigation conducted by the police, the failure to interview all complainants of serious complaint cases, and the failure to appoint sufficiently trained professional officers to observe every interview of the police officers conducted by the police for collecting evidence, so as to monitor the entire process and 1 The action of putting ointment is called "搽" (caa4) in Chinese, which puns with the character "查" (caa4)

with the meaning of investigation.


11173

verify whether the police have cut corners and whether there are any irregularities in the course of investigation. The present practice is purely trust based, for the IPCC relies solely on the police to provide information on reportable complaints. Obviously, Members also consider that this practice will undermine the power of the IPCC in making recommendations to the police in respect of improper conduct. In other words, the IPCC's role is to work faster when there are more cases, which is decided by the number of cases received. After that, it will send out replies in 10 days according to the mechanism, and then the initial and detailed replies in 30 days. It considers fulfilling its duties upon the completion of such work.

Yet apart from the aforementioned duties, the IPCC also carries a structural mission. It has to infer whether structural problems exist in the HKPF, so that improvement and preventive measures can be implemented to avert police officers from repeating the mistake and avoid creating more opportunities for the public to lodge complaints. In other words, they have the responsibility to make specific recommendations to the police to facilitate the latter in reducing the number of complaints against the police in the long run. This is the higher-level target of the IPCC. It should not merely take on a passive role as a general coming to defence when attacked, or simply adopt stopgap measures in a flood, by investigating cases only such are presented or merely staging discussion meetings.

Since the IPCC now relies fully on the information provided by the police, it is very difficult for it to identify deficiencies and inadequacies in the routine or procedures of the work of the HKPF. As for its operation, the members of the IPCC or its staff rely heavily on the flaws revealed in the investigation reports provided by the police in questioning and following up cases in delivering their duties. For this reason, the IPCC is now regarded as a mere shell and a "toothless tiger", failing to perform the function of monitoring the police effectively.

The entire staff establishment of the IPCC is 47 people. The estimate of the IPCC for this year has been increased by 10% compared with the estimate last year, and it will mainly be used for the recruitment of three major additional posts (including a Deputy Secretary-General, a Corporate Services Officer and an Administrative Assistant), and two staff members responsible for daily front-line services, incurring an expenditure of $2.82 million. To address its manpower shortage, the IPCC plans to conduct a comprehensive review of the manpower


and rank structure of the IPCC Secretariat, involving an estimated expenditure of $2.2 million. The work will be shared among three Secretariat staff members in addition to their routine duties. In fact, I think it is unnecessary.

Let us look at the membership of the IPCC. Both the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman are on part-time terms ― just now I am talking about the IPPC Secretariat staff. Members of the IPCC are on a two-year term and may serve a maximum of six years according to the established practice. However, Members would have noticed that certain IPCC members who are unwilling to yield to the Government or considered as so may be forced to take early retirement. I am of course referring to Mr Albert CHENG. He said he had received notification by the end of last year that his appointment would not be renewed upon expiry, which was at the end of 2013.

Having said that the appointment is of a two-year term, it is the established practice that the terms of members will be renewed to the maximum of six years in general to ensure continuity and integrity unless the member concerned give reasons for arrangement otherwise. In certain special cases, the terms may be longer than six years. Yet Mr Albert CHENG said that he had never indicated any desire for retirement or resignation, and he suspected his term was not renewed because he had frequently criticized the Government led by LEUNG Chun-ying. During the interview, he said he would not rule out the possibility of applying for a judicial review.

In view of this example, we cannot but ask: What are the criteria for the appointment of IPCC members? There are persons with the boldness to express his views, to rebuke and criticize the Government and the police, and persons with such characters should be appointed as members of the IPCC. The IPCC should not appoint only the yesmen who consider all issues not a matter of concern and everything is OK, and who will simply put down their signatures to muddle through. The term of appointment of members of the IPCC is two years.

As for Albert CHENG's case, people now have doubts. One of the doubts, which we have mentioned earlier, is that many people in the Central Policy Unit (CPU) want to kick him out. The full-time consultant of the CPU, Sophia KAO, has to examine the candidates for appointment to all committees to see if they include "LEUNG's Fans". It is most desirable to appoint "LEUNG's Fans" if they are on the list, but if no candidates on the list are "LEUNG's Fans", people with a relatively moderate stance should be appointed to prevent people


11175

from causing troubles. It is evident that the IPCC is a "toothless tiger"; it may still have some teeth, yet the few teeth will have to be removed.

In the face of this "three-no's" IPCC, I agree supporting Amendment Nos 570 and 571 as proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, for I think this will provide an opportunity for a review of the framework of the IPCC. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, actually, I will talk about the Chief Secretary, Mrs LAM. It is not because I hold some grudges against her, but because since she occupies one of the topmost positions, there has got to be sufficient justifications if we want to reduce her salary.

First, yesterday the Chairman told me not to talk about policy matters and I should only talk about her performance. Then I will talk about it. On her performance, there is still a high interest rate loan that she has got to repay. This is about Energizing Kowloon East, which is going to straddle two terms of office. It is not possible to forgive her for what she has done or what she is now doing because of her position.

This Energizing Kowloon East is vital to her career in the Government. As we all know, she was the Secretary for Development and now she is the Chief Secretary for Administration. Her purview is very broad and she considers Energizing Kowloon East her brainchild and when anything happens to it, she thinks that it has something to do with her. Actually, I live near the place and although I do not belong to that constituency, whenever I walk past the place, the residents would say to me, "Mr LEUNG, if you are a responsible Member, you must speak out on this."

First, the whole plan is fragmented and the reason is that we have wasted a

lot of time and efforts on the hope that this large piece of land left vacant after the relocation of the Kai Tak Airport can be used to house a lot of works projects launched to tie in with the development. And the first problem is that this policy has fallen through. The reason why this policy fails may not be related to Carrie LAM. We will not mention it. Because when there is a plan to develop the lot for the building of grade A and grade B office buildings, this idea is outdated.


This is not my view, when LEUNG Chun-ying commented on this he said that perhaps now…Sorry, it is not LEUNG Chun-ying who said it, it was John TSANG and she, two Secretaries of Departments, who said in a debate… CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I have reminded you many times that when comments are made on the performance of an official, you should refrain from speaking too much on a specific policy. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Understood. Then I shall talk faster. This is what the residents asked me to say. They said that so much money has been spent and now that railway is not going to be built there and the cruise terminal will become a failure. And the land nearby will become a failure because this core project is not coming to fruition. It will become a white elephant, just as simple as that. I will not go into the details. I can describe it as too cumbersome to be effective. This is certainly not desirable. Right?

The second issue is the campaign called "Hong Kong: Our Home" which is under her leadership. This campaign lasted only a short time. The idea of "Hong Kong: Our Home" was first put forward by the Chief Executive and Carrie LAM led a committee on it and many activities were launched. These activities were meant to make Hong Kong people think that Hong Kong was their home. Then when the campaign ended with no known cause, she had to look for something to do. And she started the work on constitutional reform. The constitutional reform is a new and hot topic that I want to discuss today. It is also a topic that will see continuous development. I do not think I deserve to be called a Member if I do not talk about constitutional reform matters when I talk about politics.

About this matter, the key is, and I remember the Chairman heard yesterday that I said, first, the most important thing is trust of the people. At first, she said that there were no prerequisites in the constitutional reform, the views of Hong Kong people… CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please do not repeat the views you have already expressed.


11177

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): One day has passed and some Members may not know it. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Committee is still dealing with the same joint debate. Mr LEUNG, I have reminded you not to repeat the views you have already expressed. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am making no repetition. It is only my introduction. It is because those people did not watch the TV last night, so how can they know what will happen in the next episode? Every speech we make will definitely recap something already said before… CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I have reminded you. If I consider that you are being repetitive, I will stop you from speaking. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): My speech…then what should I do? I may as well request a headcount. It looks like a headcount is in order. I request a headcount. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (While the summoning bell was ringing, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung spoke in a loud voice) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please do not voice your opinion loudly in your seat. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I think I will keep on talking about Carrie LAM. I do not think I can ever finish talking about all the things she has done. If you think that I am repeating, just tell me. I do not have too good a memory, so just do whatever you like.

Chairman, I do not think you will member what I said yesterday. But there is nothing I can do for whatever things you may like to say. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I have reminded you that since this is the 32nd time you are speaking, please do not say anything not related to the amendments. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Jasper TSANG, Jasper TSANG, Jasper TSANG, Jasper TSANG, Jasper TSANG. Is this related? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this is not a serious attitude in a debate. If you maintain this kind of an attitude and waste the time of this Council, I have no alternative but to stop you from speaking according to the Rules of Procedure. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, Chairman. With respect to what your goodself said about wasting the time of this Council, I have to cite an example about Carrie LAM. Carrie LAM has got entertainment expenses and I have also proposed that these be cut. I once attended a consultation she organized for the constitutional reform and the foods we ate on that occasion were accounted to her entertainment expenses. At that time I found out that the legal adviser of the LOCPG was also there. I fail to see why, when the Chief Secretary wants to consult members of the legislature of Hong Kong, there is a need to have someone from the LOCPG on the spot and give instructions there. The foods that person ate on that day were actually wasting our money. I therefore think that her entertainment expenses must be substantially reduced to zero.


11179

As I see it, during the four months past, when Carrie LAM used the sum of money to buy fruits, milk tea or bread, it was all a waste of money. As the Chairman said, any talk about politics is talk about politics, why is there a need to eat anything? If there is a need to eat anything, they can take part after eating. The most important thing is there are video and sound recordings so that the records are complete. So I oppose officials hosting sumptuous banquets for us.

You have not treated us to any meal for two years. I have not got any benefits from your entertainment vote. You have not treated us to any meal. You need to treat us once in a while. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I must make a clarification. The President of this Council is not allowed to use his entertainment vote to treat Members. All the money I spend on treating Members comes from my own pocket. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I remember. I got it wrong. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Besides, Mr LEUNG, I did extend my invitation to you but at that time you said you were on a hunger strike and so you declined. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, you need not stand on ceremony. I heard it. I was on a hunger strike and of course, I was not fortunate enough to enjoy your meal. Actually, I have forgotten about it. I think I have to find out if it is really the case.

It is easy to see that what you have said proves that her entertainment fees should be cancelled. You are the President, you do not have to treat me to a meal with public money. You have your entertainment vote. I do not know if there are rules on it. I have eaten a few meals hosted by the officials and as I have been given to understand it, the cost of the meal is some $400 per head. There are rules stipulating that it cannot exceed a certain amount. When Members are discharging their duties, what is the point of having a meal with an official who is also paid by the public coffers? It would be enough if there are two glasses of water. One would get drunk if he drinks too much wine and one


will get indigestion if he eats too much. The result is that there will be no progress in the consultation exercise or in the discussions. So I think Chief Secretary Carrie LAM should start to adopt an economizing policy. This is what we call new people, new policy.

I do not just want to cut her entertainment fees, and I also support Amendment Nos 729, 731, 737, 757 and 758, which are all about the non-accountable entertainment allowance. Leaving the salary aside, when someone earns a salary of some hundreds of thousand dollars a month and subsidies are also given for transport, and so on, this is really not acceptable. So I hope Members…of course, many people here have had such meals. I have not. Chairman, to be honest, I was there once but I did not eat. I left at once after shaking hands with that guy called LIU Xinkui. I did not eat any food there.

Of course, people in this Chamber would only detest me if I talk about these things. I am sure 99% of the people in this Chamber have eaten those food. Right? Chairman, now the people of Hong Kong are so poor and need the Government to rescue them. But these top officials are using public money to treat the mediocre people or their guests. What is the point of it? So with respect to this, I think Chief Secretary Carrie LAM should set an example so that those Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux under her would follow.

Actually, as we all know, while we are having such frequent deliberations in this Chamber, many people are wining and dining. They are all using public money. Those aides of John TSANG are always inviting people to meals, including the reporters. In Hong Kong, though we cannot say that we are practising really clean and frugal politics, I think there is no need for us to do that in the circle of officials. On the Mainland, efforts are being made to reduce expenses in that area. Ever since XI Jinping has come power, at least he has stated that strict requirements will be imposed on this kind of official entertainment. Of course, when we talk about things like one soup and four courses, there are bound to be ways to circumvent this kind of requirement. But I think I must advocate this kind of thing.

All in all, I will not talk about the person Carrie LAM anymore. This is because she has really got a very strong field of force. I can sense a strong resistance, something we cannot afford to pull like a tiger's tail. Chairman, I will stop here. Carrie LAM has really an awesome and fierce look. She is described as a fighter who merits praises. Carrie LAM has got superb acting


11181

skills. She can shed a tear at any time. She can look fierce when she feels like it. She has got that air of righteousness and she will come forward every time when her subordinates are scolded, like "Yuen Chau". CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, what is the relevance of these several points of yours to the amendments? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): They are related. In some of my amendments, I have proposed not to reduce so much of the funding for her. I pointed out that if Members do not want to slash so much of her funding, I can give Members a reason. This is because the charges against her are not so serious. When she came out and spoke for her long-time colleagues like MAK Chai-kwong, she had shown both convincing feelings and words. She talked about that person's character, about their being friends. She came to the defence of her protégés. It gives people an impression that she is impeccable.

Chairman, I am about to finish. Despite my scathing criticisms of Carrie LAM, if Members think that the entertainment fees she gets is what she deserves because of her virtues, acting and this seeming readiness to do anything for friends, and so on, I can tell Members that we can only cut her entertainment fees but retain her salary. I do not think this Council will compel people to do things they do not like. If Members accept more of her invitations, they can give her the benefit of doubt. Right? What I have just said may not be all correct.

Chairman, I have finished. In sum, I cannot agree with what Carrie LAM is doing as an official. I think she is betraying the people of Hong Kong. Why? I am going to speak for 30 seconds only. When a Secretary for Department does not dare to tell the views of Hong Kong people on the constitutional reform to the Central Authorities or the CPC in an uncensored manner and if she does not include views which she thinks incompatible with the Basic Law into the consultation report, this is a serious dereliction of duty, a heavy bias. This is also selling off the people of Hong Kong. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?


MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, my impression is that "Long Hair" fails to grasp the latest political situation. As a matter of fact, Carrie LAM is gradually losing her control in the governing team of the Government. This control by the Hong Kong communists is getting stronger and stronger. Chairman, I just want to add one sentence. I wish to point out that he fails completely to grasp the latest political situation.

Chairman, about deleting the expenditure of the ISD on enhancing the civic responsibility of citizens, I have finished with my last point in my criticism. I will now discuss the next item ― on the interference made to the freedom of creation. My speech is based on the revisions made to the lyrics of the theme song "Sail On" for the "Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please do not repeat. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am making no repetition. I will just read out two lines of the lyrics to which revisions were made. There are 10 lines in the song, but I will not read them all out. I will just read out two lines to which revisions were made. This will enable Members to see the difference between the two versions. These revisions were disclosed by the writer of the lyrics.

One line in the original lyrics reads to the following effect: "We're in the same boat, from being treasured to being crushed". Then the writer was asked to revise this into "We're in the same boat, holding hands when the going gets rough". The two versions have a vast difference. The original line of "from being treasured to being crushed" gives listeners a very strong feeling. But this was revised to "We're in the same boat, holding hands when the going gets rough." Of course, the ISD hopes to present a positive outlook. But compared with what the feelings, values or outlook on the future which the writer tries to convey, it is obvious that there is a big change in the revised version.

I think there is an even greater problem with the next line in the lyrics and it serves to destroy the artistic conception of the whole song. I am no culturatic, so I am not well versed in cultural matters. But just by looking at the part of the song which has been revised, I have a feeling that this is much to be regretted. The original lyrics read to this effect: "our differences carve the sky and slam the


11183

shores". But it has been changed into "but we soon forget the grudges in life". This line of "our differences carve the sky and slam the shores" gives an idea of force and momentum. It is a fine artistic presentation. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please do not stray away from the question. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): No, Chairman. I am not digressing at all. Because it is about the use of public money and this song is written with sponsorship by public coffers. The core value of Hong Kong is respect for the freedom of creation. Chairman, I am criticizing the department ISD but not any top official or policy. When the ISD requires a lyric writer in Hong Kong to make changes, the public has a right to know why. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, I have reminded Members many times that when they speak on a request to reduce the expenditure of a certain department, they should not speak too much on a particular policy or measure when they discuss the performance of that department. If you want to debate on the freedom of creation, you should do so on other occasions. Please try to be concise and speak on the performance of the ISD. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will try to be brief. I will just read out two lines of the lyrics, then I will finish my comments on that point. The changes made to these two lines are proof of infringement on the freedom of creation. And such proof also lends support to my proposal on deleting the relevant expenditure under this head.

Now Members can see the difference between "our differences carve the sky and slam the shores" and "but we soon forget the grudges". In the past the Hong Kong Government had sponsored many creative projects. But now it has degraded into exerting pressure for revision of lyrics. I am disappointed with that.

Chairman, apart from affecting the freedom of creation, we can see that the Government has spent a few million dollars on launching publicity efforts for the


"Hong Kong: Our Home" campaign. However, ever since the "Hong Kong: Our Home" special channel was launched in September in the YouTube, the number of clicks maintains at only about 300 000. Recently, an old lady scolded a young man from the Liberal Party in the Legislative Council, the clicks of this video clipping number some hundreds of thousands … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you are speaking for the second time on "Hong Kong: Our Home". Please do not make any comments not related to the question. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Understood. Chairman, I have finished my conclusion. I just want to point out the question of no value for money because this is about the use of public money. When the viewers for such a big project number only about 300 000, this is really on the low side and so it has been a waste of public money.

Chairman, I will now discuss Amendment No 378, which is about slashing the expenditure under head 74 by $21.2 million. The expenditure of the ISD amounts to tens of million dollars and usually, no one will care about its expenditure. Members please note that this work is definitely not value for money. The expenditure estimate stands at some $21 million, it being the expenses used by the ISD on disseminating public opinion information to various bureaux and departments for the whole year. This is extra work and the number of staff under this Programme is 30 persons.

I am sure many Members may not be aware that there is this special team of people undertaking work in this respect. This is because there are information officers and other staff in the bureaux and departments responsible for news work.

Work in this aspect including reading about 50 newspapers and magazines in either English or Chinese, plus listening to or viewing 267 hours of news and public affairs programmes on TVs and radios. The news summaries compiled by the ISD, the translations, reports, transcripts of remarks by officials and newspaper cuttings are all sent to the relevant bureaux and departments as soon as possible.


11185

Since there are information officers in each bureau and department, why is there a need to have this kind of service? Also, Members of this Council and the staff can browse the news through WiseNews. If only the ISD can adopt the same practice, I am sure much money can be saved. If the Government wants to gauge public opinions, it is imperative for officials to go to the districts and get in touch with the people. The United States Consul General to Hong Kong, Clifford HART, went to Sham Shui Po together with the ambassadors of seven countries and paid a visit to "Brother Ming" and the event went viral on the Internet. So if we want to gain any understanding of problems, we should not let other people do this for us. This self-deceptive arrangement will not help the officials in understanding public opinions and sentiments.

In addition, many of the programmes now have become biased and this applies to many radio and TV stations and newspapers. This is especially true of the columnists because many of them have adopted a political stand. If the Government relies on this kind of media to gauge public opinions, it will obtain only biased information. This will lead to prejudice in government policies and views and policies so formulated will not tally with public sentiments.

Chairman, one of the work objectives of the ISD is to compile media report summaries and 2.8 hours are required each day for that purpose. And the compilation of radio/TV report summaries will need 2.2 hours every day. And a total of five hours are needed every day to compile this kind of summaries. But I do not quite understand why this kind of work would incur such huge expenses and has to be undertaken by 30 people.

Chairman, I have only a few minutes left for speaking on this topic for the previous topic is more controversial, so my speech was quite long.

Chairman, I will now come to Amendment No 376 ― the amount involved is very large ― which seeks to reduce head 74 by $42.4 million. After listening to my speech on this item, Members will find that the situation is most ridiculous and absurd. What is purpose of this amount of some $40 million? This is equivalent to the annual provision for the ISD for receiving foreign visitors and giving talks overseas. A sum of more than $40 million is used just for visitors to Hong Kong and giving talks overseas. For many years this item of expenditure has been maintained at over $40 million, but the number of people sponsored is very few indeed. I do not know how many cans of Dace in black soya beans and luncheon meat can be bought with this sum of money. Members can guess how


many visitors there are. It turns out that only 260 persons were assisted under this policy area last year. And the number for this year is estimated to be 300 persons. And as much as $40 million is to be spent on providing service for these 300 persons. I have made a rough computation and found the average amount of assistance given to each visitor is $80,000. I really do not understand why the taxpayers of Hong Kong should waste so many cans of Dace in black soya beans and luncheon meat to sponsor these visitors in meeting the media. I do not know whether this is really like what I have always been saying, that is, the Home Affairs Department is an intelligence organ and when the ISD accompanies these visitors, it is carrying out surveillance work. It is definitely unacceptable to provide support amounting to $80,000 on average to each visitor to Hong Kong.

As for the giving of talks overseas, there were 163 occasions for that last year. It is estimated that there will be 200 such occasions this year. I strongly oppose expenditure in this area because it is not worth the money. I have therefore proposed Amendment No 376 to slash the expenditure which is $42.4 million and to let the people of Hong Kong know that, for those VIPs in the eyes of the Hong Kong Government, every time when they come to Hong Kong, we have to pay $80,000 for each one of them. I think Members will remember this when they see these people.

Chairman, the number of people in the Chamber is getting smaller. I request a headcount. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, before coming to my discussion on the expenditure regarding the police, I tender my last piece of advice to the ISD, especially to those top officials. Often times the problem lies


11187

in whether these persons have this kind of political vigilance. If they lack this political vigilance, many problems which should not have happened or could have been handled better will bring disastrous results. It does not matter what kind of window-dressing is done, in the end only public money is wasted. So the Government must do its part well and it must not just keep on spending public money and rely on the ISD to obtain information or engage in publicity work and publicize this kind of so-called benevolent policies.

Chairman, I now come to Amendment No 579. This amendment relates to expenses for the police. Chairman, once mention is made of the police, emotions would swell in me. I was showered by pepper spray from the police and I was also brutally beaten up by the police as well. This amendment seeks to slash $80 million from head 122, that is, about the annual provision for the police in respect of specialist supplies and equipment.

Chairman, I suggest deleting this expenditure item because there is a lack of monitoring and accountability. Just what is meant by "specialist" and what does "equipment" refer to? These can cover a very wide scope of things, like pistols, bullets, pepper sprays, bugging devices and video cameras. Over the past three years, the expenditure for this item has been maintained at a very stable level. It was $82.76 million in 2012-2013. Last year it was $78 million and for this year, it is $80 million. Previously some Members asked what the uses for this expenditure item were, but the Government refused to give a reply. Chairman, the Government refused to give a reply on what were bought with this sum of tens of million dollars. This item of expenditure has remained unclear throughout the many years in the past. This is absurd. Is this sum of money used to buy pepper sprays, bullets or what? The Government must give an account of this and explain it. But the Government refused to give a detailed reply in the past. I therefore think that this expenditure item should be deleted. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): In this session I will speak on Amendment Nos 31 and 32. They are related to "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office", and I will talk about the duty visits made by the Chief Executive. Certainly, I support both amendments, but as I thought many Members have spoken on the relevant issues, I had, therefore, put them off to this later time, and


if you, Chairman, had ended the debate, I would not be able to speak on them now. Having said that, just now I heard Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung keep on criticizing Carrie LAM ― of course, I also support those amendments ― but apart from being the Chief Secretary for Administration, Carrie LAM is also the Acting Chief Executive now. If the Government cares to do some statistics, it will find out that Carrie LAM may probably be the Chief Secretary for Administration who has acted up as the Chief Executive most often because LEUNG Chun-ying is always not in Hong Kong.

Let me play a game with those who are watching the live broadcast of this meeting. Do you know where exactly is LEUNG Chun-ying now? I will tell you the answer at the end of my speech. It seems that LEUNG Chun-ying is playing hide-and-seek with Hong Kong people. Hong Kong people do not know…I would suggest the reporters to ask Members going in and out of this Chamber whether they know the whereabouts of LEUNG Chun-ying.

Turning back to the amendments, the proposed deduction is $1.5 million, which is equivalent to the estimated expenditure on duty visits made by the Chief Executive for the whole year. What is the overall expenditure of the entire Chief Executive's Office (CEO)? Let us look at the overall amounts before studying the individual ones, in order to find out if it is reasonable to allocate a financial provision to it. I noticed that the estimated financial provision for the CEO was $72.7 million in 2012, $74.4 million in 2013 and $78.3 million this year. This year's estimate represents an increase of 5.2% over the actual expenditure last year or an increase of 7.7% over the original estimate last year. We must think up ways to make up for the increase and it is necessary to explore new sources of revenue and cut expenditure. I have come up with some proposals on reducing the expenditure for the CEO, and I think it is best to support the two amendments proposed by Mr Gary FAN and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung respectively.

We have well-justified reasons to propose or support these amendments. I noticed that over the past two years, the Chief Executive has conducted visits in an official capacity very frequently. After LEUNG Chun-ying took office ― Is it that LEUNG Chun-ying has been in office for two whole years? Almost two years ― he has made a total of 21 duty visits, including 19 visits to the Mainland and two to overseas countries. In each of these visits he travelled with an entourage and spent over $10,000 ― that is for sure ― Duty visits made by LEUNG Chun-ying incurred a total expenditure in excess of $1.54 million.


11189

However, I found from these figures that in the many duty visits to the Mainland, the expense on hotel accommodation and passage was zero, which means free of charge. I wonder if it was because he had won a prize or the relevant authorities had paid for the food and accommodation expenses for LEUNG Chun-ying. Obviously, this will be questioned by the public.

According to the response given by the CEO, the expenses on duty visits include charges for accommodation and passage, subsistence allowance for duty outside Hong Kong and sundry expenses but exclude sponsorship. Can the CEO disclose the details on the organizations and people providing sponsorship for the food and accommodation expenses in these 21 visits? I think it is necessary for the Chief Executive to explain whether the substantial increase in this year's estimate is related to the Chief Executive's frequent duty visits. We have carefully compared the information on duty visits made by two Chief Executives and of course, I made the comparison based on the figures in the past two years, such as the number of visits to the Mainland, and LEUNG Chun-ying is far ahead of Donald TSANG. In one of the years, LEUNG Chun-ying made 19 visits whereas the visits made by Donald TSANG were a single-digit number, and LEUNG Chun-ying visited Beijing six times, while their numbers of visits to overseas countries were more or less the same.

After looking at the total amounts, I would like to find out together with Members where LEUNG Chun-ying is now. According to the website of the CEO, LEUNG Chun-ying is currently on a visit to Sweden. First, I have to point out one thing which is very important. Carrie LAM is the Acting Chief Executive now. The Financial Secretary and the many officials held an urgent special meeting on Thursday morning to deal with the financial difficulty, as you have put it, Chairman, or the fiscal cliff or fiscal crisis, as they have put it. But LEUNG Chun-ying is on a tour in Europe, conducting a duty visit there. Apart from facing the challenges in relation to the Budget, the SAR Government also faces the problems of "three landfills and one incinerator", the Express Rail Link, and the "congestion" in the Finance Committee. But it seems that LEUNG Chun-ying, being the Chief Executive, does not have a part to play as all of his duties have been handed to the two Secretaries of Department, namely, Carrie LAM and John TSANG.

What actually is the purpose of his visit to Sweden? We can see it on the website of the CEO. If I cite the paragraph which states the reasons ― The panels of the Legislative Council, for instance, always conduct duty visits too,


and every panel may conduct one or two such visits every year ― Just go to its website and take a look, and if I cite the reasons for LEUNG Chun-ying's visit to Sweden and apply them to this Council, I think they will draw severe criticisms from the public. Why did he choose to visit Sweden? He said to the effect that Sweden is a country with advanced development in technology and innovation and then he cited some examples. The first example cited by him is Ericsson. My goodness! We all know what role Ericsson is playing in the telecommunications industry as well as the production and sales volumes of its mobile phones nowadays. Had he made these remarks a decade ago when everyone was using "337" ― it was more than a decade or two ago when we used Ericsson's mobile phones ― Had he said back then that he would visit Sweden to study Ericsson's innovation and technology, that would have sounded reasonable, but Ericsson is already a sunset mobile phone manufacturer now. Members can check this out online. The first reason for his visit to Sweden is Ericsson.

What is the second reason? There is furniture by IKEA in Sweden. This is why there are commentaries saying that the Chief Executive might want to negotiate with IKEA and ask them to stop producing "Lufsig", or he might want to buy all the stock of "Lufsig". The ensuing reasons are all redundant. One of the reasons is that the pop group, ABBA, is from Sweden. How outrageous it is that these can be the reasons for a duty visit and they are even placed in the front part. It is either…or H&M…And if such being case, the Chief Executive actually has reasons to travel around the world because in every city or country or even in undeveloped places, there is always something for us to learn. For example, in a place where the environment is deplorable, we can still observe the policy on poverty alleviation there. Chairman, I have only cited one example.

Insofar as the number of duty visits made by the Chief Executive is concerned, I certainly think that his visits are overly frequent judging from the trend. Second, the timing is not right. I have discussed this with colleagues in the CEO earlier on and they said, "That is not true. These visits were planned a long time ago. How can we foretell that you will filibuster and how can we know that the developments will become so critical? We can do nothing even though the situation is critical now." But there are duty visits planned for him every month. He is an offshore Chief Executive, a Chief Executive who travels around the world. His choice of Sweden is most irrelevant…His reasons are not justified. If you are the Chairman of a panel, say, the ITB Panel (Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting), and you said that you want to visit Sweden because there is ABBA ― can it be any worse? ― will you approve it?


11191

The reasons are that there is "Lufsig", furniture by IKEA, fashion by H&M, and so on. These are totally…It is all because we cannot monitor him and he is not accountable to the Legislative Council and so, he can fill in arbitrary reasons for his duty visits. Members can browse the website of the CEO. He explained the reasons for his visit to Sweden in four lines which indeed amount to a laughing stock.

Why should he visit Sweden? Let me tell Members the truth. The purpose is to promote innovation and technology and to make news, so to speak. He said that Sweden is innovative, that it attaches great importance to technology, and that it is a place where people have the opportunity to further their development as long as they are creative. First, he chose the wrong place. Sweden is no longer what it used to be. It used to be a place with a high degree of freedom and anyone with creativity could make a fortune out of their bare hands. But nowadays, the reasons cited by him for his visit, such as studying their telecommunications companies, fashion or furniture companies, and so on, cannot support his argument at all. Having said that, he does not need to give us any reason anyway and he can pick any reason he likes. He said in the first line that Sweden is a city of innovation and technology and for this reason, he goes on a duty visit there.

The timing of the visits is not right, the visits are too frequent, the choices are inappropriate, and the reasons are ridiculous. All these are the reasons why I think we should deduct the expenditure for his duty visits. What are the merits of this deduction? First, savings can be achieved; and second, he can stay in Hong Kong to contribute to the development of Hong Kong. Now that there are major incidents happening every month and we really should ask LEUNG Chun-ying to present the schedule of all his duty visits. There is a crisis every month; the kitchen is on fire and there is smoke coming out of it; and the officials almost have to step down and yet, he can still be away from Hong Kong, rather than staying here and taking charge. As I have always said, a colleague who always takes leave is actually not needed; or if a boss can control his company offshore, he can still make it without keeping his office, for he can manage the company's affairs offshore. Or, if Carrie LAM can handle her work nicely and effectively as the Acting Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying can actually step down and does not have to remain in office anymore.

Therefore, Members absolutely should support our proposal on deducting the $1.5 million expenditure for duty visits of the CEO. Besides, if he could make his visit to Sweden sound as if it is a study tour even for such flimsy


reasons, he can actually travel around the world and tour around Europe every week. He seemed to have said that it was his first visit to Europe. I think he was wrong in choosing Sweden and he may visit even more European cities in the future.

Earlier I asked Members to play a game … actually it is not a game at all but civic education: Where is our Chief Executive? Our Chief Executive is not in Sweden anymore. The first leg of his tour is Stockholm, Sweden, and now, he has already taken a flight to Brussels, Belgium. Hong Kong people do not know his whereabouts, and I have been given to understand that he would return to Hong Kong tomorrow night. Do Hong Kong people feel very angry? The officials said that Hong Kong is at a critical moment of a crisis. Both Carrie LAM and John TSANG have said so. As such, LEUNG Chun-ying should have come forth to help by making similar remarks. He was found missing even when those officials raised those alarmist talk, but he visited Stockholm and then Brussels.

In other words, Chairman, in response to what I said earlier, it has now been revealed that Hong Kong actually faces neither a financial crisis nor a fiscal cliff. The Chief Executive is on a trip overseas. He said that his itinerary is very packed this time around as he will be attending over 10 banquets and talks. But he is entirely not worried about the current situation of Hong Kong. It may probably be each and every member of the ordinary public who is most worried about the situation of Hong Kong.

The problems faced by the Government, including the financial provisions, the incinerator, the North East New Territories development project, the delay of the Express Rail Link, and the question of whether officials have to step down, are all secondary to his visit to the Europe in LEUNG Chun-ying's mind. This is why I have to deduct the expenditure for his duty visits. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I think Mr CHAN Chi-chuen was overreacting a bit in his speech. When the Chief Executive makes his duty visits, what does it have to do with you? He will make his own arrangements, and as the saying goes, "devising a strategy in the headquarter tents; winning the war a thousand miles away". This is the case of each gambler


11193

in placing bets on soccer matches. They place their bets over the phone no matter how far away they are, and they can place their bets once they are put through on the line. What is the problem with this? The more capable a person is, the farther away he is from the scene, for "he has a million soldiers in his chest". So, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's views are really shallow. Having said that, I think of this saying: "笑罵由他笑罵，好埠我自遊之" (Despite all ridicule and criticisms, I will continue to go on overseas visits in my own way).

Chairman, having listened to Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's insulting remarks against the Chief Executive, I think this is really improper. Frankly speaking, Hong Kong cannot be governed for a day without a leader (There was a "pang" sound in the Chamber) … Again? … So, I think of the saying, "Until Qing Fu is dead, the crisis in the State of Lu will not end"2. It is because as long as this man remains in office, there will always be hidden secrets that people can never find out, and there is no way for people to guess why he needs to go on these overseas visits. Chairman, I once asked questions about his British Virgin Islands (BVI) company; I hurled objects at him, and I also acted against the Rules of Procedure as I stood up to ask my questions and I had been twice expelled from this Chamber by you, but to date, the CEO has not yet given me any reply. Since there is a BVI company under his name… CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, on which amendment are you now speaking? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The amendment relating to the duty visits made by the Chief Executive as referred to by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. This must not be wrong. This is a continuation of the debate.

Why did I cite that saying? Because so long as he does not give an explanation, how can we know whether or not he actually went overseas to inspect his own business? There is basically no way for us to find out about the operation of that company of his. Take Ericsson as an example. It has become a laughing stock, and it was offered for sale. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen does not 2 Qing Fu is a prince in the State of Lu in the Spring and Autumn Period who repeatedly stirred up troubles.


know that it has been sold already, only that the company still remains in its place of origin. What is there for him to study? It is a company already sold to other people.

What I have to point out here is that although I do not agree with the overall analysis made by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen because there is no reason for a capable man to sit at home all the time and he will certainly go out to see what is happening around him and give commands. The point is that if the Chief Executive refused to explain to us the information on this company, all the people in Hong Kong can have reasonable doubts. This matter has been put off for more than two years, and he even cannot properly settle this issue relating to a company opened by him. What exactly is the business of this company? Is it opened for tax avoidance? He has denied it. But according to information given by Wikipedia on the Internet, many people have opened these companies to avoid tax because that place is a tax haven; but he denied.

I might just give him the benefit of doubt. But the second point is that this act of suspected tax avoidance has begged doubts about the business of that company, and as he has kept going away from Hong Kong to conduct overseas visits, how can we know what he is doing? Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, your analysis is not that detailed. Had the Chief Executive said that his BVI company was involved in the merger or acquisition of Ericsson, what you said would have been tenable. So, you must make clear the facts… CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have strayed away from the question. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Can this be considered a digression? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): For official visits made by the Chief Executive and all officials, they will have clear itineraries. What you are saying now is not relevant to the amendment mentioned by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen earlier.


11195

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, you are wrong. I have not digressed from the question, for my doubts are reasonable. We can ask people engaging in business who are now watching the telecast of this meeting, especially Dr CHIANG Lai-wan…Chairman, the Chief Executive has a company but we do not know the nature of its business and therefore, as he always goes on overseas trips, I think it is reasonable to suspect that this may be related to the business of his company. Can this be wrong? Former Chief Executive TUNG Chee-hwa turned his company into a trust and entrusted its operation to other people… CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your comments are not about the duty visits made by the Chief Executive or the estimate for his duty visits. Please focus on the relevant amendment in your speech. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): This is why we must deduct the expenditure for this purpose. If he refused to explain that…Chairman, can you let me finish what I have got to say? My view is simple. Why did I cite the saying, "Until Qing Fu is dead, the crisis in the State of Lu will not end"? You should understand it. So long as this man does not explain the business of that company and maintains an attitude of non-response, we have every reason to suspect that he has made use of a public instrument for private purposes. Therefore, so long as he does not give a clear explanation, he should stop making duty visits. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have made your point clear, and please do not repeat it. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Since you have got it, that would do. Members should have got it too, right? Anyway, so long as he refuses to explain the business of that company, he should not make any visit outside Hong Kong, including the Mainland. How can I know what he will be doing there? Chairman, as you told me not to repeat my point, I will not dwell on it any further. I am most compliant, because there is nothing I can do as I must endure the humiliation in order to discharge an important duty.


Let me now talk about another issue which is related to the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Chairman … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please specify which amendment you are speaking on. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Amendment No 783 which seeks to resolve that head 144 be reduced by $16 million in respect of subhead 000. That is the estimated expenditure for promotion of the Basic Law for the whole year. It is Amendment No 783. Do you get it? Have you found it? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please continue. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Right. On the question of whether or not the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau can pass in the appraisal of its performance, we should start from the constitutional reform. The Government's argument is that all the 27 so-called pan-democratic Members do not understand the Basic Law. What should we do if even people responsible for monitoring the Government do not know the Basic Law? The Bureau is asking for a financial provision of $16 million to educate people on what the Basic Law is. This is already a fallacy in itself.

The Government said that we did not understand the Basic Law and claimed that Article 45 of the Basic Law should not be interpreted this way, adding that this interpretation was all imposed by us. Eventually, it took a certain object surnamed "石" (sek6) whose name is "石敢當" (pronounced as 'sek6 gam2 dong1'; meaning stone tablets erected to ward off evil spirits) ― No. This guy should be Paul SHIEH from the Hong Kong Bar Association, who pointed out that both sides are wrong. I am not going to explain his explanation in detail or else I would be regarded as prolonging the debate here. In short, what he means is that even civil nomination is in breach of Article 45 of the Basic Law. Buddy, the Bureau has carried out work for so many years and it is asking for $16 million to be used on promoting the Basic Law and yet, unceasing controversies have been aroused on such a crucial point. This proves that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau has actually not made any effort at all.


11197

In fact, despite a multitude of questions that need to be addressed, I wish to say only one thing, not "To rebel is justified", but what Article 45 of the Basic Law is all about. The money must be spent on the crucial areas. While they clearly know that Article 45 will arouse controversies, why did they make only some general comments on it? The first thing they ought to do is to draw up the Programme objectives, explaining what Article 45 of the Basic Law is about. Chairman, the Civic Party was formerly the Article 45 Concern Group. They are really ahead of others as they knew right from the outset that they should start from studying Article 45 of the Basic Law, and they subsequently formed a political party. They are really a lot more far-sighted. After the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau had obtained the funding, they nevertheless acted like a cook working at a "dai pai dong", putting all sorts of ingredients into the pan and most importantly, a pinch of monosodium glutamate and then frying a dish out of it. This is entirely a waste of time.

This single example can already enable us to see the picture. In the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau there is an experienced former Member of this Council who should be well versed in the procedures of discussion in the Legislative Council. So what has LAU Kong-wah done? Knowing that this is a crucial point, did he instruct his subordinates in the Bureau to deal with it? Let me not talk about LAU Kong-wah for the time being, giving him the benefit of doubt. But those people in the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau responsible for the promotion of the Basic Law might not be able to discharge their duties because there was no instruction top down. Besides, there is also the problem of putting emphasis on a wrong point. There is actually a problem with the promotion of the Basic Law and that is, "a heavy dose" is prescribed to respond to a reality long expired.

Chairman, why did I say that? From this we can see the confusion in the Government's governance. The story goes like this: Two years ago Eddie NG suffered a defeat, failing to take forward national education. LEUNG Chun-ying said that subject to the circumstances, it was not a must to implement national education at once. As a result, the controversies over national education basically came to a halt with the Chief Executive making an announcement that was gladly accepted by the 120 000 people who finally left the square. However, most of the funding continued to focus on the need of national education. Is that not insane? In fact, from that day onwards, the focus should have been placed on the need to inculcate a correct understanding of Article 45 of the Basic Law and if that could be done, even $1.6 million might


suffice. Efforts are made on a shadow, something which is history. But what it seeks to do now is in "future tense" and yet, their actions are in "past tense" or are even in "past participles" to mean that they are still in progress. This is downright a waste of time, is it not?

Therefore, with regard to the annual estimated financial provision for promotion of the Basic Law, I think not even a single cent should be approved for it and this is indeed the right thing to do, or else this would mean spending the money on something which is history and finding solutions to it, rather than resolving a problem which will happen or is happening. From the angle of administration, anyone who does this must have an IQ of zero, and this must not be allowed.

Having said all this, I also wish to make another point. The promotion of the Basic Law actually must not be carried out with an excessively generous approach. Chairman, I have attended those activities for promoting the Basic Law before and I would say that I returned with a full load of gifts but the stuffs that I brought back were all harmful, such as plastic folders. Oh please, buddy, since you got the funding anyway, could you not give out free gifts that are reusable and recyclable? All that matters is the price. In order to attract women and children who are knowledgeable enough to know that studying the Basic Law will do them good, bulk orders are placed for these substandard, non-recyclable goods in an attempt to provide a sales outlet for those substandard factories in the Mainland. How undersirable is this.

Here, Chairman, let me make an appeal to them not to give away gifts anymore. If they want to give away gifts, they should give away books instead. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has been doing this very effectively. I have in my office a copy of that simplified version of the Basic Law published by the DAB. Is it not better for the public to read the official text? Why should they give away numerous little knick-knacks, such as plastic folders, ball pens, and so on? We should take a serious attitude, because the Basic Law is not for fun; nor is it a gimmick, still less non-recyclable waste.

Therefore, I think money should be spent wisely. This year, let us deduct the expenditure in this area. But I hope that in the budget next year, copies of the Basic Law and CD-Roms can be produced in proportion to the population and


11199

the literacy rate, so that all literate adults in Hong Kong can gain some understanding of the Basic Law. Thank you, Chairman.

Meanwhile, I would like the Chairman to do a headcount, so as to remind Members that they must abide by the basic law of this Council by attending meetings. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, as I mentioned earlier, the expenditure on specialist supplies and equipment for the Police Force lacks transparency. As an expenditure of $80 million is involved, lenient treatment should not be given just because the Police Force appear to enjoy a special status. I would also like to call on the Audit Commission to probe into whether the items procured under head 122 are value for money and put to good use, and whether there is any waste. Everyone knows that the over-ambitious approach of the Commissioner currently in charge of the Police Force is very different from the approach of his several predecessors. Very often, his attitude or values influence the modus operandi or administrative arrangements of the Police Force. At present, the operation of the Police Force is far from transparent. Furthermore, the present approach of the Security Bureau, which seems to be intimidated by the power and influence of the Police Force, is very different from its previous approach in managing or monitoring departmental expenses. In the past, the Security Bureau enjoyed a highly authoritative status and image in handling security matters. There used to be a certain degree of impartiality and credibility in its approach of work. During this year or the previous year, under the leadership of the "condor", the Police Force seemed to override the power and influence of the Security Bureau. This is absolutely unacceptable, especially when it comes to the monitoring of public expenditure.


Chairman, I will now proceed to discussing another amendment. The amendment I discussed just now, that is, Amendment No 579, is proposed by me. The next amendment, that is, Amendment No 585, is proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and involves reducing $4,024,080 (approximately equivalent to the estimated annual payroll cost (at entry point) of 12 Sergeants under the Police Public Engagement Group (PPEG)) under head 122. The establishment of the PPEG involves mainly liaison with organizers and stakeholders of large-scale and cross-district public order events (POEs), with a view to enhancing their mutual understanding and co-operation and offering assistance, by all means, to ensure that POEs are conducted in a peaceful, orderly and safe manner. It comprises approximately 20 police officers, including one Chief Inspector, three Senior Inspectors, 12 Sergeants and four Police Constables.

Chairman, why do I have to pinpoint the PPEG? First of all, I have to declare my interest. In a case in which I am being prosecuted, a Sergeant has become a witness for the prosecution. This is why I must lodge an appeal against this case. As for another appeal case, a verdict will be handed down next Monday, that is, 19 May. Based on my personal experience, I wish to point out a very serious problem ― although many Police Constables or the person in charge of the PPEG strongly disagree with the attitude of or decision made by the senior management of the Police Force, the nature of work of the PPEG has already changed in nature, given the despotic power of the incumbent Commissioner of Police. Chairman, I have been participating in political organizations or social campaigns for three decades. In the considerable prosecutions instituted over the past many years, a person in charge of the PPEG has never turned into a prosecution witness. Under the governance of Andy TSANG, however, the system has been distorted and changed.

Now, the PPEG is often found following the persons in charge of processions, demonstrations or campaigns. For instance, during the 1 July marches on several occasions, two persons in charge of the PPEG were found following me all the way to find out more about the processions, including the activities to be conducted afterwards, participants, measures taken, and so on. There were also exchanges of opinions in a candid manner. Why should this be done? Because even organizers of the processions would like to see participants of the processions properly protected. We must not betray the masses for the sake of organizing processions, or cause the masses to suffer losses for the sake of our own halo. Hence, we will maintain close liaison with the PPEG should we come up with any measure or decision.


11201

In many cases, the participants of processions are not our acquaintances. We contact each other and get together probably because we share similar values or points of view. In a procession, there are many opportunities for communication and liaison between individual groups and persons. On the other hand, they might also make decisions of their own. The interaction between these decisions may have an impact on the rights and even safety of other participants, too. Therefore, I personally think that such communication is, in most cases, important because our ultimate goal is to protect the safety of the participants. Certainly, participating organizations have their own political aspirations. But still, this should not cause any contradictions or conflicts. They only hope to enhance mutual trust between each other through such communication and perform their own role… CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please explain promptly why your speech is related to this amendment. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): They are related. Chairman, I have to reduce the expenditure of the PPEG by more than $4 million because it has changed in nature. Chairman, if members of the PPEG can turn into prosecution witnesses, the persons in charge of processions in future will certainly not reveal the relevant arrangements and information to the police officers of the PPEG for such information divulged might become evidence for the prosecution. As I pointed out just now, in the past two decades or so, no police officers of the PPEG have ever become prosecution witnesses. Sometimes, processions might involve unlawful acts. What impresses me most is the resumption of the Wah Kai Industrial Centre by the Government in 2000. Besides the constant contact between the Police Public Relations Branch and me, I was also surrounded by some police officers. In the eyes of the incumbent Commissioner of Police, we should have been arrested and prosecuted for certain acts of ours that day. However, such acts were tolerated and accepted back then. Hence, owing to the significant change in the approach of work adopted by the PPEG, Chairman, the trust between us has disappeared. Naturally, the retention value of the PPEG has disappeared, too. For this reason, I support this amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. As I said just now, I myself am a victim, too.

Chairman, Amendment No 598, which is proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, involves reducing head 122 by $2.4 million, which is equivalent to


the estimated annual expenditure incurred by the Hong Kong Police Force on Body Worn Video Cameras (BWVCs). In 2012-2013, $500,000 was spent on the procurement of 50 BWVCs for a six-month first-phase field trial completed in September 2013, in which BWVCs were activated in 25 cases. In 2014-2015, the Police Force plan to spend more than $2.4 million on the procurement of 274 BWVCs to conduct a one-year second-phase field trial.

Chairman, why do I support this proposal put forward by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung? It is mainly because I am concerned about the use of BWVCs and possible infringement of human rights, despite the claim that the footage recorded will be used for reference only, not for investigation and production of evidence. According to the administrative mechanism established by the authorities, the footage recorded will be kept for only 31 days. If the 31-day period has to be extended, vetting and approval in writing by one Senior Superintendent will be required. Furthermore, he has to conduct a review on a monthly basis. Apart from this, trainees have to learn how to handle the video clips, and the use of BWVCs is regulated by established procedures, too. According to the police, BWVCs are used mainly to record demonstrations and fights among triads. Chairman, I am very angry. The fact that demonstrations are treated on a par with triad societies by the police fully demonstrates its biased attitude. In particular, the hatred shown by Andy TSANG towards demonstrators is so great that they seem to have killed all of his family members. Such an attitude of hatred, unreasonableness and impropriety is fully exposed.

Chairman, the most important point is that the police have stated that any person who deliberately blocks their cameras will be charged with obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. I find this new measure utterly unacceptable, for it constitutes serious infringement of human rights. Chairman, Liverpool was defeated in a recent soccer match because Steven GERRAD lost his balance and fell down. When a journalist was about to take pictures of him, he used his hand to block the camera. When some people have emotional problems, they will have emotional reactions, like the veteran soccer stars of the English Premier League, even though they have not committed any crime. Many participants of processions and demonstrations show strong resistance to being recorded by the police. This is why some people were seen blocking cameras with their hands or protest placards when they passed by police officers who were filming. So, when a person attempts to block a camera with his protest placard, does it mean that he wants the police to film the words on his placard or he wishes to obstruct the filming by the police? Now the police are


11203

telling us that people who deliberately block their cameras will be charged with obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty. Does it mean that I will be charged with the same offence should I block the police cameras with a placard?

Under such circumstances, I do not think that approval should be given to the police to use public funds to procure additional equipment which might infringe the rights and interests of the public. As pointed out by Secretary Eddie NG, students committing crimes will have to face the impact all their life. Now, an innocent protestor charged by the police with obstructing a police officer in the execution of his duty will have to face the impact all his life, in addition to legal proceedings and even imprisonment. It is really most ridiculous that I was criminally prosecuted for allegedly blocking the camera while taking part in an ordinary procession. Therefore, I hope Members can support this amendment proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. I have personally experienced the police's biased way of filming (the buzzer sounded) … I will talk about my experience in this regard later on. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the filibuster has actually persisted for a couple of days. Obviously, the relevant Members are filibustering though they said right at the beginning that they would not do so. Members who could remain seated here would have done so by all means. However, many of them could not stand it any longer and eventually walked out as they found the speeches becoming more and more frivolous.

Chairman, after listening to the speeches delivered by several Members over the past couple of days, we all find that the contents and spirit of the many amendments proposed by them are in complete contravention of the current labour laws. For instance, they propose dismissing certain civil servants or accountable officials, withholding the payment of salary to certain contract staff or reducing their salary. Chairman, we all know that employees are protected by employment agreements. How can we do that? Therefore, the spirit of the amendments proposed by these Members is already unlawful.

Secondly, the Chairman has instructed new Members to base on substance or reasons with direct or substantial relevance to the question should they wish to propose amendments. However, after hearing all the speeches delivered over these couple of days, I find that many of them are pure guesses or speculations,


containing many expressions such as "probably", "suspect", and so on. Why should we continue with the discussion as these Members do not have sufficient evidence to substantiate their proposals on reducing someone's salary or expenditure? Chairman, perhaps you should give us an explanation because I really cannot figure this out.

I believe the numerous amendments proposed by them have a legal basis, but the enactment of laws is meant to enable society to operate in a stable and fair manner, rather than allowing certain bad elements to exploit loopholes. Chairman, I hope that you will act impartially to uphold the spirit of Legislative Council Members in performing their duties. Now, Members are suffering terribly and concentration is hardly possible. Chairman, the one who suffers the most must be you. I have to speak from the bottom of my heart because I can no longer stand it. I so submit. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If the amendment proposed by a Member is in violation of the Rules of Procedure (RoP), I am obliged to disallow it. Members can also point it out to me should they consider the amendments approved by me to be in violation of the RoP.

The same goes for the speech delivered by a Member during a debate. For instance, Rule 45(1) of the RoP provides that a Member should not persist in irrelevance. Therefore, if a Member frequently strays away from the question, I will point it out and stop him from doing so. Furthermore, Rule 45(1) also provides that a Member should not make tedious repetition of his own or other Members' arguments. Hence, should this situation arise, I will also stop the Member in question. Certainly, I will stop a Member from delivering a speech in the debate if it should not be delivered in this Council or constitutes a violation of other provisions of the RoP.

Nevertheless, amendments compliant with the provisions of the RoP do not mean that other Members or the general public will consider them to be good or worthwhile to be proposed. As President of the Legislative Council, in enforcing the RoP, I will not judge whether an amendment is good or bad, or whether it is outrageous or ridiculous. An amendment can be proposed provided that it is in compliance with the RoP. In the debate, other Members can certainly advance arguments to point out that an amendment is ridiculous or unlawful. Likewise, I did not stop Members from speaking in debates because I


11205

could not see that their speeches constituted a violation of the RoP. But this does not mean that I agree with or accept some of the arguments therein. If other Members find the speech delivered by a certain Member absolutely insensible, fabricated, or unacceptable, they can certainly refute it. This is the purpose of debate.

In the course of a debate, any Member who finds that the speech delivered by another Member constitutes a violation of the RoP can certainly state so immediately. For instance, I made a ruling after Mr Paul TSE had risen to point out earlier that the content of the speech delivered by a Member who was speaking was in violation of the RoP. I will stop a Member from speaking if I think that his speech has indeed violated the RoP. Furthermore, Members who disagree with the speeches delivered by other Members should speak in response.

Dr CHIANG, in the course of a debate, a Member may rise and speak under two circumstances. First, to make a request to speak. A Member who makes such a request must comply with the provisions of the RoP, which means that his or her speech must not be repetitive or stray away from the question. Furthermore, it must pinpoint the content of the debate ongoing then. Secondly, to raise a point of order by pointing out violations of the RoP.

Dr CHIANG, I am not quite clear about why you rose to speak just now. Did you wish to respond to other Members or raise a point of order? Should you wish to raise a point of order, I would like to emphasize to Members that a Member can raise a question at any time should he or she find violations of the RoP in this Chamber, and I will make a judgment.

Does any other Member wish to speak? (Dr CHIANG Lai-wan raised her hand in indication) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, what is your point? DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, just now I rose to speak mainly because I was sceptical of the speeches delivered by those Members in this joint debate. I have to express my views because such words as "probably"


and "suspect" are found in many of their speeches, which means that they have no concrete or substantial evidence. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members can absolutely express their personal views and speculations in their speeches. As regards whether other Members and members of the public find the speeches heard acceptable or absolutely unfounded, imaginative, or even fabricated, it is up to them to judge.

I would like to reiterate that if Members strongly disagree with the content of the speeches delivered by Members who have already spoken, they certainly have the right to rise to refute by pointing out that the speeches are speculative, empty, unfounded, and so on.

Does any other Member wish to speak? MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I request a headcount. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to thank Dr CHIANG Lai-wan for her speech just now. However, it would be much better for her to correct us or even initiate a debate by using her 15 minutes to pinpoint Members' speeches in accordance with the ROP if she considers Members' arguments inadequate, fabricated or speculative. At least, it is better for her to do so than cast an opposition vote in the end. In fact, the extremely vague points of view put forward by her just now are not helpful to the Budget debate in any way. So, if she finds anything wrong or ridiculous with the speeches of any


11207

particular Members just now, she should use her 15 minutes of speaking time to give us an explanation.

Chairman, since some Members might not clearly hear, understand or accept our arguments, I really have to consider explaining my arguments more clearly and advance a greater number of sound justifications to convince Members who are sitting here to support our amendments. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, this is already the 34th time you are speaking in this joint debate. Please do not make tedious repetition of your arguments because you think that Members have not caught your arguments clearly. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I see. Thank you, Chairman. Just now, I only spent a little time to respond to Dr CHIANG. Perhaps the words from her mouth represent the thoughts of other Members, too.

I shall continue to make some additional remarks on the speech delivered by me in the previous session to support the proposals put forward by Mr Gary FAN and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to reduce the estimated annual expenditure for the overseas visits made by the Chief Executive. Just now, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung refuted me by saying that there is no need for a brilliant boss to remain in the office all the time. Like illegal bookmaking, he can give commands with perfect ease in all parts of the world with the help of just a telephone and a computer. Let me not debate with Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung on this point for the time being. If his argument holds water, I think that not only does the CEO have to slash manpower and wages, the whole CEO should also be cut by half because the Chief Executive does not work in the CEO. If everyone can set up a home office, the site of the Central Government Offices might as well be used for the construction of buildings and public housing flats.

Furthermore, even if Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's argument is tenable, which means that I should not criticize the Chief Executive for leaving Hong Kong or going offshore, it can still not dismiss my suspicion that he has left the office and returned home for a sleep. Should he do so, he is getting paid for nothing. However, Hong Kong people's money has to be spent on these overseas visits. So, I have to argue if his overseas visits are worthwhile, Mr LEUNG. In the


previous session, I focused on the worth of his visit to Europe, that is, Stockholm. Although we cannot vet and approve the Chief Executive's overseas visits on every occasion, Chairman, this is a crucial case study in methodology. This means that after we have identified a special case, we can convince everyone if we can defeat it. Although his case is well presented, it has turned out to be untenable, not to mention other entertainment activities.

Since I have too much information, I was unable to find the information on the online response made by the Chief Executive and the account of his visit to Sweden…it is very brief. Chairman, I must clearly spell out the reasons for him, according to the Chief Executive, to learn from Sweden. This is his version, not mine. Members may make judgment from these reasons to determine if there are any problems with the mindset and mentality of the Chief Executive in making this overseas visit or choosing the destination for this visit. He said, and I quote to this effect: "Learning from Sweden. Although Sweden has a population of only more than 9 million, it has been playing a dominant role in innovation and technology development in the world. Not only is the coverage of its industries very extensive, it has also become the breeding ground for a number of world-famous brands, including, for instance, Ericsson in the telecommunications industry, IKEA in the furniture industry, H&M in the fashion industry, Volvo in the automobile manufacturing industry and King, the developer of mobile phone game "Candy Crush". Even ABBA, a pop music group which was very famous in the 1970s and the 1980s, was born in Sweden. As it is very worthwhile for Hong Kong to borrow their experience, I have chosen Sweden as one of the destinations of my overseas visit this time around." Insofar as this point is concerned, this is what I can say. I think the public will have their own judgment. (Mr Paul TSE stood up) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please pause for a while. Mr Paul TSE, what is your point? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Strictly speaking, we are scrutinizing the future Budget. We do not know what the future itineraries of the Chief Executive will be, nor do we know if this item will be relevant, such that it is worthwhile to …


11209

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen cited past instances. Unless he wants to repudiate past budgets, I think they are not relevant to the present debate. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have to listen to Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's speech before making a judgment. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): May I ask if Mr Paul TSE is using his 15 minutes of speaking time to debate with me, or is he raising a point of order? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, Mr TSE has raised a point of order because he thinks that the duty visits of the Chief Executive as detailed by you just now do not fall within the scope of the Budget of this fiscal year. (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I find this really strange. Does he mean that one cannot study the past to gain insights into the present, but has to study the present to gain insights into the past instead? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, Mr TSE has raised a point of order. Please sit down. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am now raising another point of order to offset his point of order. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down. (Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood up)


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, having heard Mr Paul TSE's point of order, do you have any ruling for now? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TSE is querying if what you are talking about now is relevant to this amendment. Please explain what the relationship is. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Of course, they are related. First, we have entered the 2014-2015 fiscal year and the visit by LEUNG Chun-ying to Stockholm and Brussels is covered by the expenditure for this year. This is the first point. Second, Mr Paul TSE's rationale is that we do not any idea of where LEUNG Chun-ying will go in the future, so we cannot level any criticism. In that case, has LEUNG Chun-ying ever provided any of his future itineraries in order to obtain funds? We are not trying to persuade other Members by citing past examples, rather, it is found that on a number of occasions in the past, the accounts related to him were not clear and there were serious problems, so this time around, we have to exercise caution when considering the allocation of funds, or no funds should be allocated at all. This is the rationale. Chairman, I ask you to make a ruling. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please go on. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Ok. This argument advanced by me just now … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Let me remind the Member that since this is the 34th time you are speaking, when discussing whether or not a certain provision should be approved, you should not elaborate on a particular instance excessively. Please continue.


11211

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have only spent one session plus a little more time to persuade Members, using this typical example. I think it will take only a few minutes more before I am done commenting on this amendment.

The argument that I wish to advance next is how insufficient the grounds cited by LEUNG Chun-ying in choosing this city are. Of course, the first point he made was that Sweden had a population of 9 million people, so it is very similar to Hong Kong. In fact, why did he choose this city? As we all know, this is because Sweden is an exemplary city in terms of innovation and technology and during this period of time and according to his timetable, it was time to make applications to the Legislative Council in relation to the Innovation and Technology Bureau, so he hopes that a co-ordinated campaign involving insiders and outsiders can be mounted. Instead of coming out to sell the idea personally, he only seeks to export the idea overseas, than import it into the domestic market again, so as to generate publicity on and justifications for such a plan. However, I wish to tell the Chief Executive that this time, he is spending his money on the wrong cause and that it is not worth the money. We often say that we cannot compare Hong Kong with cities overseas. This is true of universal suffrage and also true of innovation and technology. Members and the Chief Executive, what kind of city is Sweden, what system does it practise and what are its tax rates? Sweden is a welfare state and its tax rate, at over 50%, is the highest. Why are innovation and technology so advanced in Sweden? Since 1998, it has implemented the "one plus one" computer policy, that is, computers are available even to the grassroots. They do not have to worry about food. They can conduct research at home and their social welfare system supports them. For this reason, if 100 people conduct research and one person succeeds, the other 99 people will not starve to death either. This is because it has a system and it is as simple as that. It would not do just to do some window-dressing.

In addition, I hold that the duty visits made by LEUNG Chun-ying are a waste of resources and that there are even more downsides than upsides. If I can argue and prove that there are more downsides than upsides, should he be disallowed to go? Not to mention that the visit is useless, it may even backfire. I find that the "hypocritical rhetoric" practised by LEUNG Chun-ying can be used not just in Hong Kong; it turns out that it is also very useful in Sweden. Moreover, this is not just about "hypocritical rhetoric" but also about hypocritical statistics. Let me cite a very short address made by him to people in Stockholm, Sweden. He said and I quote to this effect, "Hong Kong ranks highly in global


standings for information technology infrastructure, including being number one for international Internet bandwidth, second in the world for business and innovation environment and third for mobile tariffs affordability.". What is the big deal about Hong Kong ranking second in global business and innovative environment? Based on which report did he make that remark? If Members have ever attended the meetings of the Panel on Information Technology and Broadcasting, they would know that Members have been complaining until the leaves have fallen from the trees, saying that there is no innovation and technology in Hong Kong … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have strayed away from the question. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): All right, I will draw a conclusion. The conclusion is that LEUNG Chun-ying has made use of his "hypocritical rhetoric" to exaggerate Hong Kong's achievements, which are actually inconsistent with the situation in Hong Kong. We should not approve the fund allocation to a humbug Chief Executive, so that he can lie even when visiting Sweden, saying things that are false, grandiose and hollow. Not only is doing so not positive to Hong Kong's image, on the contrary, our image will be affected and we will be derided. This is the end of the part related to deducting the estimated annual expenditure for the duty visits made by the Chief Executive for now.

Since Mr Albert CHAN has begun to discuss the amendments related to the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), I do not want to burden Members with too many things about the HKPF at the same time, so I will skip this part. In this session, I wish to voice my support for Amendment No 791 in respect of head 144 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, which seeks to "deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure for activities to promote equal opportunities and human rights" involving about $8.09 million. The expenditure on equal opportunities and human rights activities covers five areas and I have already mentioned some of them in my previous speeches. Some of them are also related to the next part, so I will wait until the next part to talk about them.

First, to fund various civil groups through the Equal Opportunities (Sexual Orientation) Funding Scheme in organizing various activities to promote sexual


11213

minorities ― I have already talked about this part ― to promote equal opportunities for sexual minorities through various publicity measures such as announcements in the public interest (APIs) and advertisements; third, to promote the Code on Access to Information through various publicity measures such as APIs and advertisements; and fourth, to produce a TV series through co-operation with Radio Television Hong Kong and conduct a school outreach programme on integration with ethnic minorities. In fact, in the next part on the support for ethnic minorities, I will have more to add, so in this part, I will focus on fifth, the Children's Rights Education Funding Scheme, public education, promotional programmes and Children's Rights Forum. The expenditure for this part is $1.25 million.

I noticed that in Programme (4) which is related to the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, on the estimated expenditure related to the rights of the individual, the actual provision in 2013-2014 was $20 million and the estimated expenditure for 2014-2015 is $23.2 million, representing a slight increase of just $3.2 million. However, the expenditure for the rights of the individual (that is, human rights that we often talk about) covers a number of areas, including "the rights of the individual in respect of protection for personal data privacy and human rights, and promotion of equal opportunities on the ground of gender, family status, race and sexual orientation", as well as the rights of children mentioned by me, so obviously, the increase is inadequate.

Chairman, I support the relevant amendment proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. Of course, it is not true that I consider the promotion of equal opportunities and human rights by the Government unimportant. On the contrary, precisely because this is important, but the Government proposes to increase the estimated expenditure for the coming year only slightly, amounting to just a petty favour that I just cannot bear with it. So I would rather deduct all the relevant estimates, so that the Administration can re-think this instead of thinking that this expenditure of about $20 million can be used to promote these six or even seven areas related to human rights. The pie is already very small and it has to be divided into even smaller pieces, or into six or seven pieces, so the shares just get even smaller. Although I know that Secretary Raymond TAM is a Christian, he is not Jesus Christ, so he cannot perform the miracle of the five loaves and two fish to achieve what he wants to do using such limited resources for items related to human rights.

I will focus my discussion on item 4 which is related to the expenditure on the promotion of children's rights. In fact, among the questions for written


replies submitted in relation to the Appropriation Bill 2014, a Member also asked a question specifically on the expenditure for the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau to promote the rights of ethnic minorities, sexual minorities and children; as well as the specific plans for the coming year. At that time, the reply of the authorities was that in 2014-2015, the estimated provision for promoting equal opportunities for sexual minorities is about $2.6 million, the estimated provision for promoting racial equality is about $3.35 million but the estimated provision for promoting children's rights is only about $1.25 million, so this figure is so low as to be unacceptable. It can thus be seen that the Administration does not attach any importance whatsoever to the promotion of children's rights.

At present, there are over $1.1 million children in Hong Kong, accounting for 15% of the total population, so this figure is by no means small. Compared with the ethnic minorities living in Hong Kong, who account for 5% to 7% (the buzzer sounded) … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Chairman, in response to the arguments advanced by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just now, first, I wish to declare that I am a member of the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). Second, on the support for the deductions voiced by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just now, I hope the public, in particular, members of the public who belong to the sexual minorities, have heard that the deductions advocated by him cover surveys conducted by the EOC in support of the sexual minorities, as well as the items to provide financial assistance to them.

Thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I heard Mr CHAN Chi-chuen talk about the Chief Executive and I feel that this is somewhat unfair to the Chief Executive. In talking about following the example of Sweden, how do you know that after visiting Sweden, the Chief Executive would not propose


11215

that the profits tax be raised or more social benefits be provided? The Chief Executive has never said he would not do such things. Therefore, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen asked why the Chief Executive did not copy everything if he wanted to follow the example of Sweden. This is groundless. When has the Chief Executive ever said that after visiting Sweden, he would not introduce reforms in Hong Kong? He has never said that. The reason is that we practically do not know that he has been to Sweden.

Frankly speaking, had it not been divulged by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, we would have never known it. Therefore, we should give him the benefit of doubt. Maybe after looking around ― of course, that includes the MTRCL, which operates the Stockholm railway that encountered problems again of late. Therefore, when you criticize someone, you have to give him the benefit of doubt and cannot accuse him wrongly.

In Sweden, the Chief Executive made friends with a wide school of people and learnt about everything, from watching a musical band performance to visiting the Ericsson Company, so what pleasurable thing has he not done? In fact, this is better than visiting the Mainland as he should go overseas to broaden his horizons. I think the Chief Executive may be a little bit … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, Members have already voiced a lot of views on the Chief Executive's visit to Sweden. Please focus your speech on the relevant amendment. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Which Members have voiced a lot of views? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Both you and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen have voiced a lot of views in this regard. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I see. Sweden should not be implicated, as a certain mediocre man went there unsolicited.


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, which amendment are you going to speak on? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am focusing on Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's comments. Chairman, you said that if any Member took issue with the comments of another Member, he could rise and speak … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I have already let you respond to Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and you have also elaborated on your views clearly. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Fine, fine, fine, that means enough has been said about this part. LEUNG Chun-ying, do not say that I have never helped you. It is possible that your ingrained nature may change.

Chairman, I wish to talk about an experience that I went through together with you. What I am focusing on now are the amendments relating to head 14 which are about … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Which amendments are you referring to? Please state their numbers. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Amendment Nos 778, 779, 780, 781, 774 and 775. One of them talks about that bottle of wine in the Mainland and Taiwan offices of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Have you found them? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Yes. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): That was fast, Chairman.


11217

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please speak. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, you and I have had this common experience. Luckily, on that day, after my letter had been torn up, what I brought back to Hong Kong is this ― a letter voicing grievances to Premier LI Keqiang written by the Hong Kong Businessmen (China) Investment Rights Concern Group (HKCIRC).

In Shanghai, you watched me being searched bodily in a dark room, so I took out this, saying that some people had asked me to voice their grievances. If … listen, according to Programme (3) published by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau of the Government, one of the points in the brief description on the Mainland and Taiwan Offices is to "provide practical assistance to Hong Kong residents in distress in the Mainland".

Can you say how many people do business on the Mainland? The number is truly considerable and there is no point in guessing. Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying once said that every day, 180 000 people would travel from Hong Kong to the Mainland and 100 000 people would come here, that is, a large number of people going to the Mainland and among them, many go there to do business, work or engage in various types of activities. One type among them is called Hong Kong businessmen. Hong Kong businessmen go practically everywhere on the Mainland. At present, there are four Mainland offices, and they will increase by one. However, what do they deal with? Mr Albert CHAN once asked a question about this, requesting the Bureau to provide the number of requests for assistance received by the Mainland Offices in the past year, the nature of these cases, and the numbers of cases resolved and being followed up. The reply of the controlling officer is, and I quote, "In 2013, the Immigration Divisions of the Beijing Office (BJO)" ― this is the original text rather than an attempt by me to take up more time ― "and the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices in Guangdong (Guangdong ETO) and Chengdu (Chengdu ETO) received in total 353 requests for assistance from Hong Kong residents in distress in the Mainland. The breakdown is set out below. The nature and complexity of the cases varies greatly. Further breakdown on the basis of whether the cases have been resolved is not available". Even WU Jingzi would marvel at this ― The Scholars is also an exposé of the seamy side of the world of bureaucracy.


The four offices dealt with 353 cases, that is, an average of one case daily for the whole year, that is, one case was dealt with by four offices. You also said that we, because of … I cannot help but quote it once more. It says, "The nature and complexity of the cases varies greatly", so it is said that no record on the basis of whether the cases have been resolved is available and this is really interesting.

Chairman, just imagine: Some very easy cases that can be dealt with immediately can be classified as having been resolved, otherwise, as being extremely complicated, rather complicated or not complicated. It is possible to classify them this way and this is what files are for. Otherwise, what are files good for?

I went there to hold it accountable ― it was not me who wanted to hold it accountable, rather, it was Mr Albert CHAN ― and I am only taking what others have given up but it went so far as to say … Chairman, I have no choice but to cite ourselves as an example. Our Public Complaints Office receives so many complaints each year, so if someone writes a question to ask you or the relevant controlling officer how many cases the Public Complaints Office of the Legislative Council dealt with in a year and whether or not there is any record of resolved cases, if the reply is like that, would you find it acceptable? I think our Legislative Council Commission will fire the relevant colleague immediately ― if he puts it this way and if he really replies in this way, that is, "Since the nature and complexity of the cases dealt with by the Legislative Council varies greatly, the Legislative Council Secretariat does not have any further breakdown on the basis of whether the cases have been resolved", even in reading this out, I find it laughable, but we have such a rotten yamen (a government office in feudal China).

We are no match to the Government in terms of financial power, resources or manpower. Frankly speaking, the expenditure for the entire Legislative Council cannot match that for a Policy Bureau of the Government. If there is anything we can do and if we want to follow up something thoroughly, Chairman, we also have to waste a lot of … or spend rather waste, a lot of time and we also accept complaints lodged by the public. We even have to hold case conferences with them. Moreover, we also have to refer these cases to this and that place and in the end, if we can do nothing about them, we have to notify the complainants that we can do nothing and that we may not be able to deal with them. Even if they cannot be resolved, there are still records, if not, the case is still pending.


11219

Chairman, we still have to provide funding to such a rotten yamen and that is why I am handling this case. It is likely that the HKCIRC has written to ask him if he has dealt with their case. Of course, his reply is ― since it cannot even be determined whether the complexity of your complaint is very great, not very great or minimal, so we cannot find your case now. Buddy, in that case, it was necessary for your goodself and I … I was holding that letter, whereas you, Chairman, accompanied me in going to that small room. When they found the letter upon searching me bodily, you had to tell them who you are, saying, "This will be submitted to the higher authorities.". Do you not think that we have wasted money for no good cause?

Frankly speaking, Chairman, he needs only delete that sentence "provide practical assistance to Hong Kong residents in distress in the Mainland" in the brief description because we may think that it is not possible to deal with those cases at all, so one can just do nothing about them. There is no reason for establishing the offices just for the sake of making up a certain number, like the ears of a deaf man, being there just for its sake. If you mention them, I have to make you accountable. This is not an excessive demand, rather, it is your greed that made you write about things that you cannot deliver. This is like me asking you how much wine you can drink and you reply that you can drink huge volumes. In that case, you have to drink until you are drunk. If you say that you are a weak drinker and that you can only drink three glasses, there will not be any problem. Therefore, do not blame some "nitpicking" Members for making your life difficult all the time. Do not blame us for asking you questions like nitpicking people as this is your own making.

You came to the Legislative Council to seek funding. If you delete the sentence "provide practical assistance to Hong Kong residents in distress in the Mainland", I may support the fund allocation, so you may as well delete some of the responsibilities. You cannot talk about some duties on which there are no records, documents or files, then come to the Legislative Council to seek funding but whether or not you can deliver is unknown. It is not possible, is it? Frankly speaking, sometimes, one can deduce many things from one example. If you cannot even deliver even on this, in other words, you cannot deliver even on something on which all attention is focused and you are still passing the buck, what can be done? "Trust not him that hath once broken faith". So, if there is one thing that is not all right in a Policy Bureau, citing one example can enable us to deduce many things, so my suspicion in relation to other matters will also be aroused.


In addition, by how much is the expenditure going to be increased this year? An increase of 22.4%. Buddy, he is not working hard enough and there is no way of checking the records, yet he still wants to increase the expenditure. Chairman, is this not a very strange job? You do not have to look at anything else. In Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, the increase in expenditure is 22.4%. Chairman, on account of this point alone, I should deduct his expenditure by 22.4%. In other words, if he should get 100 points in the first place, we should give him only 70 points, should we not? Buddy, he cannot find anything. If he can do his job properly, this is open to discussion … this is open to discussion. Therefore, Members, what I have said is really reasonable.

In my Member's Office, there is a heap of letters from the Mainland seeking assistance that are piled very high and in fact, one can approach these people for assistance. He only has to behave like a human being and conduct his affairs like the Public Complaints Office of the Legislative Council, does he not? The files of the Public Complaints Office of the Legislative Council are so thick, and there is someone who often complains against the Hospital Authority. If you say you will not deal with her and refer her to Mr LEUNG, the latter will have more grey hair as a result. The case is still being dealt with and you are also aware of this. Although this particularly case is a dead case, we are still dealing with it until the monitored department provides answers and if we think that nothing can actually be done within the legal framework, we will say sorry to the complainant, telling her that the Legislative Council cannot help her because of the limitations to our powers and that we have made enquiries a number of times and if she does not find this acceptable, she can take other courses of action.

This is the way we conduct our affairs and we will not say to complainants, "Sorry, since there is great difficulty in classification and Mr Jasper TSANG cannot handle it, even if the case is referred to me, there is nothing I can do. Given that Mr Jasper TSANG has dealt with it for such a long time, I am not going to help him.". I will not do so, will I? We implement … we have the function of monitoring the Government and in fact, our Public Complaints Office is at the bottom of the hierarchy and represents only an expression of sincerity to the public. Frankly speaking, what powers does the Public Complaints Office have? Chairman, this yamen of ours … maybe this is not an yamen … in this legislature, I am doing my level best and even if my hair all turn grey, I will still not decline any duty in any circumstances. If you do not believe it, you can go


11221

and ask the Public Complaints Office later on if there is a thick pile of files in relation to that lady's case.

Now, this yamen did not carry out any classification and when the monitoring department made enquiries, the former said arrogantly that it was not possible to classify the cases. The grounds were so absurd but he still seeks to increase the expenditure by 22.4%. Members, would you approve it? If your Member's Offices … Mr CHAN Hak-kan, if a member of the public complains to you that he has called you for three months, and if you ask your assistant about it and he says that this case is too complicated and involves several men and women, so he has not handled it and when asked if there is any record on resolved cases, he says that even the record has been lost, would you not dismiss him? He demands, "Boss, I am short of money recently and have to take public transport to meet complainants frequently, so can you increase my expenditure by 22.4%?" Buddy, of course, you would not. To put yourself in somebody else's shoes, what we control are public funds and even if I, "Long Hair", think that he is quite a good guy and that he has worked for me for 10 years, so I pay him another 22.4% in pay privately, this would be my business.

Chairman, nevertheless, these are public funds, are they not? Mr Paul TSE does not understand it. We can study the past to gain insights into the present. If he is already so inept, he would surely be worse in the future. "Young pilferer, old robber", is that right? Unless he is putting on a sad face and his intelligence is too high, using dog food to feed this group of Zhuangyuans (top scorers in Chinese Imperial Examinations), so that we cannot reckon his benefits to us … buddy, I am sorry but I cannot see this. Chairman, (the buzzer sounded) … even if I cannot see this, it is still necessary to have a headcount. I cannot help but notice this, so I now ask you to summon Members back according to the procedure for making a headcount. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, please speak.


MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to respond to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's observation in relation to Amendment Nos 774, 775 and 776 to 781. First, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung said earlier that funding should not be allocated to the Mainland and Taiwan Offices or offices in other locations if they are not effective in performing their duties. I would like to cite a simple example. Very often, when the Hospital Authority (HA) or Legal Aid Department (LAD) has received a case, they cannot guarantee that the patient can be cured or the party concerned can win the lawsuit. Nevertheless, resources must still be allocated to these two departments so that they can provide assistance to the public.

Therefore, the question is whether they have played their due roles and spared no effort in doing a good job. Certainly, there is a lot of room for improvement in their attitudes and arrangements. But it does not mean that the situation as mentioned by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung will occur, not to mention that his argument is entirely untenable. His argument is that funding should be withheld because the offices could not handle each of the cases satisfactorily. I hope the people, after hearing his speech, will not come to the opinion that we should withhold funding for the LAD or HA. I also hope that this is not his intention.

Secondly, just now he mentioned the cases handled by the Public Complaints Office and that he would insist on continuing to make efforts in this aspect. Although the Chairman does not handle these cases, I wish to point out that this is a wise … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TSE, I did handle cases of the Public Complaints Office. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): I meant that as I have also handled many such cases, according to my experience, these cases, like our Honourable colleagues' speeches just now, are irrelevant and tedious. Furthermore, complaints are being lodged repetitiously. In view of this, we have to use our wisdom to decide when a case should come to an end so that public resources will not be wasted anymore. We should not follow the example of some colleagues who strongly insist on prolonging the debate.

Thank you, Chairman.


11223

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, yesterday I elaborated the reasons for my support and explained that some of my amendments seek to delete the estimated expenditure for the Mainland and Taiwan Offices under the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Perhaps Mr Paul TSE did not listen to my comments and therefore did not give any response. I do not know whether he implicitly agrees or supports my argument. If he is interested, he may listen to my recorded speech and his response is welcomed.

Regarding cases involving the public, from the perspective of many Honourable Members, especially some dignitaries, the people's life and death is frivolous or meaningless. But for some ordinary citizens, the unfair and unreasonable treatment imposed on them will affect them for life. Therefore, it is a value judgment on whether it is frivolous or meaningless, especially whether the cases concerned are frivolous or meaningless.

Chairman, Mr Paul TSE has left the Chamber again. It shows that he is

biased in deciding what to listen. I hope he will listen to the recording of my views on the expenditure on the Mainland and Taiwan Offices under the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, I wish to be fair because Mr Paul TSE has now left the Chamber. You just said "frivolous or meaningless". I hope you are not referring to what Mr Paul TSE said because he, in his speech, did not mention these words. He said that there are complainants who continually lingered on the cases and the words he used are "irrelevant and tedious". MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Behold, wise Chairman. The Chairman's memory is much better than mine. Both are similar in meaning, but basically … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): They are different in meaning.


MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Whether it is irrelevant and whether it should be handled is decided on the same logic. But insofar as the dignitaries are concerned, they are utterly uninterested in many people's complaints … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I also wish to make it clear that I cannot stop a Member from speaking on the ground that his speech is frivolous or meaningless. Even though I judge that a Member's speech is frivolous or meaningless, there is no provision in the Rules of Procedure that prohibits a Member from speaking because of this reason. However, if a Member persists in irrelevance or tedious repetition of his or her own or other Members' arguments, I have to stop him. So, these two situations are different. Mr CHAN, please do not persist in irrelevance or tedious repetition of your arguments in your speech. Please continue. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I simply pinpointed that he has compared Members' judgments in their speeches with complaint cases, which is unacceptable to me because the value judgments in these two instances are different, not to mention that different yardsticks are used.

Chairman, I will not dwell on this issue anymore. I mentioned earlier the police camcorders and expressed opposition to the use of such devices. I now turn to another amendment, which is Amendment No 599 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung: Resolved that head 122 be reduced by $64,895,000 in respect of subhead 695. The amount of money is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the special purpose vehicles (the overall funding) of the Hong Kong Police Force. By taking a closer look at those figures, we will feel that police equipment is extremely expensive. A more in-depth financial analysis is required to determine whether the money is well spent, the equipment is worth the money and whether such an arrangement is appropriate.

Looking back at the figures, the expenditure on special purpose vehicles has in fact been very alarming over the past few years. The expenses in 2012 and 2013 are $118 million and $88.32 million respectively. The estimated expenditure for this year is relatively lowered, which is $64.89 million, involving the replacement of 88 vehicles of the police. What vehicles will be replaced? These include 15 police sport utility vehicles (SUVs), nine large police wagons,


11225

as well as nine large police motorcycles. Recently, the use of Mainland-made motorcycles by the police has aroused concern and discussion by many netizens. Next comes the largest item of expenditure which is related to 51 large police vans followed by a new police SUV. I do not know who will be the user of this new SUV. Is it still necessary to chase after illegal immigrants? I really do not know for what purpose a SUV is bought, not to mention the large police vans.

Let us take a closer look at the breakdown, one of which is the estimated provision of $41,626,000 for 51 large police vans. By simple calculation, it costs almost $800,000 per van. Now we are talking about a van, though it is a large one. But the cost of $800,000 per van gives us the impression that it is a little bit extravagant. I wonder whether these vans are bought for any special purpose; whether they are equipped with bulletproof glass; whether the steel used is particularly thick and heavy, thus enabling them to withstand bomb attacks; or whether they are of semi-armoured design. I believe the general public will also find the price ($800,000 per van) prohibitive. We cannot approve these estimated expenditures lightly before being convinced by explanation of the authorities.

Let us look at the service life limits of these vehicles. Some vehicles in question are required to be replaced. Vehicle replacement is the justification for most of the estimated expenditure I mentioned just now. Only a small part of the procurement is new vehicles, including the SUVs, at a price of $700,000 each. It is doubtful whether there is such a need. Given that other equipment can be replaced by modern technology, I wonder whether a SUV is needed for discharging duties. It is absolutely devoid of justification.

Regarding the service life limits of vehicles, people will feel all the more unacceptable. According to the police's policy, the service life limit of large-sized police motorcycles is five years. Even if funding is approved, the service life limit of these vehicles is just five years. I wonder whether these vehicles are utterly non-durable or due to other special reasons. My car has been used for 10 years. I wonder whether the service life limits of vehicles of the Legislative Council are similar to that of the police. But I do not think so. The fact that a motorcycle will be replaced after being used for only five years will give people the impression that it is a waste and too extravagant. Police vehicles will also be replaced after a service life of seven years regardless of their conditions. Is it not extravagant and environmentally unfriendly for vehicles to be replaced after a service life of seven years? Each replacement exercise,


which occurs every seven years, will produce a lot of scrap metal. I consider this criterion utterly unacceptable and in breach of the value for money principle and environment-friendly requirements. For vehicles which are too important to be sold, why can their maintenance not be improved to solve this problem? If motorcycles and vehicles are replaced every five and seven years respectively, I think this is definitely not reasonable. I hope the Audit Commission will conduct a rigorous investigation into the expenditure in this regard.

Chairman, next, I wish to talk about Amendment No 361 (resolved that head 72 be reduced by $17,499,990 in respect of subhead 000) proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, involving the annual estimated expenditure for publicity work of the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). "Long Hair" is really a interesting person as he has reduced the $10 million-odd estimate to $10. I wonder whether this $10 can be used for purchasing a DVD or "hell banknotes". Chairman, there is a special feature in this issue because we do not know the objective of the publicity work of the ICAC simply by looking at this item. This is in fact related to the recent incident of the Chairman of a state-owned enterprise, SONG Lin. The ICAC's publicity expenditure is mainly designated as the operating funds of the Ethics Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) established by the ICAC. The ICAC has specific arrangements for the operation of its organizations. But there is one very special thing. The members appointed by the EDAC, to a certain extent, are not subject to the monitoring of the ICAC and the decisions of appointment are not made by the ICAC either. This is mainly because the Ethics Development Centre, which was founded in May 1995, comprises representatives of six major chambers of commerce … (Mr TAM Yiu-chung stood up) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, what is your point? MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, please invoke Rule 45 (1) of the Rules of Procedure because I have heard the Member's remarks many times. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is the first time I am speaking on this subject. I have never discussed this issue before. This is the first time I am speaking on this subject. This is the first time I discuss the


11227

EDAC under the ICAC during the Budget debate. This is the first time I speak on this issue. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue. I will pay attention to your speech to decide whether you have repeated your own or other Members' points. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): I hope Mr TAM Yiu-chung will not confuse my remarks with other Members' arguments. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I have heard many speeches in which the composition of the Ethics Development Advisory Committee under the ICAC has been mentioned. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Which Member has mentioned it? MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): The three of them. I have heard similar arguments. (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up) MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Which three Members? I have not discussed this subject. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, sit down. Mr Albert CHAN, you do not have to repeatedly mention the composition of this committee. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have not heard any other Members mention this issue in their speeches. Perhaps I was not in the Chamber when some Members spoke. But Mr TAM Yiu-chung said that I had


discussed this issue. Maybe he had heard ghosts speak. This is an inappropriate and erroneous accusation. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please continue. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): If a Member did not hear it clearly, he should not arbitrarily spread any erroneous and false information. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, when a point of order is raised by a Member, I have to make a ruling. Now do continue to speak. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I understand. I just want to put it on record that Mr TAM Yiu-chung has made a wrong accusation. This is important because I wish to point out that I am innocent and he cannot discredit other people and disseminate erroneous information.

Chairman, why do I think that this reduction should be made? My logic is very simple. The chairmanship of the EDAC is taken up by these chambers of commerce in rotation. In other words, the Chairmen or Presidents of the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, the American Chamber of Commerce in Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Chinese General Chamber of Commerce, the Chinese Manufacturers' Association of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Chinese Enterprises Association and the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce will serve as Chairman of the EDAC by rotation. This problem is very significant because an organization related to the ICAC, in particular, the Chairman of the EDAC, should be subject to the most rigorous integrity checking. As we all know, when the Government appoints someone as members of some committees, in principle … since "689" has assumed the office of the Chief Executive and Hong Kong is ruled by local communists, there has been a catastrophic change in the integrity checking as a whole, thereby leading to a crisis in governance and crisis of public trust. (THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)


11229

The ICAC should have its own hierarchy and system, which has certainly been put in place for many years. But in the past, officers in the upper echelon of these chambers of commerce were appointed Chairman of the EDAC in rotation and relatively speaking, their integrity should be relatively acceptable. I believe the recent public relations disaster is not foreseeable or controllable by any officer of the ICAC. The image of the ICAC has been further tarnished due to this situation, coupled with the problem of Timothy TONG. It is because there has been a series of corruption involving the Commissioner of ICAC. The Chairman of the EDAC which should be responsible for the development of ethics is even suspected of involvement in corruption. Is this a joke of a joke? Such an absurd situation has dealt a heavy blow to the morale of ICAC as a whole. The impact is profound. This is grossly unfair to the staff of ICAC. Personally, I have great sympathy for the staff of ICAC, especially those senior staff who have worked hard in the past few decades. They have founded the traditions and made achievements in consolidating the clean government in Hong Kong in which we all take pride. Hong Kong has also gained respect internationally. But a series of public relations disasters has dealt a heavy blow to the ICAC.

Therefore, we should prevent the recurrence of this problem. Unless the

Government can make a thorough reform and revamp of the composition of the EDAC, I strongly oppose the system under which some people without going through rigorous integrity checking can hold important posts, particularly the system under which a group of people will serve as Chairman of the EDAC in rotation. In fact, the candidates concerned may be entirely uninterested in this. The person-in-charge of a chamber of commerce may not be interested in the ICAC or the so-called ethics development. But because he is the president of a chamber of commerce and simply because of this, he has to serve as Chairman of the EDAC according to the arrangement, in analogy to a consumer who has to accept a piece of pork bone when buying pork. While this is a waste, it may also give rise to a situation where someone who is absolutely unsuitable for the post will be appointed. Like the incident of SONG Lin, it has caused a devastating impact on the ICAC. I hope that the ICAC will not be scandal-ridden or brought into disrepute due to the occurrence of these problems. Although we do not have any power to abolish the EDAC, the Legislative Council has the power to reduce the estimated expenditure of the EDAC in this aspect. The amendment proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung manifests great political wisdom, so I support it.


MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman … (Mr Albert CHAN requested a headcount) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please speak. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, it is very nice that we can gather together, especially Mr TSE has also come back. I wish to respond to his criticism of us, particularly his criticism of me. Mr Paul TSE took exception to the logic that "a person should not be paid if he cannot do a good job". But he does not quite understand my speech in the previous session. I do not mean that the Mainland and Taiwan Offices cannot do their jobs. Rather, they should have kept records for our assessment or checking in determining their performance, but they have not done even this job, failing to fulfil the most basic function. These "yamen" are responsible for several functions and I read them out: "provide information and other appropriate support to Hong Kong residents in the Mainland and Taiwan", and the other one is "provide practical assistance to Hong Kong residents in distress in the Mainland."

What is the problem? When we asked for the number of cases involving

"provide practical assistance to Hong Kong residents in distress in the Mainland", they managed to provide some figures indicating the total number of requests for assistance. But when I asked whether there were any such cases which had been successfully processed, they said that they could not provide any information due to the lack of relevant records as these cases were complicated and varied from case to case. Such a claim is utterly untenable. This is not related to these offices' ability to perform duties. Rather, these records will let us know why they are unable to do anything at all, or why they can perform some duties but not others. However, they cannot provide even these records. The easiest job of


11231

an office is to keep records on what has been dealt with, whether follow-up action has been taken, and the results of their follow-up actions. If it is wrong for a Member to propose reducing the operational expenses of these offices, I really do not know what is right.

Therefore, many Members have accused us of proposing to reduce the operational expenses of some policy departments. It does not matter that they did not hear our arguments clearly. But they cannot confuse the right with the wrong. The cases mentioned by me involving the Mainland and Taiwan Offices ― let us forget about the office in Taiwan ― there is a significant increase in their expenditure every year. I now read these figures out: The amounts of funding applied for by them in 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 were $176 million and $203.3 million respectively. The actual amount of funding under application after revision for this year is $205.6 million. This year, the funding applied will further increase from $205.6 million to $251.6 million, representing an increase of 22.4%.

Come to think about this. When we as Legislative Council Members enquire about the effectiveness of the huge expenditure of these offices, they did not give us any reply although responses were given to questions about other issues. In fact, the number of cases successfully handled should be available. For example, in their reply, they pointed out the number of cases related to immigration and personal safety in 2013, including 156 cases handled by the Beijing Office, and 184 cases handled by the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office (ETO) in Guangdong. As for ETO in Shanghai, since the Beijing … DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I have to remind you that the figures mentioned by you just now had all been read out by Mr Albert CHAN last night. Please do not repeat. You should have heard the arguments put forward by other Members in the debate. Also, please be concise with your speech. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, I see. My argument is: we should not ask whether these offices are competent in performing their duties. Rather, we should ask whether they have preserved any records to facilitate our monitoring. So, what is the focus now? I have proposed to reduce their remunerations as a means to target at an officialdom technique, that is, to avoid mentioning something which is unpleasant, and avoid letting others grab any


evidence. Furthermore, the public should not be allowed to identify the problems by presenting a chaotic picture to them.

Such an approach is absolutely undesirable. So, I wish to explain it to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Paul TSE. If they have carefully listened to our speeches, they will know the difference and will not get angry. I am not talking about the offices' capability in performing their duties. Rather, I wish to point out that they have deliberately destroyed the records or failed to keep any records so as to prevent monitoring by us, see? So, Members should not jump to the conclusion that we mean other things.

Regarding the Mainland and Taiwan Offices under the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Mr Albert CHAN has not yet mentioned an example. This example is thought-provoking and related to the experience of a group of volunteers who went to Sichuan and might have faced fatal disasters. According to the Programme of these offices, appropriate information and services will be provided to Hong Kong people, or assistance will be directly provided. A volunteer group went to Ya'an, which was struck by earthquake, to participate in the disaster relief work there. This is an example in which Hong Kong people went there, but I will not go into the details. The 16 people wished to stay in a hotel in the disaster zone, but were expelled by armed police and troops on the ground that they were in danger. Some hotels which remained intact indicated that they could stand the test of disaster and be used as shelters. However, they were driven away like chickens and ducks. This volunteer group wanted to seek help, but they have nowhere to turn to. Neither could the ETOs help them. The ETOs at Chengdu, Sichuan had just been commissioned and this was the touchstone.

Let me quote just one remark ― just one remark, Deputy Chairman, please be patient ― a member of the volunteer group said they felt that they were being kicked here and there like a ball. What assistance has the offices concerned offered? According to the offices concerned, owing to the fact that the degree of difficulty and the scope involved are very broad, there is no record of cases which are handled successfully or otherwise. As a result, the record of the case that I mentioned just now cannot be found. As it is fruitless by making enquires with these offices, we have to look for information on our own. Deputy Chairman, on this point, these offices are irresponsible. But as you have reminded me not to go into the details, I will not continue my discussion on it anymore.


11233

I now turn to another issue, which is the amendment relating to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC). These are Amendment Nos 570 to 571. The IPCC has a very important function. What is the aim according to them? The aim of the IPCC is to ensure that "investigations of reportable complaints by the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) of the Hong Kong Police Force are carried out in a thorough, impartial and efficient manner". It means that the department being monitored by it is the CAPO. It is fairly straightforward. What does it mean? The CAPO is operated on the basis of one's own mates investigating their peers. This has been argued for a long time. Although some systems in the world are operated on this basis, some are not.

Therefore, for the sake of justice, we have set up the IPCC with public funds so that it will operate in an impartial manner. It means that it is not operated on the basis of one's own mates investigating their peers. Rather, its investigations will be monitored by a body which is appointed and provided with secretarial services by the Government under the relevant legislation. As the aim of the IPCC has been stated in the relevant description, I will not read it out in detail. What is the most important function? It is to conduct a review of the cases investigated by the CAPO. But very often, investigation can never be completed. So, if you lodge a complaint with the IPCC, it will get the complaint case from the CAPO and conduct a review on its own initiative.

Even though this system cannot be described as proven, it is also a long-standing system. What is the merit? The merit is to avoid … DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you do not have to talk about the merits of the IPCC. Please explain the justification on which you request the reduction of the relevant expenditure. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): We request that the annual expenditure of the IPCC be reduced. Why? In fact, I have to repeat it once again. As we can reduce the expenditure rather than increasing it, we have to adopt such an unwise tactic.

Regarding the handling of complaints against the police, you can take a look at the funding for the IPCC, which has been on the rise year on year. Let


me quote some figures briefly. When its actual expenditure was $46.7 million in 2012-2013, its funding was increased to $49.8 million in 2013-2014. When its expenditure was $50.9 million in 2013-2014, the funding for this year will rise to $56 million. Given that the annual increase is not small, the increase for this year is 10%, representing an increase of 12.4% compared with the original provision for 2013-2014. My argument is: I personally opine that the IPCC actually faces a lot of difficulties in dealing with the problems. First, the IPCC, which does not have any independent power of investigation, is unable to conduct an investigation on its own. It can only request production of the investigation reports by the police after receiving a complaint or becoming aware of the relevant circumstances. However, if the parties concerned do not approach the CAPO, the IPCC simply cannot get any information because it cannot conduct any investigation on its own.

Assuming that the IPCC has received a complaint and found that the circumstances are not satisfactory after checking the relevant information, it cannot launch an investigation on its own. Rather, it has to request the CAPO officers to investigate the case. In my opinion, there is room for improvement in this aspect. What do I mean? The authorities concerned have to consider whether the IPCC should be given the so-called special investigation powers. It does not mean that it has to investigate anything. Rather, after it has classified a case and the CAPO has failed to submit a report despite repeated requests, it will then be entitled to applying to the Chief Executive for setting up an investigation team to follow up on the issue. In my opinion, this can solve the problem. Take my personal experience as an example. Buddy, after the police had continuously used pepper spray against me, I went to the CAPO to give my statement. If it did not do a good job when taking the statement, I will go to … DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, do you have an interest to declare? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): This does not involve any pecuniary interest. I only have a "victim's interest". So, this is not a direct pecuniary interest. Since I do not intend to make a civil claim, I need not make any declaration. I am most grateful to the Deputy Chairman for the advice. In fact, I should say that even though there is no direct pecuniary interest …


11235

Honourable Members, I often lodge complaints against the police and feel frustrated after making numerous complaints because there will not be any result after investigation. The IPCC will usually tell me that the case is still under investigation. Afterwards, the case will be dragged on for a long time.

The second point is related to a power abused by the police. When you intend to lodge a complaint against the police, they will charge you for a criminal offence. The whole complaint process can be continued only after the completion of the criminal investigation. This will constitute psychological intimidation on the complainant. First of all, the statement you made at the CAPO may become evidence against you in court in the future. This will make you feel extremely worried. This is the first point. Secondly, your complaint against them will become their motive to arrest you. So, my suggestion is to thoroughly examine and review the powers of the IPCC, and how the IPCC can conduct investigations with a greater degree of independence. I think this is the crux of the problem. So my argument is: In view of this, I have to propose reducing its funding. Furthermore, I hope that the Deputy Chairman will monitor the attendance rate of Members. Thank you, Deputy Chairman (The buzzer sounded) … please do a headcount. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (While the summoning bell was ringing, some Members spoke loudly in the Chamber) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The meeting is still in progress. Please respect the meeting. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I would like to respond briefly to the speech made by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung just now.


Where is Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung? Has he left again? He left the Chamber immediately after making his speech.

Let me explain why I would like to respond to his speech. For in the past few days, he and a few other Members have spoken numerous times, yet the public generally do not know what the content of the filibuster is. As I have just listened to his speech and he urged me to give a response, I will now respond to his remarks made just now. As for the speeches he made in the past few days, he has spoken so many times that I can hardly make any response. Besides, the content of his speeches was too boring, tedious, ridiculous and mere nonsense. I will now respond to him in respect of the reduction of the expenditure for the IPCC for the whole year under head 121, which he mentioned just now. Mr LEUNG said he proposed reducing the expenditure for the IPCC for the whole year because the IPCC lacked the power to conduct independent investigations, and the relevant … Indeed, he should know one thing, that is, the major duties of the IPCC are to review the relevant complaints, record the relevant figures, analyse and study the figures and examine the work procedures, and then reflect to the authorities. Though the IPCC does not have any power to conduct independent investigations, any member of the IPCC can attend and participate in any investigation and to understand the situation of complainants when an investigation by the police is in progress. The IPCC is entirely free to do so. If the expenditure of the IPCC for the whole year is reduced for this reason, all staff of the IPCC will be unable to receive their salary. I do not know if he intends to abolish this organization called the IPCC. He does not mean to criticize it for lacking the power to conduct investigation but he means to abolish the organization. I suspect he thinks so subconsciously.

Moreover, I believe he knows clearly that the expenditure for Members of the Legislative Council for a year is $600-odd million, and the office expenditure for each Member has increased by 10% to 20% in recent years. Deputy Chairman, this is the reason for my repeated expression of discontent with them for sitting here and wasting the money of taxpayers. Besides, the questions they posed are utterly lengthy and tedious. Therefore, I have to refute Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's remarks here. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?


11237

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I thank Dr CHIANG Lai-wan for her response. In my view, when she listens to other Members' speeches, more often than not, she only listens to part but not the entire speech. She often says that Members' views are mere speculations or tedious. If she is interested, she should review the recordings of her own speeches and see how boring and biased her attitude is. Am I right? If Members are familiar with the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) … In fact, before 1997, or in the past 20 years, many Members in this Chamber, particularly Mr James TO, have been making criticisms of the operation of the IPCC and the practice of allowing police officers to be investigated by their own mates … DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, if you want to speak on the IPCC under head 121, you may put forth your arguments to support your viewpoints, but please to do dwell on history. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): No, Deputy Chairman, this Council is now debating the Budget. One of the reasons to allow Members to speak repeatedly is for them to comment on the pros and cons. First, I will only recap some history. Second, I will explain why Members and so many members of the public have requested reform of the IPCC and put forth many proposals in the past many years, not only this year, particularly the request for the appointment of independent members to the IPCC for conduct of investigations instead of allowing the police to conduct the investigations into their own men. Deputy Chairman, this is the crux of the argument. Certain Members in this Chamber are members of the IPCC, including Dr LAM Tai-fai, am I right? I just want to point out that ― Deputy Chairman, that is all I want to say ― why has the ICAC to be independent? For the ICAC needs to separate itself from other organizations and has its own independent investigation mechanism. Why has an independent Office of The Ombudsman been set up? Why does even the Hospital Authority (HA) have to set up a complaints committee to deal with public complaints? Basically, the complaints committee comprises of outsider members, rather than insiders from the HA? Recently, why does the Chief Executive plan to form a committee to undertake the investigation into the overspending of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, not trusting the MTR Corporation Limited's committee with Frederick MA and Mr Abraham SHEK on board? Because they are executive directors, and they will be investigating their own peers, where no one will trust the result ― right, they are non-executive directors, and I have given them a raise in status. Since we


have no authority to reform the functions of the IPCC, we cannot but delete the expenditure of the IPCC during the scrutiny of the Budget to express our discontent, and if the proposal on deletion is successfully passed, the Government will be pressed to alter the mode of operation as a whole.

I just want to give a brief explanation to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, for she may not be quite familiar with the background. More often than not, she can only grasp part but not the entirety of the issue, thus her speech will mislead the public. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I will speak first then. Before I continue with my speech, I would like to add some views of mine on Amendment Nos 570 and 571 on the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. I surely support these two amendments. I have already spoken once on this subject earlier on, yet after listening to the speech of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung just now, I agree with Dr CHIANG Lai-wan that his logic is a bit confused. I hope that if Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has the opportunity to speak on this head again later on, he will clarify it. According to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's earlier remarks, I learn that the logic he applies is that since the provision is inadequate and he as a Member has no authority to propose an increase in provision, he thus proposes a reduction to express his discontent. This is the logic we applied in the past in proposing amendments on provision reduction. We think that if the provision fails to give the salty taste of salt and the sour taste of vinegar, the provision may as well be deleted altogether. If the reduction can be imposed in actuality, the authorities will be scared and they will conduct a review after that. This is the logical thinking we applied.

However, the approach of my earlier speech does not follow this logic of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, that a reduction of the provision as a whole is proposed in view of the insufficiency of and the restriction on proposing an increase in provision. I have made it very clear that in the face of the "three-no's" of the IPCC ― no power to conduct investigations, no power to give verdict and no power to impose sanctions, I agree that all the expenditure of the IPCC should be cut to pressurize the Government into establishing a truly independent


11239

organization responsible for monitoring the police, which is given the power to conduct investigations, to give verdict and to impose sanctions. As Mr Albert CHAN said earlier, Members may think about that the scenario of Hong Kong not having the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) but only a department against corruption under the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) at present. Will Members consider this arrangement acceptable? No, Members definitely will not.

Actually, if an independent sanctioning body is established, for cases where information has to be kept confidential for strict reasons and cannot be disclosed to all members of the IPCC or relevant persons in the deliberation panel, I think individual members of the newly established body responsible for monitoring the police, such as the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman, the Legal Advisers and specified persons in the Secretariat, should be given specific powers of access to and review of the information. It should not adopt the approach that cases involving significant confidentiality will be restricted completely where further action is disallowed. I support this amendment, but not because of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's logic.

The Chairman of the IPCC, JAT Sew-tong will complete his six-year term soon … which is by the end of May, thank you, Dr LAM Tai-fai. He has been in the position for six years, and I will not say he is stepping down. He has completed three two-year terms, serving for a total six years. According to the "Six-year and Six-Board Rule", he has to depart after six years of service. If we grasp this timing to support this amendment by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, we may seize the opportunity to reform the IPCC. On the other hand, the IPCC has considered making proactive efforts in preventive work. Which subject is on the top of the complaint list recently? It is large-scale public order events, namely, marches, assemblies and protests, as well as the Occupy Central movement expected to be staged in future. In the past two years, the IPCC has observed certain large-scale public order events. Members may notice JAT Sew-tong and members of the IPCC observing the 1 July March on site to understand the situation prior to and after the event, and they also meet with organizations to listen to their aspirations. However, under the present mechanism, I consider that such work is merely for show, and the resources expended fail to bring about any practical effect. Therefore, I hope Members will support reducing the provision for the IPCC to pressurize the Government into reforming the IPCC into a truly independent organization. My supplement to Amendment Nos 570 and 571 ends here.


Then, I would like to extend my thanks to Mr Paul TSE for putting forth certain criticisms right after my speech an hour or so ago ― I should not say that they are criticisms, they are but questions. I would like to make a clarification. He said just now that he supported my amendment on reducing the provision for the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), including the provision for sexual minorities. I must tell Mr Paul TSE and the public clearly that Mr Paul TSE's earlier comment is incorrect. My speech in the previous session was focused on Amendment No 791, which is proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung on "Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau" and seeks to resolve "that head 144 be reduced by $8,095,000 in respect of subhead 000". The reduction is approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on activities on promoting equal opportunities and human rights for the whole year. This amendment is on Programme (4) Rights of the Individual under "Head 144 ― Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau". Yet the reduction of the provision for the EOC which Mr Paul TSE referred to is not under this Programme.

The funding for the EOC is under Programme (5): Subvention: Equal Opportunities Commission and Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data. The provision for the EOC for the year 2014-2015 is $101.4 million, and my proposed reduction is $8,095,000, they are two different sums. The provision for the EOC has been increased by 7.6%, yet concerning the sufficiency of the provision, I will express my views on other occasions. However, the amendment today does not request any reduction of that provision. I have checked it up and found no reduction specifying the provision of the EOC. As for Programme (4) on the Rights of the Individual, in the expenditure of $8 million or so on activities promoting equal opportunities and human rights for the whole year, it is true that part of the provision will be spent on studies on handling issues concerning sexual minorities. However, I believe Members all know that over the years, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau has rarely made any proactive effort to provide assistance to activities, work, publicity and education related to sexual minorities. Therefore, the sexual minorities should understand that the reduction of such provision will not have major impact. I would rather have the provision accounted to the EOC and leave it to the EOC to decide its usage. I think it may be more effective. I have put forth this point in response to Mr Paul TSE's question.

Since I have already spoken on the sexual minorities earlier, I would now focus on children's rights in this part. Last time, I said that there were over


11241

$1.1 million children in the population of Hong Kong, accounting for 15% of the overall population, whereas the ethnic minorities account for 5% to 7% of the population, and homosexuals account for 6% to 10%. However, when we look at the proportion of the provision, we notice that the provision for children, $1.25 million, is the smallest even though children account for 15% of the population, whereas the provision for the sexual minorities is $2.6 million and that for the ethnic minorities is $3.35 million. In other words, the provision for these groups is just disproportionate to the percentage they account for in the population, where the provision for the ethnic minorities which account for the smallest percentage in the population is the highest. I am not requesting a reduction of the provision for the ethnic minorities, and I will tell Members what they lack when I speak on the ethnic minorities in the next part later. However, according the existing logic in terms of policy, the ethnic minorities are given the highest amount of provision, the homosexual population comes after it, whereas the provision for children is the lowest. That means the provision at present is disproportionate to the demographic ratio.

According to the plan of the authorities, the Government intends to introduce the Children's Rights Education Funding Scheme, stage forums on children's rights and carry out publicity activities and public education to promote children rights. However, these publicity activities have been subject to criticisms by civil organizations over the years. One of the activities, the Children's Rights Forum, is criticized as a mere ritual lacking substance, failing to offer practical assistance in promoting children's rights. In fact, the deputation of the SAR Government visited Geneva in September last year to attend the hearing on the Convention on the Rights of the Child held once every five years by the United Nations. At the meeting, members of the relevant committee urged the SAR Government to set up a Children Commission. In fact, the setting up of such a commission has been mentioned a number of times by the United Nations and by Members of the Legislative Council, for it is hoped that the commission will monitor and co-ordinate various policies relating to children affairs.

Actually, the United Nations has more than once requested the Hong Kong Government to comply with the relevant requirement. However, the SAR Government has no intention to comply with it, and it simply uses the Children's Rights Forum, which has been reduced to a mere ritual, and the Family Council as a shield. This brings us back to the same problem: Presuming that all issues can be placed in the scope of "family", and concluding that children affairs are also within the scope of family. Since we are now talking about the family, I


would like to tell Members that today is the International Day of Families of the United Nations. In fact, family members are classified into different categories. We need to protect and promote the rights and human rights of children, which cannot be achieved by the Family Council. The United Nations pointed out at the same time that the Children's Rights Forum and the Family Council were inadequate in bringing the voice of children to the policy level. It is thus obvious that the Government is trying to muddle through or fool the public, for it has no plan to attach importance to the 1.1 million children who account for 15% of the population.

In June 2007, the Legislative Council passed a motion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to urge the Government to set up a Commission on Children, but the Government instead set up the Family Council. I recall that a few months ago, all Members of this Council passed another motion to urge the Government to set up a Commission on Children, but the Government is still unwilling to so. It is evident that motions with no legislative effect passed by the Legislative Council are useless no matter how hard we strive to speak at the meeting. But if we cut their provisions when the Appropriation Bill is being examined by the Legislative Council, the Government will know that "it hurts". It is the latter approach but not the voting by the 69 out of 70 Members for the setting up of a Commission on Children that really works. For Members can do nothing if the Government is unwilling to act in accordance with the motion passed.

Every year, the Government will use the Family Council to put off the Legislative Council. The Family Council considers issues from the perspective of adults and parents, but not that of children. How will the Family Council which adopts the standard of adults include the perspective of children to allow their voices and needs to be amplified to have a bearing at the policy level? When children affairs are considered from the family perspective, it will not go beyond the paternalistic approach, that is, to fulfill filial duties, to study hard, to be attentive in class and to follow the instructions and advice of elders. I am not saying that these teachings are incorrect, yet they are cliché. If the authorities can take on the perspective of children, I believe that apart from striving for the rights to receive education, the authorities concerned should also strive for the rights to play for children. In recent years, places around the world have raised this point, yet Hong Kong does not attach much importance to the right to play. To parents, they will consider the mention of the right to play rebellious or deviating from the norm, for they consider that children should only study or learn to play musical instruments.


11243

I would like to point out that Article 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulates "the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the arts". However, the "monster parents" in Hong Kong always require their children to study, take tutorial classes and participate in extra-curricular activities continuously. Their children will be required to learn musical instruments or dancing, and academic results are regarded as the indicator of achievement. May I ask where the rights of children have gone? Where have their rights to rest and leisure and to engage in play gone?

Dr Fernando CHEUNG once again put forth the motion urging for the setting up of a Commission on Children, which was passed by all Members of the Council, yet the Government remains unwilling to take any action so far. It keeps saying that various departments have already put in place policies on the relevant areas, including education, welfare, medical and health, which can provide remedies to the problems in a piecemeal manner. Members will know from the practice of the Government that it only considers children as one of the beneficiaries in the distribution of social resources. The Government thinks that if it has provided resources to children, they should not have any views.

Let us give this Programme its fair deal. I notice that the authorities had introduced five items of work to promote children's rights in the past year, which was two items less than the previous year. These include, first, promoting the Children's Rights Education Funding Scheme; second, co-organizing school outreach programmes to promote children's rights and produce relevant television programmes; and third, the Announcement of Public Interest on promoting children's rights. However, these policies and programmes are in fact mere rituals, and even publicity activities … Two programmes (the buzzer sounded) … have ceased this year. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will make a brief response to the speech made by Mr Albert CHAN just now. He said that I have not listened carefully to the speeches made by other Members. He also says that I … But I will not blame him for that. Members all know that he always talks loudly but inaccurately. He looks fierce and he thinks that he is invincible. Right? In fact, Members may also know it very clearly. He also admits that his mind is having problems. In a meeting about health on 28 April, Mr Albert CHAN admitted that he had mental problems like depression and mania. And


the condition was getting more and more serious. He even suggested that the Legislative Council should hire a resident psychiatrist. He even thought that he was like those famous persons like HEMINGWAY, BEETHOVEN, Van GOGH, DARWIN and so on. These people all had mental problems. Therefore, he thought that he had mental problems as well. And he considered that something he should be proud of. I can only dismiss the nonsensical remarks made by people like these with a smile.

I think I would also like to respond to what Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has said. Where is he now? Has he left again? Deputy Chairman, he left immediately after he had made his speech. Just look at people like these. (Someone said that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen had come back)

But let me finish with these remarks. Do not stop me. (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up) DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): But I have only finished half of it … MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): You may as well forget it. A point of order. I request a headcount. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please continue. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, before the bell was rung, I was talking about what Mr Albert CHAN said at the meeting on 28 April, saying that he had mental problems like depression and mania. Right? We


11245

have no idea how serious his condition is. But as we see his behaviour in these past few days, we are convinced that his condition is worsening. We will certainly inquire after the health of a sick person and so with respect to his speech made earlier, I will not blame him for it.

I will respond to matters concerning the IPCC. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said that the financial provision for the IPCC should be reduced and no funding should be given to it. Then they would be forced to introduce reforms. I would only wish to say to Mr CHAN Chi-chuen ― where is he now? He is not here again. Well, if he hopes that there can be reforms in the IPCC, he can propose a motion in the relevant panel for consideration and discussion by Members. And he should sound out the Secretary or speak about his proposal. All these issues can be discussed openly. And there is no need to try to forestall the funding and do not give it a single cent. If this is really done, it will prove that they do not have any experience in administration and management at all and they just think that by playing some tricks, the Government will succumb to their demands when it is not given any money. But Mr CHAN Chi-chuen is still young, I hope that he can learn more and think more and someday he can return to the right track and does not follow those people with a mental problem … no, like this. Deputy Chairman, I shall stop here. Thank you. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I have not spoken in this Chamber for a long time. I have 15 minutes to speak and I hope to use all of it.

I will now speak on Amendment No 570 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung on reducing the operating expenditure of the IPCC which amounts to some $54,000,000 and Amendment No 571 on reducing the operating expenditure of the IPCC which amounts to $27,212,500. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said just now that it seems many speeches made are trivial and frivolous. However, Deputy Chairman, what I have got to say are neither trivial and frivolous, nor even words from the mouth of an idiot. I just want to talk about the work of the IPCC during these some three years.

First of all, I wish to make a clarification. I have been a member of the IPCC for three years. In fact, a number of the Honourable colleagues here are also members of the IPCC, or even its Vice-Chairman. These include Dr LAM


Tai-fai. But I think he may have flashed. And there are also Mr Abraham SHEK and Mr CHAN Kin-por. But I do not see Mr CHAN Kin-por here.

After the passage of the Independent Police Complaints Council Ordinance in 2008, the IPCC has indeed become an independent statutory body. Its legal status is similar to other statutory bodies like the Independent Commission Against Corruption or the Securities and Futures Commission. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen mentioned earlier on a number of things which the IPCC does not have, such as the power to conduct independent investigations, the power to receive complaints from the public direct and the power to impose sanctions. Why does it not have these powers? Deputy Chairman, this is a long story and please allow me to talk about it.

Even if the IPCC has got that funding which amounts to some $50,000,000, this is not sufficient. Why? In these past few years, the scope of activities of the IPCC or its operations has expanded greatly. The IPCC is highly regarded in the eyes of the public. During the last couple of years, the IPCC hoped to create the post of a deputy secretary-general to handle its work in administration and publicity. Unfortunately, the Security Bureau does not agree to the creation of this post. Now there is only a staff ranked at deputy secretary-general. In addition, there is a suggestion that the IPCC should hire more case officers, because every time when the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) receives a complaint from the public, all the way up to the closure of the file concerned, the case has to be handled by the case officers, the legal advisers and members and even the chairman of the IPCC. They will study each case. During the peak, we have to study some 10 to 20 cases every week. These cases are sent to our offices only by 4 pm on Friday. Mr Abraham SHEK knows this very well. And usually we will have to spend much time on Saturdays or Sundays studying these cases. We hope very much that the Government can allocate more resources and hire a few more case officers so that these 24 members of the IPCC who all have their respective full-time jobs can cope with the workload so that it is a bit more humane.

In fact, although the IPCC does not have the power to initiate investigations or receive complaints from the public, under section 8(1)(c) of the Ordinance, the IPCC has the power to take the initiative to suggest certain procedures or methods of work to the Commissioner of Police or the Chief Executive in order to reduce complaints against the police. That means we have


11247

to suggest some good procedures or systems so that the police can attract fewer complaints from the public. This kind of powers is very great and during the past two years our Chairman, JAT Sew-tong, has done a lot of work.

Put it simply, with respect to the public order events mentioned by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen earlier, during the past two years the IPCC took the initiative of sending some colleagues from its secretariat or some members to act as observers. This is not putting up a show. Last year, I joined the rally on 1 July and IPCC members worked from 2 pm to 12 midnight. This is because there were some people who, after the march, assembled before the entrance of the LOCPG. Both colleagues from the IPCC secretariat and also the IPCC members stayed there until after 12 midnight, to see how the police took enforcement action. On the day before the march, many colleagues from the secretariat of the IPCC took part in the meeting held between the organizers and the police to see how the route of the march was determined, and matters like how many booths were to be set up on the streets and the size of these booths. We gave a lot of advice on the arrangements for the march on 1 July, on issues like why the police did not allow the placing of that many street booths and such booths had to be set up in remoter locations, and so on. We considered that the purpose of street booths was for publicity and they were meant to help the organizers publicize their political views or beliefs. We have done a lot of work on that.

We have done a lot of this kind of work during these two years in the IPCC, but our performance cannot be said to be perfect. I wish to talk about two points here. The first is about the background of the IPCC. In the past Mr Alan LEONG and Dr Joseph LEE had been the Vice-Chairmen of the IPCC. And currently the three Vice-Chairmen of the IPCC are Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Abraham SHEK. Can we see some kind of a bias in the persons assuming vice-chairmanship? This is the first point I wish to make.

Second, the resources of the IPCC are really limited. Apart from the personnel problem about the creation of a post I mentioned just now, actually, we do not make enough publicity and educational efforts. Under the Ordinance, members of the public cannot lodge complaints to the IPCC directly. The channel or target of their complaints should be the CAPO. But we have not carried out sufficient public education and members of the public will often lodge their complaints with the IPCC.


There is a publicity committee under the IPCC and as a matter of fact, the Chairman of that committee until end 2013 was Mr Albert CHENG. Mr CHENG took part in the work of the IPCC only for four years. It is strange to see that the Government does not observe the "six-six rule". I am indeed baffled. Why is it that when Mr Albert CHENG whose performance was generally regarded as good, he was suddenly dismissed by the Security Bureau after the four-year term was over? And by dismissal I mean his term was not extended for another two years. Of course, the Security Bureau explains that the "six-six rule" is not a statutory requirement and it is only a practice. But the performance of Mr Albert CHENG, especially the work of the publicity committee under his leadership, has been remarkable indeed. This is recognized not only by the IPCC members but also by the colleagues in the IPCC secretariat. The public also agrees that Mr Albert CHENG has performed remarkably. So the Security Bureau owes us an explanation as to why the term of office of an IPCC member is not renewed and members are changed in such a wilful manner.

Besides, I am worried about problems like the background of the IPCC members and whether they can act in an independent manner. There are some … DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you should discuss directly the question of reducing the relevant expenditure. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I oppose the reduction, because there will not be so many resources after reduction … DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): On the question of other operations of the IPCC, you should discuss them on other occasions. Please speak on the amendments. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, actually that sum of money is enough to hire a full-time Vice-Chairman. I wish to point out that perhaps more in honorarium can be given to the 24 members so that they can hire


11249

assistants to help them examine the cases. Deputy Chairman, this is not unrelated because manpower matters are certainly related to our resources.

And we do not know how decisions are made by the Government in selecting members to the IPCC. If we make use of those human resources consultants in the private sector to give us advice on how to look for IPCC members, this will actually be helpful. About the problems in human resources and on the bias in the choice of appointees, this may be due to the lack of resources or money on the part of the Government to hire human resources consultants to undertake a full-scale study or survey. If there are human resources consultants, independent professionals can certainly be found to work as IPCC members.

Deputy Chairman, of course, if the IPCC has the power to conduct independent investigations, the resources must be doubled. Now the operation of the IPCC is modelled on similar organizations in the United Kingdom, New Zealand or other Commonwealth countries. In the structure of these organizations, it is not that every one has got an independent power of investigation. But Deputy Chairman, in the long run, we consider that such power is essential. Such power does not have to cover cases of all kinds. But Deputy Chairman, for certain serious complaint cases, I would hope that there can be changes in the relevant Ordinance so that the IPCC and the CAPO will have the same powers and they may undertake investigations into a certain serious case at the same time or in co-operation.

Deputy Chairman, the IPCC has a Serious Complaints Committee and at present the Chairman is Mr Abraham SHEK. I hope that he will speak later to give a supplement. Actually, the resources we have for this are very limited. It is because of this lack of resources and funds that we have to spend much time on many of these serious cases. The time spent may be one or even two years before the file is closed with the CAPO, which is utterly unacceptable.

I do not think that we should have the power to investigate all kinds of cases, be they large or small. Deputy Chairman, you should know that I am not talking about trivial or frivolous matters here. In 80% to 90% of the cases, complaints are lodged because of the vulgar speech, poor manners or alleged abuse of power on the part of the police. Deputy Chairman, please allow me to cite a small case. This case has left a deep impression on me and it explains why I think the IPCC does not have to enjoy this power to undertake investigation


direct in every case. If the IPCC has this power to undertake direct investigations in each and every case, I think our financial provision for it will have to increase much by more than five to 10 times.

The case is like this: One day a traffic policeman asked a lady to open the car window in a place where no parking was allowed. The policeman said politely to her that she had parked her car illegally and asked her to stop the engine and hand over her driving licence. The lady complied. A few days after that, the CAPO got a complaint from that lady and the complaint was that the policeman had treated her impolitely. Deputy Chairman, what did she say in the statement? She said, "I am not a driver. I am a lady. But that policeman did not address me madam, but he called me the driver. This is an insult to me."

I do not know where has Dr CHIANG Lai-wan gone now. Perhaps she would also agree that this complaint is trivial and frivolous. Deputy Chairman, there is a need for reform in the IPCC and it has got to be done seriously. I also agree that, in the long term, the number of staff in the IPCC should be increased. I do not agree with what Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung or Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has said, that since we want the IPCC to perform better, we have to therefore reduce its resources. I do not think this is justified as a matter of logic.

Deputy Chairman, the speech I have just made is on the operations of the IPCC and I really hope that the Financial Secretary can increase substantially the resources for the IPCC next year. Deputy Chairman, I so submit. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I ask you to do a headcount. This is because Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has criticized us earlier but she is not in attendance now. Please do a headcount first. Sorry, Dr LAM Tai-fai. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)


11251

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please speak. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I just want to say a few things. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is surely not going to come back. It does not matter. First, she talks nonsense. I do not know what she was talking about. But I do hope that she will talk less because she sounds unpleasant. She does not know how to scold people. Just see how I do it.

First, I have talked about the IPCC. Mr Kenneth LEUNG has enlightened me. Three Members of this Council should speak on the subject. They are "Tai", "Por" and "SHEK", that is, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Abraham SHEK. This group of "Tai", "Por" and "SHEK" are just awesome. They will speak later.

I will just talk about one point for the time being. This is what the Administration said in its reply to our question on funding application. It said to this effect: "Publicity efforts will continue to be made to promote public awareness of the role played by the IPCC". This is clear enough. Mr Kenneth LEUNG said earlier that "Tai Pan", that is, Albert CHENG, was the Chairman of the Publicity and Survey Committee. Chairman, it is certain that within the IPCC, he is the best person for publicity work, on how to make use of the media and manipulate the media.

It so happened that all of a sudden the "six-six rule" ceased to apply to the IPCC and became the "six-four rule". This spells trouble. At that time, "Tai Pan" made it clear that the committee would do the things I have just cited, that is, publicity efforts will continue to be made to enhance public awareness of the role played by the IPCC. When the Administration applied for funding from us, this was what it said. But later on, this member who was the most capable among all members was sacked. This is really bad. It is like MOYES asked for money to buy a certain player but the player bought was useless.

It is only with reluctance that we have to monitor the Government. Honestly, with respect to the amount of funding under application by the Administration, it is not possible even if we want to increase it by $1. Right, the "Tai", "Por" and "SHEK" coalition? Not even $1. When Ronny WONG Fuk-hum, SC, was leading the IPCC, things were a mess. Now a former


member was sued in Court and the case is still going on. Even if the Government really wants the IPCC to come out again with a clean image, forget its past and let it begin afresh and supply it with new resources such as making arrangements for a better secretariat, so that IPCC members do not have to shoulder the liabilities as legal persons and they can work wholeheartedly, the question remains, who will want to join? I do not think one will want to pick up a stone and hit his own foot, right?

The Administration mentioned in the paper for funding application three matters requiring special attention for 2014-2015. One of these matters is related to the sacking of "Tai Pan" which I have just said. Honestly, the public remains not convinced. For me, I cannot increase its funding and all I can do is to cut it. So I will just cut its funding. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have repeated your arguments a number of times. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have to respond to Dr CHIANG Lai-wan back because she is not well versed in the issue.

If the Government does not agree, this Council cannot increase expenditure estimates of the Government by even one single cent. This is the reality. We cannot expect the Government to agree after we have said something in the panel meeting. It would be great if that is the case. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan has asked a number of times why the Government does not increase the funding for the IPCC. With respect to this question, I would think that in the papers submitted to us on Matters Requiring Special Attention, the department concerned has failed to make any sense or logic and it is because of this reason alone that its operating expenses should be reduced.

Moreover, there is another matter requiring special attention regarding the IPCC and that is, to "strive to reduce the time taken to examine investigation reports submitted by CAPO". Mr Kenneth LEUNG has spoken on that. Once he was given more than 20 files and they were given to him at 4 pm on Friday. Does this mean that he had to read these files on Saturday and Sunday without sleeping? If the time taken to examine investigation reports is really to be reduced, case officers should be hired to read these reports first. The situation is


11253

like when we go to the hairdresser's, we will have our hair washed first and combed before the hair is cut. If these steps are not taken, it will make people like me who have long hair look awful if they are going to have their hair cut.

So if the time taken to examine investigation reports submitted by CAPO is to be reduced, steps should be taken like combing the hair and washing it before cutting. If these steps are not taken, all is empty talk. Even if in the end the money is obtained and the relevant expenditure is increased by 10%, but so long as these steps are not taken, I do not think the time can be shortened. This is not what I say, but people like "Tai", "Por" and "SHEK" may point this out later. Or Mr Kenneth LEUNG may talk about this from his own experience. Therefore, I think that when I propose that the salary of the IPCCstaff be cut, it is a proper approach because it can arouse Members' attention.

Another matter in these "Matters Requiring Special Attention in 2014-2015" ― Deputy Chairman, I will cite this quickly, and that is: "identify any faults or deficiencies in HKPF's practices or procedures with a view to reducing the number of complaints".

In my opinion, I do not think the IPCC as it is can achieve this. Let me cite the example of conflicts between the police and the citizens. With respect to arrangements for marches and rallies, when for example, there are hostile groups or groups holding opposite views staging demonstrations at the same time, I think that the police are powerless in handling such a situation. The reason is the same, as is already mentioned by Mr Kenneth LEUNG. There is a novelty in the IPCC under the leadership of JAT Sew-tong and that is, whenever there are disputes, he would send observers. For example, in the great march on 1 July, the police did not allow the placing of booths for soliciting signatures or donations near the sidewalk and it was thought that these booths would impede the progress of the march. So these booths were not allowed.

Of course, when the police act according to the Public Order Ordinance and impose conditions, there is the Appeal Board on Public Meetings and Processions to take care of such matters. If the Appeal Board remains silent on this, JAT Sew-tong will send observers to inspect the progress of the march. After observation, JAT Sew-tong will say that the march is okay and order is good and the progress of the march is smooth. This is what is meant by to "identify any faults or deficiencies in HKPF's practices or procedures with a view


to reducing the number of complaints". However, does the IPCC have enough manpower, equipment and money for this? It seems that it does not.

Let me cite another simple example ― Occupy Central. Of course, we do not know if this would ever happen. On the issue of Occupy Central, Secretary Eddie NG Hak-kim made some very irresponsible remarks yesterday. He is not here now. He asks the schools to do this and that. The IPCC or organizations monitoring the police should get prepared to undertake on-the-spot observation or compile reports to analyse similar activities in the past in a constructive manner. I would think that this kind of activities is proper. But these organizations have not taken similar actions. Deputy Chairman, on the question of the IPCC, I think that the Government has hitherto failed to build a genuinely independent image of the IPCC in the eyes of the people in monitoring the CAPO.

Let me cite another simple example ― the registration of societies. The police have an independent department which is headed by a police officer at the rank of superintendent and who is authorized by the Public Order Ordinance. This officer will decide on the application for registration from a society. What is constantly being under dispute is that when someone applies to the police to register a society, the police are delaying the application while not rejecting it. According to the relevant performance pledge, the result of the application should be available in four weeks. But the fact is, even after 40 weeks, the department still says that certain papers or formalities are lacking and questions are always asked on matters which in the view of the department are unclear, such as the objectives of the society concerned. I once applied for the registration of a society which got a name reads to this effect: "Ne'er we forget 4 June". The objective of that society was to end one-party dictatorship. But I was asked what was meant by "ending one-party dictatorship". About this objective, it is simple indeed. It does not carry any punctuation and there are only six Chinese characters. The department said that if I could not explain clearly what was meant by "ending one-party dictatorship", no approval would be given to my application for registration. This society was to be set up under the suggestion by me and my friend, NG Kung-siu. Mr NG passed away more than 10 years ago. Despite this, the case is still there. Therefore, we can say that there are great controversies surrounding society registration matters. We just do not know why some societies can be registered while some cannot.


11255

It appears that business registration is used in the case of the Democratic Party. If it is a business registration, there will be problems. Likewise the Civic Party also uses the same form of business registration. Is that the political party to which Ms Claudia MO belongs? DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have strayed from the question. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It turns out that it is registered as a company. There are problems about that. Directors form the basis of a company. If there are changes in the directors, an application has to be made. Under the Basic Law, the people of Hong Kong have a right to form societies. But now just by the work of this department, that is, the police, our right to form societies lawfully and hold activities such as fund-raising is gone. (THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

On this issue, the CPAO has indeed received a lot of complaints. I have lodged two complaints but to date the IPCC has not yet finished handling them. Now the Chairman is back. Time flies and now we can almost call it a day. We can see really a world in a grain of sand. People like "Tai", "Por" and "SHEK" have all left their seats. We cannot approve of any funding for the IPCC because there are too many things we are not happy with it.

Let me say it once more. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, please listen carefully. We cannot pass any funding application by the Government. What you have said in the panel meetings is useless. The Government will not increase its funding for the IPCC. Do you know that? You should come back and listen. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, if you do not come back, I will summon you to return.

Summing up what I have said this far, on the three matters requiring special attention with respect to the IPCC, I would think that the IPCC has done not even one of them. I hope Members can understand that that when I propose that the annual provision for the IPCC be reduced, it is out of sheer reluctance. As the saying goes, although I have not killed that person, he dies because of me. Although I cannot make the IPCC die, I am doing something to kill the IPCC. But after killing the IPCC, it can come to life again. As a matter of fact, the


same argument holds for the IPCC. This is because had it not been Ronny WONG Fuk-hum, SC, and members of the IPCC making use of the loopholes in law while they were holding public office and hence getting themselves into trouble in law, how would there be any need for reform of the IPCC? From this it can be seen that something good can come out of something bad.

We have found the causes of the disease but those quack doctors do not prescribe any medicine for us. Therefore, we have to issue this threat: if they do not give us the medicine, we will kill them all. They are your parents and if they do not give us the medicine, we will kill them. So they will agree to giving us the medicine. This is holding them to ransom. Chairman, you know what is meant by holding people to ransom. It is not that we mean to threaten people, but to force them to do something.

Chairman, I have said that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan should come back and hear what "Tai", "Por" and "SHEK" have got to say. I request a headcount, such that she has to come back and listen to the speeches to be made by "Tai", "Por" and "SHEK". CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the first joint debate involves a myriad of policy areas, and I have spoken many times on the Chief Executive's Office (CEO), the Central Policy Unit (CPU), the Chief Secretary for Administration, the Financial Secretary, and the police. After I have finished my speech on this part of the joint debate, I think we should be able to proceed to the second joint debate. Chairman, in this part of the debate, I would like to make the last two points. One is about the CPU, and I have drawn a brief conclusion and provided some


11257

supplementary information earlier. Concerning Amendment No 734, it proposes that head 142 be reduced by some $2.7 million which is equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for honoraria of the Head of the CPU. We all know the background of this Head of the CPU, and compared with his predecessor, his education qualification, experience, reputation … If you are familiar with his way of thinking, analytical power, ways of expression, and so on, you can say that he is the worst, the least capable Head of the CPU in history. Therefore, I fully support the deduction of this expenditure and I hope that Members can support it.

Besides, with regard to Amendment No 723 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, which seeks to resolve that head 142 be reduced by $9.8 million in respect of subhead 000, the deduction is equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for research studies conducted by the CPU. As it was mentioned earlier, the CPU does not make public its reports, and many of the studies undertaken by the One Country Two Systems Research Institute were classified and barred from disclosure. These practices are hardly acceptable.

Moreover, I wish to add one point. Some time ago it was reported in the media that the One Country Two Systems Research Institute had hired online "hatchet men" who were exclusively tasked to refute remarks criticizing the Government on the Internet. If that is true, it is really incomprehensible. It is all the more unacceptable if public coffers were really used to subsidize these practices.

Besides, the last part involves issues relating to the Security Bureau. Chairman, over the years I have raised a very important issue with the Security Bureau and that is, the monitoring of debt collection practices. The Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong did make a recommendation, calling on the Government to enact legislation to monitor the debt collection practices of debt collection agencies. However, the Security Bureau has, over the years, negated and rejected this proposal, and I think this is dereliction of duty on their part. My office receives a large number of cases of harassment or intimidation ― suspected intimidation ― by debt collection agencies every week. We all know that there is this problem, and at peak level, the police even received 30 000 cases (sic) seeking police assistance a year. If we do some computation based on this number, it means that hundreds of thousand people are subject to such harassment every year and yet, the Security Bureau simply could not care less. I would say that this is proof of collusion between the Government and business, because it is often the case that debt collection agencies are hired by the large consortiums,


including banks, real estate companies, telecommunications companies, and television service contractors, to go after members of the general public. This happens in various areas. Of course, finance companies were involved in some cases but I have received so many complaints that hardly can the number be considered acceptable. Such a large number of people are so often affected and yet, the Government remains reluctant to address this problem. This reason alone suffices to justify the deduction of the expenditure of the Security Bureau in this area. Therefore, I support Amendment No 868 concerning the deduction of the expenditure of some $114 million for staff emoluments of the Security Bureau.

Moreover, many problems have remained unresolved over the years, particularly the protection of human rights in Hong Kong which we have repeatedly stressed, as well as the problem of abuse of power by the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF). The experiences of "Long Hair" are proof cast in iron. No sooner had several police officers seen "Long Hair" coming to them than they immediately seized him and used pepper spray on him. The footage has been viral on the Internet. The problems in this area must be addressed squarely.

Furthermore, there are many other problems. We have seen the felling of local Agarwood (or Incense Trees) by illegal immigrants from the Mainland continually and the species is close to the point of extinction and yet, we have not seen any effective control. The problem of illegal fishing in Hong Kong waters by fishermen from the Mainland has persisted. Therefore, we can see that in Hong Kong, there is corruption everywhere, be it small or big in magnitude, but we have not seen the Security Bureau expressing any concern in these areas. If things go on like this, Hong Kong will change in nature and degenerate, and this will be an even more serious problem.

In respect of another problem over which controversies have been aroused for years, although we have put forward proposals ― They target visitors and particularly the problems relating to the approval of two-way permits and multiple entry permits, which have aroused an uproar in society and persistent public discontent. But the Security Bureau is totally passive; nor does it have any political awareness. This is most probably because the persons in charge of the Security Bureau basically come from the disciplined forces and are accustomed to obeying orders, and as these orders often come from the LOCPG now, they have, therefore, become completely detached from the public, failing to


11259

keep tabs on public opinions and sentiments and hence causing many problems to worsen continuously to the detriment of the people's livelihood.

In this connection, with regard to the several amendments, such as Amendment No 868 or Amendment No 876, that I have talked about earlier, especially the deduction of the $3.38 million expenditure for the annual salaries of the Secretary for Security, I fully support these amendments, and I am deeply disappointed with the performance of LAI Tung-kwok. As the Secretary for Security, he is biased in favour of the police, giving the latter a free hand in abusing their powers and bullying members of the ordinary public. Worse still, he has caused the masculine image of the police to plunge drastically. In the past when we were still in school, we very much respected and admired the masculine image of the police when we watched the police's promotional footage on the television but now, their image is like "licensed hatchet men". This must be addressed squarely.

Some time ago I said in this Chamber that the HKPF are becoming more like an urban management force. Perhaps the reporters did not quite catch it and some electronic media reported that the police are becoming more cost-oriented. What I said was that they are becoming more like urban management officers, similar to those in the Mainland, but some television stations reported in their news that the police are becoming more cost-oriented. I wish to clarify this mistake made in the news reports on television. I have repeatedly criticized the HKPF of becoming more like an urban management force, as they acted in the same way as those officers in the Mainland who always assaulted the public with their batons. This is why I said that they are becoming more like urban management officers. I wish to take this opportunity to clarify this mistake made in the news reports. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to provide supplementary information to what I said specifically on Amendment No 791 earlier. It involves head 144 and proposes the deduction of an amount equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for activities to promote equal opportunities and human rights of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. The amount involved is $8.09 million. In this speech I will focus on


the mistakes made by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau in promoting the rights of children.

In my previous speech I mentioned that in the year before last, the Bureau set out five areas of work for promoting children's rights but there are only three areas of work this year, meaning that the areas of work have been reduced in number. I criticized that the Government has carried out those three areas of work merely as a matter of routine. These areas of work include: (1) Promote Children's Rights Education Funding Scheme; (2) Co-operate with Radio Television Hong Kong to conduct a school outreach programme to promote children's rights and produce a related TV programme; and (3) Announcement in the Public Interest (API) to promote children's rights. All these are just routine work which is neither creative nor innovative. But this year, two areas of work are missing, namely, the publication of booklets on the Convention on the Rights of the Child (the Convention) and the development of mobile applications to promote children's rights. I also noticed that this year's expenditure on promoting children's rights has dropped to a new low in history. It was $1.84 million in 2012-2013 and $2.15 million in 2013-2014, and the estimated expenditure this year is further reduced to $1.25 million. It is necessary for the Government to explain why the expenditure and initiatives for promoting children's rights have not increased but are reduced by almost 100% over last year. I think this is unacceptable to many Members.

Some time ago Dr CHIANG Lai-wan said that some polices could be discussed at meetings of the panels. With regard to the establishment of a Commission on Children for which I have championed, I must tell Dr CHIANG Lai-wan that what she said is theoretically correct, for it is true that we can discuss it at meetings of the relevant panel. The establishment of a Commission on Children should be discussed at meetings of the Panel on Constitutional Affairs and we certainly did discuss it before and non-governmental organizations were also invited to attend the meeting and make representations. We even proposed a motion for debate at a meeting of the Legislative Council, with 69 Members voting in support of the motion. Unfortunately, the motion was not binding, which means that it is still useless if the Government does not pay attention to it. We have, therefore, explored all possible means, including moving amendments in the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill 2014 to deduct the expenditure for areas which I have just mentioned in an attempt to deal the hardest blow to the Government.


11261

Let us come back to Dr Fernando CHEUNG's question to the Government on the expenditure for the implementation of the Convention. Members will find that the amount was the highest in 2009-2010, which was $1.943 million; in 2010-2011 it was down to $1.489 million, and further dropped to $1.006 million in 2011-2012. Why? Dr CHEUNG also found these amounts very strange. Why was it reduced from $1.9 million to $1 million? The Administration explained that it was because special activities were organized for celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Convention in 2009-2010. From this we can see that they were entirely just putting up a show and making a fuss, and they provided a bit more resources because of these large-scale activities celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Convention. But celebration is mere formality. The key lies in whether it can truly promote the rights of children and put the Convention into practice in Hong Kong society. The Administration should increase the expenditure through conducting a review of the progress every year, rather than applying for a 100% increase in funding for the throwing of a party, which is astonishing. In 2008-2009 the expenditure was only $900,000 and it was $1.9 million in 2009-2010. We have now come to realize that the amount of funding actually depends on whether a birthday party or an anniversary celebration will be organized. This is completely unacceptable to us.

Therefore, applying the same logic, we cannot force the Administration to carry out work but if we approved the funding and the Administration does not work seriously, I think it would be better to withdraw the funding. This is my view on Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's proposal to deduct the annual estimated expenditure on activities to promote equal opportunities and human rights of the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Why do we have the heart to support the drastic reduction of its expenditure even in such important areas as human rights and equal opportunities? This is why we must clearly tell the public our reason in order to pre-empt any misunderstanding.

Next, I wish to speak on areas relating to the Judiciary, the Department of Justice (DoJ) and law, including the three amendments proposed to "Head 80 ― Judiciary", "Head 92 ― Department of Justice" and "Head 94 ― Legal Aid Department". I remember that I already spoke on them last week.

First of all, I must apologize to Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. It is difficult for me to support his five amendments in relation to the Judiciary. As a matter of fact, during the Committee stage of the budget debate last year, some Members also proposed amendments in relation to the Judiciary. Subsequently, some


government officials came to me and asked me not to propose any deduction of the expenditure of the Judiciary in the following year. They said that this would carry great significance because the Judiciary and the legislature are independent of each other and if the expenditure of the Judiciary is deducted, would it mean that the Legislative Council wishes to exert pressure on the Judiciary through the approval of financial provisions? Those Judges would ask us to explain in what areas they had performed their duties unsatisfactorily.

I think members of the Judiciary can rest assured that the legislation enacted by the Legislative Council still has to be enforced by the Judiciary. We will not influence their judicial independence by supporting the deduction of its funding and hence depriving them of adequate resources for administration of justice. I do not know what perspectives individual Members are taking, but from the overall perspective of the Legislative Council, it does not make sense that the Legislative Council enacts legislation but there is just nobody to administer justice. Would we not be voicing nonsense and talking to ourselves? Therefore, if Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has a chance to speak again later, I hope he can give an explanation to Members. For example, he has proposed Amendment No 414 to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants of the Judiciary. The amount is $2,988,000. He may perhaps consider this amount too small.

However, there is an amendment that he really cannot explain and that is, Amendment No 416, proposing to deduct $8,000 which is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for Magistrates poor box of the Judiciary. Why does he have to deduct those $8,000 for Magistrates poor box? Besides, with regard to Amendment No 417 which proposes to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the expenses of witnesses and jurors of the Judiciary, what should be done when such expenses are deducted? Does he also aim to increase the expenses of witnesses and jurors? If he has a chance to speak again, I hope Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung can explain this.

However, with regard to the group of amendments concerning the Judiciary under head 80, I am sorry that I cannot support them and at most, I can only abstain in the vote in order not to get in the way. But as the saying goes, "one should seek justice against the appropriate perpetrators and collect debts from the right debtors". I think in order to express dissatisfaction with the overall


11263

situation of administration of justice in Hong Kong, the "debtor" or the person who should be held accountable or targeted in recovering the debts is the "Big Brother" of the DoJ, namely, the Secretary for Justice. So, in my following speech I will speak in support of Amendment Nos 477 and 478. These amendments proposed coincidentally by Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung seek to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on the salary of the Secretary for Justice. The annual salary of the Secretary for Justice is $3.5 million. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is very good as he also provided us with another choice of deducting just half of that amount, which is expressed in Amendment No 482 proposed by him to deduct $1,749,996, being the salary of the Secretary for Justice for six months.

Why should the salary of the Secretary for Justice be deducted? We all understand that the rule of law is most important. If Hong Kong people are asked to rank the core values, the rule of law is definitely ranked as among the top three places, and it is certainly a core value of Hong Kong people and also the cornerstone of Hong Kong's success as an international financial centre. A sound, stable, impartial and fair society where the rule of law prevails can provide protection for individual rights and apart from this, to members of the business sector, it can also create a level playing field and remove uncertainties for investment, which are also very important. The Secretary for Justice, being the principal legal adviser to the Government and a Member of the Executive Council, should set an example and also defend and protect the spirit of the rule of law in Hong Kong. He must not allow certain policy proposals and administrative decisions to bypass the law and get passed in a haphazard manner.

Apart from overseeing all criminal prosecutions under his purview in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, the Secretary for Justice is responsible for providing legal advice to various Policy Bureaux and departments of the Government. He is also responsible for drafting government bills, representing the Government in legal proceedings and promoting the rule of law to the public. Let us take a look at head 92. The total expenditure of the DoJ is $1,795,200,000. Of course, there are various Programmes under it, including Prosecutions, Civil, Legal Policy, Law Drafting and International Law. I will explain to Members one or two of these Programmes later. The DoJ is the largest law practice in Hong Kong, and this is indisputable; and there are six Divisions under the management of the Secretary for Justice's Office. I will first


look at the performance pledge of the Secretary for Justice. Then we can use this as a benchmark to gauge whether there are justifications for us to support the deduction of the salary of the Secretary for Justice.

The six Divisions include the Civil Division, International Law Division, Law Drafting Division, Legal Policy Division, Prosecutions Division, and Administration and Development Division. Let us look at this head again. We can see that "Programme (2) Civil" has the largest spending. The estimated provision for this Division is $941.6 million in 2014-2015, showing an increase of over 48% over the last financial year and accounting for the largest share of the financial provision. However, I am not going to talk about this part in detail, but "Programme (3) Legal Policy". The estimated provision for it is $14.5 million, representing an increase of 22.7% over last year.

The mission of the Secretary for Justice is to apply, promote and enhance the rule of law and the efficient and effective administration of justice in conjunction with the Judiciary and the legal profession, and this is most basic; to maintain the highest standards of professional excellence and ethics; to make known as clearly as possible to clients the legal impediments, implications and obligations in respect of any proposed course of action; and to abide by the standards required of the legal profession by law or the professional bodies; and let us do remember this benchmark. But most regrettably, the sky of law in Hong Kong has been shrouded in black clouds for the past two years. With dark clouds hovering over our heads, the spirit of the rule of law has been gradually fading. This is not a comment made by us, but by former permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal, Mr Justice Kemal BOKHARY, who always keeps a low profile, during an interview with the media. He said that the administration of justice in Hong Kong is facing a storm of unprecedented ferocity, and his remarks have caused a huge uproar. Regarding the DoJ's proposal to seek an interpretation of the Basic Law from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to resolve the problem of the right of abode of foreign domestic helpers and the problem of babies born in Hong Kong to parents who are not Hong Kong permanent residents, Mr Justice BOKHARY openly urged Judges to be prepared to stand up in the storm. He said that anyone who seeks to undo the Court's decision must undo it openly, rather than making small gestures from behind, or else Hong Kong's rule of law will die.


11265

When attending the graduation ceremony of a university, former Secretary for Justice, Mr WONG Yan-lung, also openly appealed to society to stand united in defending the core values, including the spirit of the rule of law. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I will not request a headcount for the time being and I will speak for a while first. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen asked me why I have to deduct the estimated expenditure of the Judiciary. Amendment No 414 seeks to resolve that head 80 be reduced by $2,988,000 in respect of subhead 000. This deduction is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the Resource Centre for Unrepresented Litigants (Resource Centre) of the Judiciary. This is just one example.

Chairman, you must understand that in legal proceedings, both parties can be represented by lawyers but some people are unrepresented. Of course, there can be a lot of reasons for not having legal representation, such as not having the means to engage a lawyer or not knowing how to engage a lawyer or lacking confidence in lawyers, or the litigant may think that he is cleverer than lawyers. The reasons vary and cannot be speculated.

Having said that, if the litigants are not represented by lawyers, this will, to a certain extent, infringe on the principle of judicial justice because unrepresented litigants would be in a less favourable position in seeking judicial assistance and court judgment. Therefore, in order to truly ensure judicial relief, the Judiciary should help unrepresented litigants recover their rights.

Every time when I am a party to proceedings, the Judge will, before the start of the proceedings and as a standing practice, tell me in a most redundant, superfluous way that even though I am not legally represented, what kinds of rights I do have and what rights I do not have, and that it does not mean that I am in the wrong even if I do not speak, for he will take note of it. This is done in the Court, which is most important. Now that we have to approve the allocation of funding to the Resource Centre of the Judiciary. Regarding the work carried out by the Resource Centre, how is it assessed? We are a place where common


law is practised and let us assess its work with reference to other common law countries. What is the situation?

For example, in our former sovereign, or a country that once occupied our land, namely, the English or Welsh authorities, they have a Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) in the Royal Courts of Justice in London. How does this CAB provide assistance to the people? Let me read it out briefly … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, how is this related to the amendment under discussion now? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): If other people are doing a good job whereas we are not doing that well, which means that the Resource Centre exists in name only, we had better dissolve the Resource Center altogether. I am explaining why we should deduct all of its resources. As the saying goes, "one would fight to live when confronted with danger of death". CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If you wish to cite other examples to draw a comparison, please be concise by all means. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Sure. I will not read out the cases of the United States and Austria. I am only citing the CAB as an example. They have employed three paid full-time lawyers, one Chief Executive, one Manager, one receptionist, together with eight part-time workers who are not professionally trained in law and 100 volunteer legal advisers. I found this incredible as I read on. They are different from the Resource Centre for unrepresented litigants operated by the Judiciary in Hong Kong which only tells the litigants their rights frivolously and tells them to go to a certain floor and fill in a certain form. From my own experience, there was once when I had to fill in so many forms that I almost wanted to throw up, and I took the wrong form and submitted it at the wrong counter, and I almost … my application for judicial review was rejected in the end. Tell me, how serious the consequence is.

I am only citing the CAB as an example, and I will not cite the examples of Austria and the United States. The CAB said that they would provide advice and analyses to unrepresented litigants on their chance of winning their cases.


11267

So there is a world of difference between us, as we have to look for assistance everywhere like the blind or like "Granny LIU visiting the Grand View Garden"3.

The CAB also provides case analyses for the litigants to ascertain their chance of winning. Besides, the unrepresented litigants can seek legal advice for free from barristers who devoted their time and expertise to participating in the volunteer scheme of the barristers' association or lawyers from large legal firms who volunteered to provide assistance. This is entirely different from what we have been doing.

As regards our Resource Centre, we should never ask them any question whatsoever, for they will only tell the litigants where they can take a lift to go to a certain place or which website they can browse on the Internet to look up information. Forms should be filled in by the litigants themselves, and do not bother them. But the CAB can actually enable people who do not have the means to hire lawyers or who are so naïve as to think that lawyers cannot be of any help to obtain legal representation and obtain judicial relief in the process. This is most important. Our Resource Centre can only serve as a perfunctory arrangement. Frankly speaking, it is actually useless to approach the Resource Centre for assistance. What I am saying now is to explain to Mr CHAN Chi-chuen the reasons why I have to deduct the expenditure for the Resource Centre.

In fact, there is still one thing that I wish to point out. It is not the case that we have not suggested a reform, only that the authorities did not implement it. Representatives of the Hong Kong Bar Association, The Law Society of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law of The University of Hong Kong, and School of Law of the City University have submitted their views which consist of three points. They suggested that firstly, with regard to the possible modes of access to existing free legal services at the Resource Centre, efforts must be made to ensure that the information provided by the Resource Centre will enable the unrepresented litigants to access the relevant services; secondly, regarding the possibility of providing free legal service at the Resource Centre, one of the suggestions made, which is very important, is that rules have to be laid down for compliance by participating legal practitioners to prevent any form of touting. In fact, these measures are feasible. Moreover, after the provision of legal advice by the Resource Centre, efforts must be made to avoid the misconception 3 Granny LIU (劉姥姥) is a character in the Chinese classic novel, Dream of the Red Chamber (《紅樓

夢》), who was astounded by the grandeur of the garden.


that the legal advice obtained by the litigants at the Resource Centre is advice given by the Judiciary.

In fact, if the Judiciary can take on board the views of these three stakeholders ― I have named them one by one already, which include the Hong Kong Bar Association, The Law Society of Hong Kong and the law schools of the two universities; and apart from Judges, there are not many other organizations. I think their proposals are feasible. But in fact, the small amount of funding for the Resource Centre is a problem. Second, the Resource Centre does not wish to bear responsibilities. What legal liabilities does the Resource Centre have for people who received its assistance? I think this is easy. Just ask them to give their consent and the problem will already be resolved, right? Tell them that I am giving you advice and it is your own choice as to whether or not you will heed it, and I am here only to provide you with this service. Is this not the solution already? They are like people who come to the Legislative Council to seek assistance from or lodge complaints to Members of the Legislative Council. These people will talk about their problems and after I have taken up their cases, it does not mean that their problems can definitely be resolved, but I will certainly keep their information confidential. This is it. This is only one of the examples, and it is indeed too easy to resolve the problem. What I have just read out also comes from a paper of the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services, and it shows that we have made an effort. We have identified the problem but the Judiciary simply turned a deaf ear to us and treated us like idiots. These are widely-known practices in common law jurisdictions and yet, we have continued to remain in situ. Let me stop here in this regard, because I know that Members are all in a rush. I will not dwell on this this point any longer.

Next, I would like to speak on the Department of Justice, which again concerns the law. It is head 92. The amendments are Amendment No 477 proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man; Amendment No 478 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, which seeks to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the salary of the Secretary for Justice ― "Resolved that head 92 be reduced by $3,500,000 in respect of subhead 000"; and Amendment No 482 proposed to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for the salary of the Secretary for Justice for six months. This is meant to be a "price reduction after bargaining", as we all know. The Secretary for Justice and his subordinate, the Director of Public Prosecutions, can be regarded as twins, like the right hand and the left hand. Let me now read out the amendment altogether in order not to be accused of


11269

prolonging the debate. This is Amendment No 483, resolving that an amount be reduced in respect of subhead 000, which is approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for the salary of the Director of Public Prosecutions for six months.

The problem concerning the Director of Public Prosecutions is a question of policy. A question of policy certainly comes under the responsibility of the Secretary for Justice. How should the Director of Public Prosecutions handle matters relating to prosecution? Like the Secretary for Justice, he should avoid suspicions and he must not give people the impression that he is part of the Government. For this reason, the Director of Public Prosecutions should not take up major cases, such as constitutional cases involving the Government, or cases filed by an individual against the Government with serious implications on credibility. Instead, these cases should be handled by someone else through the outsourcing system, in order to uphold and give effect to the principle of impartiality in the administration of justice. The authorities are currently acting in line with this principle. When they come across difficult cases, they would often seek professional opinion from outside the Government on whether or not to institute prosecution, whether or not to take up the case, or whether or not to outsource the case. This is a good practice but in the final analysis, the problem lies in the Secretary for Justice. While the work of the Director of Public Prosecutions can be outsourced, can that of the Secretary for Justice be outsourced? No, it cannot. So, concerning the problem with the Secretary for Justice, it would be easier were he not an accountability official. This is, of course, a question of political ethics, for this is written expressly in the Basic Law. Therefore, this is a constitutional question. If the Secretary for Justice must cease to be an accountability official in furtherance of the principle of separation of powers, it may be necessary to amend the Basic Law, or it may not be necessary to amend the Basic Law. So, under the scope of his duties, the Secretary for Justice is required to give advice to the Chief Executive. In other words, the question is how we can address the problem of the Secretary for Justice not being able to remain neutral under the existing constitutional system. This problem was discussed in this Council long ago, and the question of whether or not he should be excluded had been discussed whether when you were a Member of this Council or after you became the President of this Council. My view is that so long as this question remained unresolved, the problem of the Secretary for Justice not being adequately neutral would remain. So, it follows that even his subordinate, the Director of Public Prosecutions, has this problem too. Grenville CROSS told us all about it when he went into retirement, though he remained silent when he was in office.


Another problem is that there is no way for us to find out whether or not the Director of Public Prosecutions is fair in handling certain cases. But I have found a very bad example. Chairman, I will finish with this example as fast as I can. The most obvious case in point is the case of Franklin LAM. On his last day in office, the then Director of Prosecutions, Mr ZERVOS, said that no prosecution would be initiated against Franklin LAM and then he kept on talking about a host of reasons for it. This is "white glove", and as he is not in office anymore, it is meaningless to further ask him any question. Had Mr ZERVOS outsourced this case, things would have been different, because if he accepted the view of a certain person and even though he already left his job, we can put questions to that person who gave the advice. This is the case of that bad example just mentioned. Franklin LAM should take the full responsibility in the entire case and then it was said that the case was not substantiated. In fact, I have refuted this conclusion many times in this Chamber, and I will not repeat the points here. Actually, from the perspective of common law, there was a good cause of action and when no prosecution was instituted against him, it means that the Director of Public Prosecutions had failed to discharge his duties. So long as there is a good cause of action, the case should be taken to court and what he did has aroused suspicion against himself. Then the benefit of doubt would be given to the defendant in court. But he set him free on his last day in office, claiming that all the people who had made accusations of him before had wronged him. What a "white glove" he is. Now that we are even taken to task by Franklin LAM and LEUNG Chun-ying. I think this bad example is indeed most appropriate to illustrate the point. When facing cases involving major interests and the Government, the Director of Public Prosecutions absolutely cannot handle them on his own. This is why I have to deduct their salaries.

Time is almost up. I still have five seconds to speak and as my throat is dry, I would like the Chairman to do a headcount. (The buzzer sounded) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (While the bell was ringing, Mr WONG Kwok-hing stood up to express his opinion)


11271

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, the Secretariat and I will certainly respond to this question raised by you. Actually, you can also raise this question with the media outside this Chamber. As a quorum is lacking at the moment, the proceedings will be suspended. The remarks made by you just now will not be put down in the Official Record of Proceedings.

Members who have an opinion may raise their hands in indication according to the Rules of Procedure. If they wish to express their opinions through other channels, they may also do so outside this Chamber. As a quorum is lacking at the moment, the meeting cannot proceed. Although I will be here to maintain the order inside the Chamber, any remarks made by Members at this point in time will not be put down in the Official Record of Proceedings. (While Mr WONG Kwok-hing was explaining his justification to the Chairman, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung talked loudly) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please observe the rules. (Mr WONG Kwok-hing made another attempt at explaining to the Chairman) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The meeting cannot proceed when the summoning bell is ringing. (Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung stood up and talked loudly) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please do not treat this Chamber as a venue for you to quarrel with others. Please sit down and do not make any noise. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please speak.


MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, since the filibuster has already lasted six days, we have lost $15.3 million in taxpayers' money. Just now, the Financial Secretary publicly announced that the Legislative Council Commission would not receive any funding next month. Under such circumstances, more than 500 staff members of the Legislative Council Secretariat are concerned about whether they will receive their salaries, and so are the Assistants working in Members' offices. And can the proceedings of the Legislative Council continue? Hence, I hope the Chairman can do something about it through the Secretariat. I do not know if this is a point of order. I hope the Chairman can chair this meeting properly to enable this Council to invoke cloture expeditiously. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, the point raised by you is neither a point of order nor related to the amendments being debated by the Committee at the moment. Nevertheless, I fully understand your concern. Likewise, both the Secretariat and I are actually concerned about this issue, too. We are now dealing with it, and a clear explanation will be given to all Members and the Secretariat soon. So, Members and all staff members of Members' offices can rest assured about that. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, if Mr WONG Kwok-hing said that salary payments could not be made should this Council run out of money, he could request ZHANG Xiaoming for one more script or painting. That will be enough for him … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your present speech bears no relevance to the amendments. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): In that case, how was Mr WONG Kwok-hing's speech related to the amendments? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, this is already the 38th time you are speaking. I will stop you if you stray away from the question.


11273

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): A yesman is here … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you are still straying away from the question. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Financial Secretary John TSANG will inform us explicitly in writing, and there is no need for the yesman to say anything here. Furthermore, we have no idea whether or not his remarks are true. Chairman, I am now making a point of order. Were the remarks he made just now true? What did he say? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please stop and sit down immediately. Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will continue to speak on Amendment Nos 477 and 478, head 92 and the amendments proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung on the reduction of the annual emoluments for the post of Secretary for Justice.

I mentioned earlier a warning issued by former Mr Justice Kemal BOKHARY. Let me quote a few lines of his warning, "I consider it very important to maintain vigilance, by which I mean vigilance on the part of the public in addition to monitoring by the media. If the situation in Hong Kong was already hopeless, which means that problems will occur regardless of what is being done, I will not make any comments. I think that some of the existing problems might ultimately lead to serious problems … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, this is already the 37th time you are speaking. Please do not quote at length details which are not directly related to this amendment. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Alright. My argument is actually very simple. The reason for reducing the emoluments for the Secretary for


Justice is that, in spite of the comments expressed by many of his predecessors on the emergence of judicial problems in Hong Kong, Rimsky YUEN, as Secretary for Justice, has not really expressed any views even though he has witnessed the gradual transformation of society from being governed by the rule of law to the rule of man.

Let me cite the most simple and direct example to illustrate my point. According to Programme (3) Legal Policy under head 92, the Secretary for Justice is obliged to provide legal advice on constitutional development and election matters. Over the past two financial years, the numbers of items on which advice was given were 726 and 672 respectively. As for 2014, the estimated number of items is 670. On the surface, the "constitutional reform trio", comprising the Secretary for Justice, Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM and Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond TAM, are responsible for conducting constitutional reform consultation. Actually, they are carrying out a political mission packaged by laws. This is why the Secretary for Justice should absolutely not join the trio … despite his legal role in providing legal advice in constitutional development, he has no role to play in promoting the constitutional reform package.

Putting aside the comments quoted by him, what has he actually said? The most obvious example is an article which is entitled "Civic Nomination and Nomination by Political Parties" and written by him personally. I will cite a few examples only. He said, to this effect, "… any proposal bypassing the nomination procedures of the nominating committee (NC) or undermining its substantive nomination power might be inconsistent with the Basic Law." Certainly, he was referring to the power of civil nomination. Like Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, however, he used the word "might". Why did he not make a categorical comment? If he was giving legal advice, he should have pointed out that a decision could not be made if it was actually so. Instead, he used the word "might" and the expression "might be inconsistent with the Basic Law". What did he mean? People reading this article would wish to find out whether he knew what should be done or he really thought so. As the Secretary for Justice, or the head of the highest organ responsible for providing legal advice in Hong Kong as well as a member of the "constitutional reform trio", he should have pointed it out on the very first day if he knew that civil nomination was unlawful. However, he dared not say so, pretending that discussions could be conducted. Even on the day he wrote the article, he still used the word "might". And then he would sometimes point out to the wider community … to give the impression


11275

that he had already pointed out that civil nomination was unlawful. Secretary for Justice, what is really on your mind?

Furthermore, he pointed out that "the general provisions of Article 25 or 26 cannot override the clear language and specific provisions of Article 45, let alone undermine the NC's substantive power of nomination." I have previously raised a question about what it means by "undermining the NC's substantive nomination power". Will the power of nomination be undermined if the number of candidates is restricted to three or four? In my opinion … even if the Government wishes to find someone to carry out the political mission, the Secretary for Justice must not be tortured. However, since he has already boarded this ship, he must accept our criticism that the law has been used to package politics. Hence, I support the amendments proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung on the reduction of the annual emoluments for the Secretary for Justice. I will stop entangling with the Chairman on this point because I have to race against time as I still have a lot of views to express on the amendments concerning the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) and the Security Bureau.

Next, I would like to speak on Amendment No 582, which is related to head 122, on reducing a sum approximately equivalent to the annual estimate of the investigation expenses incurred by the HKPF. I think not too many people, except several Members like us, will carefully examine the subhead prepared by the Secretariat in this amendment. If Members care to read it carefully, they will find some extremely unreasonable figures, such as the annual estimate of the investigation expenses incurred by the HKPF, which is related to Amendment Nos 582 and 583, to which I am referring. May I ask Members to guess the approximate amount of the annual estimate of the investigation expenses incurred by the HKPF before looking at the details? The amount is $34 million. May I also ask Members to guess the amount proposed to be reduced by Mr James TO in his proposed Amendment No 595, which is approximately equivalent to the annual estimate of the informer fees incurred by the HKPF? The amount is $80 million. The fact that the amount of informer fees is even higher than the annual estimated investigation expenses incurred shows that the HKPF rely mainly on informers in their investigations, which means that money is used to buy intelligence. Is it really the case? What is the logic? What is included in the investigation expenses?


To start with, I am very grateful to a number of Members for their persistent efforts in proposing amendments to these so-called investigation expenses incurred by the HKPF ― also known as secret expenses. Actually, prior to 1997, that is, the British Hong Kong era, we all knew that there was a secret department known as the Special Branch, which was actually under the command of MI5 and MI2 in the United Kingdom to perform counter-espionage, intelligence gathering and related missions. Of course, the expenses thus incurred would not be made public. In addition, they had to be kept secret because defence affairs were involved. However, following the dissolution of the Special Branch, these duties were handed to the "B" Department (Crime and Security). Now, even if enquiries are made with the HKPF, they will not admit the existence of a Special Branch or a similar framework, though I have noted in Programme (2) Prevention and Detection of Crime under head 122 that the work of the HKPF involves "developing the Force's various information and intelligence systems, in particular, strengthening its crime investigation capabilities through the use of modern technologies". The details of the estimate of these expenses are very often not transparent. Nor will they be made public. The Bureau will not give us a reply even if it is confronted with questions raised by us. (THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

This was the response given by the HKPF to the question raised by us concerning these secret expenses for undisclosed purposes, "… given the covert nature of the operations, we must be very careful to ensure that disclosing information on the expenditures of these operations would not enable criminals to know, through analysing the allocation and trend of expenditures ― it is like a person who has read the books will be able to find out the amount of money spent in a specific area ― the operation strategies of the police, thereby allowing them to elude justice or even jeopardize the safety of front-line police officers and informers providing intelligence to the police. In this connection, we have strived, as far as practicable, to make such information public, maintain the transparency of police expenditures, and strike a proper balance between protecting the covert operations of law-enforcement agencies and ensuring effective law enforcement.".


11277

Even though the information is sensitive, case investigation often involves the privacy of the person concerned. The police's refusal to be monitored for the sole reason of confidentiality will give them a chance to act ultra vires or abuse their power. In fact, before the commencement of the Interception of Communications and Surveillance Ordinance (the Ordinance) in 2006, the police already expressed reluctance in a very secret manner to make public the relevant figures. I can see that Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has proposed several amendments related to the Secretariat of the Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance. Actually, since the commencement of the Ordinance, the entire law-enforcement agency has been subject to monitoring in an open manner. The Ordinance has clearly drawn up the criteria regarding the authorization of interception of communications and covert surveillance and appointed an independent Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance to oversee compliance with the statutory requirements by the enforcement agencies. The Commissioner is required to submit an annual report to the Chief Executive, listing many items of statistical data related to covert operations taken by the law-enforcement agencies, including the number of authorizations issued for covert operations, the time limit of the authorizations and the types of crimes involved. In this regard, we can see that the question actually has nothing to do with whether the information can be made transparent and public by all means. Only that the police are reluctant to do so. If the Ordinance is invoked, the police will, likewise, be required to make public the information for monitoring purposes.

The annual report submitted earlier by the Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance has revealed a number of cases in which irregularities were found, including a case in which a law-enforcement officer who had been in charge of the investigation of a certain crime a couple of years ago was subsequently found to have kept the documents related to the interception operations. During the discussion on this incident held at a meeting of the Panel on Security at that time, it was found that the officer had not acted according to the departmental guidelines … in the past, it was impossible for us to pursue, investigate or find out what had happened. According to the relevant law-enforcement agency, if the officer involved in the incident was still serving, he would have received a written warning for his misconduct and been subject to disciplinary actions. However, no actions had been proposed since the officer in question was no longer serving in that law-enforcement agency.


Furthermore, the report has revealed that, upon the return of surveillance equipment by a team leader, the officer responsible for making records in the equipment management system had failed to make a record of the return of the equipment. Instead, he claimed that there was an interruption of power supply when the team leader returned the equipment to the store room. I do not wish to continue to read out the details of this incident. Although the investigation work of the HKPF has become increasingly open, there are still a lot of inadequacies. The reason for us to request Members earlier to support this amendment on reducing the investigation expenses is that we can simply not ascertain the usage of these expenses and whether they will be used to carry out some political missions.

The two cases cited by me just now are contained in the report submitted by the Commissioner. Despite the severity of the nature of the cases, no reasonable efforts to pursue the cases have been made. The Commissioner has been questioned for being too lax since no actions have been taken to pursue the officer involved just because he has left the service. I support reducing the annual estimate of the investigation expenses of the HKPF not only because I wish to request the police to adopt an open attitude and upgrade its transparency by all means while carrying out investigations but, more importantly, because the police should pursue and be accountable for cases of ultra vires, abuse of power or failure to exercise their power. Judging from the present circumstances, the efforts made by the HKPF are still inadequate. Therefore, I support Amendment No 582 on reducing the annual estimate of the investigation expenses of the HKPF. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will speak on Amendment Nos 12, 8 and 33 proposed by me in relation to Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office. In the previous debate, I spoke mainly on the Chief Executive's salary and allowance. Moreover, I have made a request for the relevant expenditure to be cut and cited many reasons. After three sessions of discussion, we have now come to matters related to the Executive Council.

With regard to Amendment Nos 12, 8 and 33, Deputy Chairman, Amendment No 8 seeks to cut $20.8 million, which is approximately equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure for the Executive Council. Amendment No 12 seeks to cut $10.92 million, which is approximately equivalent to the


11279

estimated expenditure on the annual honorarium for 13 non-official Members of the Executive Council (excluding its Convenor). Amendment No 33 seeks to cut $1.34 million, which is approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on the annual honorarium for the non-official Convenor of the Executive Council. I will now speak on these three amendments in relation to Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office.

The team lined up by "689" comprises principal officials and the Executive Council, which can be regarded as a cabinet of non-official members, who are called Executive Yuan officials in Taiwan, State Councillors in the Mainland, and Executive Council Members in Hong Kong. This organ is inherited from and modelled on the political structure of the colonial period. Under the Basic Law, the Chief Executive in Council is the most powerful and highest policy-making centre. However, is each and every Executive Council Member really competent? Do all of them have charm, genuine abilities, eloquence and integrity? All appointees have turned out to be era. As I have mentioned many times before, they are "a bunch of lowly people" and "dog droppings and rubbish". Am I right?

During the British Hong Kong era, the Executive Council was truly remarkable, with all of its Members coming from the Taipans of Swire or HSBC, right? Later, as society became a bit more open, professionals and elites joined the Executive Council because of the need to implement a consultation system to consult the public and incorporate public opinions into policies.

The present Executive Council can be described as the "trashiest" since the handover and the establishment of the SAR Government more than a decade ago. Today, I must name some people for criticism. When oral questions are raised during meetings, we are not allowed to speak out the names of Executive Council Members. Given that we are already at the Committee stage, we can certainly speak out their names. All these people are rubbish. If we do not speak out their names, how can Hong Kong people know who I am referring to? I will also upload this speech onto the YouTube for viewing by more people. I will certainly exert my utmost to insult them in the same way as Mr WONG Kwok-hing insulted the filibustering Members.

The Executive Council is a decision-making organ responsible for assisting the Chief Executive. I would begin with Barry CHEUNG, who is no longer an Executive Council Member. Following the exposure of his scandal, everyone


called him names except the pro-establishment Members, who were seen defending him. Although they were defending him, they were actually eager to see his immediate departure because they knew it very well that he would derail the whole Government and the Executive Council. He is truly a classical example of rubbish, right? With the Hong Kong Mercantile Exchange Limited facing immediate liquidation, Barry CHEUNG will face charges and be taken to court at any time. What is more, he might even face imprisonment.

Franklin LAM, who jumped the gun in selling his properties and later resigned from the Executive Council, could still shamelessly insist that he felt deeply wronged. Such being the case, he should not have agreed to joining the Executive Council. He should have declined the invitation to be an Executive Council Member. On the one hand, he wanted glory and on the other he hid behind the scene to do bad things.

As regards those incumbent Executive Council Members, I would like to say a few words about CHEUNG Chi-kong and Mrs Fanny LAW, whose political stance is evident to all! After joining LEUNG Chun-ying's cabinet and becoming his lackeys, they naturally have to defend the Government. This is only inevitable. Mrs Regina IP is an elected Member and a public opinion representative. I would like to ask her a question: Is it more important to have a popular mandate or to join the Executive Council to defend LEUNG Chun-ying? Her attitude during the delivery of speeches is entirely different from theirs. Although she has to defend the Government, she demonstrates reluctance even though she is talking about the same incident because she has to stand in elections but there is no need for them to do so. Not only does everyone know their political stance, but they have also expressed their views openly and frankly and made themselves an enemy of the people … collective responsibility and confidentiality are always double standards. For reasons of collective responsibility and confidentiality, something can simply not be told. However, when they speak without any discretion or restriction, they will say that they have the freedom of speech and that they speak for themselves but not the Executive Council. This way, they can do whatever they want, buddy.

From the angle of public relations on the part of the Government, it would do the Government good if only the officials can make fewer comments. I would like to cite an example of careless remarks made by government officials. Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, who appears to be socially inept and honest, has actually done nothing at all. After he half-heartedly helped an elderly person who had gone down on his knees to get up, he went on to demolish his home and


11281

ancestral hall. This is an example of a person who has exhausted all good words but done all bad things. Officials who do not know they have to be careful with what they say will get into trouble whenever they make any utterances. For instance, Secretary Gregory SO called for tolerance when someone was seen urinating on the street. However, he could not tolerate any longer after he had received two parcels containing faeces. In short, government officials are often found talking nonsense.

A most typical example found recently is Eddie NG, who has been criticized for threatening teachers. No wonder he is nicknamed "No good (唔得掂 4", buddy. Honestly, he may give students a gentle reminder that the Occupy Central movement is no good and their studies will be affected should they break the law. However, he went so far as to suggest issuing guidelines to schools across the territory. Buddy, he is using his power to threaten teachers. He should really call it a day because his remarks are derailing the Government. Is it not problematic for the Secretary for Education to make such remarks to remind students that the Occupy Central movement is unlawful? Buddy, is the Occupy Central movement necessarily unlawful? The organizers have indicated that love and peace will be promoted. Moreover, they might apply for the Letter of No Objection. Does the Secretary know that the organizers of the Occupy Central movement will not allow the participation of students? People under the age of 18 are not allowed to participate. It is the duty of the police, not the Education Bureau, to take preventive measures before anything happens. This is yet another example of government officials being not careful with what they say. They are simply fond of talking nonsense. Government officials must think carefully before making any comments. Moreover, they must be very cautious and refrain from talking nonsense. I have no idea what the spin doctors have done. What a waste of public money to recruit them! This is why I request that their salaries be cut, including the Executive Council, the Central Policy Unit, the so-called aides of the CEO, and the Information Coordinator. Are they not wasting public money? Even from the standpoint of the Government, not the opposition camp, I still think that the Secretary has brought the Government into disrepute and tarnished its image. We have noticed that the popularity ratings of officials who seldom speak or have never talked nonsense will definitely remain high. 4 "唔得掂" (ng4 dak1 dim6) sounds like "吳克儉" (ng4 hak1 gim6), the Secretary's Chinese name, in

Cantonese.


Despite holding public powers, the Secretary has chosen to issue a warning to students and threaten teachers and parents. Buddy, I have written an article today. Members who are interested may read the Oriental Daily News tomorrow. I have written nearly 2 000 words to condemn the Secretary for Education and point out the views of CAI Yuanpei, head of Peking University, and HU Shi, on students' campaigns during the early years of the Republic of China. HUANG Zongxi of the late Ming/early Ching Dynasty was quoted in the Chapter on School of the Waiting for the Dawn: A Plan for the Prince as saying that students' intervention in politics is "an incident in an age of decadence" and also "a remnant of three generations". What did it mean? Has TSANG Tak-sing not been jailed? Back then, being one of the top students of St. Paul's College, he distributed leaflets because he felt that society was unjust. He was also imprisoned for two years for the sake of pursuing his belief, communism. At that time, the Judge gave him an opportunity by allowing his parents to plead for mercy. However, the Judge was told they would not do so because their son should be allowed to do whatever he wished to do. Great parents! Now, he is the incumbent Secretary for Home Affairs. Does it make any difference even though he has been jailed? I have a criminal record because of unlawful assembly. Does it make any difference even though he also has a criminal record for committing more than 10 offences? Would anyone tell me what offences I have committed? I have a criminal record because I have violated a "draconian law" for the sake of upholding social justice. Does it make any difference? How many campaigners of pro-democracy movements in developing countries have not been put to jail? MANDELA, who had been jailed for 28 years, became President of South Africa later. Another person is AUNG SAN Suu Kyi. The number of such people is indeed too large to be counted. Let me turn to something more positive!

I would like to cite one more example. I have once participated in the preparatory work of two radical groups, which are made up largely of young people. Not only have they initiated many social movements, but they have also joined many protests and processions. So far, thousands of people have been drawn to every activity convened, organized and mobilized by me. I will definitely remind young participants to think carefully because, if they choose to stay behind with me, they might be carried away by the police and charged with unlawful assembly. Furthermore, I will remind them that people under the age of 18 are not allowed to participate. One year, when I found several teenager students were staying with us outside the Government Secretariat, I asked several


11283

adults to escort them away. We will definitely explain to them all the pros and cons involved.

The Secretary for Education has make some comments of justice and righteousness, telling the students that participating in the Occupy Central movement will affect their studies and future as well as the jobs of the teachers. Buddy, he is on the verge of making threats. Next, he is prepared to issue guidelines to the schools. Has he taken the wrong medicine? In this liberal society, everyone has to be responsible for themselves. If the students wish to take part in the Occupy Central movement, their parents will discourage them from doing so. It is so simple. Furthermore, whether or not the Occupy Central movement can proceed is still open to question. His comments are really … this movement will not stand any chance unless Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung joined the radical groups and students to promote the Occupy Central movement. If we are to wait for these people ― it is simply impossible for intellectuals to rise in rebellion! With the passage of more than a year, we all know it very well that they are only making verbal lobbying. However, he is already so frightened that he has to issue threats in advance. We fully understand these propaganda tactics. We also fully understand the comments made by Robert CHOW, a member of the Silent Majority for Hong Kong. All these non-government organizations have freedom of speech. This is why the Caring Hong Kong Power and the Voice of Loving Hong Kong can say anything.

However, accountable officials should not make such comments because they have public powers. I did not notice until now that the Under Secretary for Education is in attendance. Will he please tell the Secretary to retract his remarks, or else I will pursue the matter. What did he say? He plans to issue guidelines to the schools when nothing has yet happened. He was even prepared to discuss with the schools. What did he say? What a typical "dog official"!

They are really "a bunch of lowly people" and "dog droppings and rubbish". LEUNG Chun-ying is ignoble in character and devoid of integrity. This is, as the saying goes, like attracting like. Birds of a feather flock together. I have not finished yet. CHEUNG Chi-kong is a template, and so is Mrs Fanny LAW. We can see from these templates that the SAR is doomed to failure.

As I have less than one minute of speaking time left, I would like to talk about the choice of aides. We might as well refer to the "seven ways of choosing aides" suggested by ZHUGE Liang. Deputy Chairman, let me sum up


what he said: First, pose to them philosophic dilemmatic questions to see their values; second, make them speechless through argument to see their response; third, discuss your strategy with them to see their knowledge; fourth, tell them there is a disaster coming to see their courage; fifth, fuddle them with wine to see their nature; sixth, give them benefit to see if they are honest or not; and seventh, confide a job to them to see their credit. "689" does not even know how the "seven ways of choosing aides" should be interpreted. Neither has he ever considered doing so. These people, including the Bureau Directors and Executive Council Members, are all "dog droppings and rubbish". So, they should not receive any pay! DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, a headcount please. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in my speech earlier on, I talked about the deduction of the emoluments for the staff of the Department of Justice (DoJ). In fact, I have already talked about why the emoluments for the Director of Public Prosecutions should be deducted, that is, on the last day of work of the former Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Kevin Paul ZERVOS, he played the role of a "white glove" by letting Franklin LAM off before leaving office. Now, he has become a Judge, so that means there is no way for us to pursue responsibility.


11285

Now, let us come back to this man called Rimsky YUEN. Members need only read his name the other way round to know what it generally means. Mr YUEN is actually inextricably linked to politics and we all know that. Even though … when speaking for the first time earlier on, I said that one of the solutions is for the Secretary for Justice to cease to be an official under the accountability system, but since the Basic Law states that the Secretary for Justice is an official under the accountability system and since amending the Basic Law is even more difficult than ascending to heaven, we can only eliminate one of the solutions, that is, he will definitely be an official under the accountability system.

Since he will definitely be an official under the accountability system, how should he conduct himself to ensure that he is always impartial and observes neutrality when dealing with legal matters under his charge, including his dealings with judges and other people? In fact, there are some matters that he must observe. First, he should seldom express his views on political debates or cases involving major public interest and the Government. Such an assertion is apparently inconceivable because Mr Rimsky YUEN Kwok-keung, or if you read his Chinese name the other way round, "Keung-kwok YUEN" (強國袁 , a pun meaning "an ape of a mighty nation"), is certainly a Secretary of Department under the accountability system but his official position is actually the topmost legal adviser of the Government. He is in charge of all legal matters of the Government and carrying out overall planning in this regard. This is the most important thing, but the expression of political views does not fall within his ambit. However, Members only have to look at his background to know that there are problems actually. He was a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference Guangdong Provincial Committee from 2008 to 2012. Although he had resigned from this post when joining LEUNG Chun-ying's cabinet, it can simply be said that all of us have doubts about his so-called "neutrality". For this reason, he should be all the more cautious in handling matters.

Let me cite a very simple example. The Secretary for Justice is one of the "constitutional reform trio". He assists Carrie LAM in listening to views and from another perspective, it can be said that he carries out the consultations on constitutional reform. When carrying out consultations on constitutional reform, one cannot confine one's scope beforehand. Therefore, is it appropriate for the Secretary for Justice to level relentless criticisms at the proposals put forward by civil society? This is a standard in accountability. In my view, the Secretary for Justice can certainly offer advice to the Government on all legal matters but


when carrying out consultations, he often talks about his interpretation of Article 45 of the Basic Law, but it is inappropriate to do so. During the consultation period this time around, his assertion that "civil nomination" is unconstitutional actually is unbecoming of his position. His position does not require him to comment on these matters. This is very simple: He can say this to the Chief Executive and let the Chief Executive say so; or he can say this to the Chief Secretary for Administration and let her say so, and he can even tell Secretary Raymond TAM, whose rank is lower than his, and let Secretary Raymond TAM say so. However, it is not appropriate for him to make such a remark himself. Therefore, I think he is actually dispensable in the trio but once he has joined the trio, he should understand his role and should not express his views wantonly.

All right, this leads to another issue, that is, the one about another Executive Council Member whose pay I demand be deducted. Since Rimsky YUEN could talk a lot of nonsense, Secretary Eddie NG also followed his example, so I propose that the estimated expenditure for his emoluments be deducted. I do not know if Secretary Eddie NG has ever sought the advice of the Secretary for Justice, Rimsky YUEN, on the matter of issuing guidelines. The words of an emperor are to be taken seriously and so are those spoken by an official, hence the guidelines issued by the Education Bureau actually amount to a policy. Of course, he can say anything about this policy but the question is: The Occupation of Central with Love and Peace movement has not yet happened and nothing whatsoever has happened. As the Secretary, he has to take charge of so many things; 15-year free education is already in shambles and so is small-class teaching. All the issues related to education have already given us a lot of headache, so why has Secretary Eddie NG suddenly taken a matter that may not necessarily happen so seriously and gone so far as to issue to schools guidelines with such great fanfare?

I think that this is precisely attributable to the fact that our Secretary for Justice has not provided appropriate legal advice to the whole governing team of the SAR. What is appropriate legal advice? It is whether or not, objectively speaking, the Occupy Central movement actually exists and this is the first point; second, do the manifesto of this campaign and other matters necessarily constitute a violation of the law and third, even if the law has been violated, is it appropriate for a Secretary to interfere in such a way by issuing guidelines to all principals, teachers and students? In this regard, I think the Secretary for Justice, Mr Rimsky YUEN, bears the ultimate responsibility. He should offer a clearer and


11287

independent view on these issues within the Government. I do not mean that he has to comment on whether or not "civil nomination" is legal but what his views on the Occupy Central with Love and Peace movement are. However, I have to reiterate that it is not appropriate for him to voice his views personally.

The issue that I wish to talk about next is related to Keith YEUNG. What I talked about just now was the policy, that is, how someone in the post of Director of Public Prosecutions should conduct himself and now, I am going to talk specifically about Keith YEUNG. Since the post of the Director of Public Prosecutions exists, naturally, someone has to fill it but the performance of different people under the same policy may not necessarily be the same. Therefore, the Chairman was right in saying that if one wants to deduct his pay, one has to talk more about his performance. There is actually one problem with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keith YEUNG, that is … let me cite a very simple example: He is in charge of making judgments on all prosecutions independently. I believe he should make a decision as soon as possible on whether or not staff members of the Marine Department violated criminal laws in relation to the maritime disaster and whether or not the authorities should institute prosecutions. What are the reasons?

Deputy Chairman, we have talked until our mouths are dry and the deadline for the family members of the victims of the maritime disaster to make civil claims will soon expire. If he continues to drag his feet, does not decide on the criminal liability and procrastinates every day … criminal liability is more important than civil liability and this we all understand. If, under government policy, it is believed that since investigations will be carried out into people with criminal liability or prosecutions will be instituted in the future, so it is not appropriate to make public the whole report, that means because of his procrastination, the family members of the victims of the maritime disaster on the National Day are indirectly deprived of their right to take civil actions. This is because perhaps the deadline may expire, or even if the report can be obtained, the time left will be very limited. I believe that if one has to tie in with the policy of the whole SAR Government on the maritime disaster … it is not true that I want the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keith YEUNG, to be partial in conducting his work by instituting prosecutions if the Government considers the problem serious and desisting from doing so if the Government considers it otherwise. In fact, he should know that the core of the entire policy is: First, to prevent future incidents; and second, make the pain caused by the disaster fade as soon as possible by giving an account in relation to all the victims. I believe the


Director of Public Prosecutions, Keith YEUNG, should make a decision as quickly as possible.

If he is afraid that his post cannot bring about judicial justice, he has to take the procedure of outsourcing as soon as possible by having one or a group of independent barristers look at the whole case to determine if it is necessary to institute prosecutions. So long as this cannot be done and Keith YEUNG does not do so, this is a deadlock because no matter what the Secretary says, ultimately, the issue of the rule of law is enmeshed with this matter. They keep saying that if the report is made public too early, in the future, if a jury is established for the trial, early disclosure of the report may prejudice the interest of the defendants, or this may give rise to injustice in relation to the jury, and this will be favourable to the defendants conversely. I understand this point but it is only necessary for him to decide whether or not to institute criminal prosecutions for this problem to disappear and the maritime accident report can also serve as a starting point for the civil actions to be taken by the family members of the victims. On this point, I think that the performance of Director Keith YEUNG has let all of us down greatly because he has been indecisive.

We can see that in past instances, it was not the case. If it was necessary to institute prosecutions, this would be done as soon as possible. Let me cite an example, one that sent shockwaves through society but on which no news coverage is allowed at present, that is, the case related to Rafael HUI. In this particular case, when it was decided that prosecution had to be instituted, action was taken expeditiously. Of course, there is no knowing if this case involves any civil claim. However, Members can see that if the Director of Public Prosecutions should make a decision as quickly as possible, it is only natural that he should take action. In that case, where does the problem lie in? It lies in the fact that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keith YEUNG, does not have a background of dealing with criminal cases. His expertise does not lie in dealing with criminal cases, but commercial crime and securities-related cases. Therefore, when it comes to these issues, naturally, he finds that they are beyond him. Having said that, in fact, the Secretary for Justice and the Director of Public Prosecutions are twins. When "Keung-kwok YUEN" (強國袁 , a pun meaning "an ape of a mighty country") ― or rather, YUEN Kwok-keung, appointed Keith YEUNG, the seeds of trouble were already sown. Therefore, I believe they both should have their pay deducted as they are birds of the same feather.


11289

Therefore, Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount. Thank you, Deputy Chairman. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (While the summoning bell was ringing, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung talked aloud) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please do not talk aloud. (While the summoning bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair) (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, do you wish to continue? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I will. I said just now that the Director of Public Prosecutions, Keith YEUNG, and the Secretary for Justice, Rimsky YUEN, were twins, so they both had to be held accountable. The Director chosen by Secretary YUEN is not well versed in the large number of criminal cases that the DoJ has to deal with. Not that he has never dealt with criminal cases before, but he is an expert in commercial crime cases.

After Rimsky YUEN had picked him, the former has no way of urging him on in dealing with cases he is incapable of handling as soon as possible, that is, to outsource them to barristers, so that the latter can deal with them at an early date. As a result, the very unsatisfactory situation now is created. For this reason, I implore Honourable colleagues to endorse my proposal of deducting the pay for both of them. Thank you, Chairman.


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated a wish to speak) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, since this is the 38th time you are speaking, may I ask you how many times more you need to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): In this part, I am going to give a clear account and will not waste Members' time. I will tell Members everything altogether in this part.

Chairman, I am going to speak on "Head 122 ― Hong Kong Police Force". I believe this will be the last time I speak in the first joint debate on an amendment the subject matter of which involves one of the heads. If the Chairman wants me to say precisely how many times, I can say two times, or three times at the most, because I do not know if any Member will speak in the time that follows and if there is any argument that I have to rebut.

Concerning the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), I have proposed 14

amendments in total, accounting for half of the 28 amendments related to the HKPF. I also wish to compress them as far as possible, so that they can be dealt with in two speeches. I have made a point of talking about the HKPF in detail only after discussing the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) because I want to highlight the problem that the IPCC is incapable of monitoring the HKPF and that it is also difficult for the Legislative Council to monitor the HKPF by asking questions. Therefore, the HKPF are a government department on which there is minimal restraint. The annual expenditure for the HKPF is huge, standing at over $15.5 billion. For this reason, the harshest amendment proposed by me is Amendment No 572, which seeks to deduct the annual estimated expenditure of the HKPF to $1,000. The major issue that I wish to bear out is the unlimited powers of the police. Moreover, human rights have also been compromised and this has even been turned into a song, precisely because a system of checks and balances is lacking. Chairman, you really have foresight because if all the wrongdoings of the HKPF are to be recounted, one cannot do so even if one spends three days and three nights doing so, so I can only talk about the salient points.


11291

This particular incident must be mentioned no matter how: On 4 May, more than 100 members of the public, as well as a Legislative Council Member, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, took part in a rally with the theme of "Remember the Anti-XRL Movement/No to White Elephants!". In the rally, the police and the protesters clashed over the arrangements in respect of the route. In the end, the police used pepper spray on the protesters. I felt furious even on watching the video footage alone and felt as though I were subjected to the same treatment myself. In chapter 12 of the tactics training manual of the police, it is stipulated that pepper spray can be used in physical encounters involving violence or the self-infliction of wounds by the other party ― I wonder if Mr LEUNG was doing that ― or to stop an attacking animal. If the other party is putting up passive resistance, that is, if the obstruction of a police officer engaged in a public duty has not reached the extent of endangering other people, the police should remove the person or restrain him physically instead of using pepper spray.

In addition, according to the requirements, before a police officer uses pepper spray, he should issue a verbal warning to the protesters, saying, "Stop resisting or I have no choice but to use pepper spray on you!" However, judging from the video footage and the subsequent accounts of people on the scene, on 4 May, it should be the case that the police did not issue the said warning to the people on the scene before using pepper spray on the protestors, so obviously, this is an excessive use of violence.

According to another internal guideline of the police, when using pepper spray, a police officer should use it from a distance of 2 ft but in this incident of the protest against the white elephants, the police did not use the spray from a distance of 2 ft. In particular, the pepper spray directed at Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung was administered point-blank ― I wonder what his condition is now as I have had no opportunity to enquire about his well-being even though I see him every day ― so that also violated the internal guidelines.

Members can look at these 28 amendments seeking to deduct the expenditures for the HKPF. If they only want to pursue the responsibility for this incident ― of course, I want to pursue responsibility not just for this incident, rather, I also hope that Members will support my proposal to deduct $15.1 billion of expenditure on account of three or four incidents ― but if Members take issue only with this matter and want to vote in support of the relevant amendment, they can consider Amendment No 579 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN, which seeks to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure of the HKPF on specialist supplies and equipment. The sum, being $80 million,


is not small either. Why should they support this particular amendment? Because originally, we tried to ask the police how many cans of pepper spray they have and how much money was spent on them, intending to deduct just the expenditure for pepper spray. If the pepper spray alone is targeted, it would do just to deduct that amount of expenditure. However, again, such information is considered confidential as the police are afraid that criminals may know how many cans of pepper spray there are and may come up with some counter-measures, so the police are unwilling to provide the information to Members.

On the actions of the police on that occasion, apart from the fact that no warning had been issued beforehand and the pepper spray was used at close range, there is also one noteworthy point, that is, by dint of the video footages taken on the scene, we can see that several police officers, apart from surrounding the protesters, even deliberately ripped away the items used by protesters to protect themselves, such as spectacles, raincoats, plastic covers, and so on, before spraying the protesters with pepper spray. This ran completely counter to the purpose of using pepper spray, as though it were a fight to the bitter end, a war and an offensive in which the other party must be put down.

In fact, since the change of sovereignty, that is, after 1997, the SAR Government has resorted to various ways to suppress the freedoms of speech and assembly of the public in an attempt to curtail the scope of the freedoms of speech and assembly and among them, the draconian Public Order Ordinance was reinstated by the Provisional Legislative Council without any basis of public support whatsoever. On the face of it, the draconian Public Order Ordinance stipulates that the organizer only has to notify the police but in reality, a rally is legal only if a Letter of No Objection is issued, so this is doubtless a procedure of application and approval, thus subjecting all rallies and assemblies to government scrutiny and the police are empowered to prohibit rallies and assemblies on the excuse of safety or public order at any time. Moreover, failure to obtain approval is liable to a sentence of imprisonment for five years and even if approval has been granted, the police can still impose all kinds of restrictions, so the right of the public to hold rallies and assemblies is being curtailed increasingly. We have pointed out a number of times that on that occasion in 2011, when we were arrested, and over 100 people were involved, we had also obtained prior approval. At that time, I thought I was taking part in an approved rally and assembly for which a Letter of No Objection had been issued, only that I was walking a bit more slowly. However, before I had reached the finishing line, I was already not allowed to proceed. Then, I was sprayed with pepper


11293

spray, so it can be seen that in recent years, when dealing with large-scale rallies and assemblies, the police would surely use a great deal of force and manpower to monitor and disperse protesters, thus further curtailing the freedom of assembly.

As we all know, in the future, some very large-scale rallies and assemblies may be held. Of course, we think that since one of these assemblies is called the Occupy Central with Love and Peace movement, it will be very peaceful, will it not? Is it necessary to use such a great deal of force and equipment? Therefore, if at this stage and in this fiscal year, the expenditure for equipment involved in Amendment No 579 mentioned by me just now can be deducted, it can make the police exercise greater wisdom in dealing with rallies and assemblies rather than using force, power and violence. This is the first point that I wish to raise.

Second, I have no way of reducing police power, so I have no alternative but to deduct its estimated expenditure. What makes the public furious is the fact that the police want to introduce the offence of insulting a police officer. Although they have not yet succeeded, the police effectively want to introduce the offence of insulting a police officer through the Guidelines for Handling Abusive Behaviour by Members of the Public (the Guidelines). The Guidelines claim to focus on five types of daily constabulary duties such as conducting patrols, conducting stop and search, traffic enforcement, handling cases in report rooms and land disputes. According to the Guidelines, if provocation goes on after advice and warnings have been given to the party in question, police officers are reminded to ignore the person and just return to their normal duties, but what is the underlying meaning? It means that if someone continues to insult any police officer, that is, to obstruct the police in its daily duties, the police can actually initiate prosecution against the party concerned on charges of obstructing a police officer and disrupting peace, so this has given the police another basis to infringe our rights.

In fact, the police have hitherto not made the Guidelines public. Initially, I fell into their trap, thinking that the Guidelines had been made public after finding that the police had uploaded eight or 10 paragraphs of information onto the Internet but it turned out that they were only the introduction rather than the actual Guidelines. Last month, some Members even demanded that the scope of the Guidelines be expanded to cover rallies and demonstrations as the existing guidelines are not applicable to rallies and demonstrations. I find this


incomprehensible. If the Guidelines are only a basis intended for police officers to control their emotions, as the police claimed, and avoid disputes with the public, so that they can return to their original duties and if the Guidelines will not harm the public, why are they not applicable to public rallies and assemblies? It shows that this is not the truth because if the Guidelines are applicable to public rallies and assemblies, all of us will fight to the bitter end with the police, as this will also be an infringement of our rights by the police.

I am not making an empty claim. Recently, a police officer was proved to have provoked a member of the public. In that case, since there are Guidelines on insulting police officers, what about insulting members of the public? The IPCC ruled that there was serious misconduct on the part of the police officer in question. At that time, a police officer intercepted a member of the public for suspected use of a mobile telephone while the vehicle was in motion and intended to ticket him. The officer used provocative language. According to the complainant, the police officer said, "Hit me! Hit me!", spreading his hands wide open. Subsequently, the IPCC pointed out that under no circumstances should a reasonable police officer, in the course of discharging his duty, provoke a member of the public to assault him. It considered that the police officer had acted inappropriately by spreading his hands and saying those words, which was clearly a serious misdemeanor. We often talk about making insulting a police officer an offence but if police officers insult or provoke members of the public, how can we exercise any restraint on their power? I believe this substantiated case is only the tip of the iceberg. Many members of the public dare not make any accusation at all. For example, when the sex workers mentioned by me at the start of my speech last night were insulted by the police, they dared not even lodge a complaint with the IPCC.

Next, I have to talk about the failure of the police to protect the privacy of members of the public. The police are not doing an adequate job in protecting the people's privacy. I am not making an empty claim in this regard either. The report of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) last year criticized the police for not doing enough to protect the privacy of the public. The report pointed out that during the period from 2011 to 2013, there were more than 10 incidents concerning the loss of police notebooks and the information in notices of particulars of alleged fixed penalty traffic offence, that is, allowing information to be leaked. The items lost included the personal information of close to 300 members of the public, including that of crime victims, witnesses and suspects. The PCPD has served an Enforcement Notice


11295

on the HKPF, following its breach of the Data Protection Principle 4, so it is necessary to deal with and rectify this problem solemnly. An incident described by the PCPD as the most notable ― I will just cite one case and will not say too much ― is that at the end of October last year, a police officer on his way to work lost 17 notebooks on a bus. Four of the notebooks had been kept for five years, involving the names, addresses and identity card numbers of 41 members of the public. In fact, even if he had not lost his notebooks, he would have violated the Hong Kong Police Force Procedures Manual because there is a designated officer for carrying out biannual checks on the return of notebooks, and reporting the details to the department concerned any overdue items not returned within one year of their issuance. If any police officer retains a notebook for more than two years after using it without reasonable explanation, this is already an offence and the HKPF will take disciplinary actions.

The report believes that the HKPF have failed to take all reasonably practicable steps, including putting in place a set of comprehensive procedures as well as ensuring the effective implementation of its supervision and monitoring system, to ensure personal data is protected by the police. The report also recommends that the police should set up an effective computerized system to replace manual recording of handing over of notebooks and come to grips with all unresolved problems in due course, so as to prevent the recurrence of such blunders.

The report criticized the negligence and carelessness on the part of the police staff involved as some lost notebooks and fixed penalty tickets were believed to have fallen off from the pocket of the jacket that the officer was wearing and in other cases, were believed to have fallen out from the pannier of the police motorcycle (the buzzer sounded) … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, how many more times do you wish to speak?


MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I live a long life. I will at least speak for three or four times more. Chairman, let me report to you that I have not yet discussed two items, including the civil service general expenditure and the Legal Aid Department (LAD). Apart from that, I have proposed an amendment to reduce the remunerations of functional constituency Members. So, I will have to speak three or four times more. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please be concise because you have spoken for 39 times and you are speaking for the 40th time now. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I know because I have so much to say indeed. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please go on. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes. I now speak on the LAD. Chairman, the most controversial thing of the LAD is that its control has once … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Which amendment do you wish to discuss? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Head 94. Amendment No 94. What a coincidence. Both are 94. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You are wrong. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Wrong? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I believe the Amendment No is not 94.


11297

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Head 94, right? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Yes. But the number of the amendment should be after 490. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It does not matter what the number is. The purpose is: Resolved that head 94 be reduced by $24.23 million in respect of subhead 000 … No, it should be $240,000 … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have difficulty reading out the figures, and make mistakes every time. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am not rich. Nor am I a maths expert like you … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This amendment seeks to reduce $2,423,400 and the Number is 493. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes. The amount to be reduced is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for salary of the Director of Legal Aid (DLA) at entry point. Chairman, it is not without controversy surrounding the transfer of the controlling functions of the LAD to the Home Affairs Department. But I am not going to discuss it. All I wish to say is: Why do I propose to reduce the salary of the DLA? To put it simply, legal aid is provided for those who do not have the means to seek relief in court so that they will be provided with appropriate assistance. In the 39th Issue of the LAD News published in June 2013, there is a column about the general public's misunderstanding of legal aid services. It is pointed out in this column that many people think that the LAD will finish vetting an application for civil legal aid within three months. But this is actually a misunderstanding. According to the column, the aim of the LAD is that, under normal circumstances, it can finish processing a civil legal aid application from the date of the application within three months. But in some circumstances, the LAD may not be able to finish processing an application within the time frame


prescribed in its performance pledge. This information is provided in the column. In fact, in the past, I did have applied for legal aid. But now it is more difficult for my application to be granted because I have become a Legislative Council Member.

In fact, the processing time for an application is too long … very simple … let me cite an example, that is, cases of domestic violence, which we are familiar with. I will quote the question raised by a Member in examining the Estimates of Expenditure 2014-2015. The question is about the number of emergency applications being vetted and approved, and the average approval time in the past five years, that is, from 2008-2009 to 2012-2013. This question is about domestic violence, and as we all know, domestic violence is a very terrible thing involving women or men … domestic violence does not only affect women. The victims cannot live together with the culprits under the same roof and feel very painful. So, it should be expeditiously … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I have to remind you again. Do not discuss any individual or specific cases in detail. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): This is not a case but statistics … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The purpose of your amendment is to reduce the salary of the DLA. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes. What is number of the average number of days required for processing such urgent applications for legal aid by the DLA? Please do not hinder me to speak so that I can speak a little bit faster. He needs 37 days. In fact, this is unacceptable. In supervising his subordinates' performance at work, the DLA should be committed to reducing the number of legal aid applications due to domestic violence. So this is the main reason why I have proposed to cut his salary. In fact, this is proposed not on my own initiative but due to the complaints of many women. I simply discharge my responsibility to express their views here. Honestly, if some Members in today's debate consider that the period of 37 days is not too long, I have nothing to say. But I consider it too long and so do the clients.


11299

In addition, in Hong Kong, because we have … Since the introduction of the Bill of Rights, cases of seeking justice through judicial review have been on the rise. The reason is that, as people understand that this is their right, more and more people resort to judicial review. Certainly, there may not always be a significant relationship between judicial review and public interest. Many people who feel aggrieved will apply for judicial review. Applications by businessmen also abound. My main point is: applications for legal aid in relation to judicial review involve people who are not wealthy.

How many of those who are not wealthy have benefited from legal aid? I am not going to discuss it in detail. With figures from 2001 to 2013 on hand, I will only mention the figures in 2001 and 2013. In 2001, the number of applications for legal aid in relation to judicial review is 147, while the number of successful cases in which legal aid is granted is 20. What is the situation in 2013? A decade later, the number of applications for legal aid is 432 and the number of cases granted is 119. The percentages of these two years do not vary greatly. But I wish to point out that our society has gone through 10 years, during which there has been an increase in the number of applications for legal aid in relation to judicial review, but the percentage of cases granted remains largely the same. This means that relief is not enough. The percentages are undoubtedly similar. But it means that the number of people who have obtained appropriate relief has decreased on the contrary. This is the second reason why the salary of DLA should be reduced. It is because judicial review is obviously very important relief for the public.

Thirdly, for civil cases, which … This proves that Mr CHAN Han-pan has made some efforts. Is Mr CHAN Han-pan present? This is the question raised by Mr CHAN Han-pan. His question is about the ratio between the number of applications for civil legal aid and the number of applications for criminal legal aid received by the LAD. In 2013, the number of applications for civil legal aid is 15 691 while the number of legal aid certificates granted is 7 386, meaning that only 47% of the civil legal aid applicants are granted relief. As regards applications for legal aid in criminal cases, it is different. The success rate has increased significantly. In the same year, that is, from the beginning of the year 2013, the number of application for legal aid in criminal cases is 3 797, while the number of certificates granted is 2 785. Chairman, you can see the relevant percentage. Perhaps the LAD places more emphasis on criminal cases because it thinks that approval for criminal cases should be lax, while approval for civil cases should be stringent. So, the successful cases for the latter are fewer.


Such an argument is reasonable because the defendant will suffer enormous loss due to criminal prosecution and legal aid should be granted. However, people do not understand that sometimes an imprisonment sentence is even better.

Chairman, take my experience as an example. I applied for a judicial review on the ground that it was unreasonable for you to cut off the filibuster. Honestly, if I was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment after losing the case, I would be willing to serve my time immediately. But if I was required to pay more than $1 million for cost in losing the case, I have to work for one year in order to earn the money … So, we should look at the issue from different perspectives. We know that a person's freedom is priceless. But a person cannot lose his money or assets. If the LAD considers that as long as a person can still have freedom, the loss of money is not important to him and therefore fewer applications for legal aid should be granted, such a notion is unacceptable because such a value judgment is inappropriate in terms of judicial relief. In the example I mentioned just now, a person will prefer to be jailed than losing all of his money. Obviously the DLA does not understand that to an ordinary citizen, the loss of several hundred thousand dollars is even worse than imprisonment. So, on this point, I think the DLA … I hope he is watching the live broadcast of our meeting today … I am speaking out for many ordinary people. They would rather be jailed than losing their money which may amount to more than $1 million, especially many … I wish to reiterate that in the lawsuits between owners' corporations and flat owners, the party concerned which has lost the lawsuit really suffer a significant loss. Chairman, I believe you must have received a lot of similar cases in your Ward Office in the local district. Therefore, the LAD should consider this issue again and should not consider the issue purely from an abstract point of view, that freedom is more important than money.

In fact, there is also this problem about the use of public money, meaning the problem of insufficient monitoring on fiat counsels. As we all know, there is no lawyer in the establishment of the LAD. Even if there are lawyers, they are only responsible for case investigation. Furthermore, even though the LAD has hired staff who are qualified solicitors or holding equivalent qualifications, they will seldom be assigned as trial counsels in court under a briefing out system. What are the problems with the briefing out of cases? In monitoring some cases … there are many cases, but I will not read them out. I will only read out the conclusion of a document on monitoring of the briefed out cases by the LAD. There is this comment: "Although services can be contracted out by government departments, it does not mean that the responsibility to ensure quality of service,


11301

efficiency and effectiveness can also be briefed out." This statement is most fair. In other words, even though the cases have to be briefed out due to the nature of the department, there should be appropriate staffing and control to ensure that cases are briefed out without compromising service quality. Obviously, the LAD has failed to do this and so there is a problem.

Let me cite a very simple example. Although an assigned lawyer initially hinted that he had a cash flow problem, the LAD did not pursue the matter due to its leniency. Then the assigned lawyer disappeared at the beginning of the following year. It should be during the Lunar New Year. As a result, the recipient … what is the problem? Chairman, you do not understand this. The recipient was required to meet part of the cost and the money was deposited with the lawyer's office. However, the lawyer had transferred the money to somewhere else … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I have to remind you again that you should not spend too much time on discussing the details of a case. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, I have finished. In other words, owing to the LAD's ineffective monitoring, the recipients cannot get the benefits. In addition, the monitoring of the quality of assigned counsels is not satisfactory. In fact, the problem is: according to the current operation of the legal aid scheme, even though the recipients have won the lawsuit, there is no guarantee that they can receive compensations. If the recipients cannot benefit at all … Take labour compensation as an example. If a recipient is successful in claiming compensation which amounts to $1 million, he may not get even a cent or just several ten thousands dollars after making reimbursement to the LAD. This is not satisfactory.

My argument is: Should the Government use public money to meet the litigation costs of cases in which the recipients will not benefit at all? If the Government clearly knows that the recipients will not benefit from a lawsuit, why should the recipients be subsidized? Secondly, should the assigned counsel be allowed to prolong the time required to handle a case so as to charge a higher legal fee? Should ineffective time be counted? The LAD's monitoring in these two areas is very poor, especially in respect of employment claims. Most of the parties concerned told me in tears that after being involved in a lawsuit for several years, they eventually could get a compensation of about $100,000 but the


litigation costs were more than $1 million. So, I hope the DLA can appreciate the public sentiments.

In a nutshell, I consider it necessary to reduce the salary of DLA which amounts to more than $2 million. Certainly he should conduct a review and only after such a review will he understand what I said. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to exercise the power under the Rules of Procedure. Please do a headcount. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, please speak. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I wish to respond to Amendment No 493 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, which seeks to reduce the annual salary of the DLA.

Chairman, first of all, I wish to declare an interest, that the law firm founded by me has received and handled cases from the LAD although I personally have not handled such cases.

Chairman, originally there is no need to refute the three arguments advanced by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung just now. But his arguments may lead to misunderstandings among the public, particularly there is no government official to give responses. So I wish to make a clarification.

Firstly, the applicants have to wait for 37 days and there is a tendency that this waiting period is getting longer and longer. This is undesirable due to limited resources and the increase in the number of cases. But such a waiting period cannot be criticized as unreasonable. In fact, in general, once the LAD has notified the Court of the application, a stay of 42 days (that is, the period of suspension) will be granted so that the LAD can make appropriate arrangements


11303

for the processing of an application. Also, the party concerned will not be prejudiced.

Secondly, the number of judicial review cases is growing. Such a trend is understandable given that there are more and more social conflicts and a higher level of awareness among the public of their rights. But overall, we should focus on allocating more resources to the LAD rather than reducing the same, especially the DLA's salary, because after all, it is purely a matter of resource allocation instead of a problem with his decision-making.

Thirdly, it is the distribution of resources between civil and criminal cases. As a person's freedom is involved, this is most important and criminal cases are therefore accorded priority by the LAD. As for civil cases, different cases will be processed in a different manner due to different categories. So, regarding the overall proportion between civil and criminal cases, the proportion of civil cases is relatively lower. But as we all know, some cases, such as defamation cases which were relatively more controversial in the past, the LAD would not entertain such applications. Certainly, we wish to fight for more resources so that more people can benefit. However, neither the LAD nor the DLA has done anything wrong in this regard.

If a Member wishes to fight for more resources so that more services can be provided for the community, I absolutely support it. But it is totally unreasonable that the mistakes of a department or the fact that there is room for improvement in some policies are taken as the excuses to criticize the department, particularly as excuses to reduce the department head's salary in a rash or impartial manner.

By the same token, CHAN Chi-chuen mentioned the HKPF earlier. He proposed that the salaries or expenditure of the HKPF be reduced because of the mishandling of a couple of cases, or because of a couple of cases in which some police officers have hurled verbal abuses at the public. This is also a sweeping generalization.

I wish to point out once and for all that the arguments or justifications advanced by some Members are simply based on one or two cases, the impact of which is magnified. On the basis of these cases, they propose to reduce the expenditure of the relevant departments, the salaries of the officials concerned


and to criticize the policies. All of these are sweeping statements. I hope the public will understand it. Thank you, Chairman. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I shall continue to speak on Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office. The Amendment Nos are 8, 12 and 33. All of them are proposed by me. I am speaking for a second time in this regard. The topic is about deducting an amount equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the honorarium of the Convenor of non-official Executive Council Members, and deducting an amount equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the honorarium of 13 non-official Executive Council Members (excluding the Convenor). In addition, I have proposed to completely delete the annual estimated expenditure ($20.8 million) for the honorarium of the whole Executive Council. I have already spoken on this once.

The Basic Law clearly states that the Chief Executive in Council is the highest organ in policymaking, participating in the Government's highly confidential work. Participating in the Government's highly confidential work means all fundamental policies are discussed during the Executive Council meeting every Tuesday. The meeting comprises people from different aspects, including Members of the Legislative Council. Mrs Regina IP who sits right here is one of them. When I mentioned her earlier, she was not in her seat. Mrs Regina IP is different from other Executive Council Members when she speaks in front of the public. As an elected Member, she is more or less evasive when she speaks. Undeniably, her appointment as an Executive Council Member has a lot to do with her popularity rating … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, you have strayed away from the question. MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, as she is present now, I just took the chance to say a few words. Do not "slight" me because I still have a lot of information to disclose. Do you want me to continue with my speech?

What I want to say is that this Executive Council is not recruiting talents on merit. The CPC always mentions selection and appointment of people who have


11305

both talent and virtue. What is the meaning of having both talent and virtue? Confucius says, "As a scholar or intellectual, one must first nourish a personality and be self-cultivated before pursuing assiduously his work on arts and literature." Personality implies broad-mindedness and tolerance. Do not confuse it with any other capacity. Broad-mindedness, tolerance and expansiveness, are the prerequisite for the forming of a personality. But we have no option. With the despicable character of that "689", how will there be any good guys under him?

Let me refer to two persons as an example. Everybody can see clearly

what they have done recently. I save my breath skipping those who worked for him earlier. Both Barry CHEUNG and Franklin LAM have already left his team. Those who are still there … Chairman, you once was an Executive Council Member also. I hold that you really have both talent and virtue. But we have a bunch of people who are contrary to what you have. It is fine for them to stand up and speak every day. It is equally fine for them to defend the Government's decisions and policies. But there should be some "nutrition" in what they speak.

According to Public Opinion Programme (POP) of the University of Hong

Kong (HKU) conducted in January regarding the popularity of Executive Council Members, not even one such Member could be named by 10% of the interviewees with the exception of Mrs Regina IP. The POP of the HKU often carries out this kind of popularity surveys. For your information, even "Long Hair" has a higher popularity rating than LEUNG Chun-ying. LEUNG Chun-ying should really go back home and sleep. As the Chief Executive, he has to expose himself before the camera on a daily basis. Yet his popularity is even lower than that of an elected Member of the Legislative Council. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is the most familiar Member of the Legislative Council to Hong Kong people and he is currently the helmsman of this filibuster. I am one of the 10 best known public figures. Chairman, you are also one of the 10 best known public figures. As a matter of fact, popularity is very important. How can anyone who come out and speak on a daily basis not be familiar to the public? If more than 1 000 people were interviewed, a 10% means that not even one Executive Council Member was known to 100 interviewees.

CHEUNG Chi-kong and Fanny LAW are, of course, among those with the

lowest popularity. Having worked in the Government as Directors of Bureaux,


their names are not known to the people of Hong Kong. They often have to come out and speak for the Government. Why are they not known to the interviewees in spite of the fact that they, from time to time, had to stand before the camera in addition to speaking through newspapers for the Government? It may be because nobody ever recalled what they had said or what they had said was not what they wanted to hear. How on earth do these two persons worth being paid every month? Although the remuneration is not huge, it is money anyway, right? Do they worth any pay?

According to the POP of the HKU, CHEUNG Chi-kong is the non-official

Executive Council Member who has the lowest recognition rate. CHEUNG Chi-Kong came out questioning the polling methodology and continuously slandered his opponents. During RTHK's City Forum held on 7 October 2012, he used such terms as "black list" and "trouble-making football fans" to depict the black-shirted Scholarism activists who tried to attend the so-called National Day flag-raising ceremony on 1 October. He said it was a black list and the activists were trouble-making football fans. They are only boys and girls. His inappropriate metaphor shows that he is hostile to students. During the programme, he even questioned the source of funding for Scholarism. He was luring the public into suspecting the political stance of Scholarism. He played this trick to fool the people into thinking that some "evil backstage manipulators" had been giving financial support and aiding and abetting them to do those things.

All pro-establishment figures are the same. When students cause troubles,

there is always an "evil backstage manipulator". It sounds like such kind of saying must be correct. When your younger brother caused trouble at that time, who was the "evil backstage manipulator"? The CPC? Today, I have also mentioned that Eddie NG was threatening the teachers and students. He warned them not to join the Occupy Central movement. He said that there would be criminal record against anyone who was subsequently convicted. Your younger brother also has a criminal record, but he has become a Bureau Director in the Government. The other day while I was attending the Public Accounts Committee … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please do not stray away from the question.


11307

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): … He was already standing on the Government's side when I questioned him. This is a world where "the ass directs the brain". The TSANG Tak-sing of the good old days was certainly been my idol.

Chairman, as an Executive Council Member, CHEUNG Chi-Kong has continually and openly slandered those who hold different political viewpoints. He will not even let go of dissident teenagers. High and mighty notwithstanding, he has to take part in confidential meetings under the leadership of the Chief Executive. From another angle, as an integral part of the Government, how can he not be cautious with his words? How could he play a dirty trick to slander the student organizations? There is not the least political ethics in him.

Peter LEE Ka-kit, the Standing Committee Member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, criticized the research methodology adopted by the HKU's POP in the survey of the Chief Executive's popularity rating. In tune with Peter LEE's criticism this year, CHEUNG Chi-Kong pointed out that if the respondents were to cast their votes the very next day, whether they voted for LEUNG Chun-ying or not should be interpreted as the number of votes that LEUNG Chun-ying could get in tomorrow's polling. The result should not be regarded as the approval rate. He said that the focal point was administration, not election. He also said that it was unnecessary to list the competitors like an election. In his articles, which were full of specious arguments, he criticized the HKU's POP of using an imaginary pulling as an indicator of the Chief Executive's approval rate because there was a structural trap. He continued with his criticism of the Public Sentiment Index (PSI), saying that it was ambiguous and, therefore, questioned its result. With the PSI at the end of 2013 being even lower than that of 2003, he said the polling result was inconsistent with the general people's feeling. I really want to ask him what the general people's feeling is. The general people's feeling should be even worse than he thought.

Searching high and low, the mass media found out that a subsidiary organization of the One Country Two Systems Research Institute (OCTSRI) had commissioned the HKU to carry out a public survey in August 2011 when he was working for the OCTSRI. He was salaried and under the leadership of LEUNG Chun-ying.


At that time, he quoted the polling result conducted by the HKU and said that TANG and LEUNG (Henry TANG and LEUNG Chun-ying) were too close to call. By commissioning Robert CHUNG to conduct this public survey, CHEUNG Chi-kong hoped to have a neutral as well as professional polling agency to verify the result of a survey done by the OCTSRI previously. He sought Robert CHUNG's help because he obviously knew that the OCTSRI had no credibility. This is a typical conclusion before arguments. Such a practice is in total violation of the academic principle. At that time, he sought Robert CHUNG's assistance to come up with a conclusion that the two runners were nip and tuck. Was it not the same old practice of employing trickery again? If he says this time it is different, how will he comment on Robert CHUNG now?

CHEUNG Chi-Kong's crimes are still too many to name. Time is tight and I am not going to drag on for an extended period of time. I still have a lot to say. They have the luxury of thoroughly expressing themselves while I have to hurry off for the Public Accounts Committee. The Chairman … we have to attend so many committees and panels. I have no choice but to prepare myself for the public hearings of the Public Accounts Committee.

There is another person who is very active but nobody knows her (that is, the interviewees were unable to say out her name when asked whether they recognized that Executive Council Member and whether they could tell who she was). That person is Fanny LAW. She is also very active. Her political stance is certainly proverbial. I remember that in 2012 when we were considering the Appropriation Bill during our last term of the Legislative Council Finance Committee meeting to approve the funding for five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux, we really adopted the tactic of filibustering. That was different from the current filibuster which we clearly stated that the whole war would be finished the latest at the end of May. We were definitely filibustering then, having proposed over 9 000 amendments with the sole purpose of causing her collapse. She came over to me and said, "Yuk-man, you do not have to do this because you will never win." I told her that she was wrong because we would definitely win. She did not understand the Rules of Procedure. Mr IP Kwok-him had tried every possible means to prevent us from filibustering in the Finance Committee meeting, but to no avail. I will let Mr NG Leung-sing figure it out. She was battered back then, was she? Where was her knowledge and experience? At the beginning, I was talking about the importance of personality and self-cultivation. With a lack of broad-mindedness, she does not have tolerance, knowledge or experience. She


11309

has none whatsoever. I really have no idea that she was so vulnerable during the application for funding from the Finance Committee. Am I right, buddy?

Nobody knows her, but she likes to give speeches besides adopting confrontational postures. In June last year, she wrote an article in Ming Pao Daily News mentioning to the effect that "we should not simply focus on the system of 'one man, one vote' when pursuing democracy. Nor should we buy into the belief that universal suffrage for selection of the Chief Executive and election of the Legislative Council could resolve all social problems." We are not interested in refuting these specious arguments. Do we not want "one man, one vote" for the Chief Executive election? Do we not want universal suffrage for the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council elections in 2017? Is it not a CPC promise? As you can see all over the streets, even the publicity boards of pro-establishment parties, including the DAB, now advocate the stance of "one man, one vote for the Chief Executive election" like what we have been fighting for. Unawares, they have all turned into Members from the democratic camp, promoting "one man, one vote for the Chief Executive election". However, this is the sentence they fall short of saying, "I decide who to run for the office". What is so bad about the notion of "one man, one vote for the Chief Executive election"? If it is a bad idea, why do our publicity boards promulgate "one man, one vote for the Chief Executive election"? We are going to witness all banners of pro-establishment parties promoting "one man, one vote for the Chief Executive election" soon, buddy, paving the way for the universal suffrage in 2017 for which there will be screening. They only tell you one side of the story and hide the other side from you.

"Do not buy into the belief that universal suffrage for selection of the Chief Executive and election of the Legislative Council can resolve all problems". This is a specious argument. In March this year, she made a most straightforward remark. She was talking about some rumours coming out of nowhere which indicated that some triads were involved in the election (of the Chief Executive). At that time, Mr LEUNG's popularity rating dropped 10 percentage points (it seems to me that she had also joined the dinner party). Therefore, you could see that in a polling of 3 million people, any hopeful candidate might "fall down from a running horse" if some people intended maliciously to spread rumours to create troubles for the evil purpose of producing some unexpected results. Hence, any major election could be unpredictable. For anyone to become a candidate, we have to see whether that person has the


opportunity to become the Chief Executive. As a result, the nominating committee serves the screening function of barring any person who is defiant of the Central Authorities from becoming a candidate.

Chairman, the constitutional reform is still undergoing consultation, is it not? As an Executive Council Member, how could she have made those remarks? Right? Chief Secretary Carrie LAM said that let us talk to achieve universal suffrage. She was objurgated every time her answer was irrelevant. How could she clearly lay down restrictions with respect to the requirements, qualifications as well as method for selecting the Chief Executive while hinting that even a polling of more than 3 million people might go wrong at any time if rumours happened to pop up to pull a stunning upset against a hopeful candidate? What was she talking about, buddy? Are you telling me that hundreds of people going to cast their votes will be swayed by the rumours? There are always negative propaganda during elections. Such a small-scale election as the Legislative Council election is also infected by negative propaganda, is it not? The most important thing is that the candidates must be self-confident in addition to having done district-level work. An equally important point is whether their political views command popular support.

She further indicated that there should only be three candidates at the most. She said that neither universal suffrage nor democracy was a panacea. I simply save my breath arguing with her. No one can predict the outcome of the universal suffrage. For what are we defiant of the Central Authorities? True or not true, such kind of remarks should not be made during the consultation period. She has completely fallen way behind when it comes to her understanding of the political situation. Is it obvious that she is no longer qualified to be an Executive Council Member? We should not pay her, should we?

After the Sunflower Student Movement in Taiwan, she had to say something again. She urged the young people in Hong Kong not to model on the young people in Taiwan. Did anyone say that we should learn from them? This is, once again, a "better to be safe than sorry" mentality. A "do not learn from Taiwan" advance warning is a typical one. Is it some kind face-losing to learn from Taiwan? Has the Taiwanese Government collapsed after the Sunflower Student Movement? The protest in Taiwan over the China trade deal has only disabled the signing of the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement (CSSTA). And that is it. He personally has to bear the consequences of the


11311

failure to sign the CSSTA. Democracy entails a social cost. Can the remarks made by both Fanny LAW and CHEUNG Chi-kong represent the whole Executive Council? As Executive Council Members, they are getting pay from us. Should we continue to pay them? Chairman, these amendments are really worth the effort. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will continue to speak on the HKPF under head 122. Regarding Mr Paul TSE's earlier remark, I agree with half of it. I agree that we should not demand a reduction in expenditure or the dismissal of a departmental head simply because of one or two incidents, the performance of a single person, or one or two mistakes made by a certain department. However, how many such incidents should warrant a reduction? The incidents we quoted are not individual cases. Certainly, had not I promised the Chairman that I would finish my speech on this part after speaking for one or two times more, I could cite 10, 20 and 30 more such incidents in different aspects to reflect the inadequacies of the HKPF. How many incidents should we identify or how serious the incidents should be before we can consider reducing their expenditure for the year or part of rather than the whole year's expenditure which I mentioned earlier? Nonetheless, I will not dwell on this any further here, and I will complete the two salient points I wish to make.

Earlier on, I said that the report of the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD) criticized the utter carelessness of the police in handling the data of the public as shown by the repeated and frequent loss of notebooks. In one case, the notebook had fallen out of the pocket of the police jacket of an officer. In another case, the notebook had been thrown out of the pannier of the officer's police motorcycle. These incidents revealed the need for the HKPF to review the police equipment and uniform design, as well as the general lack of awareness of the security risk associated with personal data among the officers, which renders the HKPF failing to properly assure the security of police documents containing personal data.

These incidents can be regarded as occasional carelessness. Everyone will make mistakes. There are cases in which police revolvers are left in toilets.


In that case, should all the expenditure relating to police revolvers be reduced because a certain police officer has left his revolver in the toilet, and should all police officers not be issued with a revolver? Definitely not. However, Members should have noticed that the PCPD has requested the HKPF to reflect on its system, awareness and importance attached to the privacy of the public.

Another investigation report relating to the HKPF is about the leak of internal documents of the HKPF through the use of the software "Foxy". The internal documents include a reply slip on the preliminary selection of police constable applications, the HKPF's internal memoranda, forms and correspondence. In a case, the police constable had caused the leakage of the personal data of 210 witnesses and part of the content of their statements. These incidents were revealed by the media in the past couple of years. I recall that one of the person involved ― I guessed the person should be a police constable ― had caused the leakage of the information on the reply slips of the selection exercise due to the installation of the "Foxy" software in his computer. In another case, the person involved used his personal computer for official work and used his private USB thumb drive to download HKPF information to his computer, which was then traded in ― his computer was sold as a second-hand product. Eventually, the information was leaked. All these reflected that the police lack any awareness of the need for data protection.

Lastly, I would like to discuss the inadequacy of the police which warrants a reduction of its expenditure. I remember when I spoke for the first time last night, I mentioned that some sex workers had been intimidated by police officers. Some people say they deserve such treatment because they are suspects and attempt to commit an offence. In this session, lastly I would like to talk about the victims, the victims of sexual violence. When they seek assistance from or report their cases to the police, they are insulted by the police or given unfriendly and unreasonable treatment. I implore Members to give a fair deal to these cases.

Organizations concerned about sexual violence have all along provided support and counselling services to victims of sexual violence, and also monitored the working procedures and practices adopted by law-enforcement agencies in handling sexual violence cases to reinforce the protection for the rights and benefits of victims. One of the crisis support centres, Rainlily, had requested the police to improve its working procedures in handling cases relating


11313

to sexual violence last year. The centre had cited many difference cases; I surely will not recap these stories one by one in this session, yet I will give a summary of these cases. They mentioned that victims of sexual violence had encountered unfriendly and unreasonable treatment when they reported their cases to the police, where their rights as witnesses in the cases had been neglected. They quoted certain cases to demonstrate that certain victims who had made a report were advised by the police to cancel their reports, and some police officers persuaded the persons concerned to cancel their reports on the grounds that charges could hardly be pressed against the offenders. Some police officers even gave perfunctory comments to the victims, "Just believe that you are pressed down by a ghost, or simply treat it is as a 'One night stand'", and tried to play down the severity of the cases.

It is indeed very difficult for a victim to decide to report the case to the police. Victims may want to seek justice, yet they will have to recount their experiences once again. To certain victims, they may be hurt again in this course. Yet they are treated by the police in such a manner when they report their cases to the police. It is the duty of the police to enforce the law and bring the offenders to justice. However, when victims bravely come forward to report their cases, the police officers dare to persuade them to cancel the reports. Such actions will not only undermine the victims' confidence in law-enforcement officers, but will also bring insults and harms to them.

Moreover, there were cases of minor victims, who were qualified under the law to apply for giving evidence through live television link, being rejected by the police in making such applications when they were notified to appear before the Court. In some cases, even after repeated requests made by the guardians of the victims and with the presentation of the Victims Charter, the police refused to do so.

According to the Prosecution Code issued by the Department of Justice, vulnerable witnesses, including children, mentally incapacitated persons or witnesses in fear, are qualified to make applications for giving evidence behind a screen or for other protection measures provided by the Court. In the case of minor victims which I mentioned just now, they can apply for giving evidence through live television link. Nonetheless, the police which should make proactive efforts to render support in such circumstance have on the contrary impose various hurdles to obstruct such applications. Such practices may bring about the worst consequence of the victim eventually giving up appearing before


the Court and allowing the offender to escape the long arm of the law, for the victim may have fear and feel threatened in attending the hearing, or may feel scared and worried in giving evidence in the absence of protection measures.

Another case is about a minor victim who was raped by an online friend. When the victim reported the case to the police, the police required the victim to attend the interview on her own, and though the social worker requested to accompany the victim, the request was turned down. This practice violates the Victim Charter and seriously disregards the rights of the victim as a minor witness.

In the course of taking the statement, the police told the victim that, "If you had not cried aloud at that time, you cannot say that you were being raped". This move caused the victim to feel being abused and her experience of being abused was being queried, which renders the victim feeling embarrassed in giving evidence.

I wish to reiterate, according to the Victim Charter, police officers should at all times treat victims of crime with courtesy, sympathy and sensitivity, and respect their personal dignity and privacy. However, according to the examples cited by and the experience in cases received by the organization, Rainlily, which I quoted above, there are serious loopholes in the existing system and enforcement, denying victims the protection to which they are entitled under the system and treatment with dignity.

Therefore, I think that in the debate on this amendment ― certainly, Members may consider our request for the reduction of all the $12.8 billion expenditure of the HKPF extremely unreasonable and query whether we want to create a state of no police. However, I hope the public will understand that we have proposed 28 amendments in respect of the HKPF in the course of this motion debate.

I would also like to talk about the informer fees. Mr James TO has talked a lot about it, yet there are loads to be discussed. I hope Members will make a wise choice based on whether or not they trust the HKPF when these 28 amendments are put to the vote.

I so submit.


11315

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Chairman, though Mr CHAN Chi-chuen said that he accepted my logic of avoiding sweeping statements, he continued to do so. It will be unfair to those government officials and departments not in the Chamber, for they do not have the opportunity to respond to his remarks.

Chairman, I would like to respond to two points mentioned by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just now. First, it is about Rainlily. In fact, I agree that many of the problems reflected by Rainlily can be ameliorated by the police, so as to reinforce the protection for victims of sexual violence. However, the ways that can truly help them is: First, to help them to process their cases; second, to strive for protection from the police; and third, to take over the cases and explain to them their rights or help them to have their cases referred, as what I and another former colleague do. According to my understanding, some of the cases are now being processed by the Public Complaints Office of this Council. So it is not a way to help them by flipping through newspapers and simply quoting bits and pieces of news cuttings. It is worse still to use this as the justification for reducing the $12.8 billion expenditure of the police. I believe no member of the public will support cutting all the expenditure for the police.

Actually, in using cases for discussion, we may quote an individual case where the police failed to help, yet there may be a thousand or ten thousand cases where the police have rendered assistance to the public but have not been quoted. Members definitely understand this logic. But since Mr CHAN Chi-chuen gave such remarks earlier, I would like to spend some time to refute him once again.

Regarding the remarks about the Chief Executive made by Mr WONG Yuk-man earlier … Sorry, regarding the remarks about Members of the Executive Council earlier, he blamed that the popularity of Members of the Executive Council is low. Yet when these Members come forward to speak, he will criticize them whenever he considers their remarks disagreeable and their political stance different from his. Such a practice is neither the logic he presented, nor consistent with the remarks he made.

Another point which I consider even more inappropriate is that these Members do not have any problem with their conduct or behaviour, as in certain undesirable cases we did come across in the past. The examples quoted by Mr


WONG Yuk-man earlier are merely ones about difference in political views, which definitely should not become the targets or reasons for launching attacks.

I recall a famous remark by Mrs Margaret THATCHER. She said when the criticisms of your political opponents became personal, you should be happy, for they could find no other issues to criticize you, so they tried to do nitpicking with your political views instead of debating the merits and demerits of your policies.

Thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I will only respond briefly to the remarks of Mr Paul TSE. I agree that in a complaint case or a confirmed and established complaint case against a police officer, it may also involve people who have been rendered assistance. A police officer may have fired a gun wrongly to cause the injury or death of a certain person, yet the same police officer may have helped a lot of people in the past. However, it does not reflect whether the individual incident is right or wrong or the severity of the incident.

By the same token, these cases are also the tip of the iceberg. When the Independent Police Complaints Council considered one case involving a police officer insulting a member of the public established, how many similar cases which have occurred but are not reported to the public out of fear are there? How many such cases are not established in the absence of statements of witnesses? In fact, it is a case of two sides of the same coin. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr Paul TSE should read more literature. There are genres using outright words to mean the opposite and black humour as rhetoric for opinion expression. The approach adopted by each Member in debates on governance may vary. I have said a number of times that …


11317

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, as you have already said it a number of times, please do not repeat it. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Just a moment. I definitely have not spoken this sentence a number of times. A comment by Mr Paul TSE in the past is right. Had this been a normal legislature composed of an opposition party and a ruling party, I would have strived to be the ruling party in order to increase the expenditure I consider necessary. Unfortunately, this is not the case now.

I would like to return to the subject, yet I heard Mr Paul TSE mention the person I dislike the most, Mrs Margaret THATCHER. I think some of his comments are reasonable. I had endured insults and rebukes in the past three days. Were they related to my political stance? Were they related to my request for the setting up of a $50 billion fund? No. All the insults and rebukes hurled at me were targeted at my personality. I am really successful then. I have to thank Mr Paul TSE for giving me a hand. Those people are rebuking my personality, but not my political stance. In just a year, Mr Paul TSE has become so wise and articulate!

Let me return to the subject of civil servants. Regarding the general expenses of the Civil Service, which is Amendment Nos 193 to 196, I request the reduction of some of the allowances included under the general expenses. The first one is the air-conditioning allowance. The payment of air-conditioning allowance is unreasonable. It is baffling why the Government has to grant an air-conditioning allowance of a few thousand dollars to civil servants of directorate grade. These civil servants are earning an annual salary of over a million dollars, so this practice is obviously "exploiting the disadvantaged for the benefit of the privileged". Some elder people may have to retreat to the shadow of trees in the morning to cool off from the blazing heat, people with whom I empathize and share their plights. Why then are these civil servants earning a handsome income still granted the air-conditioning allowance? I will not discuss this further, lest I would be criticized as …

Next I will come to the passage expenses for civil servants and the leave passage allowance for their dependents, which is $90.9 million in total this year. Am I related in any way to the vacation of civil servants and their families? No,


I am not. Chairman, are you related to it? Therefore, these expenses should be reduced, and it is justified.

This also includes the passages and related expenditure for children of civil servants receiving education overseas. A single case can reveal the full picture. Mr Paul TSE should know the meaning of the saying that "one falling leaf heralds the arrival of autumn". Civil servants are provided with air-conditioning allowance for them to enjoy air-conditioning, they are provided with a passage allowance to let them have overseas trips with their families, and even their children receiving education overseas are provided with an allowance. The total expenditure for this year is not great. It is only $71.4 million, less than $100 million. In my view, these allowances should only be provided to persons in desperate need, yet I do not notice any of such cases. Therefore, I cannot but request the deletion of this expenditure.

There is also the non-accountable cash allowance. What is it? Bureaucratic language is quite interesting. One can hardly tell what the term means at hearing it. This is indeed the housing benefits for officers offered appointment on or after 1 June 2000. In the year 2013-2014, 2 360 officers were eligible for the allowance, and in the year 2014-2015, the number will increase to 3 400. The expenditure incurred will naturally increase accordingly, with an increase of 44.2%. Chairman, the total expenditure incurred is not great, only $670 million.

The calculation method used this year differs from that in the past, where local and overseas education allowances for children of officers are combined into a total of $700 million. Overseas education allowance accounts for $240 million, whereas local education allowance accounts for $460 million. In fact, the Government should not provide these allowances, yet I have not proposed any amendments to reduce the expenditure for these allowances, for I am just mentioning it in passing. There is also the allowance for furniture. What a pity! If I request the reduction of a number of these allowances, civil servants may want to beat me up, and so I have not proposed any amendment on the allowance. However, I think that … The expenditure incurred for the allowance for the provision of furniture and appliance is relatively small, which is only $16 million.

Chairman, the expenditure I just read out can be reduced, should I reduce all these expenditure? My knowledge is limited. Will the Secretary for the Civil Service please explain why my request for reducing such expenditure is


11319

unreasonable? I expect the Secretary or the Financial Secretary to explain it. The Financial Secretary said that these were "deadlines". Should public money be wasted in such a manner?

I would like to talk about the origins of the expenditure items. The figures are quoted from the Controlling Officer's Report, which are all real figures. I wish to point out that the most ridiculous item is the policy on housing allowances. Rightly due to this housing allowance system, Mr MAK Chai-kwong lost his public office!

I think a review of the system is really in order. First, we have to consider whether the Government should adopt the approach of offering high salaries to deter corruption in managing civil servants nowadays. In the past where housing was expensive, the Government provided housing allowances to civil servants to build up their sense of belonging to the Government. I understand this approach. Does the Government still need to do so nowadays? I do not understand this point. Private organizations and relevant government organizations will provide housing allowances to employees at certain ranks, which are usually provided in the form of cash payment or quarters. I personally prefer the provision of quarters, for this will pre-empt problems arising from cash payments. For instance, civil servants will not follow the practice of Mr MAK. I have heard of the practice of "swapping sons for the purpose of better teaching". However, "swapping flats for rental" or "swapping flats for sale" will be problematic. In the former case, if the person involved has not rented a flat, all the housing allowance in cash will be taxable, but if the person uses all the housing allowance to rent a flat, only 10% of that income from housing allowance will be taxable according to the taxation law. Such a policy is ridiculous and should be changed. If the authorities do want civil servants to enjoy the benefit, I suggest providing quarters instead of giving cash payments, for the cash payments may eventually "benefit" real estate developers and some civil servants may recklessly engage in property speculation. That is all about this issue.

Regarding the education allowance for civil servants, there was an unreasonable phenomenon in the past, that is, civil servants must study in Commonwealth countries. Members know that countries adopting colonial rule intends to impose far-reaching cultural influence on the decedents of subjects under colonial rule. Certainly, this practice has already changed, for they can now study in the Mainland. However, I consider the policy unreasonable. In


the past, the provision of education allowance was a policy for colonial rule with the purpose of purifying civil servants, so that they would rest assured to accept the rule of the sovereign country and be influenced in culture. Today, the authorities do not need to do that.

Moreover, the amount incurred in housing allowance and children education allowances of civil servants at directorate rank is extremely alarming. We may compare the sums of the two allowances. For the year 2012-2013, the total expenditure incurred was $2.2 billion, of which housing allowance accounted for $18 million, children education allowance accounted for $23 million and passage allowance, which is the most ridiculous, accounted for $51 million. We understand that housing allowance may be necessary and children education allowance will benefit the next generation, but what about the passage allowance? It is outrageous, is it not? What is the reason for providing such an allowance? Some people may say that after a lifetime of work, should not civil servants be rewarded with a trip? I think this practice is unnecessary.

I will not talk about this subject anymore, for I find myself too long-winded. I am now talking the positive to mean the opposite. When I talk about a certain issue, Members will talk about related issues, such as the problems of "fattening the upper ranks but slimming the lower ranks" or "front-line officers are working hard while officers in back offices are loafing". The Government recruits junior civil servants through intermediary companies by outsourcing, who can hardly get good pay. In the examples quoted by me earlier, it is evident that senior civil servants are formulating policies to enable themselves to benefit. This is comparable to Parkinson disease in bureaucracy. They are feathering their own nest ― foreign writers are not as good as us in writing, for they will only describe such practice as self-fattening, meaning making one own self fat. In my view, this system should be changed at root. I propose the amendment on the general expenses of the Civil Service to remind this Council to pay attention to this subject. Honourable Members, when you read, you should not only choose the books I read, such as the Gu Wen Ping Zhu (《古文評註》 ) ("Commentary and explanation of Ancient Chinese articles", which are all positive comments. Members should also read other books, like the Journey to the West (《西遊記》), which is an example of stating the positive to mean the opposite, and the writer depicted SUN Wu-kong, the Monkey King, as a bad guy.


11321

Chairman, I shall stop here, for I hope to see Members coming together again in this Chamber. Chairman, I request a headcount, so that I can see other Members. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you may speak. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, what I am going to say is related to this Council, something which has just happened (the buzzer sounded) … I will press the "Request to speak" button, so that after finishing this speech, I may speak again … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please start again. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Is this another speech? Alright, I have already pressed the button to request to speak.

I will afresh. I will speak on "Head 112 ― Legislative Council Commission" under Amendment No 533, "resolved that head 122 be reduced by $37,253,760 in respect of subhead 366. (Reduction of the estimated expenditure approximately equivalent to the remuneration of 35 Members of the Legislative Council returned by functional constituencies (including one President's Deputy cum House Committee Chairman and three Members also serving on the Executive Council) for the year)". This is definitely relevant to this Council. Honourable colleagues, pardon me for dragging you into this.

Why do I have to do that? In fact, equal pay is applicable only to equal work, or equal source of empowerment. This is my opinion. The 35 Members


of the Legislative Council returned by functional constituencies (FCs), whom I referred to, are divided into two types: the "Super District Council Members" and Members from the traditional FCs. There are only 230 000 registered electors in the traditional FCs, whereas the number of registered electors of geographical direct elections is 3.47 million. Among the 230 000 electors of the FCs, they only need to get 25% of their votes ― 25% of the Members of this Council ― to control 80% of the FC seats in the Legislative Council. Among the 24 FC seats, 13 are returned by 11 constituencies. Let me tell all of you, the number of electors of these 11 constituencies is only 7 183. There is a sea of difference.

Another point is best described by the poem verse, "though being assigned the foremost council-seat at midnight, he was asked about gods and spirits instead of the livelihood of people" ("可憐夜半虛前席，不問蒼生問鬼神"). Some of the seats are not returned by humans. Members are humans, yet they are not elected by humans but legal persons. It is the most unfair point. Members should better be elected by humans, yet they are now elected by an entity rather than a human. Mr NG Leung-sing, are you elected by human or non-human electors? Among the 28 traditional FCs, 18 constituencies included company or corporate electors, and 10 constituencies only have company and corporate electors. In other words, among the 18 constituencies mentioned by me, the elector profiles of eight constituencies are mixed. For instance, the tourism sector is combined with the transportation sector. In the case of the labour sector, its electors are all trade unions but not wage earners, meaning that there are only trade unions but no workers. Certain consortia may be involved in various businesses, such as estate, transportation, tourism and retail, and so on. Chairman, you are clever and you must understand that when invisible and non-human electors are designated for polling, it means a headcount can be spared in the election. Persons concerned may simply find the legal persons of the sectors they are engaged in to vote, and through the manipulation of these legal persons, they may influence the outcome of the elections of various constituencies.

I do not know whether Mr Kenneth LEUNG who belongs to the Accountancy FC is elected by human electors or non-human electors. I have to make it clear first that Members are human, only that they are elected by non-human electors, thus giving rise to the problem of "the minority prevailing over the majority" we mentioned. Mr TAM Yiu-chung often says that I am the minority during our debates. I tell him to stop talking for the many FC Members


11323

are only elected by 230 000 electors. But then he colludes with them to press us Members returned by direct elections. It is unreasonable. Today is not a day for politics. Today is a day for stating the positive to mean the opposite. If I cannot strip you of your power, I will strip you of your money.

Due to this queer system under which human Members are not elected by human electors, we notice a more unreasonable phenomenon. Since the one who invented the system wants to control the legislature, the decision of the majority is allowed to be negatived by a tiny minority. Chairman, for Bills proposed by Members, whether or not private Bills which are legally binding, they are voted under the separate voting system. In other words, Members from the FCs elected by 60 852 electors can negative the motions or amendments supported by Members directly elected by 3.47 million electors in districts. This is the first point, and it is extremely unreasonable.

Second, a motion may not be passed even if no one voted against it. This point is straightforward. We know that full well, so it is unnecessary to explain it here. Even if a Member abstains in his or her group, the vote still counts. So even if no one votes against the motion, the abstentions will prevent the passage of the motion. In fact, this can happen in either the group returned by FCs or the group returned by direct elections, yet the manipulation of the FCs is easier. That means only if a majority of Members from FCs abstain and no one votes against the Bill, the Bill proposed by a Member still cannot be passed.

Besides, if this is the rule, it should be applicable to the voting of all motions. But this is not the case. The separate voting system is not applicable to government motions. This is a matter of enormous import. Take the present debate I am involved in striving for universal retirement protection as an example. If the Government does not have enough money to meet its expenses, it may come to you to jump the queue, which I have said many times, by proposing a motion on adjournment to apply for provision. For the motions proposed by the Government, every vote counts, which means the Government need only get the supporting votes of a majority of Members in this Council. Under the voting system manipulated by the Government, the motions it proposes will surely be passed. How unfavourable the arrangement is to directly-elected Members? No wonder the efficiency is poor.


Let me cite an example to illustrate this. According to the report of the Catholic Monitors on Legislative Councillors in 2013, the number of motions and amendments proposed by Members was 5.1 motions on average for each Member returned by geographical direct elections and 3.6 motions for each Member returned by FCs. Though the number of Members from FCs is the same with that from geographical constituencies, the relevant figure is lower. In respect of the number of times spoken, the average figure for each Member from geographical constituencies is 29.9 and that for Members from FCs is 23.9. As for the number of questions raised, the average number for each Member from geographical constituencies is 9.8, whereas that for Members from FCs is 8.2. The outperformance is palpable.

In a word, it is cronyism. The system has so far led to many wrong choices ― the Link REIT, it is not legally binding, yet we voted for it; the merger of the two railway corporations has now resulted in a mess; and there is the "magnum opus on securities", which might be the accomplice of the financial tsunami. In all these cases, the authorities had adopted the "blank cheque" approach, where Members were presented with the principal ordinance for passage, and after the passage, the Government would find experts to sign and fill in the blank cheque. That is the practice adopted by the Government. Therefore, the system is unfair in itself. More so, this unfairness will definitely lead to imbalanced and unequal distribution of resources and wealth, which will intensify the unfair situation. I have mentioned this in my previous speeches, so I will not dwell on this or quote other examples. It will just be a waste of time.

Another concern is about constitutional reform, which has also reached a deadlock. The Government requested the legislature to pass its motion. Since every vote counts in the voting on motions submitted by the Government to the Legislative Council, there is a chance that the motion will be passed. However, the passage of this motion requires the support of two thirds of Members according to a specific requirement stipulated in Annex II to the Basic Law. Other than this, the Government will get the passage of whatever motion it submitted.

For these reasons, I think colleagues who are Members from FCs are: first, as I guess, rich, for they have the support of the rich, and second, not concerned about their remuneration, for they are only working for fun. Therefore, the reduction of their remunerations will have no impact on them. They bring along


11325

their money to work for they are administering the authority on other's behalf. According to my brief research, it is comparable to the gentry power in China, only that this group of gentry are allowed to do so under the cloak of the legislature "using forks and knives to eat human flesh". In other words, they are rich but they lack power. Therefore, this group of people can really spend their own money on their work.

Chairman, you also know the rise of gentry power during the time of our ancestors. At that time, the local governments did not have money for their expenditure, the gentry ranks thus paid the expenses on salary and food. Certainly, this is not the case today. For this reason, I consider my proposal fair and reasonable. To Members returned by FCs, they have already benefited from being given the opportunity to sit in this Chamber and speak and to negative my motion. They are not required to join the legislature by spending money in exchange for a seat, so they are … Honestly, the ministers and gentry in the past had to spend money in exchange for a seat, but today, Members are receiving remunerations. Do you consider this fair? I do not think so. If Mr Paul TSE does not understand it, he may read The Scholars (《儒林外史》 ), and he will know that it is the actual case.

Why do I keep these remarks to this final moment? I do not want to spoil our relationship. Had I made these remarks at an earlier time, I might have been regarded as the woman committing adultery in the Bible story, and they might want to stone me. I wonder who would then play Jesus and come forward to stop such act by asking, "Who is without sin?"

Therefore, my remarks this time around are really fair and reasonable. Since they are entrusted by the rich to join the legislature ― entrusted by someone who is non-human ― to safeguard their interests, they would have shared some benefits and they are involved in cronyism. This practice of cronyism has caused this Council to fall into this deadlock of abnormality, so I implore them to surrender their remunerations. Will these Members, as well as the President's Deputy cum House Committee Chairman ― but we will have no President then, but just leave it, it may be better ― and the three Members of the Executive Council (Ms Starry LEE is in the Chamber, Mrs Regina IP and Mr Jeffrey LAM are not in the Chamber) surrender their remunerations? Will you please do so? Since you are enjoying a lot of power which you might otherwise have to buy with money, why should you receive remunerations instead?


Chairman, to summarize all of these remarks, I think a person with any mere sense of justice, including colleagues from the pan-democratic camp, should vote. Will you please stop thinking that this is a mere filibuster and ignore it? Buddy, all of you must vote. This is our political platform. My speech will end after stating the power of the powerless once again: I do not have the power to seize your power, but I have the power to use my means to express my despise of your power. This is a saying from Václav HAVEL. Mr Paul TSE, read more books and you will know.

That is all I want to say here today. Do not accuse me of confusing the Five Constant Virtues. Really, I am unable to seize your power, yet perhaps the Occupy Central with Love and Peace movement may. If that is the case, we will be friends. However, I will not level mean remarks at all of you. Today, I exercise my power and speak on behalf of the powerless. I express their despise of power in a special manner by stating the positive to mean the opposite. I beg your pardon, learned colleagues. Thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will speak briefly on the amendments mentioned by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung earlier. One of them is Amendment No 553 on the Legislative Council Commission. The others are Amendment Nos 193, 194, 195 and 196 on the general expenditure of civil servants.

Chairman, I have no doubt that Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung spoke out for the majority of the people of Hong Kong who are unhappy about the existing system. I understand that there are many arguments for this view. But I think the most important thing about Hong Kong society is respect for the existing mechanisms, law and the rule of law. An example is many citizens are unhappy about the fact that new immigrants to Hong Kong do not have to reside here for seven years before they can apply for and get CSSA straight away. This is evidence of law in Hong Kong and for which we should obey. By the same line of argument, as long as we cannot change the existing basis of our legal or political systems, I am afraid the systems as they are will remain unchanged. So if we are to choose the lesser of two evils, I am sure most people would prefer maintaining the integrity of the rule of law and the system, instead of doing whatever one likes to do, such


11327

as to cut the expenditure for salaries in order to achieve certain political ideals. This should be no justification at all.

Likewise, I know that what Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has said in his speech refers to the general expenditure for civil servants. Most of such expenditure can be traced back to the colonial era or the residual responsibilities left over from the civil service system of the past. These include children's education allowance, annual passage or other allowances which are now considered way over board. An example is what is found in the old civil service system on an air-conditioning allowance amounting to $10,000. I believe these were responsibilities that had to be borne in the past. But likewise, we cannot wifully slash the relevant expenses or criticize them because of these matters which may sound unfair or not very pleasing to our ears. Thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is the first time I ever agree with Mr Paul TSE. But it appears that he did not catch my point in stating the positive to mean the negative. Thank you, Chairman. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? (No Member indicated a wish to speak) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Public officer, do you wish to speak again? SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Chairman, with respect to the amendments in the second joint debate, we wish to make the following points in response. First, on Amendment No 570 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung on the Appropriation Bill 2014 which proposes that head 121 be reduced by $54,425,000, being the operation expenses of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) in respect of subhead 000, this is a proposal to cancel the annual provision for the IPCC in full.


The Administration holds that this amendment will lead to serious consequences. I appeal to Members here to negative this amendment. The amendment by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung will not improve the mechanisms regarding the monitoring of the police complaints system. On the other hand, the IPCC will be unable to monitor the work of the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) because of a lack of funds. The IPCC will be unable to ensure that the investigations undertaken by the CAPO are thorough, impartial and fair. Moreover, the work in reassessment and monitoring presently being undertaken will be disrupted.

The existing two-tier complaints against police system has mechanisms for effective checks and balances. The CAPO is specifically tasked with handling and investigating complaints against members of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF). In terms of operation, it is independent from other units in the police. This arrangement will ensure that the investigations undertaken are objective, fair and impartial. Results of these investigations will be monitored and reassessed by the IPCC which is a statutory body.

The IPCC is an independent statutory body with members appointed by the Chief Executive. It is specifically tasked with observing, monitoring and reassessing the handling of and investigations into reportable complaints by the police. The IPCC will make suggestions on the handling of and investigations into reportable complaints. The IPCC is committed to maintaining a fair, effective and transparent complaints against police system. It ensures that every reportable complaint case will be handled properly and that the investigation into these cases is fair and impartial. The IPCC will strive to identify faults or deficiencies in the HKPF's practices or procedures with a view to minimizing the number of complaints.

The Independent Police Complaints Council Ordinance (IPCC Ordinance) came into force on 1 June 2009. The IPCC has since begun to operate as an independent statutory body. The IPCC Ordinance explicitly provides a statutory basis for a two-tier police complaints system. The IPCC Ordinance stipulates the functions and powers of the IPCC and states that the police will provide assistance as necessary to the IPCC and that they will comply with the demands made by the IPCC pursuant to the IPCCC Ordinance which may include the CAPO shall compile a detailed investigation report on each reportable complaint case for stringent vetting by the IPCC.


11329

If members of the IPCC have any queries about any particular investigation, they can interview directly the complainants, complainees and witnesses direct. When the IPCC examines the complaint cases, and if the IPCC members have any queries about the investigations conducted by the CAPO, it can demand a further explanation from the CAPO or order that a fresh investigation be carried out into the complaint. The IPCC can also submit the case together with the recommendations made by the IPCC to the Chief Executive. Under the IPCC Ordinance, the CAPO has the legal responsibility to comply with the requests from the IPCC.

In addition, the IPCC Ordinance empowers members of the IPCC and its observers to freely choose to attend, with the options of a pre-arranged meeting or a blitz raid, all the interviews held by the police on reportable complaints, as well as observing the evidence gathering work done by the police concerning reportable complaints.

In 2013, the IPCC made 2 385 observations, of these 319 were blitz observations. After the observers have attended observation activities, they will submit a report to the IPCC secretariat, stating whether in their opinion, the interview concerned or the collection of evidence has been carried out in an impartial manner and whether they note any irregularities.

From this it can be seen that the IPCC Ordinance has ensured in law the availability of a police complaints system with effective checks and balances. This enables the IPCC to monitor police work in reportable complaints in an effective manner. The authorities pledge to provide resources as appropriate to the IPCC so that it can exercise its functions effectively.

If the amendments from Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung are passed, the IPCC will not be able to continue its operation because of a lack of funds. This is tantamount to abolishing the entire system for handling complaints against police, which is a very irresponsible move and obviously runs counter to public interest.

Chairman, the second amendment is no 581 moved by Mr James TO which proposes that head 122 be reduced by $71.23 million in respect of subhead 000. Head 122 is on the provision for the operational expenses of the HKPF. The amount of reduction is to cancel the funding for the CAPO of the HKPF. We consider that amendments like these will lead to serious consequences. I call upon Members here to negative this amendment.


Concerning the existing two-tier statutory police complaints system, as I have just explained it, I will not make any repetition here. Over the many years past, when the Legislative Council was examining the Appropriation Bill, Mr James TO would propose a similar amendment. Even if all these amendments were passed, no improvement could ever be made to the existing police complaints system. On the contrary, the CAPO will not be able to continue with its handling of complaints against members of the HKPF from the citizens. And any investigation being undertaken will have to stop.

Third, on Amendment No 594 from Mr James TO, which seeks to reduce the annual provisions for informer fees of the police, we strongly oppose this kind of amendments.

On the subhead on Rewards and Special Services of the HKPF, that is, head 122 subhead 103, the financial provision is $80 million. The expenses under this subhead on Rewards and Special Services include the confidential operations of the HKPF, such as combatting terrorist activities, serious crimes and drug offences. These expenses include expenditure on rewards, informer fees, purchase and maintenance of essential equipment of a confidential nature, as well as expenses incurred in confidential operations. These expenses are crucial to the work of the HKPF in maintaining public security and order in society.

Since these subheads involve police operations of a confidential nature, we must ensure that the disclosure of any information on such expenses will not give criminals any chance to detect the operation tactics of the police by studying the allocation of such expenses and the trends thereof. Hence the criminals will not be able to escape from legal sanctions or even threaten the safety of any front-line police officer, as well as that of informers. In recent years, without compromising its ability to combat crimes, the HKPF have provided as much information as they can on the expenses under the subhead on Rewards and Special Services, such as the number of rewards and total amount of rewards as well as the number of times in which payments are made.

The expenses on Rewards and Special Services are extremely important to the police in investigating, detecting and preventing serious crimes. If the amendment from Mr James TO is passed, the ability of the police in enforcement and the effect of such action will be seriously undermined. This will seriously affect public order and public security in Hong Kong.


11331

Chairman, my fourth point is on the Amendment Nos 357 to 369 on the Appropriation Bill 2014 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung. These amendments suggest that the financial provision under Head 22 ― Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), that is, the expenses of the ICAC under personal emoluments, departmental expenses, and publicity, which total $937.12 million, be reduced. The amount of reduction is more than 99% of the total expenditure of the ICAC. The Government opposes these amendments.

The work of the ICAC is to maintain cleanliness and impartiality in Hong Kong and it works with the people to undertake a three-pronged approach of enforcement, education and prevention to combat corruption. The expenses of the ICAC are paid under an independent head, that is, head 72. If more than 99% of the provision of the ICAC is reduced, there is no way the ICAC can function. It will break its employment contracts with its staff, unable to perform service contracts entered into with contractors and unable to undertake work in enforcement, education and publicity, not to say fulfilling its performance pledge. This will not only deal a severe blow to the culture of cleanliness in society which the ICAC has arduously built up over the past 40 years but also destroy cleanliness as a core value of Hong Kong. I do not think this is what the public will want to see.

My fifth point is about the proposed amendments, that is, Amendment Nos 413 to 417 on Head 80 ― Judiciary. The Administration has consulted the Judiciary in respect of these amendments.

Chairman, the Judiciary has made the following reply. The independence of the Judiciary is protected constitutionally by the Basic Law. This is also a cornerstone for Hong Kong society. Judicial independence means that Judges can determine cases in a fair manner, free from any instruction, control or influence from any executive or legislative body, or from any person. One of the essential features of judicial independence is financial security. In order that judicial independence can be ensured, the Judiciary must be given enough resources to maintain its independent operation. If the resources allocated are not sufficient, this will produce a negative impact on the normal operation of the Courts. Therefore, the Administration and the Judiciary both oppose the reduction of the financial provision for the Judiciary.

With these remarks, Chairman, I implore Members to negative the amendments covered by the second joint debate. Thank you.


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now invite Members who have moved the amendments to speak for the last time. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I do not expect to get such a serious reply from the Secretary. In this Chamber we all know what is meant by cutting all of his remunerations. It means provided that a speech hits any item, then he has to make an explanation to this Council. This is as simple as that. This is the power we can exercise to monitor his performance. I have spoken many times and I do not wish to repeat myself. If this Council is like any other political assembly where the opposition party has its position to play as such and it can come to power by virtue of its own political platform in an election held on a regular basis and implement its own political platform, then I will not waste any time to mind his business. I have four years in my term of office during which I can do as much as I can to oppose him. Even if my efforts to oppose him come to no avail, provided that I can win in the election, then we can swap roles and he will become my opponent.

We have been forced to do what we are doing today because our political system is an oddity. First, this Council has a very low ability to monitor the executive authorities. The only occasion on which the authorities will ever listen to us is when a funding application is being examined or when a piece of legislation is to be passed. It so happens that the Budget has got both of these two elements. It is both a piece of legislation and also a piece of legislation asking for funding. Now it is high time we exercised this power. But the problem is we cannot increase the funding. Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, I think the Government should increase its expenditure and social welfare, inject a sum of $50 billion for universal retirement protection. But do you think I can make you people accept my suggestion?

The Financial Secretary has just told the reporters that now it is the deadline and he is not sure whether or not he will meet with us this year. Buddy, my reply to him is that I do not have any private enemy. Sometimes I may get angry because of him. I may scold him a bit. But I do not actually know John TSANG. I only know that he is the Financial Secretary. I would advise the Secretary that the road to the kingdom of heaven is not narrow; it is wide. This width means that we should have a heart of kindness and the willingness to come to the rescue of people in suffering. That as we see those who suffer, should hold the conviction that we should be kind to our own old


11333

folks as well as those of others, and the young as well as the young ones of others. Then the road to the kingdom of heaven is wide. How can we say that the door is closed?

Chairman, I am deliberating on political matters in all kinds of ways that may be regarded as absurd. But it is just like the novel Journey to the West or other works of literature in which views are expressed in a seemingly antithetical manner. Those who can read between the lines will see the point while those who do not or those who do not want to will just point a finger of condemnation and accusation. So Chairman, it would be a waste of time if I should answer him. What I am doing here is to expose the corruptions of the system in the hope that by slashing the funding of the authorities, either in part or in full, my discontent can be shown. If any Member really thinks that the problems raised by me warrant further exploration, and if only they can vote to support me, things will be easy. For example, if we cut all the expenditure of the Correctional Services Department, it will come to us for discussions. Then I can tell them that funding for that department should be increased.

Chairman, this is a tactic which has actually been used. I recall in 2011 when money was handed out incorrectly by the Government, Members of this Council threatened the Government by saying that they would not pass the relevant motion. The effect of it was like not handing out any money and the budget would not be passed. And there would not be any delay and things would be come to an end fast. There would be no filibuster either. All in all, the related motion would not be passed. On that day, when the authorities applied for funding here, all the Members did not say anything. After the meeting had begun, there was a result after 15 minutes. They had to come to us for discussions. So in 2011 Members did use this method to cheat the Government. At that time the Member who was most sober was Dr Margaret NG. She said that even if Members were greedy, they must not do that because there would be great problems after John TSANG had succumbed to us. She could see through the matter very clearly. But I may not agree with her conclusion despite the fact that I have great respect for her.

Now people are accusing us of being sinners. They could hurl stones at me. But are they clean of sins? In 2011, when all the people of Hong Kong rose in an uproar like a mob as they describe now, it was because money was handed out wrongly twice. So they went to talk to the Financial Secretary. But it was surprising that there were no Members from the pan-democratic camp. At that time, all those Members who supported government policies most fervently


said to him that not a cent would be given to him. As a matter of fact, if the entire Budget was negatived, there will be no money at all. So if the Government comes here to apply for funding pursuant to the Basic Law, we can require that money be handed out this way, or that more money should be handed out.

Chairman, there are many fools in this world. They fail to see what happened in 2011 is exactly like what I am doing today. On the contrary, we have become more restrained because these amendments may not be all passed. The authorities can just discuss with us those amendments which are passed. Suppose the funding for the Correctional Services Department is reduced, then discussions will have to be made. But in 2011, all the Members were like holding the Financial Secretary to ransom when they took a group photo with him. They wanted him to apologize in public, bow and step down, and drop the practice of handing out money.

Now those people who condemn me are doing exactly the same thing as mine. It is just that their goal is that when it is considered wrong to hand out money to people who are well off, they want to find a better way to hand out money. But what I am doing is to show more compassion to the needy and helpless. If it is said that handing out money is no good, like what is said by those hypocrites in this Council, then may I ask Honourable colleagues: If you think that handing out money is no good, did you take the money? Of course, you did. Because more than 90% of the people in Hong Kong took the money. Right? This is hypocrisy. They said that money should not be handed out, and yet they took the money.

Therefore, the Secretary does not need to scold me in such a serious manner. This is because all along the power struggle in this Council has been like that. It has all along been so barbaric. Did you give him any face in 2011? Members sitting on the other side, if you are serving a second term, I bet all of you have been to Donald TSANG's office for breakfast with him and you also took a group photo with him. At that time, you threatened not to give him a single cent and you had opposed a certain matter and said you wanted to negative the funding application. You said you were doing that because he would not have succumbed to you had you not resorted to this practice. May I ask how different is this from my logic now? Only that I am alone and powerless and I cannot unite all those Honourable Members from the majority and do something good for the elderly people of Hong Kong. If the Financial Secretary closes the narrow door that leads to the kingdom of heaven, but they are inspired by me and


11335

open up the wide door that leads to the kingdom of heaven, then we can join hands and together we can start our exodus. If after listening to remarks by "Long Hair", they think that what I say is reasonable and it is not a bad thing to ask the Government to set aside $50 billion and it is a right thing to do, then we can all go and ask him to take a photo with us. Then he would succumb to us.

So how can it be said that I hope to filibuster? Buddy, do not blame me. If only we can all have compassion and if we can be compassionate like what we did in 2011 or if your hearts are moved to compassion … As an example, when the great earthquake at Wenchuan, Sichuan broke out, see how moved we were. Why is it that the suffering of the people so far away from us can touch our hearts but the miseries of those near us fail to move us? What sins and faults do I have? When I walked past the media people on that side I had no intention of agreeing to an interview. But those reporters made me say something. What else can I say? I am David. He is Goliath. I do not have any help from God. But I think there are devils in this world. And provided that the black rainstorm signal is hoisted for 18 days, you are bound to see devils.

Chairman, I do not use terms like good and evil, the virtuous and the wicked. This is because it breaks my heart to think of these. When I think of the evils done by other people, I come to think of my own evils. This is because I am by no means morally impeccable. I am only a man with feeling. What I am doing is an attempt to put into practice in a special way his platform as I have known and sensed for dozens of years. If I do not do it this way, how else can I do it? Those reporters have asked me why I have to do that. I explain to them that I am a person without any power or might. What I say can just be ignored. But the Financial Secretary is a person of power and might. What he says can become a reality tomorrow. So with respect to this war of words, I do not think I can ever win. I would think that even a fart he makes sounds louder than one by me.

He has both the power and might to turn things from scratch into reality. But I do not have this power. It is a race between the hare and the tortoise if we compare the race between him and me. He can write in his blog tomorrow and insult my personality without considering my platform at all. The reporters may come and ask me for comments. But buddy, how many poems can I write in response? This filibuster has become constipation. So Secretaries, do not try to look serious. I understand the restraints imposed by the Rules of Procedure. I know the difficulties of the Chairman. The Chairman cannot make lengthy


speeches. But since he seeks to enlighten me today, I may as well say these things again.

You have presented many arguments, saying that if funding is cut, no services can be provided. This is simply plain truth. But why do I have to do this? Because I am weak and powerless. A reporter asked me what I am most afraid of. I said I am most afraid of sleeping. Because I will dream and when I dream I will see my mother. She will scold me for being a useless person. I could not support the living of my mother, but never mind. When now I have a little power, I cannot even do something so that parents in society can all lead a good life. This makes me very afraid of seeing my mother when I close my eyes and sleep.

Buddy, do you ever know the pain and suffering of children from single-parent families? Do you know the pain of persons who cannot make a good living and hence cannot sustain the living of their parents? I demand that a system be set up so that those pitiable people who cannot support their parents can do so with the small sum of money from the huge surplus of the Government. What is wrong with that? How much money will the Government have to set aside? Will it be a sum it cannot afford? It is only $50 billion from the sum of $750 billion being hoarded by the Government.

And these people are making speeches here in a most self-righteous manner. I am not a self-righteous person. When I read the novel Journey to the West, my favourite character is SUN Wu-kong the Monkey King. SUN Wu-kong has many weaknesses and so he is bound by a magic spell. Now some people are chanting the magic spell. I am not insinuating that it is you, Chairman. Now start with the magic spell so that I will reel and spin in torment here, and get embarrassed.

Chairman, I am not used to debating this way. I thought I could even go outside and pull a few puffs. But I was surprised to hear him speak when I took out my cigarette. Buddy, can you cut it short? If you say that the speech made by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is utter nonsense, I will not even attempt to refute it. Because it is only a description. But you want to refute me point by point. Just are you out of your mind or me? I have joined 11 panels and I can speak out of my vast memory of all the blunders made by the Government and I can speak to my heart's content without having to read from a scripted speech.


11337

Chairman, what are these people doing? It does not matter if you smear and assassinate my character. But there are devils in this world. So watch your steps. What am I doing all these for? It is for those elderly persons who have died and who can never enjoy any benevolence from this Government even when there is. Do you see that? Practise charity and the door to the kingdom of heaven will fling wide open to you. There will be no deadlines. There are no deadlines in this world. If only you have compassion, you will always see the light. But if you are like the tax collectors and Pharisees, you will kill Christ.

Chairman, this is all I wish to say. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Chairman, is it true that there is no need for making speeches? Because we have not yet come to a new joint debate. Right? I rest. I rest. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, the first joint debate with amendments ― a total of 280 amendments covering 69 Heads ― is finally coming to the end.

First of all, I thank the 12 Members who have proposed amendments. During the Committee stage last year, some Members who planned to propose amendments ultimately withdrew the amendments because Members taking exception to filibustering had described them as taking part in the filibuster debate. But this year, Members seem to have come to their senses in that they have exercised the right conferred on them by the Rules of Procedure and proposed Committee stage amendments, taking the opportunity to criticize the Government's policies and force the Government to improve its performance.

As we all know, no matter how bad the Budget is, not even one word of it can be changed. The Government must be thinking, "Vote it down if you dare! Just shut up and do not hold up the progress." What we are doing now is considered to be holding up the progress because the Government thinks that they are going to win anyway. The Appropriation Bill 2014 (the Bill) will be passed, come what may. Therefore, they do not want us to speak too much. But regrettably, the Rules of Procedure allow Members to propose amendments and conduct a joint debate.


Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has most seriously given a response to several amendments earlier on, including the amendments relating to the Hong Kong Police Force, the Independent Police Complaints Council, and so on. The "cue card" or the "script" from which he read out just now is actually copied from the Government's reply at a special Finance Committee meeting. For the issues mentioned by Secretary Matthew CHEUNG in his speech earlier on, I also mentioned them in my speech, and he was only reading out from the script. Whether it be Secretary Matthew CHEUNG or whichever Secretary who is lucky enough to be made responsible for this strenuous task of final gate-keeping in this joint debate, let me tell them that if they are just reading out from the "cue card" and giving some routine replies or speaking exactly from what is written in the script ― just now some Members also mentioned this, and I believe the Directors of Bureaux will not listen to the speeches made by all Members ― they had better save their time. Secretary Matthew CHEUNG actually wanted to take part in filibustering ― I must make it clear that I am not engaging in filibustering ― but as his speech is of little use, he is actually prolonging this meeting here.

I am not going to use all of my 15 minutes of speaking time. I wish to

make one last point here. Just now the Secretary said solemnly that if a certain amendment is passed, it would be impossible for a certain department to function properly or this and that would happen to a certain department. In this connection, I would urge Members and reporters to ask the Financial Secretary for more details. As far as I know, if any of the 1 192 amendments is passed, the Financial Secretary will ― Would the Financial Secretary please clarify this if I am wrong ― withdraw the Bill, which means that the Bill will not be passed and read the Third time. However, no amendment has ever been passed before.

Since Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has solemnly pointed out that if a

certain amendment is passed, a certain department would come to a halt, not being able to operate, I urge Members to do an experiment. Amendment No 761 seeks to deduct $100,000, which is approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure on official entertainment of the Financial Secretary's Office. Even if this amendment is passed, the Financial Secretary's Office will unlikely be derailed. If Members can promise that they will pass this amendment, then I will promise to speak as less as possible or even not to speak at all in the future. I urge Members to do this experiment. Even if this amendment is passed, I do not think that it would affect the operation of the Government. This is only about deducting an expenditure of $100,000 for


11339

official entertainment. The Financial Secretary can pay for the expenses out of his own pocket.

Then what would happen to the Bill? The Government has never thought that the Bill could be negatived. For this reason, no matter how poorly the Financial Secretary has performed and how shamelessly he has behaved, so long as he can survive the first few days of the debate when the public can watch on television how he is chastised and so long as he can make it to the vote at the Committee stage, the Bill, according to his prediction, would be passed in one day. Then everything will be over. However, it turns out that this may not be the case.

If each Member can discharge their duties under the Rules of Procedure by speaking for 15 minutes each in the first joint debate where no amendments were proposed, the debate will take one or two weeks. Let me tell Secretary Matthew CHEUNG or whichever Director of Bureau who is on duty that they actually do not have to refute each and every amendment. Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has refuted only three of the amendments. Does it mean that all the other amendments proposed by us are reasonable and that only those three amendments are problematic? He should instead have chosen the several most important amendments to refute.

Through the amendments proposed to the Bill and the debate in Committee stage, we have indeed highlighted a lot of problems. I think many government departments have listened to our speeches and they must be terrified, for they cannot speak in this Chamber to defend themselves and they can only leave it to the Director of Bureau on duty to speak and reply on their behalf. They would feel even more miserable if our criticisms are pertinent, because they would not know what they should do and they must feel utterly ashamed.

Lastly, I hope that Members can support the amendments mentioned by us in this joint debate. If Members really wish to challenge the Government, they can use Amendment No 761 as a test and vote for this amendment which seeks to deduct the $100,000 expenditure on entertainment and see what will happen to the operation of the Government and the Bill. I also hope that the Financial Secretary or other officials can give me a response on this point.

I so submit.


MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, this meeting over the past six days has indeed revealed the absurdities of our parliamentary system. First, as Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has said, we do not have changeover of political parties and so, Members in the opposition will definitely show no mercy in rocking this system by all means. It is precisely because we will never sit in these seats of the Government that we do not need to show mercy at all. Had we adopted a system similar to that of the United Kingdom with a changeover system, in which case we would understand that we would face similar challenges and impacts one day, we would have adopted another approach.

Another absurdity of the existing system is that this Council can propose only a reduction but not an increase of the funding in areas covered by the Appropriation Bill. We have always made strong appeals to the Government, urging it to do something but the Government has turned a deaf ear to us. This is why we can only take this approach as the last resort.

From issues of great importance (such as the constitutional reform) to those which are trivial but have the support of many members of the community, the Government has neglected them all the same. A simple example is the specifications of the contents of, say, sugar, protein, and so on, on the nutrition labels on food packages. The font size is only 0.04 mm, which makes it impossible for the public to read clearly. We have always called on the Government to enact legislation to require the business sector to print them in larger fonts to enable consumers to read the information clearly. But from 2008 when we started to campaign for it to this time now in 2014, the Government is still saying that a further review is necessary to ascertain if there is such a need in the future.

We have considered proposing a Member's Bill for this purpose, but what is the worst thing of all? The worst thing of all is that after reading the principal legislation, we found that in order to make amendments to the nutrition labels, we must make amendments to the schedule, and the power to amend the schedule rests with the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene. Therefore, it is again impossible for us to do it. Even though our Members' Bill can meet the requirements under Article 74 of the Basic Law in that it involves neither public expenditure nor government policies, we were still unable to make it in the end. Such being the case, we can only propose a reduction of the financial provision to express our views on a certain official or a certain policy.


11341

I would say that Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has focused on broad, extensive issues as he has discussed issues from constitutional reform to universal retirement protection which are some very basic issues of greatest public concern. However, I will concentrate on the issue of records or archives, and I call on the Government to address it.

In the overall government structure, records or archives are trivial matters, and the Government Records Service Director (the Director) is only an official in a low rank. Even though I have proposed to deduct the Director's salary for one year, the amount involved is only $1.38 million. Having said that, records are a means for most basic monitoring of the Government on all fronts. If government departments fail to handle their records properly and if officials think that they can conceal their wrongdoings by not leaving traces of their mistakes, they would become increasingly unrestrained and act more and more wantonly.

Perhaps Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has been here in the Chamber for only a short time and so, he only chose to respond to issues most often discussed by Members this afternoon, including the Independent Police Complaints Council and the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC). However, with regard to the amendments proposed by the 10-odd Members, the Secretary should, in fact, have given a basic response.

Let me turn back to records. Records are most important to the Government, and they are a means for most basic monitoring of the Government. Without records, corruption and incompliance will spread easily. For example, a member of the senior management of China Resources (Holdings) Co Ltd, SONG Lin, was recently brought back to the Mainland and put under investigation, but Hong Kong cannot probe into the case. Not only do we hope to investigate SONG Lin. We also hope to carry out an investigation in order to find out who have accepted benefits from him, who have transferred benefits to him, as well as his whole network of relationships, people with whom he had contacted, and so on. However, an investigation is now impossible as he has already left Hong Kong.

At the meeting of a panel last week, we asked the representatives of the ICAC whether they have records on him. We also asked the ICAC whether they had met with central officials in Hong Kong to discuss this incident but the representatives of the ICAC could not give Members a reply; nor did they reveal whether or not they had interviewed him. Had the ICAC opened a file in


compliance with the General Circular issued in February 2009 and transferred the relevant information and records to the Government Records Service at an appropriate time, the ICAC officers would not have dared to act against the rules even if they declined to give any comment today. It is because if people look up these records 25 or 30 years later, their descendants would be ridiculed by people. Therefore, they would have been more restrained today. However, nobody knows the whereabouts of the relevant records of the actions taken.

Speaking of the Director … in my speech made in the last 30 minutes, I did speak in accordance with the Chairman's instruction that if I proposed a deduction of the expenditure on his salary, I should criticize his performance in my speech. In my speech over the last 30 minutes, I said that although he is of a low rank, he, being a historian in charge of a structure which is most important to Hong Kong, should not give up discharging his basic duties because he is in a comparatively lower rank and has comparatively less powers. Whether it is the Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary for Administration or the Financial Secretary or even the ICAC which has a superior status that he is dealing with, he should discharge his duties and ask government officials whose ranks and salaries are higher than his to manage their records properly in compliance with the General Circular issued in 2009.

Certainly there is a problem in terms of policy because such relevant legislation is lacking in Hong Kong. This really has nothing to do with the Director, but it is definitely within the purview of the Chief Secretary for Administration. For this reason, several Members have proposed a deduction of the expenditure on the salary of the Chief Secretary for Administration. Over the past few years, the reports prepared by the Director of Audit and the report of a direct investigation compiled by The Ombudsman, Mr Alan LAI, just before his departure have precisely pointed out that an archives law should be enacted in Hong Kong. If the Chief Secretary for Administration still refuses to take actions and if the entire Government remains unwilling to take actions, next year we may propose to deduct the expenditure on the salary of the Chief Secretary for Administration on the ground that no archives law has been enacted.

Chairman, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung is not the only person who is lonely and powerless. Many Hong Kong people are actually lonely and powerless too. They are enraged, and their grievances will eventually explode, perhaps by way of the Occupy Central movement or by confronting the Government at "Solar Peak" or in other forms. It is not our wish to see scenes of large-scale clashes and scuffles. On the contrary, we wish that the system be changed in a peaceful


11343

manner. However, the initiative rests with the Government. If the Government remains stubborn in refusing to respond to public aspirations, both sides may perish and no one will come out as winners in the end. Nobody would wish to see this happen as a result. Chairman, a momentary lapse in judgment can lead to serious consequences. It all hinges on the Government, and the ghost that is haunting the Government. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This debate now ends. CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 22, 37, 49, 139, 140, 141 and 170. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee now proceeds to the third joint debate. The themes of this debate are poverty alleviation, welfare, healthcare services, public health and elderly care.

The areas covered in this debate are the problem of poverty, welfare issues (including social enterprises and family affairs), support for ethnic minorities, health issues, food safety and environmental hygiene issues, and elderly care. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr WU Chi-wai have given notices respectively to move a total of 148 amendments, proposing to deduct various amounts under seven heads, including heads 22, 37, 49, 139, 140, 141 and 170. The contents of their amendments are related to the scope of this debate.

I will first call upon Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to speak and move Amendment No 44 as set out in Appendix 1B attached to the Script, to be followed by Ms Claudia MO, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr WU Chi-wai, but they may not move their amendments at this stage. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move that Amendment No 44 as set out in Appendix 1B attached to the Script be passed. As I do not wish to speak for the time being, I request a headcount.


Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that head 22 be reduced by $629,775,900 in respect of subhead 000."

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber) CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue to speak. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, Amendment Nos 44, 45, 46 and 47 proposed by me are, in fact, similar. As I have spoken too much, I think I should leave the opportunity for other Members to speak. I will not claim the floor for the time being, so that other Members who have proposed amendments may speak. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to talk about animal rights. While human beings will fight for justice for themselves and know how to stage protests, demonstrations and revolutions, animals do not speak and make noises. They can only rely on us to fight for some basic rights. I hope not all Members of this Council will only rise and ridicule certain Members for filibustering. I hope Members of this Council can really support the amendment proposed by me to reduce the $1.6 million estimated expenditure on euthanizing animals because such expenses are actually unnecessary. To the Government, the $1.6 million is far from a drop in the bucket, but it means a lot to the animal rights campaign. (THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

Some people might ask this question: Should the $1.6 million be cut, what can be done if some animals have to be euthanized? Of course, there will be a


11345

solution. Euthanasia is only considered by human beings as a humane process of killing healthy animals with injections in their hearts. According to the figures provided by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), in addition to pigs and cattle, more than 5 000 dogs and 1 800 cats were euthanized in the previous year alone. In Hong Kong, there are stray cattle, cattle found in local communities, boars, pigs found in local communities, poultry, birds, and so on. In total, more than 8 200 animals have been euthanized. Let me focus on dogs only. Last year, there were more than 4 600 stray dogs. Why did they have to be euthanized? Where did they come from? They did not fall down from the sky. Why would they become stray animals? They were abandoned by human beings.

Another figure on animals surrendered by owners also shows that nearly 2 000 dogs have been given up by their owners. The hypocrisy of the whole issue is inconceivable. "Euthanized animal" is a euphemistic expression. It actually means that the animals were murdered.

When I requested the AFCD to provide figures on the number of animals, particularly cats and dogs, which were in good health but euthanized eventually, I was told me that such statistics had not been kept. Members should know what it means. Let us look at dogs in particular. About 5 400 of the 7 500-odd caught stray dogs and dogs surrendered by owners were euthanized. Obviously, all the animals sent to the AFCD stand a slim chance, if any at all, of survival.

Some people will still ask this question: Given that several thousand cats and dogs have to be dealt with, what can be done if this sum of expenditure is cut? According to the AFCD, the unit cost for euthanasia is only $100 or so, which is very low indeed. The rising cost is attributed to the small number of euthanized animals. I reckon that the cost of handling an animal is only around $120 to $130. I believe the AFCD can afford such expenses out of its daily expenditure.

Meanwhile, there is an appalling figure about the four Animal Management Centres under the AFCD. The annual expenditure for these Centres alone already reaches $25 million. If the staff cost of approximately $20 million is included, the annual expenditure will add up to $45 million. What are the duties of these Centres? Their main duty is to catch stray dogs and then euthanize them. How outrageous! Hong Kong has become a city of animal abuse. Judging from last year's figures alone, the annual number of animal abuse has already reached 120 exclusive of the number of cases for which the police have


refused to open files. By 120 cases a year it means that there were three cases per day on average. Hong Kong is indeed a city of animal abuse.

Animal Earth, non-profit-making veterinary organizations and the Civic Party Animal Rights Concern Group have time and again expressed strong dissatisfaction with the AFCD. The AFCD would invariably give them an affectionate response, but the matter would subsequently vanish into obscurity. Conversely, how much money can the AFCD spend to sponsor capable voluntary animal groups? The answer is $1 million. How remarkable!

Next, I would like to talk about a policy. Members should not think that it has nothing to do with my request for cutting the $1.6 million estimated expenditure for the AFCD on euthanasia in the coming year. They are somewhat related. The Government has simply no idea what it is doing because it is a hypocrite. I have reasons to believe that inside the AFCD, except for a few veterinary surgeons who really care about animals, other staff members are only armchair bureaucrats who consider it most important to cover their own back in order to ensure their own safety and happiness.

A couple of years ago, the AFCD was criticized by the Audit Commission for failing to make good efforts to prevent animal abuse. Last year, the AFCD suddenly proposed amendments to Chapter 139B which deals with prevention of animal abuse, imposed many rules and regulations on the trading or breeding of animals and introduced tougher penalties to achieve a deterrent effect and prevent the occurrence of animal abuse. However, the introduction of more rules and regulations and tougher penalties has in turn led to more problems caused by the breeding of cats and dogs in Hong Kong. People would abandon their cats and dogs on hills and at rivers for fear of being complained or arrested. As a result, even more stray cats and dogs are sent to the AFCD to be euthanized. This is a vicious circle. Is the AFCD aware of what it is actually doing?

It is ridiculous that cat and dog breeders are required to obtain licences. It is right for the first licence to be issued to pet shops. We will not smash someone's rice bowl. Let us for the time being put aside this matter. The second licence was issued to breeding centres. There are quite a number of breeding centres in Hong Kong. I do not rule out the possibility that some of them are not bad and enormous space is provided therein for dogs to move around. These two kinds of licences are acceptable. But what I am going to tell you is really horrifying. People keeping fewer than four dogs kept for


11347

breeding are required to obtain another kind of licence or a one-off licence. What does it mean? It means that people are allowed to sell dogs which have been kept for more than four months, but a licence has to be obtained before doing so. How outrageous! Although members of the public are advised by the Government to be a responsible pet owner, they are allowed to sell their dogs provided that a licence has been obtained beforehand. Is there anything wrong with the Government? Dog keepers must be caring and responsible. How can they sell their pets? This is pretty obvious to everyone. To sell or not to sell? What does that have to do with others? Why am I required to obtain a licence from the Government if I really have to sell animals? There is simply no need to let the Government know. What does "selling" mean? My friend or the friend of my friend might just give me a red packet as a birthday gift. Is it allowed? Even if he gives me cash, how can the Government prove that a deal has been struck?

The Government has all along been staging a "big show" by presenting an enormous heap of print to show that it is making an effort. However, it simply does not work because we all know what it is doing. On the contrary, it is condoning some people who originally had no intention to keep dogs and cats … Let me begin with dogs first. These people can now consider breeding since it is specified in the licence that they can breed four dogs or less. If they like keeping dogs and have nothing to do after retirement, it is a pretty good idea to do some trading as a means of livelihood. They will only think about what to do next if the AFCD officers come for inspection after their neighbours have lodged complaints for an excessively strong smell or noise nuisance.

According to the AFCD, they have … I do not know what it means in Chinese because I cannot find the Chinese version. According to the English version, certain officers of the AFCD may carry out inspection of dogs in breeding centres for which licences have been obtained. This is really unnecessary. If I live in Flat C on the 18th floor, even if the AFCD officers are downstairs, the security guards of the building where I live will still not allow their entry. Even if the AFCD officers are accompanied by police officers, but are police officers almighty? They are not allowed to intrude into residential places. Instead, they should first consult their counsel to find out what can be done to enable the search to be conducted. Even if they apply to court for a search warrant, the dogs will be nowhere to be found by the time they have obtained the warrant. Everything will already be cleared on the scene. What are they talking about? The whole thing has simply been turned into a trade. It


is like the Government reluctantly giving permission to legalize an illegal act because the former cannot do anything to regulate the latter. For instance, the act of hitting someone was originally unlawful. However, since the Government cannot catch the bad guy for some reasons, it has now stipulated that hitting someone only once is not considered unlawful provided that a licence has been obtained. Perhaps the act of hitting someone lightly for four times is allowed, too. This means that hitting someone can be made legal provided that a licence has been obtained. Is this reasonable? This will only lead to the emergence of more and more stray animals, which will eventually be sent to the AFCD for euthanasia. The whole idea is wrong. The Government's slogan of being a responsible pet owner, which I mentioned earlier, is also wrong. What does a pet mean? This matter might not have anything to do with the Secretary who is sitting here. I am pinpointing the AFCD, which is under Secretary Dr KO Wing-man, that is, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Food and Health Bureau.

What is the point of talking about pet owners? The word "pet" is absolutely misleading. If an animal is a pet, what is the point of talking about its rights? It should be living more comfortably and leisurely than its owner. What does a "pet" mean? It means a spoiled animal … in particular, stray cats have all along been subject to abuse. There are innumerable cases of abuse of stray cats because unlike dogs, cats do not know how to bark or fight back. This is a weird government policy. Meanwhile, I would like to talk … I believe I am running out of time. I request to cut the estimated $100,000 earmarked for the boars hunting teams under the AFCD. Residents of the Lung Hang Estate in Sha Tin have clearly pointed out that their relationship with the boars is so close that the animals are like their family members. Perhaps some people might express concern about what can be done if the $100,000 is cut when they have to catch the boars or build fences when faced with nuisance caused by the animals in future. The building of fences has turned out to be completely unrelated to the estimate of $100,000 earmarked for hunting boars.

In Hong Kong, human beings and nature must not be distorted. It is wrong for some mothers to think that stray dogs in Hong Kong will definitely bite people. Many of the things done by the Government have indirectly led to the breeding of more unnecessary stray animals which will eventually be abused and killed or legally murdered by the Government. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.


11349

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I have a number of amendments in this joint debate, including those on reducing various expenditures and allowances for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), the Food and Health Bureau and the Labour and Welfare Bureau. I will introduce and explain my amendments later. However, I would like to respond to the problem pointed out by Ms Claudia MO earlier. I think the problem is very serious indeed. This is especially true in a so-called affluent city and modern society like Hong Kong, on the issue of handling animals, in particular on the putting down of animals, Hong Kong can be regarded as worse than a primitive society or more brutal and inhuman than a primitive society. In a primitive society, the capture of animals is for the purpose of ensuring survival and food. But in Hong Kong, the Government kills animals simply for convenience's sake and administrative convenience. When it comes to money, the Hong Kong Government has a lot of it. But why administrative convenience?

Many years ago I formed the Lantau Buffalo Association together with an expatriate called Tom. It was eight to 10 years ago. At that time we discussed with the Government on how to handle cattle on Lantau Island. There was no one then in the AFCD who knew how to de-sex cattle. Since no one knew how to perform a de-sex operation on cattle, cattle (including buffalos and cows) started to breed on Lantau. Great problems then ensued. Once the AFCD receives a complaint, it will send people to catch the cattle. Sometimes the animals caught are buffalos and sometimes they are cows. The method of capturing the animals is very brutal. After the animals are captured, they are hauled onto a truck and then sent to the kennel in New Territories North. If after being kept in the kennel for some time and when no one comes to claim the animals, these animals will be auctioned. And when no one buys these cattle, they will be slaughtered.

These buffalos and cows are left behind by the former farmers on Lantau. During the 1950s and 1960s, there were people rearing pigs and doing farming on Lantau. And there were paddy fields too. Now we can still see traces of paddy fields in certain places on Lantau. As farming activities declined and as the farming population got old, the cattle were left uncared for. They then wandered off into the wild. In the past when farmers kept buffalos and cows, the animals were allowed to graze outside. Then they would come back in the evening. If they did not, the farmers would go out and look for them and bring them back to the cowshed. These activities still took place in the 1960s and 1970s. Then when it came to the end of the 1970s, the number of farmers


decreased and cattle began to wander everywhere. In the 1980s, these cattle became a feature of Lantau. They just grow and breed there.

But there is no policy from the Government to control the problem. Nor is there anyone who knows how to manage these animals. We have lodged complaints for many years and the AFCD started to formulate a policy gradually. Some expatriates who have been living on Lantau and studying the cattle for 30 to 40 years, so they can even recognize every one of the cattle and have given names to them. Now the AFCD controls the herd by labels and numbers. This is certainly an improvement. First of all, I have to commend the AFCD for making improvements in herd management and for de-sexing some of the cattle. Management work in this regard should be improved. We have put up demands for many years to urge the AFCD to set up a centre to manage the herd and teach members of the public on the history related to these animals and the related ecology. A number of TV stations have made special features on the subject, especially on the buffalos in Pui O. We can see online how the buffalos in the wetlands of Pui O are living with the herons. This is certainly a beautiful picture when we have 40 to 50 buffalos in the company of two or three herons. This is really a beautiful scene.

In summer the buffalos will swim in the sea. This is because the buffalos have to dissipate heat and the freshwater in the wetlands cannot help the buffalos dissipate heat. So when summer comes, the buffalos will walk slowly in a herd of 20 to 30 to the beach. And as they submerge in the water, we can only see their noses coming through. What a beautiful scene. Then at about seven to eight in the evening when the sun sets, the buffalos will rise from the water. So the buffalo scenes on Lantau, especially those in Pui O, can be regarded as one of the most attractive natural scenes in Hong Kong. I do not think you will ever forget it if you have a chance to see it. And after seeing it, I am sure you will agree that there is a need to protect this herd of buffalos.

A number of years ago, we applied in the name of the Lantau Buffalo Association for a piece of land measuring 30 000 sq ft from the Lands Department. The Director of Lands approved of our application. But then as public consultation was held for that matter, the Pui O Rural Committee opposed it strongly and in the end the Government did not lease the lot to us because of opposition from the public. At that time, an expatriate donated $250,000 to set up a centre for buffalos and it was planned that some people would be hired to conduct something like eco-tours and that 30 000 sq ft lot would be enclosed so


11351

that buffalos could live there and be managed. Then there would be people to de-sex the buffalos. It was because at that time the ACFD did not have … DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have been talking about buffalos for a long time. What does this have to do with the amendments? Please speak on the amendments. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, this is related to the amendment by Ms Claudia MO, on the expenses related to the putting down of animals. This is because I have great feelings about this issue. And I often come into contact with cattle. Every day I would see cattle. Deputy Chairman, this morning when I drove by, I saw buffalos walking on the roadside. I therefore am emotionally attached to buffalos. If a buffalo centre can be built, management can be enhanced and so will public education. The people can then know more about the history in this.

On the putting down of animals, Deputy Chairman, apart from buffalos and cows which are put down by the Government due to management reasons, many cats and dogs are also put down this way. If my memory is correct, every year the AFCD kills thousands of cats and dogs. It may be some 4 000 to 5 000 or even as many as 6 000. If we take the figure for 10 years, that is, multiplying the annual figure by 10, that would be some 50 000 to 60 000 cats and dogs having been put down. I have used this to describe the Hong Kong Government: In a place like Hong Kong and if we take the per capita number ― we can leave out the Mainland because people in many Mainland cities eat cats and dogs ― if we just take the places where the eating of cats and dogs are prohibited, Hong Kong can easily become the place where most cats and dogs are culled. The number can find mention in the Guinness book of records. Maybe the ghosts of cats and dogs are haunting Hong Kong that Hong Kong begins on a road of decline and fall. It is like back in those days when chickens were culled and there came the financial tsunami in its wake. So the authorities should have more benevolence. If the Government gives people an impression that it is ruling the place with a human touch, there should better management of animals and there must be a rethink of the methods and policies regarding the putting down of animals. First, the Government must manage, keep and control the animals. The Government is not short of money. One can learn from the Internet that in other countries, especially those in Scandinavia, they seem to care


for cats and dogs even better than humans. This is what is meant by humanitarism.

Also, regarding the management of cats and dogs, there are many deficiencies in government policies. Now many people on the Internet, especially certain groups, exploit people's sympathy and raise funds by abusing cats and dogs. They take photos such as a cat or a dog with a leg amputated which they have picked up on the street, then they will raise funds on the Internet. There is no regulation at all regarding this kind of activities. Deputy Chairman, later on when I speak on cancelling other posts, I will talk about the AFCD. Since we are talking about the putting down of animals, I would think this is another kind of putting down animals because when people want to engage in frauds, they will make a cat blind or a dog lame. Then they will take photos, claiming that these animals are found on the streets. Next they will raise funds, asking people to place their donations with a certain bank account. Deputy Chairman, this kind of scam is getting more rampant. I have heard that there are such acts done by a rather well-known society as well. When people ask them for receipts, they are refused. When they report to the police, the police would not entertain this kind of complaint. If they report to the ICAC, the ICAC will say that there is no evidence that bribery and corruption are involved. Although this may be about fund-raising, the Social Welfare Department may not handle the cases because it is not that easy to prosecute people for raising funds in public. So it is out of such monetary interests that cats and dogs get killed, mutilated and abused. Therefore, such problems are related to government policies and the law.

I wish to point out that the animal protection law in Hong Kong was enacted before the War and among the many old pieces of legislation, the law on the protection of dogs and cats ranks the first in terms of backwardness. It can get a gold medal for that. So regarding Amendment No 51 by Ms Claudia MO, which is the reduction of $1.6 million from head 22, I would think that this is a warning to the AFCD. And it can remind the Food and Health Bureau that it must pay attention to the problems in this respect. I also call on the Government, this Council and the public to pay more attention to this kind of problems and be careful about donations. Sometimes, you donate money because you want to help those cats and dogs, but in fact you are harming them. So we cannot dismiss this problem lightly.

Deputy Chairman, I now come back to Amendment No 660 which is proposed by me: RESOLVED that head 139 be reduced by $11,100,000 in


11353

respect of subhead 000. The amount of reduction is approximately equivalent to the annual provision for the office of the Secretary for Food and Health. I have just talked about policy blunders regarding cats and dogs. I think the Secretary cannot shirk his responsibility in this. However, as compared to other Secretaries, I wish to commend Secretary Dr KO Wing-man for his open mindset. He is the best among all the Secretaries for keeping tabs on the public pulse and what the current situation in society is. After we have talked with him, he would follow up. He is different from other Secretaries. If we want to find other Secretaries because of a certain problem, we would have a feeling that it is like bumping our heads into a wall of indifference. This applies to the former Secretary for Food and Health, Dr York CHOW. It was like talking to the air when we talked with York CHOW. If he thinks that he does not like what you are talking about, he will not care about you. He has a heavy bias. Although Secretary Dr KO Wing-man has his good points in dealing with people and matters, with respect to the whole Bureau, there are still many blunders in policies, operation and management. This applies especially to the departments under him. Some of these departments are characterized by a fossilized attitude, bureaucracy, and an unbearable lack of a human touch. The worst is the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD). The FEHD is one of the largest government departments and it manages a wide scope of matters like licensing, hygiene, refuse disposal, and so on. There are countless examples of the staff from the FEHD abusing their powers, bullying and suppressing the disadvantaged. Deputy Chairman, at times we would get furious when we browse the Internet. There is this widely circulated video clip on the Internet about a tall and big female staff member of the FEHD bullying certain elderly people who make a living by picking discarded articles or carton boxes. We must condemn such acts.

I also wish to show my discontent by slashing the expenditure of the Secretary's office. Apart from this kind of heartless treatment of scavengers, street sleepers and hawkers, the Secretary cannot shirk the responsibility for the decline of agriculture and fisheries in Hong Kong. Later on I will talk about the policies on agriculture and fisheries and the problems faced by fishermen who cannot make a living now. This is to show my support for the proposal to cut the expenditure. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): We have now formally entered the third joint debate. The theme of the second joint debate session, in which amendments were proposed, covers poverty alleviation, welfare, healthcare


services, public hygiene and care for the elderly, as well as areas under the heads discussed, such as poverty issues, welfare services, support for ethnic minorities, health services, food safety, environmental hygiene, and care for the elderly. In this debate session, I have proposed 10 amendments in total. Before I elaborate on my proposed amendments, however, I would like to speak in support of Amendment No 51 proposed by Ms Claudia MO ― "Head 22 ― Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department: RESOLVED that head 22 be reduced by $1,600,000 in respect of subhead 000 (approximately equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure incurred by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) on euthanasia)".

Although $1.6 million appears to be a very small sum of money, what is it actually used for? It is used to kill, take away lives and carry out executions. If we support this financial provision by pressing the green button, more than 5 000 lives will be sacrificed.

I know that many people are vegetarian and resent killing. Some people may even buy fish and birds and set them free. If you are this kind of person, how can you support the financial provision for euthanasia? Let me for the time being put aside the democratic camp and talk about colleagues from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong of the pro-establishment camp first. For instance, Mr CHAN Hak-kan is very concerned about the welfare of cats and dogs. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is also a caring person. When we were in the Ante-Chamber just now, she showed me a photograph of her pet dog. District Council members from the Liberal Party often encourage members of the public to adopt pets, too.

Let us not argue with Members who criticize most of the amendments proposed for being frivolous and redundant. This amendment proposed by Ms Claudia MO is, however, very practical. If Members vote in support of the Government, more than 5 000 lives will be killed. If they vote against the Government and support cutting this expenditure, the Government will be forced to use a better method to deal with these abandoned or stray animals.

Hence, I hope Members can state their stance on this motion. If they have justifications but are obliged to support the financial provision or give support in tears, I hope colleagues who really have a caring heart can give us an explanation. They need not give a lengthy speech; they just need to spend several minutes telling us why they have to support the Government. If they do not wish to support it, they can leave when the vote is taken or, like us, cast a dissenting vote


11355

against the financial provision for killing people ― I should have said "destroying life", not "killing people".

This year, the Government has earmarked this financial provision of $1.6 million for the AFCD to perform euthanasia. In a special meeting of the Finance Committee, I asked the Government a question on the number of stray cats and dogs captured over the past three years. The reply given by the Government reveals that in 2013, the AFCD had captured 4 626 stray dogs, of which 3 506, or 76%, were euthanized. In the same year, the AFCD also captured 2 866 stray cats, of which 1 699, or 60%, were euthanized. Even excluding the number of other animals, the total number of stray cats and dogs euthanized already exceeds 5 000. It is evident from these figures that the future of stray animals in Hong Kong is miserable.

Let me look at Head 22 ― Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department again. The efforts made are related to "stray animals caught" under "Animal and plant regulation prevention" in Programme (3) Animal, Plant and Fisheries Regulation and Technical Services. One of the emphases on matters requiring special attention in 2014-2015 is, according to the AFCD, "strengthening measures for stray animals management and promotion of animal welfare".

However, it transpires that the SAR Government's measure for the management of stray animals is to capture and kill them. Regarding the promotion of animal welfare, what does it mean by animal welfare? It should mean that efforts should be made to minimize the suffering of the animals, but now they are waiting to be killed. If they are not adopted after a couple of days, they will be killed without mercy.

I wonder if Members have recently noticed a movie called "Twelve Nights". Judging from the movie name alone, people might think that it is a love story, but actually it is not. It is in fact about the policy of handling stray animals in Taiwan. The movie, produced by Giddens KO, a famous writer, tells of stray dogs being locked up in a so-called shelter which is filled with manure and caged animals. According to Taiwan's policy, there is a 12-day adoption period for these animals. When the period is over, they will be sentenced to euthanasia. In fact, the movie seeks to convey a very simple idea, that is, "say 'yes' to adoption, 'no' to surrendering", to prevent animals from experiencing such a cruel 12-day countdown to the termination of their lives.


We have to think about why live animals, most of which are in good health, should be euthanized. We have made enquiries with the AFCD on the number of healthy animals euthanized. Just now, Ms Claudia MO mentioned that the AFCD had already pointed out that no such statistics had been kept. According to the standard set by human beings, animals to be euthanized must be incurable. Or if they continue to live, they will suffer terribly as if they are being tortured. So, they have to be euthanized despite our great reluctance. On the contrary, if we kill animals which are in perfectly good health just because no one wants to adopt them, we are actually murdering them. Euthanasia5 is "hypocritical rhetoric" ― it is definitely not a humane way of killing.

I cited Taiwan as an example just now because I want Members to compare it with Hong Kong. The situation in Hong Kong is even more inhumane than that in Taiwan because animals in Hong Kong are not given a 12-day adoption period. The AFCD has all along adopted the "Capture and Kill" policy in handling the so-called nuisance caused by stray animals. Controlling and managing stray animals actually means controlling their numbers. The simplest way to do so is to kill all of them. This approach has all along been condemned by society, particularly animal lovers, who think that the AFCD is preaching one thing but doing quite another. One of its proposed responsibilities or programmes is to promote animal welfare. What does welfare mean? It simply means "euthanasia". It really sounds appealing. Cats and dogs to be euthanized will be injected with "juice" and then they will bid farewell to the world.

What is the present situation in Hong Kong? A "four-day period" is adopted by the two major animal shelters in Hong Kong, namely the AFCD and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA). This means that animals are only given a four-day adoption period and they will be euthanized afterwards. During our visit to a kennel in Sheung Shui, we were told by colleagues in the AFCD that the period would not necessarily last four days. Sometimes, the animals might be allowed to stay a bit longer if there was spare space. Nevertheless, a four-day period is stated clearly in the policy.

Stray animals captured or received will be kept by the AFCD and the SPCA at the management centre operating under the AFCD for a four-day period,

5 "Euthanasia (人道毀滅)" in Chinese literally means "humane killing".


11357

during which veterinary surgeons will assess the health conditions of the animals. If they are found to have been implanted with chips ― the technology is quite advanced now ― the AFCD will look for their owners according to the information carried on the chips. If their owners refuse to rehome them and they are not healthy or of a mild temperament, they can only wait to be euthanized. If their owners refuse to rehome them but they are classified by the AFCD as healthy or of a mild temperament, they will be transferred to animal welfare organizations which are the AFCD's partners to arrange and wait for adoption. Otherwise, they will be euthanized.

Nevertheless, quite a number of animal organizations have all along been criticizing the AFCD's mechanism of assessing the fitness of animals for adoption for lacking transparency. For instance, what does it mean by healthy and of a mild temperament? How is the assessment conducted? Are there any records? Obviously, the answers are "no". Or perhaps the AFCD is unwilling to disclose such information because the records might show that many animals which are healthy and of a mild temperament were not adopted or received by its partners. For instance, the AFCD might reply over the telephone that it is already full and extra places are not available. When the four-day period expires, even animals which are healthy and of a mild temperament, particularly cats and dogs, will be euthanized.

Over the years, members of the public have no way to know the whole

euthanasia process and procedures. I quoted the Taiwanese movie "Twelve Nights" because it is a hit in Taiwan. Moreover, after the movie was shown, the SPCA in Hong Kong decided to make public some of the conditions of its Receiving Department early last month. It was found to be so stinky and noisy that it was like hell. The crowded conditions had made many cats and dogs cramming together fall sick. This means that even those which used to be healthy had fallen ill. Although these animals were managed by designated staff members, they were very dirty because of their own excrement and they howled very loudly because they were living in great fear of death. Even the PR and Communications Manager of the SPCA has admitted that although the SPCA positions itself as an adoption organization responsible for selecting those which are obedient and can be trained from the abandoned animals, the sick and offensive ones will still be injected with "juice". In Hong Kong, the SPCA are operating six adoption centres providing 150 places for stray dogs. Owing to excessive demands ― it is inevitable because the SPCA can only provide 150 places but, as I mentioned just now, 4 620 stray dogs are captured annually ― the


SPCA has candidly admitted that quite a number of animals suitable for adoption as pets can only be euthanized.

It is also revealed that the SPCA receives a daily average of more than 20

animals which are abandoned or passed by the public or occasionally reclaimed from the AFCD. If places are available, some animals from the kennel in Sheung Shui will be rehomed by the SPCA, too. However, the SPCA has frankly admitted in its annual report that up to 3 930 animals have been euthanized, which means that more than 10 animals on average are killed daily. This is the number of animals killed by the SPCA. The figure quoted by Ms Claudia MO just now, that is, 4 626, represents the number of animals killed by the AFCD. Since the AFCD will pass the animals spared to the SPCA, the SPCA has no alternative but to kill them when there are no more places. The number of animals killed in this way is close to 4 000. Let us imagine the scene. Being Hong Kong's largest animal care organization, so to speak, the SPCA has already had the most abundant resources to deal with animal welfare, but still its conditions are so deplorable. Can Members imagine the conditions of the AFCD or other organizations which are working with it to deal with abandoned animals but are much smaller in scale than the AFCD? I have not gathered all the information on the relevant organizations to illustrate my points seriatim. I only wish to let Members know how horrible and cruel the scene is. (The buzzer sounded) DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak on these amendments? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, a headcount please. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber. (After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)


11359

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU, please speak. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, my amendment is "RESOLVED that head 49 be reduced by $5,000,000 in respect of subhead 000, which is approximately equivalent to half of the contract cost of outsourcing the three-colour waste separation bins (three-colour bins) programme by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD)". Members may feel that I have raised such a trivial subject for discussion. Although the subject is so trivial, it is significant. In the discussion on landfills, a very important concept of recycling is involved, such as the three-colour bins. The relevant contracts reflect the Government's mindset and whether the recycling effort by the Government is effective. (THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

Chairman, I originally wished to delete the total contract cost of outsourcing the three-colour bins programme. But I was told by the Government that no information could be provided as a tendering exercise was being conducted. So, I can only explain the justification for my demand to cancel the contract by the FEHD on the basis of the old contract. What are the terms of this contract? Over the past few years, the Government has carried out a lot of publicity on waste separation bins with the aim of informing the public that yellow bins are for cans, blue bins are for paper and brown bins are for plastic bottles. It seeks to inform the public of how to separate waste at source. The objective phenomenon of waste separation is that inside the three-colour bins, the aluminum cans and paper are pretty clean, but the plastic bottles are not recyclable. So, most of the resources are expended on recycling of plastic bottles.

According to the information provided by the FEHD, the amount of paper, aluminum cans and plastic bottles collected from three-colour bins in the past year is less than 600 tonnes in total. In other words, the cost per kilogram of these materials is almost $10, which is much higher than the current market recycling price of these materials. If so, why should the Government undertake this programme? What is the purpose of this programme? The FEHD and the


Environmental Protection Department (EPD) have reiterated that the provision of these three-colour bins is regarded as a kind of public education on waste separation. However, if there is a price for the resources from waste separation, the public will undertake the task on their own initiative. Honourable colleagues who have provided services in housing estates will know that some grannies in these housing estates work very hard to pick up paper, aluminum cans and even anything that can be sold for recycling. Any articles that can fetch a price will be collected. But owing to the lack of government facilities in this aspect, the recycling industry has become an unviable business.

The Government has even come up with many solutions, such as providing a production line to Yan Oi Tong, to deal with waste plastics. However, as the Government has not made any effort to ensure a satisfactory recycling network at the front-end, the Yan Oi Tong also faces operational difficulties in operating the production line which is set up with government resources. "Uncle Fat" is fully aware of the problem. I know that he often seeks help in respect of looking for plastics and recruiting manpower. He has also encountered a lot of difficulties. Therefore, this programme, which is top-down driven by the will of government officials, can only serve the educational purpose of telling the public how to separate waste. But this is far from setting up an effective resource recycling network.

On the recycling strategy, the Government should first of all ask this question: What is the most difficult part to be dealt with in the whole recycling process from the perspective of recyclers and society? Can the Government focus its effort on this point? In my view, the most expensive and the most difficult part is the resource recycling network, that is, logistics. How can resources scattered around the city be collected and sent to one collection point through logistics arrangement before being shipped to the processing centres? If this problem cannot be solved, the work of recycling can never be effective regardless of the amount of resource input, as reflected by our experience in implementing the three-colour bins programme. The contractors have received a lot of money annually over the past decade. Take the previous contract as an example. The total amount for two years is $12.7 million. The recyclers said loudly that according to the contract, they are only required to collect wastes from the three-colour bins and then transfer them to qualified resource processing contractors. However, the resource processing contractors can send the wastes to landfills. The whole process is counterproductive. The people's concept of waste separation is thus made more ambiguous because they feel that things after separation with great efforts are eventually dumped at landfills. So, I think the


11361

Government should learn a lesson from this incident and determine whether the provision of the three-colour bins is for educational purpose, or it really wants to improve resource recycling in the community. If the Government often confuses these two different roles, it will only lead to a waste of public money. This is also the reason why I think that the three-colour bins programme should be abolished.

I would like to cite an example. When views were exchanged with recyclers, I was told that waste plastics are valuable. In general, waste plastics before classification is about $1,000 per tonne or about $1 per kilogram. But if waste plastics can be separated into two categories, that is, PP and PE, the price can rise to $2,000 per tonne, or $2 per kilogram. Compared with the current recycling price of newspaper at $0.7 per kilogram, this is a pretty good price. But no one joins such a business. Why? Owing to the bulky volume of plastics, the logistics and transportation cost for one truck load of plastics is so expensive that it is unviable to recyclers. From this, we can see that a lot of resources have value. But the biggest problem is that logistics arrangement is not mature and not effective, not to mention the lack of support from the Government.

Recently, I asked a question on another occasion. The Government applied for funding from the Legislative Council for the construction of a food waste treatment plant at Siu Ho Wan. The food waste treatment plant will collect food waste from restaurants. There is also a costly waste cooking oil processing plant in Tseung Kwan O which will also collect waste cooking oil from restaurants. If these two facilities can co-ordinate with each other in a better way, the collection of food waste and waste cooking oil will be more effective and efficient. I asked the Government whether a recycling network could be set up by seizing this opportunity since these two processing plants will collect food waste or waste oil from the same location. But the Government replied in the negative and added that it had contacted several restaurants. In other words, the relevant organizations in the community are left to their own devices. As a result, the most expensive cost in the recycling process, which is transportation cost, cannot be reduced through the Government's assistance, thus leading to a situation where we face enormous pressure in waste collection and management.

The discussion on the "three landfills and one incinerator" proposal reflects the Government's inability to achieve waste reduction through recycling. Waste reduction has merely become a subject of chit-chatting. Another argument


always mentioned by the Government is that it should not intervene in the market or provide subsidies to recyclers. However, the Government has to consider one point. The transportation of waste to a landfill will also incur operating cost and social cost which will be borne by society. Furthermore, the Government has claimed that to subsidize the purchase of machinery by recyclers with the Recycling Fund will mean subsidization of recyclers. The Government has not used our valuable public resources in the most effective link of recycling, that is, establishing a systematic resource recycling network.

There is another point which also shows that the Government is often reluctant to make good use of the existing resources and fails to place emphasis on the establishment of a recycling network. The Environment Bureau said that community recycling collection points will be set up in each of the 18 districts. But Honourable colleagues may know that the setting up of community recycling collection points will meet strong resistance. However, the Government has already set up a lot of waste collection points and there are also refuse collection points (RCPs) under the Housing Department. If these RCPs can form a network allowing the contractors to take on more duties in the recycling process by modifying their contracts, a cost-effective resource recycling network system will be set up expeditiously and efficiently to relieve the pressure on landfills without making any legislative amendment. Why did the Government not adopt such an approach? Why did the FEHD not consider this approach? It is clearly provided in law that no one can pick up any garbage in the RCPs under the FEHD. The work of contractors is constrained by this provision. However, if this becomes a government act and the contractors are required to provide assistance in the contract, will this be more effective?

Therefore, in discussing the three-colour bins programme, I hope the FEHD, Environment Bureau and the EPD will seriously consider one point. The most important factor in ensuring the effectiveness of resource recovery and recycling is a good resource recycling network, in which a wide range of valuable recyclables will be collected so that the recycling-based manufacturing industry (responsible for extracting materials) can operate effectively, instead of relying on government subsidies for operation. The production lines of organizations, such as Yan Oi Tong, cannot survive even though they are supported by the Government due to the absence of a front-end resource recycling network. So, it has to bear very heavy operating costs in order to obtain the corresponding recyclables for the operation of its production line.


11363

If so, we have suffered a double loss. While public funds are used not in the right place on the one hand, the pressure on landfills keeps increasing on the other. Under such circumstances, how can we achieve the goal of reducing waste by 40% in 10 years as depicted in the waste management blueprint? If this goal cannot be achieved, how can the Government convince the parliamentary assembly and society that the Government has exhausted all means to effectively promote resource recovery and recycling? So, today I have proposed the relevant amendment with a view to soliciting the support of Honourable colleagues. I also hope that the FEHD, Environment Bureau and the EPD will consider whether the old approach in respect of the direction and strategy in recycling (that is, providing subsidies for the procurement of machinery and setting up production lines by organizations) should remain unchanged, leaving the issue of a corresponding recycling network totally untouched.

Thank you, Chairman. I so submit. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I hope that this Council will support the two amendments proposed by me after honest consideration. The first amendment seeks to deduct $1.6 million from the funding for the Agricultural, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD). This annual provision of $1.6 million is specifically for euthanasia of animals (which are usually warm-blooded animals). Besides, I have proposed the deduction of another provision of $100,000 for hunting boars. These two amendments are related to each other. Last year alone, the AFCD performed euthanasia on more than 8 000 animals, including 5 000-odd dogs and about 2 000-odd cats, and also pigs and cows. Boars can be found in Hong Kong. Some time ago many residents of Lung Hang Estate in Sha Tin came to the Legislative Council and told us that they are pleased to co-exist with animals happily. This is a characteristic of Lung Hang Estate. Did those euthanized pigs come from Lung Hang Estate? I have no idea. The authorities have not provided a breakdown. Strangely enough, the AFCD has two wild pig hunting teams which incur an annual expenditure of $100,000. Does it include shooting to kill in the hunting operations? The AFCD said that the carcasses of the pigs are disposed of at the animal carcass collection points and they are not euthanized. The operation of the AFCD is so unnerving indeed, and we must go on putting questions to it. I hope the AFCD will answer them.

What I also find puzzling is whether the two wild pig hunting teams of the AFCD are professional teams. They are actually all volunteers but they carry


firearms with them for hunting wild boars. Unlike police officers who are required to put down their signatures to acknowledge receipt of the firearms when they report for duty and return the firearms when they go off duty, members of the hunting teams can nevertheless bring the firearms home. Such composition and arrangement are so strange indeed! What I found a bit baffling is this: Is there a need for the hunting teams to conduct operations following complaints about wild boars causing nuisances to nearby villagers or running onto roads? This is actually not necessary. A snake-catcher is called in only when it is necessary to catch a snake. Therefore, it is actually unnecessary to put in place these hunting teams. Human beings can happily co-exist with animals or wild boars in the villages. Even if the wild boars may sometimes eat the villagers' sweet potatoes, and so on, fences can be erected to deter them, and the AFCD is provided with funding to carry out such work. Therefore, the $100,000 funding for hunting wild boars should be deleted.

Earlier on some Members mentioned the problem of stray cows on Lantau and in Sai Kung. I hope that after much discussion, the Government, especially the AFCD, will expeditiously construct decent and properly-designed cowsheds at suitable places. I do not say this purely out of imagination, for the construction of cowsheds is real. The authorities are currently considering where land can be designated for the stray cows to age in peace. Most of the stray cows have been sterilized, and they will not stay in the cowsheds for all their lives.

Chairman, this part of our discussion also covers Chinese medicine. I have not expressed support for the deletion of the funding in respect of Chinese medicine, but I hope that the relevant Division under the AFCD will pay attention to the problem concerning black bears. Members should have heard of the torturing of black bears or moon bears in Mainland China or other Asian countries (including Korea) … From the perspective of animal rights, the situation is most atrocious and tragic! Other animals tortured will die swiftly, and they will be euthanized even if their limbs are broken. But in order to get the bear bile, the captors locked up the bears for all their life inside cages where the bears can hardly move. They will carve a hole into the bear's body and attach a tube to it to extract the bile day after day. How cruel and inhuman is this! The import of Chinese medicine products containing ingredients from bear gall bladders is still allowed in Hong Kong even now. This is incomprehensible to me. I have made enquiries with the AFCD about the quantities of imported goods containing ingredients from bear gall bladders that the AFCD has handled or seized over the past three years. The AFCD's reply was four bottles of wine


11365

in total. I have no idea what wine it is. Is it medicinal wine for health maintenance? A fine of $1,000 was imposed on three of those four bottles of wine, whereas a fine of $500 was imposed on the remaining one. The import of wine containing ingredients from bear gall bladders is prohibited. Could it be that the importation of wine containing these ingredients as Chinese medicine is allowed?

Before the start of this term of the Legislative Council, that is, before October 2012, the Assistant Director of Health responsible for matters relating to Chinese medicine stated explicitly that the use of bear gall bladders in Chinese medicine products was regulated by the State Forestry Administration and the Ministry of Health of the People's Republic of China. He said that those Chinese medicine products containing bear gall bladders as active ingredients and in compliance with relevant laws will be permitted by the Mainland for export and these proprietary Chinese medicine can also be registered and sold in Hong Kong. This is so incomprehensible. There is an international convention, namely, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. Under this Convention, black bears are certainly an endangered species and should hence be protected, though the Convention provides for a detailed classification system which allows a country to have its own classification scheme if it is of the view that the country has a certain species or animal. This also explains why black bears are under class II special state protection in Mainland China. They are not considered animals under class I special state protection. As a result, the black bears are maltreated by human beings arbitrarily.

According to the List of Wildlife under Special State Protection, black bears are under class II special state protection but they are locked up in order to have their bile extracted. Do Members know that even cosmetics contain bear gall bladder powder? This is inhuman and cruel. Could it be that those users have never used make-up before? Could it be that they have never taken proprietary Chinese medicine for health maintenance before? How outrageous it is to allow the import of these products!

I thought that "one country, two systems" is being implemented, and I thought: For practices that are allowed in "one country", can we make our own consideration under "two systems"? Why does the division of traditional Chinese medicine under the Department of Health refuse to consider looking into the sources of ingredients from bear gall bladders? It is our international trade


obligation, and we just cannot shirk our responsibility on the excuse that the sources of the bear bile are too complicated and we, therefore, know nothing about it. We are not asking the relevant department to go to Africa to carry out investigation. We are only asking it to look into what "one country" is doing under "one country, two systems".

Back in that year, close to a thousand people took part in the rally, calling

for a ban on the import of products containing ingredients from bear gall bladders in Hong Kong, but the Government has been dragging its feet as if nothing has happened. It is most tragic that Chinese medicine practitioners are arguing that there is nothing wrong about using bear gall bladders as it has been a practice adopted for several thousand years. Even though this practice may have a long history, do we still have to be so inhuman after several thousand years? Women used to bind their feet. Do women have to bind their feet nowadays? Men used to plait their hair. Do men have to do the same nowadays?

A number of studies have pointed out that bear gall bladders only have the

effect of liver-detoxifying or heat-clearing, which is no big deal at all. Many top Chinese medicine practitioners have told us that honeysuckle flowers (銀花), fructus forsythiae (連翹) and rhizoma coptidis (黃連) have similar effects, and particularly, rhizoma coptidis (黃連 ) can replace the heat-clearing and liver-nourishing functions that bear gall bladders claim to have. Since a variety of herbal medicines can produce the same effects, why should we continue to connive at these acts?

Chairman, I hope that Hong Kong can be a truly civilized society. Many

people said that when the living conditions of human beings are not very good, why should I care about animals? Let me respond to it with this famous line by Mahatma GANDHI. Whenever I say this, the principal officials will say that they can now recite this famous saying: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." How should we treat animals? I am not saying that all supporters of animal rights should become vegetarians. The fundamental spirit is that we must not allow animals to suffer unnecessary pain. Once when I mentioned animal rights, a senior government official told me that when they saw worms in the earth of the garden, they would pick them up and put them into ponds or move them elsewhere.

What are they talking about? We must draw a line. Frankly speaking, if

I am bitten by a mosquito, I will not feel guilty at all after swatting it and killing


11367

it. But if a cat is thrown down from a height, what kind of a society is this? The attitude of treating animals as if they are nothing is most disheartening. To protect public health … At the Cyberport there is a huge garden or park. Everyone can go there but at the entrance there is a sign put up to ban the entry of dogs. It is more laughable that people are actually allowed to do nothing there. For instance, people are not allowed to fly a kite, skate, cycle, shout, and so on. It may as well disallow people from entering the park. What kind of a society is this?

Elderly who feed the birds are prosecuted because it is necessary to protect public health for fear that an avian flu epidemic would break out. Is Hong Kong such a filthy city? We all know it only too well, and we know that the answer is "no". But under "one country, two systems", the problems up there will be brought down here anytime. So please ban it!

I urge the Government to seriously think about it. Hong Kong should ban the import of all products containing ingredients from bear gall bladders. Thank you. MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, although I have not proposed any amendments in the joint debate in this session, after seeing the policies of the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the performance of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare on Monday, I think I have to speak in this debate in support of Amendment Nos 698 and 699 proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung respectively on reducing the estimated annual emoluments for Secretary for Labour and Welfare Matthew CHEUNG under head 141 in respect of subhead 000.

Chairman, a discussion was just held on 12 May (Monday) by the Panel on Welfare Services of the Legislative Council on the residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs) affected by the Northeast New Territories (NENT) development project. Because of the launching of this project by the SAR Government which has no intention to talk, more than 1 000 elderly people who are spending their twilight years happily in a private RCHE at Dills Corner Garden in Kwu Tung, Sheung Shui, are now facing forced eviction. These elderly people have been pleading the Government in the hope that they can spend their twilight years happily on the original site. Earlier, Legislative Council Members also paid a visit to these elderly people in Shek Tsai Leng to listen to their demands and find


out if they will accept the rehousing or relocation arrangements proposed by the Government. However, we can see that their demands have fallen on the deaf ear of Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. On the one hand, he has reiterated in this Council that no elderly person will be abandoned but, on the other, he has insisted on identifying a new site to rehouse these elderly people who are living in the RCHE in Shek Tsai Leng to tie in with the NENT development project launched forcibly by Secretary for Development Paul CHAN.

Members should have learnt from newspapers or the electronic media that, at a meeting held by the Panel on Welfare Services, an 80-year-old elderly person living in the RCHE in Shek Tsai Leng made a request to Matthew CHEUNG for "No removal, No tearing down" and then went down on his knees in this Chamber. As a newcomer to this Council, I have never seen an elderly person kneel down inside this Chamber and beg the Government to let them spend their twilight years happily on the original site. Although he was in tears when he was pleading, Matthew CHEUNG could still remain seated with a facial expression of indifference.

Chairman, it is not easy for a man to go down on his knees. The Secretary has made an elderly person kneel on the floor and bow to him to petition in such a humble manner with no regard to his own dignity. How saddening! He was eventually lifted by the security guards of the Legislative Council and at least two colleagues. The degree of oppression felt by these helpless elderly people is imaginable. Chairman, you surely know that, according to Chinese culture, a person will only kneel before someone who deserves to be respected, such as one's ancestor, parent or teacher. Perhaps it is also a manifestation of the class concept in relation to an emperor and his ministers under imperial rule, thereby underlining the supreme status of the people in power. Today, in Hong Kong, as an accountable civil servant, Matthew CHEUNG ought to serve Hong Kong people with his utmost in a humble manner. It is indeed unethical for him to pretend that he is superior to the elderly person who is kneeling before him to stage a petition. Chairman, we have been taught by our older generation that doing so will shorten our life expectancy.

Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has kept saying that no elderly person will be abandoned ― I think he actually means that he will not let any elderly person go ― saying he will meet their demands by all means and give top priority to their interests. I already pointed out to him that day that he had obviously made a slip of tongue. After a lot of fine sounding words, he added that the


11369

Government would minimize the scope of impact by all means. Chairman, he was talking about the "impact". The elderly people were begging him not to cause them any impact ― can the Government let them spend their twilight years, or their last years, happily without worries?

Chairman, these elderly people were relocated in the light of the Government's policy nearly two decades ago. Now, with the sudden change in the Government's policy to implement the NENT development project, they are faced with forced eviction a second time during their twilight years. Chairman, there is a precedent. During the relocation of Choi Yuen Tsuen, many elderly people suffered enormous pressure physically and mentally because they had lost their original network. Actually, some of them had died prematurely. In order to take forward the NENT development project and increase land reserves for the housing construction, the Government is now pitching the housing problem faced by some Hong Kong people and the interests of these elderly people who were originally living here to spend their twilight years happily in direct conflict. The Government is trying to kick out the people who are living there in order to solve the housing problem faced by certain people. Chairman, what logic is it?

Chairman, 57% of these elderly people are simply ineligible for admission to the new residential care complex for the elderly which is planned to be built by the Government because they are living in private RCHEs. So, the in-situ rehousing programme proposed by the Government is actually incomplete and far from the fact. In fact, it is trying to drive these disadvantaged groups away. As the Bureau Director in charge of labour and welfare policies, Matthew CHEUNG keeps saying that he cares about the disadvantaged. This is something he ought to do. However, the policy being formulated by him will only create the specific and objective effect of cold-bloodedness.

Chairman, besides the RCHE situated in Shek Tsai Leng, which is affected by the NENT development project, Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has also turned a blind eye to more than 1 000 Kwu Tung villagers who have chosen to age at home. Chairman, these elderly people face the same hardship of demolition. Likewise, they are worried that their health conditions will deteriorate rapidly, like those elderly people who faced the hardship of demolition in Choi Yuen Tsuen. The Secretary's blind support for the NENT development project has made him an abuser of the elderly. Hence, he deserves to be condemned.


Chairman, in order to force through the NENT development project, the Government will destroy families and villages to kick out the disadvantaged elderly people from their original residence. As a new comer to this Council, I have been making this call loudly since 2012 when I joined this Council, and I have never supported any project involving the NENT development project and related funding application. In the Finance Committee meeting held last Friday, Members could see that I spared no efforts in telling the Government that the well-being of the people must be addressed while scrutinizing the funding applications for some advance survey works. But now, the Government would rather spare no efforts in keeping a golf course to defend the paradise for the rich than protect the homes of these elderly people who have been living there for two or three decades. The Government is determined to destroy this paradise where the elderly can spend their twilight years happily. In its scramble for land, it will do anything by trick and by crook.

For these reasons, Secretary Matthew CHEUNG deserves the punishment of cutting his annual remuneration. Chairman, I speak in support of the amendments proposed by Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung on cutting the annual estimate for the remuneration of Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Matthew CHEUNG, and oppose the NENT development project, which is abusing the elderly. I also urge the Secretary to accept the demand for "No removal, No tearing down" made by the elderly people living in the RCHE in Shek Tsai Leng and those who choose to age at home in other new development areas.

Chairman, I so submit. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have been listening to Members' debate on the Budget and think that we really should carry out a radical reform. As soon as I tell you what this reform is about, you will surely lambaste me. In fact, we really must no longer let the Financial Secretary make the application for all the appropriations wholesale. Then we must oppose the appropriations and after our opposition has failed, the Budget of the Financial Secretary is approved and the appropriations are made to various Policy Bureaux. If each Policy Bureau has to lodge to us a funding application, that would really be great because we can then truly monitor the Government's operation. If a Policy Bureau cannot win the support of a great majority of Members, it will not be able to obtain any funds and will be left to its own devices. Of course, I have digressed and I am not going to talk about this anymore because it is now really late at night.


11371

I think our existing bureaucratic system is really problematic because after the Financial Secretary has formulated a mammoth plan, Members will follow his lead closely. Under such a bureaucratic system, if we want to oppose any one item, we will have to scrap everything and start anew, so what should we do? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please focus your comments on the amendments. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am talking about this because many thoughts struck me after I had made the mistake. It is really no good to be like this but since there are far too many areas requiring reform in this matter, I am not going to elaborate too much. I will expound on this in my future articles.

The first point is: I speak in support of Ms Claudia MO's motion and I also support Mr Gary FAN's support for my motion. Why am I saying this? This is actually an ethical issue. We often talk about "humanitarianism". Just now, Mr Gary FAN criticized the remarks made by Secretary Matthew CHEUNG and in fact, this is the so-called the "Heaven-Earth-Sovereign-Parent-Teacher Ethic Order". That means even though I may not like the tenets of Confucianism, we should respect these five areas. Of course, it is said that one should "extend one's respect for one's aged parents to all the aged", so when you think that your own parents or relatives deserve the respect of other people, naturally, you will respect the relatives of other people. In other words, if you have respect for animals or the living things around you, this is because you have respect for yourself. This is the so-called putting oneself in another's shoes and there is a great deal of wisdom in this.

Many people would say, "Buddy" ― if this remark is made by me, it would be most apt ― "we cannot even take good care of human beings, so how can we take care of other things?" This is the fact. However, have Members ever considered this matter from another angle and wondered why one can be so cruel even to human beings? Because we are being very cruel to the chain of beings around us, that is, "those who submit will prosper, those who resist shall perish". I would like to have a big tree in front of my home, so I plant a tree. If I do not want to plant it myself, I buy a tree grown by other people and it is like this throughout the world …


CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I cannot see any relevance of the comments made by you to the amendment. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): They are relevant. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Which amendment are you commenting on now? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am talking about the amendment on animal euthanasia proposed by Ms Claudia MO just now. If you have a little more patience, you would know why I raise opposition. Because we are treating animals from the humane point of view. We think that human beings are the masters.

I will cite a simple example. A well-known example in history is: Dr GUILLOTIN said that too many people were killed in the French Revolution, so from a humane point of view, it was preferable to invent a way of dying for condemned prisoners. He believed that killing people was necessary. Of course, depending on one's views of the significance of the French Revolution, one will have different views on the significance of killing people. However, to Dr GUILLOTIN, this was being humane. Just push the condemned prisoner up there, press the button and in 15 seconds, the head will be severed from the body, so is this not humane? However, when people became reliant on this machine and thought that killing people was not such an abject business after all, we began to kill more and more people and that was how the so-called white terror came about.

Why did I say that? Because when our Government simply cites the ground of being human in exterminating or destroying another kind of living species, of course, we have some hierarchies in mind. Human beings think that certain animals are fit to be called pets, that is, some people keep them and their appearance is not too ugly, so they can be kept. They serve the needs of human beings. However, there are some that are rejected by human beings, so they are regarded as animals. If they are regarded as animals, they become such things as abandoned dogs or cats. We are looking at all these from the human perspective. In view of this, why do I support Ms Claudia MO? Because we really cannot deal with other animals purely from the human perspective, that is, our attitude towards the chain of living things. In particular, if the pain suffered


11373

by animals is obvious and we can prevent them from being harmed, there is no reason for us to allocate more funds for those people to kill them en masse. We do not have such a right at all. At the same time, if we do not agree with the claim of Ms Claudia MO, thinking that if we adopt a humane approach or an angle considered by human beings not to be painful, that is, the angle of Dr GUILLOTIN, who thought it was no big deal because the persons killed did not feel any pain and by decapitating people in 15 seconds, the death would be dignified, fast, clean and effective, then problems will arise.

Why did I talk about this? In fact, this is related to Mr Gary FAN's speech. Because the same applies to the elderly. They live in Shek Tsai Leng. Initially, it was out of pity that the Government gave them a place described as the "Utopia" for them to settle down in old age. In other words, if the elderly people do not have any residential care home to stay in or in the residential care homes, they want to have … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have spoken a lot, but I cannot see what the relevance to the amendment is. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Of course, there is. If we can oppose Ms Claudia MO's amendment, of course, we can also oppose Mr Gary FAN's amendment because if human beings treat animals so cruelly, they would also treat other people as animals … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Which amendment proposed by Mr Gary FAN are you talking about? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The one on deducting the annual emoluments of the Secretary. He has precisely made this kind of mistake, thinking that so long as we can go about this matter in a humane way or adopt an approach he considers useful to human beings, other people or animals can be destroyed and dealt with. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have strayed away too far.


MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): How come it is not like this? How possibly could I have digressed too far? We can now see this logic. Therefore, Mr Gary FAN, you do not have to be so angry. I will explain a little bit more, then you will understand my point.

If you say that you can adopt a humane approach in dealing with animals, using the swiftest method to kill them, why can the more than 1 000 elderly at Shek Tsai Leng not be disposed of in a humane way, so that North East New Territories can be made more inhabitable in a fast, clean and effective way? Buddy, this is also a humane approach … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, Mr Gary FAN supported your amendment in his speech just now and your amendment is about the emoluments of the Secretary, not about Shek Tsai Leng. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Right, that is why I am explaining it. Because I have to reinforce him. He supports my amendment, so of course, I have to respond to him. I think he put it quite well. When I was drafting the amendment, first, the situation mentioned by him had not yet arisen, so I also wanted to grant the benefit of the doubt but today, there is really nothing that I can say. After hearing him speak, I was very moved and I could also see that Mr FAN's eyes were red while he was speaking. Buddy, a society that advocates that other people are hell and a burden and that what matters most is one gets rich and certain people get rich … if you act like this in treating animals, you will also be act this way in treating people. Therefore, I believe Secretary Matthew CHEUNG's mind must have been poisoned. He held the view that "those who are not our kin are sure to be of a different heart" and it is as simple as that, so those people can be killed.

On this issue, I hope that this Council can really think over it. I personally am not very interested in animals because often, I had to take shit from them. After they had urinated or defecated, I had to clean up and it has been like this ever since I was small. Sometimes, I also hate them but after listening to Ms Claudia MO's speech, I had done some serious self-reflection. If I can kill things that I do not like, this is really terrible and I can surely do the same to human beings.


11375

Therefore, your attitude towards animals … as a Western proverb says, whether or not someone is kind can be seen from the way he treats his parents, animals or servants. Today, I have really gained insights into the truth of this remark. If you can kill animals, use public funds to put them down in a humane way, so as to put our hearts at great ease, Secretary Matthew CHEUNG can also say that we are humanely ― that is, we have done something ― but what is the most laughable thing? It is to limit the scope of the impact by all means (a Member was reminding him on one side) … to limit the scope of the impact by all means, so is it a human being or a hunter who was speaking? We know how to hunt, only that we will limit the scope of the impact by all means. We will fire only one shot, not at the head but at the legs. Is this the way to treat human beings? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have still strayed away from the question. Please comment on your amendment. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): All right, in that case, I will first voice my support for Ms Claudia MO. I have seldom lent her my support before.

What is the lesson he has taught us? Do not, in the name of being humane ― "humanity, humanity, what crimes are committed in thy name!". We think that after using public funds, we can destroy other people's things in a better way and this is what animal euthanasia is about. However, the most humane approach is to refrain from destroying. Therefore, if today, the legislature does not voice any disagreement … Chairman, I trust you also remember the "chicken cull" and the "poultry cull" after the reunification? I really cannot forget for life the photo in the Apple Daily on that day. Someone was holding a black plastic bag and there was a bloody mess inside. Is it necessary for us to look at those things again before we decide to do such a thing?

You said that the chickens had to be culled because of the avian flu and even said that we, in order to oppose a very clear … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have strayed away from the question.


MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): How have I strayed from the subject matter? Back then, we allocated funds to him … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Which amendment are you talking about now? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Buddy, it is the one proposed by Ms Claudia MO, which opposes the annual expenditure for the AFCD to carry out animal euthanasia. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): How is the amendment related to what you are talking about now? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Of course, it is related. We cannot approve this thing. We cannot give the Government a free rein in killing those animals solely on the ground of being humane. What I am talking about is: There are certain things that are unavoidable and we would find them horrible if we see them. That means the approach adopted during the avian flu epidemic was not humane and it was for the sake of protecting our interests … however, this is a kind of real interest as pathologists pointed out that "if they were not culled, that really would not do.". However, Chairman, may I ask you based on which pathologist's theory it is considered necessary to kill stray cats, dogs and cows immediately? They are two different things … CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Since the two are entirely unrelated, do not bundle them together or I will consider you to have strayed away from the question. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, how could it be? Why is it that you could not understand no matter how you listened this evening? You should be able to understand this. When the Government was lobbying us, it said that those measures were unavoidable for the sake of human beings, the inhabitability of the environment for human beings and the elimination of troubles for human beings, so those groups of animals could be destroyed using a humane way and that meant killing them …


11377

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, can you focus on the speech that you have prepared? MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have really made preparations and this is how my viewpoint is like. However, if you cannot understand no matter how you listen, never mind. In fact, many Members have turned their heads towards me, wondering why this viewpoint is so novel.

Therefore, we cannot fall into the Government's trap. Some animals are causing a nuisance to society and posing potential dangers, so we have to make available a sum of money to kill them in a respectable way or cause them minimal suffering in doing so, saying that this is what being humane is about and saying that this kind of destruction is humane, but this just would not do. Therefore, the reason for my citing the example of avian flu is that there were actually pathologists and experts from the World Health Organization who said, "You have to choose. If you do not kill them and want to be humane, it is possible that all people will die", so we made an inevitable decision.

However, the spirit of Ms Claudia MO's motion today is very clear. You can co-exist with animals but because Hong Kong people have heard too much about animal euthanasia and many people hand their pets to ― in fact, they are pets but when they fall ill, they cannot receive proper treatment and suffer from skin diseases and shed fur ― this is why they are handed to a government department and next, this government department decided to put them down, so do you not think that this is very terrible?

Therefore, Chairman, I may not have put this very well, but I really hope that the secondary students sitting and watching television here can understand that we cannot believe in and apply an invented concept blindly, thinking that so long as it is something that people consider good and quite harmless to do, we have the right to destroy the lives of other beings. If we can treat animals in this way, we will surely treat human beings even better. Since the Chairman cannot grasp it, there is really nothing I can do, so I really have to stop now. Maybe you really do not mean to criticize me for speaking too poorly, so I will talk about the relationship between the two when speaking again next time after thinking this issue over even more thoroughly. Thank you, Chairman.


MS CLAUDIA MO: Chairman, I note that this particular round of debate actually had the inclusion of supporting measures for ethnic minorities. So I actually looked for the English version of the whole document but I could not find it online. It is Chinese only. I hope it is just a little oversight on the part of the Secretariat and it is not a usual practice as such. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms MO, amendments are classified according to the areas of the heads. Since the amendment on supporting measures for ethnic minorities falls within the areas of the heads in this joint debate, the subject is included in this joint debate. If you do not find that the amendment is related to the supporting measures for ethnic minorities, it would not be a mistake of the Secretariat. MS CLAUDIA MO: No, no, no, you completely misunderstood me. I am talking about this particular document itself ― the English version of this. It says here, "the arrangement for the debate and the areas involved in the debate", and so on. The English version ― I was looking for how would you say "支援少數族裔 " in English. I could not find it. That is what I am talking about, the entire document. And how do ethnic minorities in town cope with this sort of debate? You know what I am talking about now? CHAIRMAN: OK, I see your point now. MS CLAUDIA MO: Thank you. And I do wonder, if there are no amendments on this particular issue, am I still allowed to talk about supporting measures for ethnic minorities in Hong Kong? CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms MO, the Committee is now having a debate on the amendments under the joint debate. If you wish to speak on ethnic minorities, please check which head it is related to. When the question on the relevant head to stand part of the Schedule is discussed by the Committee, you may also speak on the contents of the head. As the focus of this joint debate is the amendments, Members have to point out which amendment they will speak on.


11379

MS CLAUDIA MO: OK, I see your point. Thank you. CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, in this session, I will continue to speak on Amendment No 51 proposed by Ms Claudia MO on the reduction of the expenditure for euthanizing animals by AFCD officers for the year. Here, once again, I implore Members to seriously consider supporting this amendment, particularly those political parties and groupings which have included animal care and protection in their political platforms. I know that some Members from the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) and the District Council members from the Liberal Party have mentioned this. Mr TIEN, I have not paid special attention to whether or not you have included animal care in your political platform. Yet when Members vote against the amendment proposed by Ms Claudia MO, we will interpret it as their support for euthanasia of animals, the measure of indiscriminate killing. If Members have other arguments to justify their move, please present them during this discussion, for the record.

In fact, we oppose euthanasia because the entire process is extremely cruel. The process of capturing the animals is extremely inhumane. If Members have watched the clips on the Internet on how the AFCD captures stray dogs with dog-catching poles, where stray dogs often sustain injuries or bleed, they will know that this method is extremely cruel. If the AFCD is asked about this, it will say that dog-catching poles are a safe animal capture method approved by the World Health Organization and the World Society for the Protection of Animals ― this was what it said when we visited the kennel in Sheung Shui. However, given that Hong Kong is an international city and that the AFCD claims to promote animal welfare in its programme, I think the issue should be handled with more advanced, more humane and more civilized approaches. Ms Claudia MO has quoted from Gandhi earlier that, "The moral progress of a country can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

Over the years, the animal welfare sector has been promoting the "trap-neuter-release" programme. People may ask if we do not euthanize stray dogs caught, what should we do with these dogs which no one wants and no one adopts? In fact, other than euthanasia, there is another approach called


"trap-neuter-release". This is an approach that has been studied by the SAR Government for years, but despite this, nothing has been achieved. The title of the approach, "trap-neuter-release", is self-explanatory. The first step is capturing stray animals ― upon the receipt of complaints of the whereabouts of stray cats and stray dogs, the authorities will capture the animals. Actually, the approach of "trap-neuter-release" is obsolete. This concept is a bit out of date, for we are now talking about the "trap-neuter-vaccinate-release" approach. After the animals are captured, they will be vaccinated before being released to their original community. What are the merits of this approach? The neutering of stray animals will certainly reduce the number of their offspring, and as these animals die in the natural course of ageing, the number of stray animals will be under control and euthanasia will be unnecessary.

The Government has set aside $1.4 million for the introduction of the "trap-neuter-release" programme. If so, why does the Government not transfer the expenditure for euthanasia to the implementation of the "trap-neuter-release" programme? The AFCD can hardly absolve itself of the blame. Over the years, the Government has been talking about the implementation of the trial programme, yet no achievement has been made so far. The Government has not adopted the "trap-neuter-vaccinate-release" approach now, what approach is the AFCD using? It uses the "trap and detain" approach, which comes with two options ― adoption or euthanasia. May I ask which of the two approaches or measures is more effective and which is more humane? I think anyone who can think, even primary students, will know the answer.

However, the AFCD now offers the excuse that concrete figures supporting the effectiveness of the approach is unavailable, and thus proposes some extremely localized "trap-neuter-release" trial programmes. Society has criticized the AFCD for its short-sightedness and inability to take decisive actions against the problem of stray cats and dogs. As for the programmes, they are criticized as a waste of time and public money. The Legislative Council had conducted public hearings on the issue and invited organizations concerned about animal welfare to the hearings. These organizations expressed great disappointment with the efficiency of the Government and criticized the Government for engaging in repeated consultations without taking forward the programme in a solid manner.

The "trap-neuter-release" approach is inadequate, for it lacks the vaccination link. One of the duties of the AFCD is to prevent rabies and it has


11381

to handle rabies cases. The best method for preventing rabies is "trap-neuter-vaccinate-release". However, the AFCD has settled for an easier approach, "trap-neuter-kill". Since the animals are killed, the AFCD might as well save the cost of vaccination. In fact, neutering and having animals vaccinated is the only effective method of controlling the number of stray animals in the community and protect the safety of human beings. At present, stray animals captured will be killed, but those not captured by the AFCD will continue to reproduce, for the AFCD will capture stray animals only in response to complaints. A majority of the animals captured will not be adopted and they will be killed. If the "trap-neuter-release" programme is in place, regular operations of capturing stray cats and dogs in the community should be carried out, so that the animals captured will be neutered and vaccinated and then released. However, due to the incapability of the Government in implementing the policy, these innocent stray animals are cast on the path of death.

Let us look at the papers provided by the Government on the "Trap-Neuter-Release" Trial Programme, which states in a grandiose manner that: "The Government attaches great importance to animal welfare and management. Our policy objective is to ensure that animals and people co-exist in a harmonious way." What is it suggesting in saying that animals and people co-exist in a harmonious way? It implies that if harmonious co-existence is impossible, animals will naturally be sacrificed, for the authorities are people-oriented. They consider that human rights should outweigh the rights of cats and dogs. After all, man can talk, vote and make complaints to District Council members, but cats and dogs cannot. As such, the AFCD then states in the paper that it will capture stray cats and dogs in response to complaints about noise and environmental hygiene nuisances, potential dangers to members of the public and dog biting incidents, laying bare the mindset and logic of the policy as a whole. Though it is stated in the first sentence that the Government attaches great importance to animal welfare, every sentence that follows in the remaining part of the paper states that it attaches importance to the welfare of man. Regarding the welfare of man, it should be handled by the Social Welfare Department under the purview of Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. Yet the AFCD which should be responsible for handling animal welfare has now become people-oriented. In the event that harmony is undermined, such as people complaining about the barking of dogs or the presence of dog poo and urine around housing estates, the dogs will be captured and made to wait for death. This is the policy adopted by the AFCD at heart. Stop preaching what you are not practising, stop pretending you attach importance to animal welfare.


Why is the "trap-neuter-release" programme such a failure? Why has improvement not been made over the years? The case is in fact comparable to that of columbarium, where opposition is encountered during consultations at the district level. According to the original plan of the AFCD, the "Trap-Neuter-Release" Trail Programme would be implemented in Ha Pak Nai in Yuen Long, Lo So Shing on Lamma Island and Ho Chung in Sai Kung. We have criticized the very limited scale of the Trial Programme ― for the AFCD considered the stray animal population in each of the communities is a reasonable level, that is, at least 30 by estimate. Though it said this is the minimum population, it actually means the maximum population it would handle. The authorities chose the three communities, then conducted a discussion for two years. It visited all the District Councils concerned and thought that the programme could be introduced. But it turned out that the District Councils considered the programme unacceptable. In fact, had the Trial Programme been implemented successfully, it would only involve a hundred or so animals. Why can the approach adopted for addressing columbarium shortage not be applied, that is, implementing it in 18 districts, so that the burden is shared among 18 districts? We did not put these cats and dogs into certain districts. The community is for all, for man, for cats and dogs, for cows and for wild boars. It should not be that where there is man, animals are killed and wiped out.

Therefore, the "trap-neuter-release" programme is the most humane approach which can achieve true harmony between man and animals in the community. After the progromme was banned in the three communities, the authorities proposed using Po Wong Motor City in Yuen Long as the trial zone, but the owner objected, so now, the authorities have proposed three new sites: Tai Tong Shan in Yuen Long, and two sites on Cheung Chau, namely, Tai Kwai Wan San Tsuen in the north and a cemetery site southwest. Indeed, we have been urging for the implementation of the "trap-neuter-release" programme for many years, exhausting all our efforts to talk the Government into implementing it. The Government eventually undertook to implement the programme and selected three sites for trial. It then said that the District Councils and communities which agreed with the programme initially had eventually turned it down. Now, it has chosen another three extremely remote sites. Even if the programme can be implemented in these sites, the problem of stray cats and dogs in other areas, such as Hong Kong Island, will remain not addressed, and the stray animals cannot but wait for their death.

In fact, according to many studies by experts, the capture and killing of animals in a district on a large scale will backfire. What does it mean? If


11383

animals are trapped, neutered and released to the original community, the balance of the community can be maintained. But if animals are taken away and killed, it will create a vacuum in the community and attract animals from other districts to come to scramble for habitation. After rounds of fights for survival and food, which are their instinct, they will reproduce. When they have successfully seized their place of settlement, they will continue to reproduce to extend their habitation and to reinforce their sphere of power and influence.

Take a district which has sufficient resources for the survival of 30 dogs as an example. The district is in peace. If the Government traps, neuters and releases these 30 dogs to ensure that they will not continue to reproduce, the situation will be quite desirable when the dogs grow old and die. But if the Government traps them, it will attract dogs from other districts to scramble for resources in the district, which will further disturb the harmony of the district. I do now know whether the AFCD understands this rationale, and whether it knows how to convey this concept to residents in the community. If Members understand this rationale, they should support the "trap-neuter-release" programme and the amendment proposed by Ms Claudia MO today. For only when … I would like to explain the scenario we will be facing. If the $1.6 million expenditure is cut, the Government may open a large kennel for keeping the dogs captured while they wait for adoption. For dogs which no one adopts, the Government will have to keep them. The Government does not have to keep too many dogs a year, for there will only be around a few thousand dogs. Am I right? The worse scenario will just be that. If the Government does not want to run the kennel forever, it cannot but choose the better option of implementing the "trap-neuter-release" programme expeditiously. Both arrangements are desirable to all. The Government may first choose to keep the dogs, but after keeping them for a year, it will realize the expensive cost and troubles involved. By then, it will make a vigorous effort to promote the implementation of the "trap-neuter-release" programme. It is comparable to Donald TSANG's proposal of establishing columbarium in each of the 18 districts back then, for the problem comes from the district itself but not caused by others. If the animals are abandoned by residents in the district, they should be taken care of by the district. Perhaps it may be kind of a punishment to people abandoning animals. Perhaps the community will put in extra efforts to encourage animal adoption and dissuade abandonment of animals.

Lastly, I would like to point out that the high percentage of animal euthanasia reflects that the policy on handling stray animals adopted by the Government is very poor. Animal euthanasia is an uncivilized practice. Over


the years, the AFCD has neither ensured the transparency of the percentage of animal euthanasia, nor explained the case to the public. The public never know how many animals have been euthanized. They only know the course of euthanasia through the examination we made by posing thousands of questions. They do not know how the animals are treated after collection. They do not know the long-term policy of the Government. Besides, the Government does not have clear guidelines on the disposal of animals captured. The Government has no animal policy, no animal care policy, nor any policy on promoting animal welfare. The Government lacks vision in handling animal issues, so instead of spending a million or so every year on euthanasia, more resources should be expended on animal protection. (The buzzer sounded) MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, in his speech earlier, Mr CHAN Chi-chuan asked the Liberal Party about our views on this subject. After hearing that, I thought I would have fallen into his trap if I responded because I would assist him in filibustering. Chairman, if these Members hold some particular opinions on the subject, they have already made very enlightening speeches. They should propose a motion debate on the subject in the Legislative Council and the Liberal Party will certainly respond to it. But we will not debate with them on this occasion to avoid joining them in the filibuster. Thank you. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Is it humane to do a headcount this late in the evening? I would like to give it a go. SUSPENSION OF MEETING CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow. Suspended accordingly at twelve minutes to Ten o'clock.

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 15 May ...

Documents

Transcript of OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 15 May ...